<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Price of Slavery</title>
	<atom:link href="http://triangle.ncfreedom.us/2010/02/22/the-price-of-slavery/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://triangle.ncfreedom.us/2010/02/22/the-price-of-slavery/</link>
	<description>Providing News and Opinions for North Carolina Patriots</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Aug 2010 10:23:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kelly</title>
		<link>http://triangle.ncfreedom.us/2010/02/22/the-price-of-slavery/#comment-119</link>
		<dc:creator>Kelly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:32:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://triangle.ncfreedom.us/?p=864#comment-119</guid>
		<description>Cost shift from Medicare and Medicaid cost us significantly more than people who don&#039;t pay their bills - I saw an article today that this adds 30% to costs in FL.  This bill does not address that - in fact, it cuts $500 B from the Medicare budget, threatening to make the problem even worse assuming that our senior citizens will be able to get the care they need.  Out of those that don&#039;t pay their bills, many are here illegally.  This bill does not address that either as illegals don&#039;t pay taxes and won&#039;t be paying the excise tax.  Therefore they will still get treated for free in the ER and will have no need for insurance. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Cost shift from Medicare and Medicaid cost us significantly more than people who don&#039;t pay their bills &#8211; I saw an article today that this adds 30% to costs in FL.  This bill does not address that &#8211; in fact, it cuts $500 B from the Medicare budget, threatening to make the problem even worse assuming that our senior citizens will be able to get the care they need.  Out of those that don&#039;t pay their bills, many are here illegally.  This bill does not address that either as illegals don&#039;t pay taxes and won&#039;t be paying the excise tax.  Therefore they will still get treated for free in the ER and will have no need for insurance.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kelly</title>
		<link>http://triangle.ncfreedom.us/2010/02/22/the-price-of-slavery/#comment-118</link>
		<dc:creator>Kelly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:25:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://triangle.ncfreedom.us/?p=864#comment-118</guid>
		<description>Furthermore, you do not have to have auto insurance.  You can choose to not have a car, and many states allow drivers to post bonds in lieu of insurance.  If we take his auto insurance analogy a bit further, we are not required to carry low to no deductible plans.  The insurance company also doesn&#039;t pay for routine maintenance.  People who tend to crash a lot get their policies cancelled and are put into high risk pools.  People who are more prone to accidents - ie, new drivers - pay significantly higher premiums, as do people who rack up a lot of points on their license.  Imagine if we had to buy our gas through an insurance company - people who don&#039;t drive very far would be subsidizing people who do.  Prius owners would be subsidizing SUV drivers.   And lastly - auto insurance companies are not required to cover cars that have already been wrecked. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Furthermore, you do not have to have auto insurance.  You can choose to not have a car, and many states allow drivers to post bonds in lieu of insurance.  If we take his auto insurance analogy a bit further, we are not required to carry low to no deductible plans.  The insurance company also doesn&#039;t pay for routine maintenance.  People who tend to crash a lot get their policies cancelled and are put into high risk pools.  People who are more prone to accidents &#8211; ie, new drivers &#8211; pay significantly higher premiums, as do people who rack up a lot of points on their license.  Imagine if we had to buy our gas through an insurance company &#8211; people who don&#039;t drive very far would be subsidizing people who do.  Prius owners would be subsidizing SUV drivers.   And lastly &#8211; auto insurance companies are not required to cover cars that have already been wrecked.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kelly</title>
		<link>http://triangle.ncfreedom.us/2010/02/22/the-price-of-slavery/#comment-120</link>
		<dc:creator>Kelly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:23:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://triangle.ncfreedom.us/?p=864#comment-120</guid>
		<description>Price is making 2 inaccurate assumptions  1) that all uninsured people don&#039;t pay their bills 2) paying directly for services is a bad thing. Many customers pay cash - for instance, the people who come here from countries such as Canada that already have a single-payer system.  Customers that have switched their coverage to consumer driven plans where they pay their bills directly are saving themselves and their employers money and their premiums have not seen the dramatic increases that traditional plans have had.  So, it  seems that less insurance is a actually a good thing. BTW - consumer driven plans and HSA&#039;s were created when Bush was in the White House and the Repubs had control of Congress.  So that, Obama, is what the repubs were doing over the past 10 yrs - conducting an incremental experiment that appears to be working without taking over 1/6 of the nations economy. 
 
