Against Universal Healthcare?

reply to post by QuetzalcoatlAlien


You conveniently ignored the 13th amendment.

Seriously, if you wish to debate something, it would be helpful if you were at least educated on the subject.

Try actually reading it, then cmon back and try again.

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel


Do you have a better alternative to the Constitution? Are you one who complains but has no solution?

Originally posted by TheOneElectric
reply to post by Gmoneycricket

 

You can thank the republicans for blocking the hell out of the bill. If you can't see that, you can't see anything.

Thanks I will send them a
Thank You Letter

Originally posted by brainwrek
reply to post by QuetzalcoatlAlien

 

You conveniently ignored the 13th amendment.

Seriously, if you wish to debate something, it would be helpful if you were at least educated on the subject.

Try actually reading it, then cmon back and try again.

Lack of a brain stem, I'm not poorly educated on the Constitution I know slavery has been abolished.

The Constitution is majorly flawed, why do you think there are amendments? Come on now. Naive kid, I swear.

WOOOOHOOOOOO!!!!!!This FIRES ME UP!!!!! If it is sooo great why aren't our great leaders subject to it? Yea, i want our gov't telling me what i have to buy!! A bunch of freakin morons!!!!! If that makes me a Tea Bagger than so be it!!! I don't care!!! What is the next thing the gov't is going to force me to do? Give up my guns? Not let me speak my mind? UGH!!!!!!!!!!! I'M PISSED!!!!!!!!

reply to post by calmbutwary


I don't complain about the constitution at all. Many people who think people who need a little extra help in life are worthless annoy me. I don't understand how it's unconstitutional to pass laws that are socialist.

reply to post by QuetzalcoatlAlien


Yet there is no health care amendment. Why do you think that is?

hint: It's because they know they couldnt get one ratified.

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
reply to post by calmbutwary

 

I don't understand how it's unconstitutional to pass laws that are socialist.

Nice troll post.

You fail.

reply to post by brainwrek


Is that all you can say to my post? Now I wasn't trolling.

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel


Yes you are. No one can possibly be so stupid as to actually make a statement like that.

[edit on 12-6-2010 by brainwrek]

reply to post by brainwrek


Let me get this straight. You say if any law is unconstitutional then it has no place in America right? Give me a good reason why then.

reply to post by QuetzalcoatlAlien

Wow, you're honestly a horrible person. If it wasn't for "poor people", there wouldn't be civil rights and other amazing social feats accomplished in society.

If you insist on crediting the poor with the creation of "civil rights" then perhaps nine-eyed-eel has a point. I am poor...dirt poor, and I struggle each day to turn my situation around, but I am in no way shape or form enamored with these vaunted "civil rights" so many people keep insisting on shoving down my throat.

"Civil Rights" are by definition legal rights which can only belong to citizens of the country in which such "rights" have been granted, as opposed to inalienable rigths which belong to all people and cannot be bought, sold, or transferred from one individual to another.

There is a reason that the term "civil rights" has been used ad nauseum in society today and it has become a cultural meme planted purposely in order to erode and eventually destroy all notions of inalienable rights. However, it should be noted that the term "civil rights" cannot be found until after great philosophers such as John Locke, Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson began writing about inalienable rights. Prior to this there were no rights acknowledged other than the divine right of kings and the priest class who sought to subjugate the masses with their mystical incantations.

Inalienable rights are those rights that each individual possess by right of birth regardless of where they reside and who would attempt to take those rights away, and "civil rights" by stark contrast, are those legal rights granted by government that can be taken away by the whims of an elite few and done so legally. While any tyrant can abrogate and derogate the inalienable right of an individual, there is no legal recourse to do so, which is why the term "civil rights" has been so relentlessly sold to a willing public.

To further sell this idea of "civil rights", legal plunder has been sold as a compassionate and caring way to govern. Those who willingly buy into this are the same people who willingly respond to any advertisement that relies on the word "free" to sell their product.

Plunder is plunder and it does not become any more moral simply because legislatures declared it "legal". "Universal health care" sold as an insurance scheme is no more health care than auto insurance is accident prevention. All insurance schemes are legalized forms of gambling, and while I am of the firm belief people have the right to gamble, they do not have the right to force all people to gamble with them.

If you must insist on declaring "civil rights" as the only "rights" worth acknowledging, then you are no better than the member you declared to be a horrible person. If you must insist that the only possible way you can account for your own health is that other people kick in and pay for the expense of that health, then you are advocating plunder in the name of some imagined greater good.

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
reply to post by brainwrek

 

Let me get this straight. You say if any law is unconstitutional then it has no place in America right? Give me a good reason why then.

Try reading Article 1 Section 8 and see if healthcare is listed as a Constitutionally authorized federal expenditure.

I'll save you the time. It isnt listed, nor are most other wastes of our money.

[edit on 12-6-2010 by brainwrek]

Originally posted by brainwrek

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
reply to post by calmbutwary

 

I don't understand how it's unconstitutional to pass laws that are socialist.

Nice troll post.

You fail.

I am Laughing With You
LOL

reply to post by brainwrek


It should be then. The health of the American people should be in the constitution.

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
reply to post by brainwrek

 

It should be then. The health of the American people should be in the constitution.

The health of individuals isnt a federal matter, its a personal issue.

Try again.

reply to post by brainwrek


It is pointless to argue with you. We would get no where. I will study the American constitution and get back with you. Maybe we're both wrong. But I believe Universal health care should be passed.

if you are no longer or never have been a benefit to society it's time to move on. T
he problem with western society is that we put a value on life no matter what if you can not fend for your self take care of your self why are you here ? Other than to be a burden and a cost that every one else as to support.

The more you give the more that is taken till there is nothing left to give

Government handouts help no one in the long run. Except the politicians.

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.
-= On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, November 1766 =-

-Ben Franklin

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Plunder is plunder and it does not become any more moral simply because legislatures declared it "legal". "Universal health care" sold as an insurance scheme is no more health care than auto insurance is accident prevention. All insurance schemes are legalized forms of gambling, and while I am of the firm belief people have the right to gamble, they do not have the right to force all people to gamble with them.

YES...and right now, I don't have health insurance, because of various choices I have made...those choices may have been bad and stupid, or brave and adventurous (we'll have to see how the story ends up, hee-hee)...Meanwhile, other people have made different choices than I, such that they have more money than I, and they have health insurance...
Now why should they have to pay for me? I got to fool around and have my fun, why should they get stuck with my bills? They acquired the necessary cash to take care of themselves, why should they be penalized for that by having to pay for me? Everybody makes their choices, and people should not expect to be saved from themselves.

I mean really.

But I liked your whole post, my God, you seem like an actual thinker, and righteous.




[edit on 12-6-2010 by nine-eyed-eel]