"Oh, (no) Canada", Coulter

[DeeZire]

And where in my post did you read that I hadn't? You read what you want not what is said. We all know that's the way you work to provoke such attacks and I'm sorry to say a fell into it.

But if you re-read my post I wasn't talking about me. So how did you get out of it I was talking about you?

I just thought it was funny, in the context of this:

I feel fortunate to have "met" Amicus, I feel he is elegant in is prose to those who devolve to cussing and name calling.

On the one hand, you praise Ami for insulting liberals without using swear words, on the other hand, you condemn be for insulting you without using swear words. The fact that you're blind to you own hypocrisy only makes this post even more ridiculous.

You really need to get out more Zeb. Nobody here is plotting against you, we're just trying to fill in the blanks left by the giant gap in your information sources, and ease the resulting paranoia that has you jumping at your own shadow.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
....In other words, it would be more knowledge of the people that would result in hatred.

Box ... are you missing the point on purpose? Fear of the unknown is what I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
Being different is not necessarily being threatening, and will not result in hatred.

Wrong. Take Muslims for example. You can fear all Muslims, or you can do a little research and discover that the only Muslims to fear are the extremists. You can fear all gay people until you realize that gays are not interested in screwing your kid, pedophiles are the ones who are interested in screwing your kid. The list goes on. I could go back and search your posts for examples of your over-the-top fear of Muslims, but why bother? Honestly, I think you must be pulling an Ami on us - deliberately posting offensive opinions just to get your jollies.

I am referring to most civilized persons, and I assume most of the posters here can be so described. Most persons neither hate nor fear strangers, although they may be wary of them in some situations, such as on a dark, deserted street. Not until they learn of evil things that those persons have said or done do they start to fear and hate them.

I neither fear nor hate most Muslims. I see people on the street fairly often that I believe are of that faith, and don't give it a thought, because I know most people mean me and mine no harm. At the same time, I am aware there are Muslim terrorists who would kill me and all my family if they got the chance. This is not exactly a secret, although they would not be especially aiming for me.

I have often expressed hostility toward Muslim terrorists. I have also expressed disdain when some Muslims have attempted to get people to refrain from doing what the Muslims think is not proper. I have expressed the same disdain toward Christians who do much the same thing. I have occasionally mentioned the conquests by Muslims of much of Africa and Europe and Asia, but this is historical fact. Under other circumstances, I would say the same kind of things about the conquests of Persia or Alexander or Rome or Napoleon or England.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I just thought it was funny, in the context of this:



On the one hand, you praise Ami for insulting liberals without using swear words, on the other hand, you condemn be for insulting you without using swear words. The fact that you're blind to you own hypocrisy only makes this post even more ridiculous.

You really need to get out more Zeb. Nobody here is plotting against you, we're just trying to fill in the blanks left by the giant gap in your information sources, and ease the resulting paranoia that has you jumping at your own shadow.

One of these days you are going to learn 'It's not about you!' No body cares what you think is funny. Not here, probably not anywhere.

And as I've said before you don't know me, you have never met me, you don't know what I think or feel. For all you know I'm a tall skinny guy or a short fat guy. Or not even a guy at all. Maybe I'm a woman. Maybe I'm your next door neighbor and I'm just messing with your head.

Maybe I'm just messing with your head anyway. Maybe I'm someone completely different when I use my alt's (wait I have none ... must go create one or not). Maybe what I type here isn't really the way I feel abut things. Maybe I'm a fullblown, died in the wool Liberal. Wait, let me see...nope I still got my balls so I must not be a liberal. Oh well get used to disappointment.

