Campaign For Liberty: spongessuck

Gregory McGee
spongessuck
Regular member
Location: Glen Mills, PA
Last login: 06/23/11
RSS feed

I've just recently registered, and haven't set up my profile page yet.





spongessuck's weblog


Bookmark and Share
Posted by spongessuck on 02/06/11


I just thought sharing this forum thread would be interesting for pro-liberty people. I post as spongessuck, and my comments begin on page 6. The rest of the thread is pretty much everyone trying to invalidate my argument against forced wealth redistribution.

 


(http)://freejinger.yuku.com/topic/1378/Medicaid-is-a-socialistic-program?page=6

 

This is a public board if anyone wants to jump in, but you have to register- plus the members are pretty closed-minded, so it might piss them off if a bunch of people suddenly come to support my argument. I kind of like being the lone voice of reason, though.

I have had only limited success in getting people to admit that the they believe the rights of the individual don't matter in the face of majority rule.




Poll: Why are most self-described liberals statists?

They don't understand what the policies they support entail
They have no problem using the power of government to create their vision of a 'great society.'
They believe that taking from some and giving to others is right, even if the means are wrong.

You must be logged in to vote in polls.

1 vote so far. [View Results]





Categories: Civil Liberties, Domestic Policy, Health Freedom, Just For Fun, Socialism
Tags:

No comments yet.

You must be logged in to post comments.  [Become a member]

Bookmark and Share
Posted by spongessuck on 06/13/11
Last updated 06/13/11



http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/06/13/which-candidate-or-would-be-candidate-
would-most-like-to-see-debate-obama/



Tags:

No comments yet.

You must be logged in to post comments.  [Become a member]

Bookmark and Share
Posted by spongessuck on 05/06/11


Who won the debate?

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-debates/index.html

 



Tags:

No comments yet.

You must be logged in to post comments.  [Become a member]

Bookmark and Share
Posted by spongessuck on 10/15/10


Found this linked on lewrockwell.com displaying the typical response from a government 'authority' when they don't recieve total submission.





Categories: Civil Liberties, Ethics, Video
Tags:

Showing comments 1—2 of 2

Posted 10/15/10

VictimOfFeds
San Clemente, CA
It's hard to see exactly what's going on here. We don't know what happened leading up to that.

If she got in his face three times, it's hard to justify her behavior. If he just attacked her without being provoked, that would be a different story.

If she got in my face just once, I might have retaliated so I'm not going to pass judgement on the officer quite yet. I will pass judgement on her though. She's a moron.
Posted 10/15/10

spongessuck
Glen Mills, PA
Her being belligerent doesn't justify his behavior- especially considering she was leaving, exactly as he told her, when he took her down. Plus, he keeps lifting her skirt up while he's on top of her- what's up with that? If you had retaliated like that, you'd serve jail time.

This guy could have held her at arms length if he felt threatened. If she became physical then, I'd say he was justified.


You must be logged in to post comments.  [Become a member]

Bookmark and Share
Posted by spongessuck on 07/31/09


I've sent this to local papers:

The President and the Democratic leadership in congress have been working extensively to get the White House's health care bill passed before the August recess, and for now it seems like they'll have to wait. This is wonderful news for all Americans and I'll tell you why.

First of all, people like to say that the objective of this bill is to cut health care costs. Proponents cite statistics that claim that the high cost of health care is because of excessive administrative costs and inflated prices, and that a single-payer system would cut these costs immensely and reduce health care prices for everyone. This is simply impossible. Even if the government were to somehow be less wasteful and more efficient than the insurance companies, you cannot increase the demand for health care (by having everyone insured) without increasing the supply (more doctors and hospitals) and expect costs to stay the same. The only way to offset the costs of this new demand is to ration care- precisely what happens in countries that already have government-funded health care. The people that would need care the most will be disregarded as being too expensive to heal.

Another provision that will inevitably make costs skyrocket is forcing insurers to cover treatment for preexisting conditions. Obviously people with preexisting conditions should have access to affordable care, but having this care covered under insurance will mean it is being used all the time. Insurers don't insure preexisting conditions because the customers they cover would be sicker overall, making everyone under the plan pay more. The fact that these preexisting conditions require constant care means that they could be much better treated through the market. Since there is constant demand for treatment, health care providers will compete to have people with preexisting conditions choose them for treatment- usually by being the most affordable.

That being said, the true purpose of this bill is to get everyone insured, regardless of the cost. In fact, the most infuriating thing about this bill is the penalty tax that would be levied on those who don't have a private insurer and don't get this new plan after it would pass. This provision is a blatantly regressive tax that will only hurt our poorest citizens, especially since the administration has admitted that there would still be millions left uninsured even with this plan in effect.

The real reason for the high cost of health care is the minimum coverage mandated by the states. As a result, health insurance isn't like other insurance. Where true insurance is supposed to cover unexpected costs, the states have forced health insurance to cover routine doctor visits and tests. Since everyone is using the insurance all the time, costs go up. Some states mandate coverage for procedures that many find ineffective, like chiropractic care or acupuncture. New York and New Jersey mandate maternity coverage for everyone- even if you're a single male. All of this unnecessary coverage is what's making costs so high. If people were able to personalize their plans and cover only what they need, it would cut costs tremendously.

In the end, it is precisely the government who is at fault for the high cost of health care, and making them more involved will only make things worse. If the government can provide affordable, quality medical coverage for all Americans, let them prove it by providing it to our veterans.

(Thanks to Adam de Angeli's post for the last sentence)





Categories: Health Freedom, Federal Legislation, Current Events, State Legislation
Tags:

No comments yet.

You must be logged in to post comments.  [Become a member]

Recent Entries

My long-winded argument with pro-socialized medicine 'liberals'
Fox News Poll: Which Candidate Would You Like To See Debate Obama?
SC Debate Poll on FoxNews.com
No Respect For Authority? Prepare To Be Assaulted
Why Obama's Health Care Bill Can't Work

 










Disclaimer: This website has moved. Please visit campaignforliberty.org






Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)4 lobbying organization which neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office and claims no
responsibility for the actions of individuals or groups of individuals who use the Campaign for Liberty logo or name or who may claim to act as
representatives of the Campaign for Liberty without prior written consent of the Campaign for Liberty. [?]