Monday, March 22, 2010
To Arthur
I would be equally interested in your definition of Natural Born Citizen as defined by our Constitution and subsequent Supreme Court case precedents.
Steve
++++++++++++++++++++++=
2 comments:
Arthur said...
I enjoyed reading your post and appreciate the call for continued political engagement. One thing I'm not clear about is how this bill is an example of Marxism. As I understand it, Marxism would mean that the health care industry would be taken over by the federal government,health care professionals would become government employees, health insurance companies would be abolished, health care costs would be paid for through taxes, and out-of-pocket expense for health care would end. I'm not suggesting that these changes would be a good thing, I'm just trying to identify what a Marxist bill would entail.
From what I can tell, the current bill doesn't call for any of the things described above. Clearly, the bill has a variety of mandates (e.g., people not currently covered must purchase health insurance or be penalized, and insurance companies cannot deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions), but this seems more like regulation than a government takeover.
Are there specific policies in the bill that stand out as Marxist? Also, if possible, could you provide a definition of Marxism?
Thanks.
March 22, 2010 3:19 AM
giveusliberty1776 said...
I will start by quoting the slogan "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". That pretty well sums up Marxism.
The State is everything, and the individual is subordinate.
This so called Health Care reform is a thinly veiled redisstribute the wealth plan which calls for the subsidizing healthcare by the have's for the have nots.
It is another but gigantic intrusion into the private domain of the American citizen, by a government that says it knowns better how to spend our money than we do.
The entire Bill is repugnate in that it mandates compliance or fines. It is unconstitutional and 38 states Attorneys General agree.
This Bill will be repealed by 2013.
March 22, 2010 6:51 AM
Steve
++++++++++++++++++++++=
2 comments:
Arthur said...
I enjoyed reading your post and appreciate the call for continued political engagement. One thing I'm not clear about is how this bill is an example of Marxism. As I understand it, Marxism would mean that the health care industry would be taken over by the federal government,health care professionals would become government employees, health insurance companies would be abolished, health care costs would be paid for through taxes, and out-of-pocket expense for health care would end. I'm not suggesting that these changes would be a good thing, I'm just trying to identify what a Marxist bill would entail.
From what I can tell, the current bill doesn't call for any of the things described above. Clearly, the bill has a variety of mandates (e.g., people not currently covered must purchase health insurance or be penalized, and insurance companies cannot deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions), but this seems more like regulation than a government takeover.
Are there specific policies in the bill that stand out as Marxist? Also, if possible, could you provide a definition of Marxism?
Thanks.
March 22, 2010 3:19 AM
giveusliberty1776 said...
I will start by quoting the slogan "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". That pretty well sums up Marxism.
The State is everything, and the individual is subordinate.
This so called Health Care reform is a thinly veiled redisstribute the wealth plan which calls for the subsidizing healthcare by the have's for the have nots.
It is another but gigantic intrusion into the private domain of the American citizen, by a government that says it knowns better how to spend our money than we do.
The entire Bill is repugnate in that it mandates compliance or fines. It is unconstitutional and 38 states Attorneys General agree.
This Bill will be repealed by 2013.
March 22, 2010 6:51 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)






An election for President and Commander in Chief of the Military must strive to be above reproach. Our public institutions must give the public confidence that a presidential candidate has complied with the election process that is prescribed by our Constitution and laws. It is only after a presidential candidate satisfies the rules of such a process that he/she can expect members of the public, regardless of their party affiliations, to give him/her the respect that the Office of President so much deserves.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.