 

[amicus]

MzDeviancy:

"...Liberal idealism for most people who espouse it is not about believing that human nature can be perfected; it's about believing that we have to work on the things that are inherently flawed in our nature - like racism - and that if we do, we can maybe work out a decent existence for everyone..."

~~~

I will offer you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just have not thought seriously about the issues involved in human nature.

The things you appear to dislike most about human nature, competition, absolutism and self interest, are the very things that enabled the species to evolve to the top of the food chain.

Eugenics back in the 1920's, considered breeding humans like we breed cattle and horses, weeding out undesireable characteristics and forcing procreation for the more beneficial ones.

Men and now women, through Title Nine imperatives, compete in all sorts of things where there is only one winner; one who is better than all the rest.

The 'winners', the best and the brightest, become the movers and shakers of society and their actions and accomplishments are copied by all others. 'Beautiful' men and women grace the public stage and provide examples of of artistic endeavor that can uplift or embarrass humankind.

Absolutism, certainty, arrogance, a superior attitude, the courage to attack and conquer that which seems unconquerable, is a fundamental human value that you mistakenly identify as a flaw.

It is fascinating to study human evolution as it adapted to different environments around the globe and separated out races and ethnic groups according to abilities and skills engendered by the particular environment they were born into.

There are innate biological and intellectual differences between ethnic groups and racial divisions, also brought about by the human ability to adapt to an environment and prosper in it by becoming superior to others.

Each racial and ethnic group is unique unto itself, it is also in competition with each and every other similar but different group. There has always been and always will be, thus sayeth evolution, competition between them, and the fittest will survive and prosper and those who lose will be confined to Reservations or the annals of history.

It is competition and absolutism that facilitates the innovation that creates advances in civilization through science and medicine and exploration and most importantly, it is the individual human mind, working independently from all others that creates the new ideas, the new methods and medicines that enabled mankind to rise above the animal kingdom that perishes when the environment changes.

This illustrates the core of my disagreement with the 'Liberal Idealism' you postulate as the ideal. You somehow must belief that, given the power, you can impose upon all people your obscene Liberal Idealism, that essentially treats man as if he were basically evil and need be refined, controlled, managed and manipulated to fit you vision of what the species should become.

I stepped on the stage of radio at an early age at the bottom of the hundreds who wanted to be in radio. I fought my way to the top, competing against the best in the business and gave no quarter when confronted.

Everyone who rises to the top of their profession does it the same way, through arrogance, excellence, determination and perserverity and a healthy dose of egoism.

The natural animal world is composed of predator and prey and although I do not enjoy and do not watch when the Lion kills and consumes the Lamb, I do understand the nature of the beasts and how man, the rational animal, occupies a different portion of the spectrum of life.

What was it about the Greeks that made them philosophers, poets and authors, while the Romans became the conquerers of the known world. What was it that made the black man the slave of every society outside Africa?

Why are the Germans known for their expertise in mechanics and the Vikings for their exploration and conquests?

There are a hundred books covering each subject I just briefly touched upon; read them, study them and learn.

Take two amicus and call me in the morning...

ami

 

[MzDeviancy]

All that hatred exists today in different parts of the world and will most likely until man as a species grows up enough not to. There as been just as much hatred vented upon conservative by liberals and vise versa. It's a fact of life that people with differing opinions will discuss their points of view and in most cases it will evolve into name calling by one side or the other.

So, unless you can magically speed up the evolution of mankind it's going to be with us for awhile.

I feel fortunate to have "met" Amicus, I feel he is elegant in is prose to those who devolve to cussing and name calling.

Here's a crazy idea: sometimes action is necessary in order to change attitudes. Did you know that gay rights legislation in Canada preceded the majority of Canadians believing in gay rights? I, for one, am glad the SCC didn't sit around waiting for 'evolution'.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Here's a crazy idea: sometimes action is necessary in order to change attitudes. Did you know that gay rights legislation in Canada preceded the majority of Canadians believing in gay rights? I, for one, am glad the SCC didn't sit around waiting for 'evolution'.

And do you know I believe in gay rights! I am also pro-choice! I also am agnostic. Yet I don't believe liberal policies will promulgate the desired results that liberals believe.

I believe the individual makes a country strong, not the government. The government has it's place within the structure of a country but it does not need to be the controlling force in that country. The individual is and always will be the one looked too for sustenance and security. Without the individual the whole cannot exists.

 

[JackLuis]

Amicus is elegant and writes well, and I for one appreciate his skill. This does not make up for his lack of humor. Taking Ann Coulter seriously is so bizarre that I think he threw that in as bait.

He does not act to make the world better that it was, but to conserve his position in a society that he does not seem to understand and fears he is losing that position, as the community demographics change.

Back in his day a white man who wore a suit and tie and shaved every day could count on his job most of the time, comfortable ya' know?

Now a days, the factory or newspaper or even web site can be here today and gone tomorrow. It is unsettling to see the dollar loose nine tenths of it's purchasing power and realize the savings you've stored for the Golden years have a hard time buying brass.

So I say we give the Wingnut some slack. I missed him while he was gone. As much as I like his style and grace with letters, he's still full a shit. IMHO

 

[MzDeviancy]

MzDeviancy:

~~~

I will offer you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just have not thought seriously about the issues involved in human nature.

The things you appear to dislike most about human nature, competition, absolutism and self interest, are the very things that enabled the species to evolve to the top of the food chain.

Eugenics back in the 1920's, considered breeding humans like we breed cattle and horses, weeding out undesireable characteristics and forcing procreation for the more beneficial ones.

Men and now women, through Title Nine imperatives, compete in all sorts of things where there is only one winner; one who is better than all the rest.

The 'winners', the best and the brightest, become the movers and shakers of society and their actions and accomplishments are copied by all others. 'Beautiful' men and women grace the public stage and provide examples of of artistic endeavor that can uplift or embarrass humankind.

Absolutism, certainty, arrogance, a superior attitude, the courage to attack and conquer that which seems unconquerable, is a fundamental human value that you mistakenly identify as a flaw.

It is fascinating to study human evolution as it adapted to different environments around the globe and separated out races and ethnic groups according to abilities and skills engendered by the particular environment they were born into.

There are innate biological and intellectual differences between ethnic groups and racial divisions, also brought about by the human ability to adapt to an environment and prosper in it by becoming superior to others.

Each racial and ethnic group is unique unto itself, it is also in competition with each and every other similar but different group. There has always been and always will be, thus sayeth evolution, competition between them, and the fittest will survive and prosper and those who lose will be confined to Reservations or the annals of history.

It is competition and absolutism that facilitates the innovation that creates advances in civilization through science and medicine and exploration and most importantly, it is the individual human mind, working independently from all others that creates the new ideas, the new methods and medicines that enabled mankind to rise above the animal kingdom that perishes when the environment changes.

This illustrates the core of my disagreement with the 'Liberal Idealism' you postulate as the ideal. You somehow must belief that, given the power, you can impose upon all people your obscene Liberal Idealism, that essentially treats man as if he were basically evil and need be refined, controlled, managed and manipulated to fit you vision of what the species should become.

I stepped on the stage of radio at an early age at the bottom of the hundreds who wanted to be in radio. I fought my way to the top, competing against the best in the business and gave no quarter when confronted.

Everyone who rises to the top of their profession does it the same way, through arrogance, excellence, determination and perserverity and a healthy dose of egoism.

The natural animal world is composed of predator and prey and although I do not enjoy and do not watch when the Lion kills and consumes the Lamb, I do understand the nature of the beasts and how man, the rational animal, occupies a different portion of the spectrum of life.

What was it about the Greeks that made them philosophers, poets and authors, while the Romans became the conquerers of the known world. What was it that made the black man the slave of every society outside Africa?

Why are the Germans known for their expertise in mechanics and the Vikings for their exploration and conquests?

There are a hundred books covering each subject I just briefly touched upon; read them, study them and learn.

Take two amicus and call me in the morning...

ami

How interesting that you're such a normative relativist when it comes to the deaths of other cultures, and yet you oppose abortion. Were we to try and determine your position on abortion based solely on this post, we'd have to assume you'd take a strictly objective point of view on abortion into which morality didn't enter. You praise the ideals of competition and absolutism? It should make perfect sense then to support abortion so that women can continue to be as productive and competitive as possible (I think you'll agree that having to care for children hampers that).

