Did you read what I wrote before? You'll find your answer.
And people wonder why I have call democrats treasonous at times.18 U.S.C. § 2381
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this le but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
it was a violation of allegiance toward one's country. it gave comfort and aid to our enemies.
they did it because they got caught in a lie. that is some serious chicken .
That aid and comfort line is often taken out of context. The classical interpretation means some sort of PHYSICAL aid and comfort, not just a show of support.
You lose at making your case.
It's not treason.
someone had to pay.
That is not what I mean. I mean real aid and comfort to their cause.
When US citizens attack other citizens for fighting against terrorism, that is aid and comfort. I'll leave you with that simple generality. I'm sure along those lines you can remember some serious examples that emboldened the enemy.
When US citizens attack other citizens for fighting against terrorism, that is aid and comfort.
Verbal, and other media attacks. Sorry I didn't specify.
you didn't have to specify.
i know what you've been programmed to say.
too bad that sucker had to pay, huh cob?
Now I see conservatives pointing to the ltter of the law when it comes to defining treason... yet with the healthcare debate they don't criticize the bill based on it's merits rather they make stuff up to scare people..
So I guess we need some clarification.. Is it the letter the word that matters?
All I have seen is on merit. Have you read any of HB 3200?
Yes. I don't see socailism or single payer system though? Would that mean anyone who uses this language is a liar?
No, because of the rules and regulations, they would put private insureres out of business.
Most of the bill just adds more layers of bureaucracy without addressing real health care practices.
Do you call that health care reform? I call it destroying health care.
You're just spouting propaganda!
Show me the real health care added in the bill please. How many pages. Maybe a dozen? How about the other 1,005 pages?
Propaganda!
With all due respect you can't have it both ways. Either you follow the letter of the law (or legislation) or you keep quiet about it.
Well, the public option is certainly socialist, but we have a long history of slight socialism in this country, so whatever.
But the bill (HR3200) is VERY fascist. The restrictions placed on private insurers are insane. The government has to approve you policy before you can sell it. The government tells you what your rate differentials can and can't be. The government tells you what benefits you can and cannot exclude. The government assigns the language you can use in your policy. The government declares a loss ratio you must maintain, and then tells you how to refund money until you get there.
And then despite all that (and with that much power to wield), the government is instructed to get people to move to the public option, whatever it takes.
One thing, rather early in HR3200 that makes the bill crap to me is that ALL individual policies must be purchased through the government sponsored Exchange. That is complete crap.
What page is that on?And then despite all that (and with that much power to wield), the government is instructed to get people to move to the public option, whatever it takes.
You miss what I say. HB 3200 changes the law so dramatically, it will, without doubt, put nearly all private insurers out of business. Only the very wealth will be able to afford to have private policies. We will only be left with government run insurance.
Prove it.it will, without doubt, put nearly all private insurers out of business.
Stop talking about healthcare in this thread.
I take that back, I must have misread pg 25 last time.
I'm no longer sure what the heck this section is referring to. I'm not even sure if this is what I saw originally, since I got sick of making notes while reading (and even then I didn't get more than halfway through since it was already obvious crap). It's been a little while since I was working my way through it.(b) BUILDING ON INTERIM RULES.—In implementing subsection (a), the Commissioner shall build on the definition and methodology developed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under the amendments made by section 161 for determining how to calculate the medical loss ratio. Such methodology shall be set at the highest level medical loss ratio possible that is designed to ensure adequate participation by QHBP offering en ies, compe ion in the health insurance market in and out of the Health Insurance Exchange, and value for consumers so that their premiums are used for services.
You're right. Sorry about that. I should have never answered George's question. I hate it myself when threads get sidetracked, but I don't realize it till it's already derailed.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote