San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, May 12, 2017

Reporter Gets What He Deserves

Samantha Schmidt of the Washington Post reported a story yesterday about an incident in the Capitol building of West Virginia.  Here is some of what she wrote, "As Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price walked through a hallway Tuesday in the West Virginia Capitol, veteran reporter Dan Heyman followed along side him, holding up his phone to Price while attempting to ask him a question.  Heyman...repeatedly asked the secretary whether domestic violence would be considered a pre-existing condition under the Republican bill to overhaul the nation's health care system....'He didn't say anything so I persisted,' said Heyman.  Then, an officer in the Capitol pulled him aside, handcuffed him and arrested him.  Heyman was charged  with 'willful disruption of state government processes' and was released on $5,000 bail....Heyman insists he was simply fulfilling his role as a journalist and feels that his arrest sets a 'terrible example' for members of the press seeking answers to questions."  There is so much wrong in this report I have to write about it today.
First of all, is "domestic violence" considered to be a "pre-existing condition" under Obamacare?  I have never heard of that provision before.  In search of an answer I googled the above question.  Here is what I found on CNN's website:  "Jody Neal-Post has been reading about the health care law debate with worry these days. She's worried about how the new health care law won't carry protections for all people with pre-existing conditions. She is relatively healthy, but before Obamacare, she had a hard time getting insurance because of what some companies considered a pre-existing condition: She is a domestic violence survivor."  Well there it is! When some guy beats his ho the ho has a right to my money for some reason that I do not understand.  Praise Obamacare!
Second of all, there is no such thing as a "health care system" in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  All that exists in this immoral land is socialized medicine in which the state has decided to take money from productive members of society like myself and give it to non-productive members of society to use to pay their health insurance bills.  I will pay $14,800 this year for health insurance.  Health insurance is my second biggest fixed expense and I an estimating that in 2018 it will become my biggest fixed expense.  The average family of four will pay $14,370 in health insurance premiums this year.  That is roughly 20% of the average income for a family of four.  Career politicians and recipients of subsidies consider this to be a good state of affairs.  Those who make the average income for a family of four make too much money for Obamacare subsidies so they end up paying the bills for those who make less.   Reporter Heyman wanted to make sure this process of fleecing the middle class will continue under the Republican socialized medical plan so he badgered Price with his question, hoping to get some sort of reaction from him.
Reporters, for the most part, are obnoxious jerks.  The report stated that he was "attempting to ask him a question" when, in fact, he was quite successful at asking Price the same question multiple times.  The issue is not whether reporter Heyman had the right to ask Price a question.  The issue is when Heyman's questioning progressed from questioning to badgering.  In my experience most reporters are experts at badgering.  When a person refuses to answer a question the first time it is asked the reporter should accept that and walk away.  They never do.  Instead, they ask the same question over again, a little bit louder.  When they still get no answer they escalate things even more. 
Heyman was arrested for "willful disruption of state government processes."  That is a lovely charge.  As citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika we should all be aware that career politicians are gods and we are not to disturb them.  The only time we should address one of our deities is when they have first addressed us.  Otherwise we are willfully disrupting their divine activities.  Those who do so will be arrested. 
I learned several lessons from this story.  I learned that career politicians are gods.  I learned that cops, despite their mantra about "serving and protecting" the citizens of this country, really protect career politicians.  I learned that reporters are obnoxious jerks. That was not a surprise.  And I learned that the best thing for the citizens of this immoral country to do is keep our heads down, our mouths shut and hope that the powers that be leave us alone.  Hopefully the Empire will soon come crashing down and we can begin again, the next time as free men and women. 

Thursday, May 11, 2017

My Pastoral Political Advice For You

A week or so ago King Donnie issued an Executive Order to the Internal Revenue Service telling that immoral agency to stop enforcing the rule that forbids pastors of churches from making specific political recommendations.  Maybe you were aware of the rule.  I don't know when the rule was first created but its intention was to ensure that no church leader could ever endorse a candidate for political office without jeopardizing the tax-exempt status of his church.  Since losing tax-exempt status would create financial havoc for most Christian churches, the leaders of those churches complied with the new law and stopped endorsing political candidates.  The fact that this new law was a gross violation of the right to free speech was apparently lost on everyone.  That does not surprise me as the Socialist Democracy of Amerika is a post-Christian nation and taking away the civil rights of Christians is business as usual in this immoral and God-hating country.
Mary Casper, of Bailey, was upset enough at King Donnie for abolishing the Christian gag order law that she wrote a letter to the editor of the Denver Post to express her anger.  I suspect many people would agree with Mary, as she likes to be called.  She wrote, "In the last election, many religious leaders prioritized the abortion issue over health care, poverty, immigration and refugee rights, not to mention education, the environment and other concerns."  It is not hard to see why Mary is so mad.  Mary worships at the throne of civil government.  She loves and adores socialism.  Allowing Christians who believe things contrary to her religious doctrines is an act of blasphemy that must be suppressed.  Telling the IRS to look the other way when Christian pastors make specific political endorsements for candidates that Mary despises is just too much for Mary to endure.
Like most citizens of the SDA, Mary believes it is morally good to murder babies.  She also believes that it is morally right to force me to pay the health insurance bills of other people who do not want to pay them themselves.  She also believes it is morally right to force me to pay for food stamps for people who make the rational decision to not work and go on welfare.  She also believes it is morally right to force me to pay for the education of her children.  She thinks it is just dandy when the Sheriff shows up at my door and evicts me from my home if I disagree with her about who should be paying for her kid's teachers.  She also believes that mankind is destroying the earth and only anointed and ordained career politicians and bureaucrats can "save" it from the depredations of evil profit seeking corporations.  Like I said, Mary is a socialist and nobody is going to convince her to change her religion and abandon her god.
I only mention Mary in passing.  I am more interested in the fact that the IRS will now allow pastors to issue advice to congregants about who to vote for.  In the past many pastors got around the IRS restriction by printing up "scorecards" about how the various candidates had voted throughout their careers.  Those who voted along conservative lines were clearly distinguished from those who voted along liberal lines and, although no specific endorsement was made, it was quite clear who one should vote for.  Even the IRS admits that the old law was rarely enforced.  It was more the fact that it could be enforced that angered Christians and drove them to create their politician ranking systems.  Now none of those games have to be played and Christian leaders can come out of the closet and endorse their favorite conservative candidates.
I opposed the old law as a violation of my right to speak my mind wherever and wherever I please.  But unlike most Christian leaders (I am not claiming to be a Christian leader.  I am not.), I also oppose giving political endorsements from the pulpit.  Indeed, I oppose giving political endorsements at all.  My reason for refusing to endorse particular candidates is simple....they are all immoral and voting for them is immoral as well.  Below you will find what I posted to this blog on September 30, 2016.  My opinion has not changed since then.  Furthermore, I believe you should change your opinion on the doctrine of voting and agree with me.  Read this post and see if you agree:

"Although it is impossible for state worshipers to understand, those of us who do not practice their civil religion actually have some very good reasons why we make the rational and conscious decision to forgo voting.  Today I would like to give you some of those reasons.
  • No person should ever vote because the act of voting is immoral.  Voting is immoral because rank and file citizens do not have the authority to vote.  Why do rank and file citizens not have the authority to choose those who will rule over them?  Because the God ordained nature of the universe is that authority flows down from God to His covenantal representatives, not upward from the people to the rulers they elect.  Democracy is immoral for the same reason congregational church government is immoral.  Both forms of government believe that original authority is vested in the individual and somehow gets transferred upward by means of the vote.  He who collects the most votes accrues the most authority and the right to rule over those who are under him.  The biblical model for authority is the exact opposite.  Jesus declares that all authority is vested in Him.  That is the starting point.  He then declares that He delegates His authority to specific individuals within the three covenantal institutions (church, family and state) that He has created.  He provides the rules for the form and function of those three institutions and the rules related to the continuity of each institution do not include voting by the membership.  According to biblical principles of authority, successor authority figures should be chosen by the current authority figures and appointed to their offices before the current crop retires.  I realize that this has been a long paragraph and nobody in the universe believes a single thing I have written here so let me go on to another good reason for why you should not vote.  Go ahead and vote if you want to be guilty of subverting legitimate authority.
  • Some famous person from the past once said that elections are nothing more than auctions for goods that have not yet been stolen, or something to that effect.  He was right of course.  There are two classes of people who vote:  those who want to use the coercive and legal power of the state to steal from their neighbors and those who want to use the power of the state to somehow try to protect themselves from their neighbors depredations.  Since more people want to steal goods from others than those who are actually robbed and since the majority always wins in a democracy, it therefore necessarily follows that the act of voting is an act of violence and really constitutes theft.  You need look no further than the fact that the top 49% of the income population funds 98.5% of the entire federal budget for proof that what I am writing here is correct.  As Hillary loves to drone on and on about her imaginary "institutionalized racism," so the fact of institutionalized envy is dramatically proven every time there is an election.  Go ahead and vote if you want to be guilty of the sin of envy.
  • Voting for the lesser of two evil people is still voting for an evil person.  The Bible says that Christians should not even greet false teachers in order to avoid "participating in their evil deeds."  When you vote you are giving your approval to the person you vote for.  That means you are participating in their evil deeds.  So go ahead and vote if you want to participate in his evil deeds.  Go ahead and vote if you want to do something that even you believe is evil. 
  • When you vote for any candidate today you are voting for a man or a woman who believes in humanistic law.  All candidates for political office in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika deny the moral and legal legitimacy of theonomy.  Theonomy is the position that Evangelicals profess to believe but never practice.  All Evangelicals, by definition, believe that the Bible is "sufficient for all matters of faith and practice."  That means they believe that God has given us His opinion about all matters of faith and life that we need to order our churches and governments properly.  That opinion is found in the Bible and, in regards to civil government, in the most holy and perfect law of God.  Although all Evangelicals profess to believe that the Bible contains everything they need to know for "life and godliness," when it comes time to put that into practice they reject what they profess to believe and adopt the principles of antinomianism instead.  Antinomians deny the moral legitimacy of the law of God when it comes to the civil government.  Along with all of the other God haters in this land, Evangelicals adopt the doctrines of religious pluralism and reject God's law while enshrining man's law, with all of its immoralities and inherent contradictions, as the law of the land.  When you vote you authorize that process of immorality.  So go ahead and vote if you want to reject the Word of God and enshrine the immoral law of man over you.
  • All candidates for political office must claim to be patriots.  That means they must believe in the doctrine of Amerikan "exceptionalism."  Amerikan exceptionalism denies the reality that all men, even Amerikans, are sinners and in need of redemption.  Those who believe in Amerikan exceptionalism, which is just about everyone these days, believe that whatever Amerikans do is good, right and proper simply because they are Amerikans and therefore morally, intellectually and spiritually better than everyone else in the world.  If you want to disagree with God's opinion about the nature of man and enshrine yourself as a morally superior being, go ahead and vote.
  • All candidates for political office must also believe in the moral legitimacy of the Amerikan empire.  No candidate will ever be elected by campaigning on the promises to remove all military bases from foreign lands, stop meddling in the affairs of foreign nations and engage in free trade with stinkin' foreigners from any country in the world.  When you vote you vote to maintain and expand the Amerikan empire, no matter how many of those stinkin' foreigners you have to kill to do so.  You believe that if they disagree with us they deserve to die for their sin.  You also vote for the blow-back that is inevitably associated with empire.  Those stinkin' foreigners don't take kindly to being occupied, raped and murdered.  Eventually they come looking for us and when they find us they are not happy.  So if you want to keep murdering innocent foreigners and if you want to keep giving them reasons to become "terrorists," go ahead and vote.
  • Civil government in the SDA is designed to give all citizens cradle to grave security, at the expense of the top 49% of the income population.  The government claims to be our messiah and the great majority of the citizens in this idolatrous country believe that claim.  They look to government every time there is a natural disaster.  They look to government when they want funding for government schools.  They look to government when they want someone else to pay for their abortions.  They look to government for retirement income.  They look to government for health insurance.  Idolatrous citizens look to their god for everything these days.  Government has responded to those requests by attempting to give the envy filled citizens everything they desire, in exchange for a vote.  The net result is the top 49% of the income population witnesses the theft of ~50% of their annual income which is then transferred, less 10% for handling, to those who voted for legalized thievery.  So go ahead and vote if you wish to be an accessory to theft.
  • The book of Revelation teaches that civil government, especially the civil governments of the world's greatest empires, make up the entity known as the Beast.  The Beast is empowered by an imprisoned Satan and authorized to wage war against the Church.  I know I am getting into some really weird theology that even Christians do not believe these days.  Bear with me.  I am describing the tenets of amillennialism, an eschatological doctrine that previously dominated Christian thinking but that has been thrown under the bus in this age of dispensationalism.  To make a long story short, engaging in the act of voting is voluntarily agreeing to participate in one of the activities of the Beast.  So if you want to be a part of the Beast, go ahead and vote.  Warning:  hitching your wagon to the Beast will have seriously negative eternal consequences.
I do not want to anger God by assuming I have authority that He has not granted to me.  I am not interested in my neighbor's property and I further believe that it is my moral duty to help him protect his property from the onslaught of thieves and robbers.  I do not believe that a less evil deed is somehow a good deed and I do not want to participate in the less evil deeds of others.  I do not want to incur the wrath of God by ignoring His law.  He has told me how to behave and the last thing I want to do is bind myself to obedience to a code of law that oftentimes directly contradicts what He says is the right thing to do.  I most certainly do not want to participate in the process by which men are appointed to deny the law of God and create humanistic law to put in its place. I deny that I am superior to Mexicans, Canadians, Bolivians, Australians, Frogs, Krauts and Koreans simply because I was born in the geo-political zone called Amerika.  I deny that the God of the Bible is blessing the empire and its wars of imperial expansion.  I deny that it is God's will for this land to be involved in the internal affairs of the great majority of all of the sovereign nations in this world.  I believe that it is always wrong to steal from my neighbor, even if he has an abundance and I am in need.  I deny that I have a moral claim upon my neighbor's property simply because I am part of a majority group.  I believe it is wrong to rob my neighbor at gunpoint and that it is equally wrong to rob him by majority vote.  I also believe that the Amerikan empire is the current and most magnificent (in an evil way) example of the Beast, as described in Revelation, that the world has ever seen.  I want no part of that and neither should you.  Do yourself a favor and stop voting before it is too late."

