Socialized Health Care: Wave Of The Future?

Lisa, the Liberal, says to you, "It's a shame health care is having such a horrible time getting passed. Look at all the other countries having it. Why, we're just old fashioned. It's the wave of the future. I just feel it is, and that's all that is necessary to say about it!"
Your reply:" Insane Child, just because you feel something about something does not mean what you feel is true. The universe does not orbit around your precious feelings. You feel that socialized health care is the wave of the future? Not in the real world. Let's look at Claude Castonguay, the father of Quebec's Medicare. In 1966 he was asked by Quebec's premier to lead a royal commission to study health care reform. He recommended a public health insurance system. The Quebec government took his advice, and by 1972 all the provinces of Canada had established socialized medical care. Many years later in 2007 the Quebec government was desperately looking for more money as socialized health care had turned out to cost far more than projected. In 2008, Castonguay reported back that health care was in a crisis and called for a greater role to be played by the private sector. That is, liberal Lisa, his recommendation was that more health care needed to come from the private sector. This is what happens when the government offers something "free" to certain groups of people, which means that the government is robbing Peter, the pay poor old Paul. The poor old Pauls overuse the "free" system, and it runs out of money. Taking money from people and giving it to other people is not being on the path of love. It is being on the path of hate. People who would willingly give money to others are certainly on the path of love, but you are on the path of hate if you use force to make them do that. This is why democrats, socialists, communists, and other collectivists are all on the path of hate. They are morally inferior to conservatives, libertarians, and other individualists who do not believe in forcing you to give to others. For Christian communists, socialists, and other Chrisitian collectivists, let me point out that Christ never proposed forcing people to give to the poor. What you propose is morally wrong too. Peter Nickerson, MS, MSW 352-359-0850.

"Who Is Responsible For The Economic Crisis?"

Without discussing the etiology of the Community Reinvestment Act, I would say that Barney Talks-Like-He-Still-Has-A-Big-One-In-His-Mouth Franks is most responsible. Probably influenced by his boyfriend at the time who had a high position at Fannie Mae, Barney Frank berated anyone who blew the whistle or even questioned the security of what Fannie Mae was doing with insuring extremely risky home loans. As a true Demonrat, he attacked good people with good questions instead of answering their questions. His favorite tactic was to call such people "rascists" or imply that they were. Peter "Two-Guns" Nickerson, MS, MSW

"Isn't Obama Doing A Good Job Of Protecting Our Country?"

We have had two terrorist attacks with Obama at the helm: one in Fort Hood with about thirteen dead, and one over Detroit with only the terrorist burned by the partial detonation in an airplane of his crotch-bomb. Bush allowed one terrorist attack on 9-11-201 which was a huge one. But it was the only one for seven more years. Obama's been in less than a year, and he's allowed two. Obama blames Bush for everything negative as if Bush not Obama was running the presidency still. If Bush were in charge, we would not had two successful terrorist attacks in the last year. So no, the great slave-master, Obama, is not doing a goood job of protecting this country from terrorists. Nor are his fellow communists or useful idiots having a successful time with communist double-speak about terrorism. Janet Napolitano, the head of Homeland Security, initially tried to tell the nation that the system had worked with the crotch-bomber. When there was a howl of outrage at her lie, she recanted, saying the system had not worked. So much for the Obama's administration's attempt for double-speak. It backfired on it. So Obama's chief advisor for counter-intelligence was next paraded out in an attempt at lying and word-weaseling. His lie was that "there was no smoking gun." Of course, there was a smoking gun. It was the visit paid to the American Embassy in Nigeria by the crotch-bomber's father, a prominent Nigerian banker, who told the sleeping CIA agents that his son had become a radicalized Muslin, and he was worried about what he might do. Instead of recruiting the father into becoming a spy for our country, the CIA apparently ignored the father's warning and continued its sleep undisturbed. John Brenner then did his word-weaseling: he tried to trivialize the father's warning by saying that there were "bits and pieces of intelligence like the father's report" but is was all unworthy of alarm. Anyone but Insane Children could see through both of these clowns' acts. No, we are not safe. The great slave-master Obama has guaranteed that today by annnouncing that there will be no finger-pointing. In other words, no one will be held accountable. Rome burns while the Insane Children fiddle! Peter "Two-Guns" Nickerson, MS. MSW at 352-359-0850.

"I Don't Like All These Companies Making A Profit!"

"Then maybe you'd like them to fail, and then see what you can find when you go shopping. Or maybe you'd rather have them offerring some other product to the consumer that the consumer doesn't want and won't buy. Then they would have no profit. Since you don't like profits, I take it that you work and don't make a profit? I will bet that you make a higher profit from your job than any American company makes. You clear $500 a week after the government steals about a third of your paycheck, don't you? Is that 100 percent profit or do you have some work expenses? You drive to work? Could you take a bus, a bike or a walk instead? The IRS does not recognize your commute to work as a work expense, but that's government. You use your car for many other things besides work, but say we generously give you $50 a week for gas to get to work and another $150 for car expenses. We'll give you a generous $50 a week for work clothing. That makes $250 a week for work expenses. You bring home $500 a week. That gives you a profit of $250 for a profit rate of 50 percent. That is unheard of for any company in America. You need to quit complaining about how much profit other people are making. "