TheCommander's comment history

TheCommander said...

Is it not amazing that the same people who claim that we cannot control our sexual desires at the same time claim that man has the power and responsibility to control the climate?

March 31, 2014 at 9:05 p.m.
TheCommander said...

Sharon Guy said (and not the Bible) - "God is in charge of deciding human destiny. Who do you think you are to meddle in the destiny of others?"

The idea of a personal destiny is fatalism which is a philosophy that comes from paganism and is no where taught in the Bible. God has put your future in your hands and in your hands alone. Maybe you don't like the freedom that God gave to man to make his own choices but it cannot be denied. What the liberal critic really doesn't like is the responsibility and consequences that come from man's choices. When one makes a claim of destiny, it is very easy to push all blame onto God Himself, is it not?

March 31, 2014 at 7:35 p.m.
TheCommander said...

Plato, I am not calling you a liar. However, you just repeated the greatest liberal lie in the entire healthcare debate in your statement:

"not funding Medicaid and sending people to the ERs"

I believe your numbers on Erlanger's losses but you believe that the uninsured flood the emergency rooms and then don't pay. That is factually incorrect. Medicaid drives people to the emergency room !!!

Don't believe me. Don't believe Ayn Rand. Don't believe Tea Party Patriots. How about a study by Harvard in the state of Oregon:

90,000 people. 30,000 were given medicaid by lottery. The results: the 30,000 with medicaid went to the ER 40% more than the other 60,000!!!

Medicaid expansion will drive even more to Erlanger, the price caps force the hospital to operate at a loss on each and every patient. Erlanger's financial results will get even worse the more you expand medicaid. Again, go back to my rent control example in NYC if you want to see the future.

Here is the link to the study:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6168/263.abstract

BTW, how can you make the claim with certainty that the uninsured don't pay anything? Any documentation? If you have info, I would like to see it.

March 12, 2014 at 7:31 p.m.
TheCommander said...

I know nothing of Ayn Rand. My problem is this once again: "it's a huge benefit to the states". You cannot have a benefit without cost. Whether the benefit comes directly from Washington to us or it comes through two layers (federal and then state) the ultimate costs rest on us directly in taxation. Liberals do not understand this one principle: government spending IS taxation. When they spend, you are taxed. If you are not taxed enough directly, then borrowing and printing makes up the difference which drives inflation which acts as a tax as well.

You are right about one thing for sure: I am a total fool by your definition. I e-mail my local politicians often about them running our state, counties and cities using so-called federal dollars. Haslam has mastered the art of coming to town with a new state or federal grant in his hand for the local mayor to show off. The results are huge increases in debt and massive growth in local government almost universally which we will leave to our kids.

I am a fool because I absolutely and consistently say "turn it down"!! If you really care about those who need healthcare, offer to pay someones bill at a walk-in clinic. it might sooth your conscience. The more we legislate rights, it is those very things that start as universal rights that become the object of allocation programs due to scarcity of resources. Did Ayn Rand say all that?

March 11, 2014 at 10:23 p.m.
TheCommander said...

Answer me this question:

Is "Taxpayers send(ing) their money to Washington" and then demanding they have a "right to receive benefit for it" the "smart" or the "stupid" way to do it?

Show me ANY ONE area that the government delivers a product or service more cost effectively and with more universal access than the private market? To illustrate let's apply your principles in another area that is even more critical than healthcare: let's scrap our current food distribution system in America, send a standard amount of food money to Washington every year and then declare food a universal right in legislation.

How will that workout? You can scream Tea Party !! Tea Party !! all you want but government involvement in any and all areas leads to a loss of personal freedom and scarcity of the very thing it declares to you to be a right. If it worked, I would be for it. We just have too much human history that clearly tells us that government needs to be limited to its basic functions and run just those basics as poorly as we all expect they would.

March 11, 2014 at 9:14 p.m.
TheCommander said...

