I'm not wasting my time to dig up a link for you. If you don't believe me, oh well.
The response you quoted was me simply agreeing with your previous post, and it makes no mention of Iraq.
While I agree the situation has revived the argument, it's been around.
You assert the President not accepting certain forms of authorization from Congress for his own requests is to not follow the Constitution. Interesting.
Unnecessary perpetual war is not fun. Especially when your loved ones are maimed and killed. Fuck the status quo.
Do you honestly believe thirty-second advertising spots compare to being taken seriously in the media..?
If you can find me these diatribes, by all means. I've looked, and looked. Can only find one article in one newsletter, the content of which isn't what you'd expect.
I don't mind Ron appearing on a 9/11 conspiracy theorist radio show. It gave him alot of exposure back when he was a nobody. It's not like he was hollering that 9/11 was an inside job.
Not sure what you're referring to with the 'discredited' foreign policy remark.
Nice to know you're a Mormon. Have you looked into Romney? Heard he's a great Mormon.
Thanks for the accusation of being racist, and of associating with anti-Semites. You have class. Lots.
I wasn't aware of the 7.5% statistic, I thought they held more of the state. Thanks for the clarification.
I like your use of the term bloodbath. Certainly voting for someone like Romney to continue our persistence in Iraq will help to keep the blood flowing.
As for calling me anti-religion: I'm not sure it's quite accurate. I'd call myself more of a 'I dont give a shit about your religion as long as you dont impose it on me' kind of guy. Maybe one day I'll become more religious, but I don't see my current disposition as particularly wrong.
So then, no opinion on covert ops? Aside from labeling mention of such as conspiracy theory? Can't say I expected anything more.
I wonder if you really believe Ron Paul somehow has no respect for the Constitution? You must know he practically worships the document, with almost every Congressional speech making some reference to the relevance of its content.
The projectile physically interacts with the target, whereas it electromagnetically interacts with the launcher. I'd imagine the launcher can precisely accelerate the projectile over the range of the 'barrel' or region of electromagnetic interaction. On impact, it instantly decelerates. Conservation of momentum of all the fragments it shatters into covers a wide region with high-impact, whereas the source accelerates one controlled mass over a duration.
I have other things to do than to defend Ron Paul all day with you, but I'll try to quickly rebut. I appreciate the logic of your arguments, but your belligerent presentation is unnecessary.
I'm fairly certain there was discussion of the War Powers clause back when the Constitution was being drafted, and the wording was specifically chosen for a reason.
Again, stop putting words in my mouth. Nowhere did I claim that courts should end Iraq. The notion is ridiculous. Who the hell said that? Iraq is a big fuck-up, or 'quagmire' if you will. Always has been. The President has the authority, being the head of the executive branch, to change the situation. Again, I am advocating a presidential candidate.
Nevertheless, your arguments about Constitutional law are side-skirting my point. I'm advocating a Presidential candidate - if he plans on demanding a declaration before going to war, the President can do that. The POINT of the declaration is so that wars are not secretive, and not drug out. They are declared, the nation fights with its full force, and gets it over with. It's very simple, perhaps too simple for you to believe possible?
Yes, second place isn't the same as first, but it's as close as it gets. Your arguments about noone else campaigning in these states is moot. Turn on the fucking TV, read the fucking paper. McCain, Romney, and Huckabee get 100 times as much play in the media. And they don't get called a conspiracy theorist, racist, or lunatic!! I'd say Dr. Paul did well considering the media bias against him. I suppose you just figure the most gullible 14% voted for him. Consider 95% of Mormons in Nevada voted for Romney. Gee, I wonder why he won 50% of the state.
Putting words into my mouth won't win your argument. There is tons of media bias, and to argue it's because his party opposes his positions is naive. Newspapers sell stories, get readers, not cater to party interests - ah, well, apparently they do cater to party interests. Dr. Paul is good news, plenty to discuss, but what do we get - loads of attacks and smears. If he's such a lunatic, why don't any of these articles spell out the logic of his lunacy. I've read a great deal of them, and they are all full of hot air, just as your legal arguments have been. Ron isn't arguing a legal case, he's presenting his position to the public.
If you think a few priviledged intelligence officers in the CIA should have the unilateral right to provoke other governments, or overthrow their governments, without consolation with Congress, fine. I don't see why we would have three branches of government to balance the power when it pertains to domestic citizenry, but yet we'd let the President do whatever he wants outside our borders.
You can argue it's perfectly legal all you want - that's fine and dandy. Good for you. I still support a Presidential candidate who wants to run things in a better way. Despite the media slurs.
So, tell me, why are you so adamant this man is not fit to be President? Any specific reason? There must be something, enough for you to justify overlooking the media bias. It's there, it's real. And no amount of 'common sense' explains it away.
While I respect your intimate awareness of the nuance of constitutional law, I believe you've missed my point. Perhaps I wasn't very forthright with it.
If you firmly believed in the original principles held by the founders, and you were running for office, and you wanted to proclaim that you would abide by those principles.. would saying "If you want to go to war, declare war" make you a lunatic? Or a liar? Or even ignorant of the current legal climate?
As for poll numbers, he has come in second in both Nevada and Louisiana. Those numbers speak for themselves. Also, I love how you claim a vote for Paul is against common sense. The media has done well to brainwash those of you unable to perform independent analysis (and don't call me a conspiracy theorist - it takes but one google search to find heaps of evidence of media bias against Ron Paul).
He's the only Republican claiming the Iraq war - you know that little preemptive invasion based on false intelligence - was a mistake. He's also the only candidate that talks about CIA black ops. I suppose common sense would tell us intelligence officers orchestrating covert missions without Congressional approval is healthy for our government.
So sorry to Ron Paul supporters, but it appears that once again you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Yes, the constitutionality of the War Powers Act is in question. Yes, federal courts will turn a blind eye.
Thank you for clarifying your position. I am familiar with such a position; most people in our current government share a similar sentiment. That is, they believe the status quo is OK. They don't believe Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution is a requirement for formal declaration before sending our soldiers into battle.
Perhaps they believe the clause was placed there on a whim. No special thought or meaning behind it.
Surely, if a future President were to honor the founders' intentions by requesting a formal declaration against any nation before we initiate an attack, he would have no idea what the hell he was talking about.
Your suspicion is incorrect. Nevertheless, your asserted opinion of one holding such values leads me to believe you are, in fact, an 'imbecile of the highest order'.
Most humans form relationships with other humans, and animals, and even inanimate objects. The morally acceptable treatment of such are categorically different, and each has its own moral and legal ramifications.
Perhaps you think it's OK to strap a dog to the roof of a car, but not a small child. Is there some mental balancing act going on, where you weigh the possibility of something going wrong against how bad you'll feel when the child or dog's skull splatters across the roadway? Or perhaps you're more concerned with your legal responsibility in such situations?
Perhaps you just like to assert your superiority to animals whenever possible, and this was one such opportunity. If so, I feel sorry for your ego.
I'm glad you're not American - one less ignoramus here. Your visceral objection to qualifying amounts of support for something you are admittedly ignorant of, and the ensuing emotional response overwhelming any logical reasoning that would suggest silence before putting your foot in your mouth, are indicative of the worth of your opinion.
I can't go a day without hearing a Ron Paul supporter, for example, inventing from whole cloth some magical constitutional requirement for this or that. Yeah, like Congress is required to declare war before going to war.
How about... the value of oil has risen, the value of the dollar has declined. Hence the same.
Is this another way of illustrating the dollar is declining? Or, as the OP infers, is Ron insinuating that the price of oil wouldn't rise if we used gold-backed dollars?
I wonder about our current fiat currency. Say Congress can't reduce the deficit, and we continue to borrow money from overseas. We continue to introduce additional currency representing that borrowed money, yes. But, are we not also preventing the foreign currency from circulation because it is on loan?
So not only does the US accumulate more bills from interest, but the US dollar is depreciated, meanwhile the foreign currency is actually gaining value because it is becoming more scarce. That is, unless some foreign country somewhere can just pull money out of their ass. Global economics is a mystery.
The Fed didn't exist before 1913. We had a gold standard until the 1970's.
If you agree the Fed causes inflation, and you agree inflation is bad for both of our wallets.. Do you really believe global trade will end because the US has moved away from fiat currency, i.e. the US dollar?
I'm starting to believe people don't vote for Ron Paul because they are cowards.
