8 Facts That Prove the Tea Party Is Ignorant of the U.S. Constitution

ZappasGuitar said:
If you are going to claim Hawaii enjoys a lower than usual crime rate they you've got to provide some figures to back that up.

It's unbelievable that you will post a laundry list of "reasons" Hawaiians live longer and provide virtually NO evidence supporting your claim, but you absolutely refuse to entertain the possibility that Hawaiians live longer because they have access to better, more affordable health insurance than most.
Click to expand...

I don't need to go find links to statistical data, it's available for you to search just like it was available for me to search. I'm not your data bitch! And I don't need to prove that living longer is exclusively attributable to better health care access, that has been debunked as well, by your buddies here!

If you are too stupid to comprehend that Hawaii has fewer roads to drive on, therefore, fewer people die on them... then so be it! Go find the statistics and prove me wrong, if that's important to you! I'm willing to bet they have one of the lowest traffic fatality rates per capita of any state. Fewer people dying in car wrecks, contributes to the average life expectancy, it doesn't take a genius to figure that out.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Well last time I checked, planes were able to take off and land on most, if not all the Hawaiian islands so your claim that Hawaiians are restricted as to how many miles they can travel is just ludicrous.
Click to expand...

How many people died last year in Hawaii, as a result of plane crashes? I'll bet it's not very many! In other words, it's a moot point.
 
apple0154 said:
Nice try. Do your government run hospitals practice preventive medicine such as offer free check-ups to people? While the logic may escape you medical problems diagnosed early result in better rates of recovery and few people will pay for a doctor's visit if they do not feel ill.
Click to expand...

Apple, there is no such thing as a "free check up." This is where you are completely off your rocker. Someone has to pay for EVERY check up, they aren't done for "free" anywhere by anyone or for anyone. What do you do for a living? Do you do this for FREE? My guess is, you don't... unless you are mooching off the government for a living... in that case, you can do that for free! But most of our society works for a living, and we get paid by someone... we don't do what we do for "free!"
 
Dixie said:
Apple, there is no such thing as a "free check up." This is where you are completely off your rocker. Someone has to pay for EVERY check up, they aren't done for "free" anywhere by anyone or for anyone. What do you do for a living? Do you do this for FREE? My guess is, you don't... unless you are mooching off the government for a living... in that case, you can do that for free! But most of our society works for a living, and we get paid by someone... we don't do what we do for "free!"
Click to expand...

You seem to be hung up on the word "free". When I drive to Florida I don't pay anyone to use I-95. When I go to the beach I didn't have to pay the guy who cleans/rakes the sand and I didn't notice anyone else giving him money. Same with the lifeguard.

If people can drive on the interstates and go to the beach and not have to pay then let's use that same system to be able to go to a hospital/medical facility. If you don't like calling it "free" let's pick another word. What word would you like?
 
apple0154 said:
What is there to debunk? Eskimos eating fish?
Click to expand...

So you do understand that you've disproven nothing that was presented.
Good for you; because I was starting to believe that you had been running in circles so long, that you were unable to see anything but the left turn lane.
 
apple0154 said:
You seem to be hung up on the word "free". When I drive to Florida I don't pay anyone to use I-95. When I go to the beach I didn't have to pay the guy who cleans/rakes the sand and I didn't notice anyone else giving him money. Same with the lifeguard.

If people can drive on the interstates and go to the beach and not have to pay then let's use that same system to be able to go to a hospital/medical facility. If you don't like calling it "free" let's pick another word. What word would you like?
Click to expand...

We all pay for the highways, parks and whatnot, we pay taxes. Do you think the guy who rakes the sand just does it because he likes raking sand? Someone has to pay him, maybe the condo owner? Maybe the city or county? Maybe when you rent the condo, a portion of that goes to pay him? Whatever the case, I guarantee you he is getting paid to rake the sand, and not doing it for free. Now, if you can comprehend that he is definitely getting paid and not doing it for free, you can certainly comprehend that someone is having to pay for it. If the sand rakers all got together and said, we won't rake sand for less than $1,000 a day... I suspect you would see very few rakers of sand. If the government stepped in and mandated that condos must hire sand rakers and pay them $1,000 a day, I imagine the cost of renting a condo would go up dramatically, whether you wanted sand rakers or not. Or maybe condos would simply go out of business?