 
 </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Price is making 2 inaccurate assumptions  1) that all uninsured people don&#039;t pay their bills 2) paying directly for services is a bad thing. Many customers pay cash &#8211; for instance, the people who come here from countries such as Canada that already have a single-payer system.  Customers that have switched their coverage to consumer driven plans where they pay their bills directly are saving themselves and their employers money and their premiums have not seen the dramatic increases that traditional plans have had.  So, it  seems that less insurance is a actually a good thing. BTW &#8211; consumer driven plans and HSA&#039;s were created when Bush was in the White House and the Repubs had control of Congress.  So that, Obama, is what the repubs were doing over the past 10 yrs &#8211; conducting an incremental experiment that appears to be working without taking over 1/6 of the nations economy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David DeGerolamo</title>
		<link>http://triangle.ncfreedom.us/2010/02/22/the-price-of-slavery/#comment-113</link>
		<dc:creator>David DeGerolamo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2010 05:09:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://triangle.ncfreedom.us/?p=864#comment-113</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa41.htm&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa41.htm&lt;/a&gt; 
Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms &quot;to raise money for the general welfare.&quot; 
 
But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? 
 
Madison clearly states that the general welfare only applies to what is defined in Artilce I, Section 8 </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa41.htm" target="_blank">http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa41.htm</a><br />
Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms &quot;to raise money for the general welfare.&quot; </p>
<p>But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? </p>
<p>Madison clearly states that the general welfare only applies to what is defined in Artilce I, Section 8</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: T Medlin</title>
		<link>http://triangle.ncfreedom.us/2010/02/22/the-price-of-slavery/#comment-112</link>
		<dc:creator>T Medlin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2010 15:48:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://triangle.ncfreedom.us/?p=864#comment-112</guid>
		<description>can you summarize what Madison said in Federalist paper 41? </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>can you summarize what Madison said in Federalist paper 41?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David DeGerolamo</title>
		<link>http://triangle.ncfreedom.us/2010/02/22/the-price-of-slavery/#comment-111</link>
		<dc:creator>David DeGerolamo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:47:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://triangle.ncfreedom.us/?p=864#comment-111</guid>
		<description>He also needs to read the bills that Congress is not even writing.  </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>He also needs to read the bills that Congress is not even writing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Fox</title>
		<link>http://triangle.ncfreedom.us/2010/02/22/the-price-of-slavery/#comment-110</link>
		<dc:creator>David Fox</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:04:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://triangle.ncfreedom.us/?p=864#comment-110</guid>
		<description>He needs to read the 10th amendment and the 9th amendment.  </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>He needs to read the 10th amendment and the 9th amendment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David DeGerolamo</title>
		<link>http://triangle.ncfreedom.us/2010/02/22/the-price-of-slavery/#comment-108</link>
		<dc:creator>David DeGerolamo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Feb 2010 01:02:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://triangle.ncfreedom.us/?p=864#comment-108</guid>
		<description>David Price&#039;s defense for health care legislation in this letter is the general welfare clause of the Constitution. As I pointed out to him previously in a public meeting, James Madison clarified the meaning of the general welfare clause in Federalist Paper 41. Either Mr. Price did not bother to read this clarification when pointed out to him or he does not care about whether the legislation is based on the Constitution. I will give him some credit. When I asked this question of him originally, he stated that the commerce clause and the general welfare clause gave him the Constitutional authority to support this legislation. I pointed out the government intervention does not allow the purchase of health care insurance across state lines so the interstate commerce clause does not apply. At least he now has dropped one of his two faulty premises. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>David Price&#039;s defense for health care legislation in this letter is the general welfare clause of the Constitution. As I pointed out to him previously in a public meeting, James Madison clarified the meaning of the general welfare clause in Federalist Paper 41. Either Mr. Price did not bother to read this clarification when pointed out to him or he does not care about whether the legislation is based on the Constitution. I will give him some credit. When I asked this question of him originally, he stated that the commerce clause and the general welfare clause gave him the Constitutional authority to support this legislation. I pointed out the government intervention does not allow the purchase of health care insurance across state lines so the interstate commerce clause does not apply. At least he now has dropped one of his two faulty premises.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben Ginsberg</title>
		<link>http://triangle.ncfreedom.us/2010/02/22/the-price-of-slavery/#comment-107</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben Ginsberg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2010 23:15:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://triangle.ncfreedom.us/?p=864#comment-107</guid>
		<description>This post may be improved by citing points from Mr. Price&#039;s email and specifically addressing them.  Somebody help me out and point out the major flaws... </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This post may be improved by citing points from Mr. Price&#039;s email and specifically addressing them.  Somebody help me out and point out the major flaws&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: @RandysRight</title>
		<link>http://triangle.ncfreedom.us/2010/02/22/the-price-of-slavery/#comment-106</link>
		<dc:creator>@RandysRight</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2010 21:44:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://triangle.ncfreedom.us/?p=864#comment-106</guid>
		<description>David Price is a Moonbat </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>David Price is a Moonbat</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