Too scared to stop occupying foreign nations
Too scared to admit terrorism isn't a global conspiracy that we can wage war against
Too scared to respect other nations that might compete with us
Too scared to protect our civil liberties from big brother
Too scared to defend the value of our money against the Fed
Of course, rather than just ignore this unanticipated condition, the OS did the right thing for a voting machine and crashed Windows message processing is based on a message pump; Windows provides all messages without bias. The process is responsible for handling each message. Any 'unanticipated' messages are unanticipated by the process. Windows has no anticipation for them.
The best Windows could have done was let the process crash but not the OS. I also don't see how an unexpected message would cause a process to crash Windows. That must have been some seriously horrible programming on Diebold's part.
Ah, you're correct. The AP story is slightly more specific. It appears now that only Diebold machines are allowed, unless the other companies apply some patches. Well now, isn't that interesting. Only Diebold machines allowed.
Just because one employee of the US Government made a bone-headed edit in Wikipedia does NOT make it "US Government Censors Wikipedia" (the 'article' title). Doesn't have quite the same ring to it.
I think it was a botnet spammer that watched the film Zeitgeist and is reacting. Zeitgeist is a two-hour film that gets viewers emotionally stirred and talks about: implant RFID, National ID card, NAU, the income tax, the war in Iraq, the CFR, the Federal Reserve. Yes, I'm fairly certain this was sent by someone stirred by the film. Ron Paul is the only candidate even mentioning NAU, so it's only natural.
It is also nonsensical to bash her using guilt by association.
Like mentioning her husband allowed the sanctions on Iraq all through the 90's and retained the base in Saudi Arabia, two of the three instigators cited by Al Qaeda as reason for attacking the US on 9/11. No, those were good ideas. No unintended consequences here.
I've heard the arguments a dozen times before. You pick a few conditions leading up to Nazi Germany, then compare them to the current administration's policies. Have you seen the comparisons to Ostia?
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/01/opinion/edharris.php
"Germany was a parliamentary democracy, fairly liberal and very similar to the U.S. today."
No, it was pretty friggin far from the current state of the US. For one, unemployment in Germany was at a staggeringly high 30% in 1932. Yes, and U.S. unemployment hit 25% in 1933. The OP referred to the state of government and politics, not the unemployment rate.
Stupid laws get passed all the time, mainly to increase the power of the state over it's citizens. Welcome to 20th/21st century USA. While you must find it invigorating to downplay Constitutional trespasses the War on Terror has yielded, others choose to vilify the repercussions, of which countless abound.
http://www.abovethelaw.com/war_on_terror/
"But as a matter of fact, there are direct links between Hitler, Hitler's financier and Prescott Bush, our current president's grandfather."
That's nice, what does it have to do with anything? I'd suspect the OP is insinuating the immorality of Prescott in his business and political affairs, which created the wealth upon which the Bush empire has grown, has been passed on to our President. Having an immoral President with ties to Nazis does lend credence to the theory that America is becoming fascist.
I suggest you link to websites that provide data to back your arguments, not to other people making the same argument as you. Not sure on what you want evidence of. The Bush thing seems to be prominently unbelievable:
http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/new_world_order/bush_nazis.html
Don't confuse conservatism with neo-conservatism. The OP is correct, and Ron Paul is the only candidate fitting the bill of a traditional conservative.
If people care enough to have burglars arrested, let them donate to an organization that manages that. Government IS authority, you schmuck. I'm done here.
First:
I know that is causing all sort of cognitive dissonance in your Libertarian head, but that's not really my problem. I'm not sure if you're trying to shut me up, or make me mad enough to continue this. Either way, it's rude.
Second:
But, more the point, why don't you explain exactly where free market was meddled with that 'caused' this system in the first place? If you look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMO#History:
In 1970, the number of HMOs declined to less than 40. Paul Ellwood, often called the "father" of the HMO, began having discussions with what is today the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that led to the enactment of the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973. This act had three main provisions:
* Grants and loans were provided to plan, start, or expand an HMO
* Certain state-imposed restrictions on HMOs were removed if the HMOs were federally certified
* Employers with 25 or more employees were required to offer federally certified HMO options alongside indemnity upon request
This last provision, called the dual choice provision, was the most important, as it gave HMOs access to the critical employer-based market that had often been blocked in the past. The federal government was slow to issue regulations and certify plans until 1977, when HMOs began to grow rapidly.
Also here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Maintenance_Organization_Act_of_1973
The Act solidified the term HMO and gave HMOs greater access to the employer-based market, providing for the rapid expansion of HMOs in later years. No longer needed now that HMOs are widespread, the dual choice provision expired in 1995.