Wednesday, May 10, 2017

Cory vs. Un: This Time It Is Personal!

A couple of days ago aspiring neo-con Cory Gardner, a Senator from Colorado, issued some comments about North Korea's allegedly divine leader Kim Jong Un.  (At least the North Koreans declare their belief in their god without apology.  Citizens of this country can learn from their practice and be upfront about what we believe about our career politicians.  They are all gods so let's admit it, shall we?) He was being interviewed on MSNBC's show Morning Joe when he made the comments.  In particular he said that Un, as his friends like to call him, is a "whack job." But don't just take my word for it.  Here is some of what he said, "This is a crazed maniac at the helm of one of the world's nuclear regimes, trying to become a nuclear regime.  We shouldn't be in the position of flattery."  I don't think Un took Cory's comments as flattery.
A couple of days later the Korean Central News Agency issued this statement about Cory, "Gardner perpetrated wicked blasphemy against the dear leader.  For a psychopath like the Gardner to hurl evil accusations at our highest dignity, is a serious problem....That a man mixed in with human dirt like Gardner, who has lost basic judgment and body hair, could only spell misfortune for the United States."  Now that is a quality curse, don't you think?
Un believes that Cory is "mixed in with human dirt."  I wonder what that means?  Just what is "human dirt?"  I know what real dirt is but I have no idea what human dirt might be.  Then Un issues the ultimate insult when he declares that Cory has lost "body hair."  Where I come from those are fighting words.  The Welsh are proud of our massive amount of body hair and saying that a man has lost his body hair is akin to saying he is not really a man.  If I were Cory I would be angry.
In fact, Cory responded to Un's insults by issuing a statement in which he called him a "madman" and then demanded new sanctions against North Korea.  In other words, Cory wants to escalate the war that the Socialist Democracy is already fighting against North Korea by tormenting the poor citizens of that land with starvation, plague and death.  Didn't we do enough to them in the Korean war? Why do we need to do harm to those poor people today?
We are not that far from the Korean war.  There are no doubt plenty of people in North Korea who were alive when the military forces of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika obliterated their country.  According to Wikipedia, "The U.S. dropped a total of 635,000 tons of bombs, including 32,557 tons of napalm, on Korea, more than during the whole Pacific campaign of World War II.  Almost every substantial building in North Korea was destroyed as a result.[310][311] The war's highest-ranking American POW, U.S. Major General William F. Dean,[312] reported that the majority of North Korean cities and villages he saw were either rubble or snow-covered wasteland.[313][314]   U.S. Air Force General Curtis LeMay commented, 'we went over there and fought the war and eventually burned down every town in North Korea anyway, some way or another, and some in South Korea, too.'[316] Pyongyang, which saw 75 percent of its area destroyed, was so devastated that bombing was halted as there were no longer any worthy targets.[317][318] On 28 November, Bomber Command reported on the campaign's progress: 95 percent of Manpojin was destroyed, along with 90 percent of Hoeryong, Namsi and Koindong, 85 percent of Chosan, 75 percent of both Sakchu and Huichon, and 20 percent of Uiju. According to USAF damage assessments, 'eighteen of twenty-two major cities in North Korea had been at least half obliterated.'[319] By the end of the campaign, US bombers had difficulty in finding targets and were reduced to bombing footbridges or jettisoning their bombs into the sea."
What do you think? Do the people of North Korea have a good reason to suspect the intentions of the SDA military or not?  Do they have a good reason to distrust the Amerikan Empire or not?  Not content with previously killing off a third of the citizens of North Korea, Cory now wants to impose sanctions to kill even more.  When does it stop?  When every last North Korean is dead? 
Official statistics kept by the SDA military only estimate the number of enemy soldiers killed.  Civilian deaths are generally ignored.  According to this website, "North Korea lost close to thirty percent of its population as a result of US led bombings in the 1950s. US military sources confirm that 20 percent of North Korea’s  population was killed off over a three period of intensive bombings. After destroying North Korea’s 78 cities and thousands of her villages, and killing countless numbers of her civilians, [General] LeMay remarked, 'Over a period of three years or so we killed off – what – twenty percent of the population.' It is now believed that the population north of the imposed 38th Parallel lost nearly a third its population of 8 – 9 million people during the 37-month long hot war, 1950 – 1953, perhaps an unprecedented percentage of mortality suffered by one nation due to the belligerence of another."
For comparison purposes, "During The Second World War the United Kingdom lost 0.94% of its population, France lost 1.35%, China lost 1.89% and the US lost 0.32%."  How would you feel about the country that killed off one out of every three or four of your fellow citizens just a generation ago?  If you said nasty things about the country that bombed you into oblivion do you believe your comments would be justified?  Furthermore, do you believe your political leaders would be acting rashly if they sought to develop a nuclear capability in order to defend your country against another SDA attack?
I am not defending Un for he most certainly is a typical career politician.  I read the other day that one of his favorite execution methods when he conducts his regular purges is to place his enemies on a target in the middle of a field and blow them up with anti-aircraft fire.  He does this for sport and pleasure.  His orders are clear....do not leave one hair (there is that emphasis upon hair again) of the executed person on the face of the earth.  On the other hand, I most certainly understand why he would want the bomb.  If a third of my country's citizens and the majority of its cities had been destroyed less than 70 years ago I would distrust the empire that wrought the damage just as much as he hates the SDA today.  