Obamacare will operate much like the history of NYC rent control:

I remember driving through the Bronx everyday as a kid on the Cross Bronx Expressway wondering why all the buildings were burned down? Years later I learned the answer from Milton Friedman:

Rent caps on apartments made it impossible to own, operate and maintain apartment buildings there. The owners had buildings in which they could not turn a profit so it was better to burn them to the ground.

Liberals do not and I believe cannot understand that there is a difference between price and cost but I'll try one more time:

Legislating price caps will make the crowds cheer because their prices will seemingly go down or at least be frozen, but the true cost does not evaporate; it remains. This only results in scarcity. It results in reduced supply; reduced services offered. ECON 101

March 10, 2014 at 9:49 p.m.
TheCommander said...

Plato said:

"who now will have to pick up the tab for Erlangers $92 Million charity care expense, and every other hospital with similar expenses, which have to be passed on to those of us"

What do you mean by "now"? How would complying to the demands of Obamacare evaporate that cost into thin air so that we don't have to "pick up the tab"? I guess there are a lot of people on this forum who still believe that Washington is the true source of our national wealth that is still yet untapped.

March 10, 2014 at 9:22 p.m.
TheCommander said...

Dear Pam, what a persuasive argument you made for common core: If you disagree with the Chamber of Commerce talking points - you are "wrong, wrong, wrong".

Wow. You said "wrong" three whole times!! That is a really persuasive argument there Cicero. Is that an example of those critical thinking skills our kids will be taught?

I received a mailing this week at my house sponsored by the 4 major regional Chamber's of Commerce in TN that regurgitate the same propaganda you just spewed. At your next chamber meeting, tell your buddies Ron Harr (Chattanooga)and Gary Farlow (Bradley) and the other board members that me and others are using their tax payer funded mailing to go door to door to show our neighbors who really is behind common core. I will keep spreading my "misinformation". I promise you that your all out media blitz for common core will backfire on you, the governor, the chamber, Bill Gates, Arne Duncan, Kevin Huffman, Michele Rhee etc...

You are on the wrong side of history. Parents in all states, of all political persuasions, of all religions or no religion at all are realizing the the total failure, high cost and content hollowness of common core.

Isn't it interesting to see a liberal leftist like you and the Chamber of Commerce working together? The progressive movement is being exposed and judged a failure as it should be.

March 1, 2014 at 12:40 a.m.
TheCommander said...

The smartest man in the world said:

"the only thing that would truly make him a "socialist dictator," as the teabagging loonies often call him, is if he should attempt in any way to take over business and put it under government control. THAT would be actual socialism."

Spending tax payer money on GM and then putting the UAW in front of bond holders (owners) is not socialism "in any way"?

Federal take over of the whole student loan program is not socialism "in any way"?

How about the Federal lawsuit against ITT tech filed in Indiana? You can find the article in this weeks TFP archives. The government says a private for-profit business is charging too much and making unfair 1 year same-as-cash loans. Yes - the government is actually trying to make the case that they do a better and more cost efficient job of managing higher education than private industry!! This is a frivolous federal lawsuit by the Obama administration against a private business that out-competes the government alternative in the hopes of driving them out of business. Is this not socialism "in any way"?

That is all I can think of off the top of my head...

February 28, 2014 at 7:38 p.m.
TheCommander said...

At the Direction of the local Chamber's of Commerce we are opening up Industrial parks with tax payer dollars everywhere.

In Cleveland, we gave Alan Jones $5 mil for his worthless property at exit 20 that I bet would not be worth 10% of that price on a true open market. So go ahead Pam (I assume she wrote this editorial) and encourage the Chamber and our lovely mayor to throw away tax dollars on more redevelopment schemes that enrich a certain few developers.

Pam, you did a good job of detailing the secrecy of these quasi-government organizations and how they have the cover to not disclose their business dealings: Port, Housing and airport authorities. Industrial development boards. Redevelopment boards.

Now just put it all together: don't you understand this is what always happens when government is allowed to get involved in things that have nothing to do with governing? Government caused this housing problem and now government will use a secretive Housing Authority who obviously feels it has everything to hide to come up with the solution.

keep living the progressive utopian dream!!

February 26, 2014 at 9:47 p.m.
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.