And yet your moral objectivity doesn't extend to abortion, and, if I had to go out on a limb, I'd guess that it doesn't extend to any other number of right-wing agenda issues. Because this entire lengthy rambling about societal competitiveness is just drivel to excuse your fear and hatred of any culture you don't understand. And given that you've insulted Natives, Africans, and Arabs, I'd say there's a lot you don't understand.

Your rantings aren't the speeches of a philosopher king; they're just the same crap that we hear from the rednecks in grease-stained wifebeaters that they interview on FOX, just weakly disguised in fancier language. At least have the decency to not try to sell me horseshit and call it Plato.

 

[amicus]

Thank you for the kind words, JackLuis, I just had my fifth chemo-therapy session today and may take to my bed for a few days to recover.

I think there has never been a time of job security or even certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow, so why expect it now?

Only the Royalty and the Church could provide a sinecured existence and even those were fraught with peril.

With the discovery of petroleum, the Whale Oil industry collapsed, with the steam engine, sailboats disappeared, with the automobile, the horse trade died and with the computer, typewriters went obsolete in a year.

There are no certainties and no guarantees in any phase of life, human or animal.

Your penchant for relegating me to the past is misguided as I cherish change and innovation. However, those values I advocate, the ethical and moral systems of rational men, are eternal and will never change. Honesty and integrity are still the measure of a man, just as they have always been.

Socities do degenerate, become corrupt and fail. Like Rome, current emphasis on sexual pleasures and drug enhanced performance, a concentration on food and sex and entertainment among the liberal bohemians, might just threaten a disolution of purpose and that is worth being concerned about.

Thanks again...much appreciated...



Amicus

 

[JackLuis]

And remember Elizabeth Filkin!

On the "Sky Fallen" thread.

Ah to be in England, where the proper people are in charge.

 

[DeeZire]

...So I say we give the Wingnut some slack. I missed him while he was gone. As much as I like his style and grace with letters, he's still full a shit. IMHO

You have a valid point. After all, how much fun is a circus if there are no clowns?

 

[DeeZire]

. ...I believe the individual makes a country strong, not the government. The government has it's place within the structure of a country but it does not need to be the controlling force in that country. The individual is and always will be the one looked too for sustenance and security. Without the individual the whole cannot exists.

Exactly! That's why government has a role in the health care arena. The individuals that run our for-profit health care system have not figured out a way to serve the unemployed, so the government steps in. Keep in mind, the government is enabling these down-on-their-luck individuals to stay healthy so they can contribute to society when the jobs come back.

Now let's look at the working poor. If certain individuals are not allowed to participate in what society has to offer because of their income, the "whole" you speak of is incomplete. The "whole" benefits from the toil of the working poor, but the working poor don't benefit from what society has to offer. In other words, the rights of the poor individuals are being usurped by the non-poor individuals.

So we, (society) decide to help them, as in the example I gave a while back of the voters in Arizona demanding Medicaid eligibility for anyone making under the Federal poverty level ($900 per month.) Unfortunately, the State Legislature is now dropping the income limit back down to $300 per month against the voter's wishes. In other words, the state government has become the controlling force, superceding the will of the individuals.

The sad part, Zeb, is that knowing your stance on the working poor and the unemployed, I'd suggest you'd side with the AZ state government in this case, which calls into question the veracity of your stated ideology - that the individual should be more important than the government.

 

[alwayswantedto]

MzDeviancy:
The things you appear to dislike most about human nature, competition, absolutism and self interest, are the very things that enabled the species to evolve to the top of the food chain.

It is competition and absolutism that facilitates the innovation that creates advances in civilization through science and medicine and exploration and most importantly, it is the individual human mind, working independently from all others that creates the new ideas, the new methods and medicines that enabled mankind to rise above the animal kingdom that perishes when the environment changes.
ami

Actually, it was cooperation that set humans apart and allowed them to ascend to the top of the food chain. Today, although individuals do compete, cooperation is imperative to make any significant advance in science and medicine. You make a fatal mistake in championing just one. Study human history, especially that of science, and learn.