Third:
lack of being able to be sued can, in no way, raise the price of something Since the HMO is insulated from repercussions, they're more likely to restrict treatment or provide a less effective, cheaper alternative. Now there's less demand for new treatments; now the market behind that specific treatment (ie suppliers, training, etc) is more consistent and predictable; now companies in the food chain extract every last penny they can.
Fourth:
like how the HMOs magically are somehow not private companies in your universe I was referring to federally qualified HMOs; the ones that have less restrictions, as referenced in the wiki article above. The ones that are being essentially subsidized.
Fifth:
Except that people do not choose their insurance company. People with benefits get it picked for them, healthy people without benefits do not have one, and sick people without benefits cannot get one. This is just silly. If the people didn't matter, then companies would sign with insurance companies that did nothing and charged nothing for it. People without benefits are people not paying into the system.
Are you saying you think the government should pay for everyone's medical care? Just some of it? Why should all Americans be forced to pay for poor people's medical care? This should not be the role of the federal government. If people care enough to sacrifice a certain amount of their income to pay for poor people's ailments, let them donate to an organization that manages that.
The more the government pays, the more the prices will inflate. Companies raise their prices and the government pays it. Heck, the government's own IP laws help those companies gouge it.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not wasting my time to dig up a link for you. If you don't believe me, oh well.
The response you quoted was me simply agreeing with your previous post, and it makes no mention of Iraq.
While I agree the situation has revived the argument, it's been around.
You assert the President not accepting certain forms of authorization from Congress for his own requests is to not follow the Constitution. Interesting.
Unnecessary perpetual war is not fun. Especially when your loved ones are maimed and killed. Fuck the status quo.
Do you honestly believe thirty-second advertising spots compare to being taken seriously in the media..?
If you can find me these diatribes, by all means. I've looked, and looked. Can only find one article in one newsletter, the content of which isn't what you'd expect.
I don't mind Ron appearing on a 9/11 conspiracy theorist radio show. It gave him alot of exposure back when he was a nobody. It's not like he was hollering that 9/11 was an inside job.
Not sure what you're referring to with the 'discredited' foreign policy remark.
Nice to know you're a Mormon. Have you looked into Romney? Heard he's a great Mormon.
Thanks for the accusation of being racist, and of associating with anti-Semites. You have class. Lots.
I wasn't aware of the 7.5% statistic, I thought they held more of the state. Thanks for the clarification.
I like your use of the term bloodbath. Certainly voting for someone like Romney to continue our persistence in Iraq will help to keep the blood flowing.
As for calling me anti-religion: I'm not sure it's quite accurate. I'd call myself more of a 'I dont give a shit about your religion as long as you dont impose it on me' kind of guy. Maybe one day I'll become more religious, but I don't see my current disposition as particularly wrong.
So then, no opinion on covert ops? Aside from labeling mention of such as conspiracy theory? Can't say I expected anything more.
I wonder if you really believe Ron Paul somehow has no respect for the Constitution? You must know he practically worships the document, with almost every Congressional speech making some reference to the relevance of its content.
The projectile physically interacts with the target, whereas it electromagnetically interacts with the launcher. I'd imagine the launcher can precisely accelerate the projectile over the range of the 'barrel' or region of electromagnetic interaction. On impact, it instantly decelerates. Conservation of momentum of all the fragments it shatters into covers a wide region with high-impact, whereas the source accelerates one controlled mass over a duration.
I have other things to do than to defend Ron Paul all day with you, but I'll try to quickly rebut. I appreciate the logic of your arguments, but your belligerent presentation is unnecessary.
I'm fairly certain there was discussion of the War Powers clause back when the Constitution was being drafted, and the wording was specifically chosen for a reason.
Again, stop putting words in my mouth. Nowhere did I claim that courts should end Iraq. The notion is ridiculous. Who the hell said that? Iraq is a big fuck-up, or 'quagmire' if you will. Always has been. The President has the authority, being the head of the executive branch, to change the situation. Again, I am advocating a presidential candidate.
Nevertheless, your arguments about Constitutional law are side-skirting my point. I'm advocating a Presidential candidate - if he plans on demanding a declaration before going to war, the President can do that. The POINT of the declaration is so that wars are not secretive, and not drug out. They are declared, the nation fights with its full force, and gets it over with. It's very simple, perhaps too simple for you to believe possible?