Apple, you seem to lack basic economic skills, I don't know if you are just really this stupid, or pretending to be. Again, no such thing as "free check ups" and doctors generally charge more than your typical sand raker. Someone's got to pay the doctor, and in this case, you want ME to pay, I am the taxpayer. The problem is, we live in a society where people will literally trample each other at midnight, to buy a plasma screen TV for $89.95. If you tell every crackpot and hypochondriac in our nation of 340 million, that we are giving away FREE HEALTH CARE... there is going to be a problem, several actually. First of all, a demand problem, secondly, a supply problem. Now the demand problem is remedied by spreading the cost out over all the people, but the cost will be enormous due to abuse of resources. The supply problem is the real titty-twister, you can't just shit out more doctors. The thing about doctoring is, it takes a long time and a lot of investment to become one. So you've got this situation where the system is over-burdened by demand, and becoming more demanding, which causes fewer people to consider going into the field, it's just not worth it. They can take the same educational money and become engineers or scientists, and get a much less stressful job. As demand increases more and more, and less people are attracted to the health care field, there will be only one way to maintain any sort of system at all, and this is through rationing health care. A central body will have to determine what is and isn't legitimate, and what you can and can't have done. To some smaller extent, insurance carriers have been doing this, but in your system, there isn't a 800 number to call and complain, and no insurance commissioner to harass, you must accept whatever health care is doled out by government, and be grateful for it.
 
Poor doublewide...

Again;

Hawaii's health care system insures 92% (2009) of residents.

Under the state's plan, businesses are required to provide insurance to employees who work more than twenty hours per week.

Heavy regulation of insurance companies helps keep the cost to employers down.

Due in part to heavy emphasis on preventive care, Hawaiians require hospital treatment less frequently than the rest of the United States, while total health care expenses (measured as a percentage of state GDP) are substantially lower.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii#Health


Also, Hawaiis' ranking in automobile fatalities is here:

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/ranks/rank39.html
 
\(())/ said:
Poor doublewide...

Again;

Hawaii's health care system insures 92% (2009) of residents.

Under the state's plan, businesses are required to provide insurance to employees who work more than twenty hours per week.

Heavy regulation of insurance companies helps keep the cost to employers down.

Due in part to heavy emphasis on preventive care, Hawaiians require hospital treatment less frequently than the rest of the United States, while total health care expenses (measured as a percentage of state GDP) are substantially lower.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii#Health


Also, Hawaiis' ranking in automobile fatalities is here:

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/ranks/rank39.html
Click to expand...

How many times are you going to re-post the same info? Do you think people can't find your previous post by simply scrolling up? Your very own source admits that Hawaiians require hospital treatment less frequently IN PART because of preventative care. That means that it's only PART OF the reason and not the ONLY reason, as you and Apple have indicated. My argument has been that NUMEROUS factors contribute to longevity, and that it's not exclusively tied to health care availability. So, by the evidence you have submitted, you and Apple have been totally debunked, and I have been proven correct. This makes it even more amusing that you will continue to idiotically re-post the evidence.

Also, your statistics on Hawaii traffic fatalities is calculated based on 'per 100 million miles' which I would assume, takes much longer to obtain on an isolated island than the wide open continental united states. All your statistic shows is that Hawaiian drivers are about average, in terms of driving safely. Kudos to them, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the point I made. You are so fucking lost at this point, you don't even comprehend what the argument is anymore, you are just flailing about, trying to land a punch, and not being successful at it. Poor rootbeer!
 
Dixie said:
We all pay for the highways, parks and whatnot, we pay taxes. Do you think the guy who rakes the sand just does it because he likes raking sand? Someone has to pay him, maybe the condo owner? Maybe the city or county? Maybe when you rent the condo, a portion of that goes to pay him? Whatever the case, I guarantee you he is getting paid to rake the sand, and not doing it for free. Now, if you can comprehend that he is definitely getting paid and not doing it for free, you can certainly comprehend that someone is having to pay for it. If the sand rakers all got together and said, we won't rake sand for less than $1,000 a day... I suspect you would see very few rakers of sand. If the government stepped in and mandated that condos must hire sand rakers and pay them $1,000 a day, I imagine the cost of renting a condo would go up dramatically, whether you wanted sand rakers or not. Or maybe condos would simply go out of business?