 

[NevilleLeck]

thanks for all your sharing...it's a good topic

 

[PoppingTom]

Men and now women, through Title Nine imperatives, compete in all sorts of things where there is only one winner; one who is better than all the rest.

The 'winners', the best and the brightest, become the movers and shakers of society and their actions and accomplishments are copied by all others. 'Beautiful' men and women grace the public stage and provide examples of of artistic endeavor that can uplift or embarrass humankind.

You forgot one thing: the winner is nothing without the other competitor and the jury, that will call him winner.
One reason why German football team wins that often is that they always say "a game is about 90 minutes". This means, until 90 minutes aren't over, even if we are in leeway, the game isn't lost.

If you now tell me that the whole life is a competition that never ends, I say there will never be winners. No competition without competitors, juries and finishes.

But what if I decide myself, not to be a competitor at all ? You may call me lazy, and yes, maybe I am, but why not ? I got the ability, I use it. Now you tell me, I don't got a right to live?

I am the laziest guy in the world. Move, people, shake, people, I'm the winner.

Absolutism, certainty, arrogance, a superior attitude, the courage to attack and conquer that which seems unconquerable, is a fundamental human value that you mistakenly identify as a flaw.

These "fundamental human values" made the end of the Roman society. These "f.h.v.'s" made the end of Hitler. In fact, Hitler exaggerated those values.

Communication, fear, exploring of the unknown, the ability to outsource your being into something that's bigger than yourself, the ability to know your enemy better than yourself - these are the things that made humans what they are now. Your ability to be a selfish egoistic piece of shit and still make a living is a privilege of that society, not the thing that made the society.

Each racial and ethnic group is unique unto itself, it is also in competition with each and every other similar but different group. There has always been and always will be, thus sayeth evolution, competition between them, and the fittest will survive and prosper and those who lose will be confined to Reservations or the annals of history.

So what differs this point of you from being a Nazi ? This is their ideology.

It is competition and absolutism that facilitates the innovation that creates advances in civilization through science and medicine and exploration and most importantly, it is the individual human mind, working independently from all others that creates the new ideas, the new methods and medicines that enabled mankind to rise above the animal kingdom that perishes when the environment changes.

If it is the individual human mind, working independently from all others, then why we got schools? Why we got Internet ? For what? Why scientists compare their notes ? For saying "I got more notes than you, I'm the winner" ?

I would accept a lot of what you say, if you would exchange "competition" and "absolutism" with "perfectionism". You can't always be a winner. But you can always be a perfectionist.

This illustrates the core of my disagreement with the 'Liberal Idealism' you postulate as the ideal. You somehow must belief that, given the power, you can impose upon all people your obscene Liberal Idealism, that essentially treats man as if he were basically evil and need be refined, controlled, managed and manipulated to fit you vision of what the species should become.

Well, I know, this was one of the biggest mistakes of the once real existing socialism. Anyway, it's one thing to control people, another thing to set conditions to people. You can be charged for murder. This is a progress of the society you live in, while you prefer "the biggest gun is always in the right".

What was it that made the black man the slave of every society outside Africa?

Maybe the fact they still had slavery and made a good business out of it ?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Actually, it was cooperation that set humans apart and allowed them to ascend to the top of the food chain. Today, although individuals do compete, cooperation is imperative to make any significant advance in science and medicine. You make a fatal mistake in championing just one. Study human history, especially that of science, and learn.

Pish posh. Your so-called cooperation is always a gang bent on pilfering and plunder and stealing what the individual created. Cooperation is always a conspiracy against individual initiative.

 

[PoppingTom]

Pish posh. Your so-called cooperation is always a gang bent on pilfering and plunder and stealing what the individual created. Cooperation is always a conspiracy against individual initiative.

Sometimes I ask myself, if you really believe what you write.

If you believe in anything, but I doubt.

 

[alwayswantedto]

paranoia

Pish posh. Your so-called cooperation is always a gang bent on pilfering and plunder and stealing what the individual created. Cooperation is always a conspiracy against individual initiative.

