Article Image
IPFS News Link • Constitution

The Answer to the Question

• thinkactlive's blog
I don’t usually comment on things in the news unless I have something to say that I haven’t heard anyone else say. Two times in the past couple days I’ve seen someone either not answer, or give the wrong answer, to a question regarding the healthcare bill.

2 Comments in Response to

Comment by Anonymous
Entered on:

Wrong!!!  Any answer is Wrong!!!  They frame questions that way because they only way you can answer is Wrong!!!

(s)tates "get to" require insurance because the federal regulations imposed upon their continued receipt of "federal" money; because they  "get to" require a "license" for "federal personnel" to "operate" in thier jurisdiction.

Comment by Anonymous
Entered on:


Parrots don't think. Most of them are living machine mimicking this sound and fury against the healthcare bill just signed into law. Many poor people who couldn't afford health insurance are against it because they are prevented from dying at their own choice without healthcare or medical services they couldn’t afford anyway, to pay to a monopoly of big medical corporations in the country that skin them alive, until this law was passed by Congress.

Rich people are also against it because to fund this arbitrary healthcare law Obama will tax them dry until they drop dead so that the dying poor may live. But Obama forgot that the freedom to die without medical care is a constitutional guarantee of freedom of choice. Only a devilish dictator forces the dying to live in order to suffer more.

Let's abolish this law before it hurts more people. Let’s celebrate free enterprise. Let the private healthcare industry dictate the price without any government intervention, and decide the fate of every individual in a free market society. Freedom lives. Those who want to survive must pay the price monopolists dictate in a free market system ... those who refuse or couldn't afford to pay, well, give them their freedom to die.

Don’t you think this is better than just parroting a disagreement? Those for or against it have vested interests anyway. They would go to the extent of buying hell to protect their interest. It is not a question of right or wrong, or whether it is good or bad. There is no real economics to it. Talks of trillion-dollar debts, political contusions that render our Constitution comatose, socialism and what have you are only to protect my interest against yours or your interest against mine.