Apple, you seem to lack basic economic skills, I don't know if you are just really this stupid, or pretending to be. Again, no such thing as "free check ups" and doctors generally charge more than your typical sand raker. Someone's got to pay the doctor, and in this case, you want ME to pay, I am the taxpayer. The problem is, we live in a society where people will literally trample each other at midnight, to buy a plasma screen TV for $89.95. If you tell every crackpot and hypochondriac in our nation of 340 million, that we are giving away FREE HEALTH CARE... there is going to be a problem, several actually. First of all, a demand problem, secondly, a supply problem. Now the demand problem is remedied by spreading the cost out over all the people, but the cost will be enormous due to abuse of resources. The supply problem is the real titty-twister, you can't just shit out more doctors. The thing about doctoring is, it takes a long time and a lot of investment to become one. So you've got this situation where the system is over-burdened by demand, and becoming more demanding, which causes fewer people to consider going into the field, it's just not worth it. They can take the same educational money and become engineers or scientists, and get a much less stressful job. As demand increases more and more, and less people are attracted to the health care field, there will be only one way to maintain any sort of system at all, and this is through rationing health care. A central body will have to determine what is and isn't legitimate, and what you can and can't have done. To some smaller extent, insurance carriers have been doing this, but in your system, there isn't a 800 number to call and complain, and no insurance commissioner to harass, you must accept whatever health care is doled out by government, and be grateful for it.
Click to expand...

The cost won't be enormous as shown by every country that currently has government healh care. Every country with government health care provides it at a cost less than the US/pp. As for the great rush it can be implemented over time. Perhaps start with general check-ups. As for the cost of education it could be subsidized so when a doctor graduates they work for the government at a reduced rate while paying back the loan. People would jump at the offer, a chance to get an education as a doctor even if they had to work a number of years paying back the loan. The government would benefit. The citizens would benefit. It would be a win-win and also another win situation; the doctor, the government and the citizens. A virtual trifecta!

As for " rationing health care. A central body will have to determine what is and isn't legitimate, and what you can and can't have done" you don't understand how government medical works. It is not like an insurance company. The government does not interfere on an individual basis. Yes, they have a "can do" and "can't do" list but the difference between a government list and an insurance company list is the government list has to cover every citizen resulting in more illnesses being covered than any individual policy would cover. An analogy would be a government home insurance policy. People living in the desert would be covered for flood damage because people who lived near water would require such coverage and there would be one policy for all.

Look at all the countries that have government health care. Besides the few disgruntled, I-deserve-special-treatment whiners not one country has reverted to the "pay or suffer" system and there's not one country contemplating doing so. After witnessing dozens of countries over the last 50 years showing an equal or longer life expectancy coupled with an average 1/3 cost savings there isn't any argument that stands up to scrutiny.
 
apple0154 said:
The cost won't be enormous as shown by every country that currently has government healh care. Every country with government health care provides it at a cost less than the US/pp. As for the great rush it can be implemented over time. Perhaps start with general check-ups. As for the cost of education it could be subsidized so when a doctor graduates they work for the government at a reduced rate while paying back the loan. People would jump at the offer, a chance to get an education as a doctor even if they had to work a number of years paying back the loan. The government would benefit. The citizens would benefit. It would be a win-win and also another win situation; the doctor, the government and the citizens. A virtual trifecta!

As for " rationing health care. A central body will have to determine what is and isn't legitimate, and what you can and can't have done" you don't understand how government medical works. It is not like an insurance company. The government does not interfere on an individual basis. Yes, they have a "can do" and "can't do" list but the difference between a government list and an insurance company list is the government list has to cover every citizen resulting in more illnesses being covered than any individual policy would cover. An analogy would be a government home insurance policy. People living in the desert would be covered for flood damage because people who lived near water would require such coverage and there would be one policy for all.

Look at all the countries that have government health care. Besides the few disgruntled, I-deserve-special-treatment whiners not one country has reverted to the "pay or suffer" system and there's not one country contemplating doing so. After witnessing dozens of countries over the last 50 years showing an equal or longer life expectancy coupled with an average 1/3 cost savings there isn't any argument that stands up to scrutiny.
Click to expand...

do these other countries have a US Constitution with a Supreme Court which upholds Constitutional rights? If not, they do not apply and can't be compared to the US. Simple as that, moron!
 