Pish posh? Did you really say that? Cooperation is INDIVIDUALS helping each other for mutual benefit. But, oops-a-daisy, I didn't mean to intrude on your delusion that everyone's out to get you.

 

[alwayswantedto]

paranoia

Pish posh. Your so-called cooperation is always a gang bent on pilfering and plunder and stealing what the individual created. Cooperation is always a conspiracy against individual initiative.

Pish posh? Did you really say that? Cooperation is INDIVIDUALS helping each other for mutual benefit. Individual initiative may even direct the group in a particular direction - that's called leadership. But, oops-a-daisy, I didn't mean to intrude on your delusion that everyone's out to get you.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Exactly! That's why government has a role in the health care arena. The individuals that run our for-profit health care system have not figured out a way to serve the unemployed, so the government steps in. Keep in mind, the government is enabling these down-on-their-luck individuals to stay healthy so they can contribute to society when the jobs come back.

Now let's look at the working poor. If certain individuals are not allowed to participate in what society has to offer because of their income, the "whole" you speak of is incomplete. The "whole" benefits from the toil of the working poor, but the working poor don't benefit from what society has to offer. In other words, the rights of the poor individuals are being usurped by the non-poor individuals.

So we, (society) decide to help them, as in the example I gave a while back of the voters in Arizona demanding Medicaid eligibility for anyone making under the Federal poverty level ($900 per month.) Unfortunately, the State Legislature is now dropping the income limit back down to $300 per month against the voter's wishes. In other words, the state government has become the controlling force, superceding the will of the individuals.

The sad part, Zeb, is that knowing your stance on the working poor and the unemployed, I'd suggest you'd side with the AZ state government in this case, which calls into question the veracity of your stated ideology - that the individual should be more important than the government.

Tell me this DEE. How many for-profit Health Insurers are there in the country?

As for participation with the whole. It is the individuals responsibility to participate not to look to government to require them to participate.

You don't know my stance on anything. You don't understand the simplest terms. You only see what you want to see and will be surprised when the reality hits you in the face.

 

[Bianca_Sommerland]

Amicas, first let me say, when I saw your signature I couldn't help but be flattered. I haven't been here in a long time, and we haven't always agreed, but I appreciate the shout out.

As to the topic, I love Canada (obviously, I'm Canadian) but I have to ask. Why invite a speaker who's known for controversy, then object to what she 'might' say? From my understanding they canceled her speech? (I skimmed through a lot of the posts, sorry but that was the impression I got)

I get the limits on free speech, I really do, but seeing the way the Olympic ceremony was condemned for its inclusion of natives and not francophone's in the opening ceremony, and then the mass flooding of bilingual songs to appease the protest, I have my doubts as to our freedoms and respect to any nation even within our own borders. PC is nice, but I'll be damned if I can't tell whoever I want that I hate bill 101 and its restriction in Quebec towards English speakers. And if I want to say I am wary of ease of passage for those of Muslim origin on airlines, considering they may have been heavily influence by the outspoken views against North Americans and Christians, I think I have that right.

I think prejudism is being used too narrowly to cover the views of many people who are gun shy in the wake of attacks from a people who were brainwashed by their dictators. I wonder how many would condemn Jewish people for not being fond of Germans or Native Americans of resenting whites even now, decades, if not longer, after their persecution. Not to say wholesale condemnation is right, but if someone has a better view, wouldn't it have made more sense to let them speak after her rather than push her away as though they were afraid of what she had to say?

JMHO. Glad to be back. Some things never change

 

[DeeZire]

Tell me this DEE. How many for-profit Health Insurers are there in the country?

I don't know Zeb, but if you're dying to know, try Google.

...As for participation with the whole. It is the individuals responsibility to participate not to look to government to require them to participate.

As I illustrated in my example, the government is simply carrying out the mandate in the constitution to maintain the "general welfare" of the citizens. When the general welfare of the citizenship is impaired by the non-participation of a small minority, it would seem logical that the government would be empowered to force that small minority to pull their own weight. I still think a better solution would be a waiver to deny emergency services to anyone who refuses to carry coverage or post a bond to cover the cost of emergency services.