Tuesday, May 9, 2017

It Sure Is Quiet Out Here

I went for a hike with my wife this morning.  We did a trail in the foothills of Denver that is very near our home.  In fact, there is a neat spot along the trail where the hogback (a formation between Denver and the foothills of the Rocky Mountains) had a split in it through which we can see downtown Denver perfectly framed.  In other words, we are very near to the two million plus people who live in the Denver metropolitan area.
As we were hiking along we were treated to a cool and damp morning, with low hanging clouds foretelling the coming of afternoon thunderstorms.  Maybe you saw the reports about the amazing hail damage created by the storms yesterday.  The moisture from those storms was still in the air today and everything was fresh and green.  The wet trail dampened the sounds of our footfalls and we were surprised at how loud the crickets sounded that late in the morning.  Other than the sounds of the crickets, the birds and my labored breathing as we climbed steeply up into the foothills it was amazingly quiet.  We commented on that fact as we were hiking along, appreciating the fact that we could be this close to so many people and still enjoy a quiet hike in the foothills.
The front page of the Denver Post had a story, below the crease, yesterday entitled, "Seeking a little piece of quiet."  I was thinking about that story as we hiked along this morning.  Here is some of what author Bruce Finley had to say, "Silence may be golden but it is practically gone.  A government backed study has determined that noise pollution has hit levels that obliterate natural sound -- even in national parks and wilderness.  The noise pollution from cars, trucks, airplanes, helicopters, smartphones and myriad other man-made sources drowns out nature's back ground in nearly two thirds of US protected areas, Colorado State University and National Park Service researchers concluded.  The researchers analyzed 1.5 million hours of sound recordings made by NPS staffers over the past decade at 492 sites across the country.  They found that noise levels are twice as high as natural sound at 63 percent of those sites. At 21 percent of the sites, man made noise has risen to levels at least 10 times louder than back ground sound."
I have spent a fair amount of my life outdoors, including  many of the National Parks and wilderness areas where the study was conducted, and Bruce's observations came as a complete surprise to me.  I can't get past his assertion that man made noise now "obliterates" the natural sounds at 63% of the 492 sites under observation for the past ten years.  I can't recall ever having the natural sound on my adventures obliterated by man made noises.  What did the researchers do, put their microphones near the tail pipes of National Park Service buses?  The conclusion that 63% of national park and wilderness areas have man made noise that is louder than the ambient sound level is preposterous.  The only possible way that conclusion could have been made is if all of the sound detection devices were placed next to gas stations, bus stations, parking lots, restaurants, hotel pools and other areas where human beings congregate and make noise.
I can get in my car right now and drive to any wilderness area or National Park in Colorado and in a matter of moments be in a place where the only sound I can hear is the ringing in my own ears.  I don't even have to go to a wilderness to find quiet.  I can hike in any of the dozen foothills areas that have been set aside for hiking trails and find solitude and quiet.  The idea that I can not hear the sound of the squirrel chirping at me because background noise from Denver obliterates his voice is ridiculous.  And the notion that almost 25% of the areas tested have human noise levels ten times higher than the natural level forces me to conclude that the studies were conducted in a large drum with the researchers hollering into it while they took their measurements.
I was not surprised to discover that the "research" was conducted by "scientists" paid by the federal government.  It warmed my heart to know that some of my tax dollars have been spent paying these fellows, over the past ten years, to measure sound in the wilderness.  A better use of taxpayer dollars would be hard to conceive of.
The story concluded on a page later in the paper and I did not have time to finish it.  I don't know what the recommendation of the researchers was.  I suspect it involved spending a lot more taxpayer dollars to somehow fix this horrible state of affairs that man has created.  Isn't it interesting that every time government paid scientists set out to find something man has done that is harmful to the universe, they always find it?
If the researchers wish to continue their research I will make them a free offer.  They do not have to pay me anything for my services.  All they have to do is come with me to a couple of wilderness areas and National Parks that I know.  They can bring their microphones and we will hike somewhere for an hour or two and they can set up their measuring devices and listen to just how quiet it really is.  Then, on our way home, I will buy them all lunch at my favorite hot dog stand in the mountains and they can notice how loud the stream running by the picnic table next to the US highway is as we chomp them down.