Yes, second place isn't the same as first, but it's as close as it gets. Your arguments about noone else campaigning in these states is moot. Turn on the fucking TV, read the fucking paper. McCain, Romney, and Huckabee get 100 times as much play in the media. And they don't get called a conspiracy theorist, racist, or lunatic!! I'd say Dr. Paul did well considering the media bias against him. I suppose you just figure the most gullible 14% voted for him. Consider 95% of Mormons in Nevada voted for Romney. Gee, I wonder why he won 50% of the state.
Putting words into my mouth won't win your argument. There is tons of media bias, and to argue it's because his party opposes his positions is naive. Newspapers sell stories, get readers, not cater to party interests - ah, well, apparently they do cater to party interests. Dr. Paul is good news, plenty to discuss, but what do we get - loads of attacks and smears. If he's such a lunatic, why don't any of these articles spell out the logic of his lunacy. I've read a great deal of them, and they are all full of hot air, just as your legal arguments have been. Ron isn't arguing a legal case, he's presenting his position to the public.
If you think a few priviledged intelligence officers in the CIA should have the unilateral right to provoke other governments, or overthrow their governments, without consolation with Congress, fine. I don't see why we would have three branches of government to balance the power when it pertains to domestic citizenry, but yet we'd let the President do whatever he wants outside our borders.
You can argue it's perfectly legal all you want - that's fine and dandy. Good for you. I still support a Presidential candidate who wants to run things in a better way. Despite the media slurs.
So, tell me, why are you so adamant this man is not fit to be President? Any specific reason? There must be something, enough for you to justify overlooking the media bias. It's there, it's real. And no amount of 'common sense' explains it away.
While I respect your intimate awareness of the nuance of constitutional law, I believe you've missed my point. Perhaps I wasn't very forthright with it.
If you firmly believed in the original principles held by the founders, and you were running for office, and you wanted to proclaim that you would abide by those principles.. would saying "If you want to go to war, declare war" make you a lunatic? Or a liar? Or even ignorant of the current legal climate?
As for poll numbers, he has come in second in both Nevada and Louisiana. Those numbers speak for themselves. Also, I love how you claim a vote for Paul is against common sense. The media has done well to brainwash those of you unable to perform independent analysis (and don't call me a conspiracy theorist - it takes but one google search to find heaps of evidence of media bias against Ron Paul).
He's the only Republican claiming the Iraq war - you know that little preemptive invasion based on false intelligence - was a mistake. He's also the only candidate that talks about CIA black ops. I suppose common sense would tell us intelligence officers orchestrating covert missions without Congressional approval is healthy for our government.
Thank you for clarifying your position. I am familiar with such a position; most people in our current government share a similar sentiment. That is, they believe the status quo is OK. They don't believe Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution is a requirement for formal declaration before sending our soldiers into battle.
Perhaps they believe the clause was placed there on a whim. No special thought or meaning behind it.
Surely, if a future President were to honor the founders' intentions by requesting a formal declaration against any nation before we initiate an attack, he would have no idea what the hell he was talking about.
Your suspicion is incorrect. Nevertheless, your asserted opinion of one holding such values leads me to believe you are, in fact, an 'imbecile of the highest order'.
Most humans form relationships with other humans, and animals, and even inanimate objects. The morally acceptable treatment of such are categorically different, and each has its own moral and legal ramifications.
Perhaps you think it's OK to strap a dog to the roof of a car, but not a small child. Is there some mental balancing act going on, where you weigh the possibility of something going wrong against how bad you'll feel when the child or dog's skull splatters across the roadway? Or perhaps you're more concerned with your legal responsibility in such situations?
Perhaps you just like to assert your superiority to animals whenever possible, and this was one such opportunity. If so, I feel sorry for your ego.
I'm glad you're not American - one less ignoramus here. Your visceral objection to qualifying amounts of support for something you are admittedly ignorant of, and the ensuing emotional response overwhelming any logical reasoning that would suggest silence before putting your foot in your mouth, are indicative of the worth of your opinion.
Imagine if they'd had a car accident.
How about... the value of oil has risen, the value of the dollar has declined. Hence the same.
Is this another way of illustrating the dollar is declining? Or, as the OP infers, is Ron insinuating that the price of oil wouldn't rise if we used gold-backed dollars?