..... You don't understand the simplest terms. You only see what you want to see and will be surprised when the reality hits you in the face.

This is truly funny Zeb, since, even though the above quote was directed at me, it is more applicable to you. All my arguments are based on reality, all yours are based on an ideology that twists reality to fit into a anti-government box. As an example, I have asked these questions many times but never received an answer:

1. How is a person who has lost his/her job supposed to pay for the necessities of life during their period of temporary unemployment? (Hint: The answer does not contain the word "bootstraps".)

2. How is a head of household making $1200 per month supposed to pay over $1000 per month for health insurance and also pay for food, rent, and other necessities?

3. Can an economy exist without low-wage workers?

4. Can a high-wage earner make his money without interacting with the economy that's providing the high wage?

If you answer these four questions honestly Zeb, I think you will see there is a place for government to get involved in the general welfare of the citizens. In fact, to ignore the general welfare of the citizens would constitute a failure of the government to carry out its proscribed duties.

As I've said many times, your alternative is to give up your $100K salary and go live off the land out in the wilderness, where you will not have to pay taxes, or enjoy any of the other benefits of the civilized society that the rest of us wish to maintain and improve.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I don't know Zeb, but if you're dying to know, try Google.

23 of which 4 are mutual companies so they shouldn't be counted as any profits are returned to the policyholders.

7 are non-profit insurers mainly BCBS affiliates. Except for Wellpoint which purchased the only for-profit part of BCBS.

As I illustrated in my example, the government is simply carrying out the mandate in the constitution to maintain the "general welfare" of the citizens. When the general welfare of the citizenship is impaired by the non-participation of a small minority, it would seem logical that the government would be empowered to force that small minority to pull their own weight. I still think a better solution would be a waiver to deny emergency services to anyone who refuses to carry coverage or post a bond to cover the cost of emergency services.



This is truly funny Zeb, since, even though the above quote was directed at me, it is more applicable to you. All my arguments are based on reality, all yours are based on an ideology that twists reality to fit into a anti-government box. As an example, I have asked these questions many times but never received an answer:

1. How is a person who has lost his/her job supposed to pay for the necessities of life during their period of temporary unemployment? (Hint: The answer does not contain the word "bootstraps".) That depends, what's the job market like? If unemployment is running over 10% then he will have to depend on friends and family or the state government (unemployment benefits).

2. How is a head of household making $1200 per month supposed to pay over $1000 per month for health insurance and also pay for food, rent, and other necessities? I don't know, why don't you ask the president he's the one that is forcing him too.

3. Can an economy exist without low-wage workers? Probably as most of those jobs have been outsourced to places like India. Define low-wage worker. Is it someone who only makes minimum wage? Or someone who works for less than minimum wage but is paid in cash with no taxes withheld?

4. Can a high-wage earner make his money without interacting with the economy that's providing the high wage? Sure. I have never bought a product that the companies I worked for sold.

If you answer these four questions honestly Zeb, I think you will see there is a place for government to get involved in the general welfare of the citizens. In fact, to ignore the general welfare of the citizens would constitute a failure of the government to carry out its proscribed duties.

As I've said many times, your alternative is to give up your $100K salary and go live off the land out in the wilderness, where you will not have to pay taxes, or enjoy any of the other benefits of the civilized society that the rest of us wish to maintain and improve.

.........

 

[amicus]

Bianca Sommerland...thank you and welcome back, although I must confess I don't know what 'shoutout' you are referring to..

But thank you for being one of the few rational voices from Canada and for your questioning of the status quo of what goes on up there.

Regards...

Amicus

 

[Bianca_Sommerland]

Bianca Sommerland...thank you and welcome back, although I must confess I don't know what 'shoutout' you are referring to..

But thank you for being one of the few rational voices from Canada and for your questioning of the status quo of what goes on up there.

Regards...

Amicus

My name is in your signature love