Monday, May 8, 2017

Pre-Existing Condition Conundrum

Socialists love to make a big deal about how taxpayers should be forced to pay the medical bills of people with pre-existing conditions.  One of the supposedly strongest arguments in favor of Obamacare is that it does not allow evil profit seeking health insurance companies to refuse to pay for medical treatment related to a condition that existed prior to the patient's application for health insurance.  In many ways the argument is like it was in the old days with pregnancy insurance.  No woman ever purchased pregnancy insurance if she had no intention of getting pregnant.  Then, when the decision was made to get pregnant, women would flock to their health insurance companies and purchase a policy so as to avoid having to pay all of the bill themselves.  The premiums were outrageously high because nobody bought the insurance with the intention of never using it.  Under Obamacare things are even worse.  A person can go his entire life without ever owning a health insurance policy and then once he gets sick he can force the taxpayers to pay the entirely of his medical bills.  That is a sweet deal for the socialists and an act of armed robbery against the taxpayers.
Socialists love to wax eloquent about how "we," whoever that is (it is not me), should never allow anyone to be denied medical care simply because they can't afford it.  We are told that no citizen of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika should ever be denied his civil right to force the taxpayers to pay his medical bills.  They become especially strident when it comes to people with medical conditions that existed prior to their application for health insurance coverage.  As a taxpayer I am told that it is immoral for me to be angry with the person who made the voluntary decision to go his entire life without any health insurance and then sticks me with the bill the moment he actually gets sick.  I have always had a hard time understanding why I am the immoral person in this scenario but the socialists insist that I am.  Who am I to argue with a socialist?
The rather obvious solution to the problem of pre-existing conditions, although nobody ever speaks or writes about it,  is for the citizens of this land to adopt a long term perspective to their health care coverage.  Of course that will never happen because not one in a hundred people has the moral character and discipline to live with a long term perspective on life.  It is far too easy to be an irresponsible jerk and let the government bail you out when bad things happen.  But a long term perspective is still what is required to solve the problem of pre-existing conditions.  The moment a child is emancipated he should purchase a health insurance policy.  Prior to his emancipation he would have been covered under his parent's policy.  If the emancipated child is healthy and does not want to spend a lot of money on a policy he will likely not use he should buy the cheapest policy available.  The key thing here is not the coverage in the cheap policy.  The key thing here is getting coverage for the future.  By purchasing health insurance at the moment of emancipation and keeping health insurance policies in force throughout his entire life he will never find himself in the position of having a medical condition that excludes him from coverage.  In other words, he will never fall into the dreaded category of having a pre-existing condition.
The reason so many people love socialized medicine is because it allows them to shift the risk of their future illness to the taxpayers, thus freeing up more money for them to spend on tattoos, marijuana and fancy vacations today.  In a moral world the taxpayers would never be required to bear the burden of medical health risks for someone else who simply wanted to spend his money on something he deemed to be more fun than health insurance coverage.  Any person who makes the decision, generally at a young age, to go uninsured is making the decision to take the risk of potentially becoming a future "pre-existing condition" patient upon himself.   If life's circumstances are such that some day later he finds himself uninsurable because of that earlier decision to not purchase health insurance then that is his tough luck.  Or, more accurately, it is the logical outcome of his bad decision to not purchase health insurance when he was young.  Either way I feel no compassion for that person and neither should you.  He can either pay cash for his health care or go untreated.  Yes, that may mean some people would be dying in the streets but that is far preferable to having the federal government engage in a perpetual program of grand larceny against the personally and financially responsible citizens of this immoral land.