Dixie said:
....Also, your statistics on Hawaii traffic fatalities is calculated based on 'per 100 million miles' which I would assume, takes much longer to obtain on an isolated island than the wide open continental united states. All your statistic shows is that Hawaiian drivers are about average, in terms of driving safely. Kudos to them, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the point I made..
Click to expand...


Dixie said:
Well, as a matter of fact, because Hawaii is an ISLAND, and people are restricted as to how many miles they can travel, there are far fewer highway fatalities, which contributes to longer lives on average. Can you refute that fact, or not?
Click to expand...


LOL....
 
\(())/ said:
LOL....
Click to expand...

I don't know why you think that is so funny, it's not a contradiction. You are trying to make an apple into an orange and argue they are alike because they are both fruits. Your statistic is an average of fatalities per 100 million miles driven, all it shows is who has the safest drivers. I never argued that people in Hawaii are safer drivers or not safe drivers, only that fewer traffic fatalities (per capita) happen there, because they have fewer roads and on average, drive less. Fewer people dying each year in traffic fatalities, is one of numerous factors to why they live longer. You still have failed to refute that point, and you can't. It doesn't matter how much you and Apple want to refute me, because I am right and you are wrong. But you are both more than welcome to keep trying, I am amused by your thick-headed idiocy.
 
Dixie said:
do these other countries have a US Constitution with a Supreme Court which upholds Constitutional rights? If not, they do not apply and can't be compared to the US. Simple as that, moron!
Click to expand...

So your argument against government health care is not concerned with whether it's good or bad. Your argument is you think the constitution forbids it, right?
 
apple0154 said:
If people can drive on the interstates and go to the beach and not have to pay then let's use that same system to be able to go to a hospital/medical facility. If you don't like calling it "free" let's pick another word. What word would you like?
Click to expand...

how about "paid for by someone else"......
 
Dixie said:
I don't know why you think that is so funny, it's not a contradiction. You are trying to make an apple into an orange and argue they are alike because they are both fruits. Your statistic is an average of fatalities per 100 million miles driven, all it shows is who has the safest drivers. I never argued that people in Hawaii are safer drivers or not safe drivers, only that fewer traffic fatalities (per capita) happen there, because they have fewer roads and on average, drive less. Fewer people dying each year in traffic fatalities, is one of numerous factors to why they live longer. You still have failed to refute that point, and you can't. It doesn't matter how much you and Apple want to refute me, because I am right and you are wrong. But you are both more than welcome to keep trying, I am amused by your thick-headed idiocy.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it's you with the thick head. You talk about driving and food and lifestyle having a significant impact on longevity when dozens of different countries with varying foods and lifestyles and highways ALL have longer life expectancies. Germany, with the autobahn having a suggested speed of 80 mph with no specific speed limit would, under your nonsensical argument, show a decreased lifespan. However, that's not the case.

High consumption of wine in France. High consumption of fatty dairy products in Norway and Belgium (Ever have Belgium Butters, a cookie/pastry consisting of 20% butter?) High driving speeds in Germany. The citizens in those countries all enjoy a longer lifespan and they all have government medical.

For Pete's sake, not to mention for the sake of intelligent posters here, do some research. If you're against government medical because you think it goes against the constitution or you don't care if poor people die then come right out and say so but stop making a fool of yourself by posting idiotic reasons why government medical is either of no use or is detrimental to the people. It has been proven over the last 50+ years that citizens in virtually every industrialized country with government medical live longer; food, booze and highway speeds notwithstanding. I'm surprised you haven't suggested their longevity is due to their speaking a foreign language.

Get a grip on reality, Dix.
 
apple0154 said:
So your argument against government health care is not concerned with whether it's good or bad. Your argument is you think the constitution forbids it, right?
Click to expand...

something that your mind seems unable to comprehend was that the framers created a LIMITED government. One that had finite powers and could only do so much, because they had just finished their relationship with a government that believed it could do anything it wanted to, for the peoples own benefit of course. So yes, the constitution does forbid the government from doing lots of things. Unfortunately, we've got people nowadays that would use the constitution for toilet paper, yourself included, simply because you believe it restricts the government too much, not realizing that the framers provided those severe restrictions for a very good reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top