I wonder about our current fiat currency. Say Congress can't reduce the deficit, and we continue to borrow money from overseas. We continue to introduce additional currency representing that borrowed money, yes. But, are we not also preventing the foreign currency from circulation because it is on loan?
So not only does the US accumulate more bills from interest, but the US dollar is depreciated, meanwhile the foreign currency is actually gaining value because it is becoming more scarce. That is, unless some foreign country somewhere can just pull money out of their ass. Global economics is a mystery.
The Fed didn't exist before 1913. We had a gold standard until the 1970's.
... cowards!!!
If you agree the Fed causes inflation, and you agree inflation is bad for both of our wallets.. Do you really believe global trade will end because the US has moved away from fiat currency, i.e. the US dollar?
I'm starting to believe people don't vote for Ron Paul because they are cowards.
Too scared to stop occupying foreign nations
Too scared to admit terrorism isn't a global conspiracy that we can wage war against
Too scared to respect other nations that might compete with us
Too scared to protect our civil liberties from big brother Too scared to defend the value of our money against the Fed
The best Windows could have done was let the process crash but not the OS. I also don't see how an unexpected message would cause a process to crash Windows. That must have been some seriously horrible programming on Diebold's part.
Ah, you're correct. The AP story is slightly more specific. It appears now that only Diebold machines are allowed, unless the other companies apply some patches. Well now, isn't that interesting. Only Diebold machines allowed.
Perhaps reading TFA will assist in seeing confirmation.
I think it was a botnet spammer that watched the film Zeitgeist and is reacting. Zeitgeist is a two-hour film that gets viewers emotionally stirred and talks about: implant RFID, National ID card, NAU, the income tax, the war in Iraq, the CFR, the Federal Reserve. Yes, I'm fairly certain this was sent by someone stirred by the film. Ron Paul is the only candidate even mentioning NAU, so it's only natural.
Some of Zeitgeist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__YFnUfYXZk
It is also nonsensical to bash her using guilt by association.
Like mentioning her husband allowed the sanctions on Iraq all through the 90's and retained the base in Saudi Arabia, two of the three instigators cited by Al Qaeda as reason for attacking the US on 9/11. No, those were good ideas. No unintended consequences here.
Don't confuse conservatism with neo-conservatism. The OP is correct, and Ron Paul is the only candidate fitting the bill of a traditional conservative.
And, contrary to popular beliefs, we are making MORE of them!
Who is Ron Paul? http://www.ronpaul2008.com
I know that is causing all sort of cognitive dissonance in your Libertarian head, but that's not really my problem. I'm not sure if you're trying to shut me up, or make me mad enough to continue this. Either way, it's rude.
Second:
But, more the point, why don't you explain exactly where free market was meddled with that 'caused' this system in the first place? If you look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMO#History:
Also here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Maintenance_Organization_Act_of_1973
The Act solidified the term HMO and gave HMOs greater access to the employer-based market, providing for the rapid expansion of HMOs in later years. No longer needed now that HMOs are widespread, the dual choice provision expired in 1995.
Third:
lack of being able to be sued can, in no way, raise the price of something Since the HMO is insulated from repercussions, they're more likely to restrict treatment or provide a less effective, cheaper alternative. Now there's less demand for new treatments; now the market behind that specific treatment (ie suppliers, training, etc) is more consistent and predictable; now companies in the food chain extract every last penny they can.
Fourth:
like how the HMOs magically are somehow not private companies in your universe I was referring to federally qualified HMOs; the ones that have less restrictions, as referenced in the wiki article above. The ones that are being essentially subsidized.
Fifth:
Except that people do not choose their insurance company. People with benefits get it picked for them, healthy people without benefits do not have one, and sick people without benefits cannot get one. This is just silly. If the people didn't matter, then companies would sign with insurance companies that did nothing and charged nothing for it. People without benefits are people not paying into the system.
Are you saying you think the government should pay for everyone's medical care? Just some of it? Why should all Americans be forced to pay for poor people's medical care? This should not be the role of the federal government. If people care enough to sacrifice a certain amount of their income to pay for poor people's ailments, let them donate to an organization that manages that.
The more the government pays, the more the prices will inflate. Companies raise their prices and the government pays it. Heck, the government's own IP laws help those companies gouge it.