Should Gov't have Limits?

[OohPooPahDoo]

Should the government force every individual to buy health coverage? Should they pick up the tab, who knows. They do because it is what is expected.

We pay taxes. I would like our taxes to pay for non profit health insurance as any society civilized society not stuck on stupid does

I think national health coverage is a good thing. I do think everyone should be covered. I also think that if some decides they don't want to they would have that right. The hospital would have the right to turn them from the door.

What if they are unconscious and don't have their wallet, how will the hospital know?

 

[The T]

What change of heart?

Katiegrrl0 has been accusing anyone in this thread of wanting total Government control of their lives if that person mentions even one law that we as a civilized society might need. Yet, faced with the very real fact that we need laws at the very least to protect vulnerable members of our society, like children, she immediately changed her tune.

Funny how people gain understanding when they stop and think for a second.

You want to show me the post where I said other than that. You support big government and control and government infringement on a personal level. You have said so in all of your posts.

The poster isn't being true to his screename...and refues to requisition a new one from the Moderators.

 

[Katiegrrl0]

And then people got cancer from second hand smoke and kids died in car accidents due to idiotic parents.

Yay Freedom!

Do you want government control in every facet of your life? If you do that's fine. I don't.

Nope. Just help society stay healthy and educated and I think most social programs funded by government - for people as opposed to orgs/companies -- would disappear.

That works for me. An educated and healthy society works and provides. When there are to many safety nets some will not participate for their own good.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yes, freedom has consequences. No one ever said freedom was a rainbow field of unicorns. In order to be free you must be willing to accept the consequences of your own actions.

But, should I be forced to accept the consequences of YOUR actions?

Many of you seem to think I should.

In a sense you have a point. But freedom involves responsibility. It involves making choices. Not just for you but everyone. As soon as government starts to take away the freedom to make decisions that take away free thought they keep walking and making laws they think are for everyone's good. The more they are ushered in and expected to act.

poor argument that slippery slope.

government isn't taking away freedoms in America. We live in a representative republic. They act in our name.

Grade: F

 

[Katiegrrl0]

Katiegrrl0 has been accusing anyone in this thread of wanting total Government control of their lives if that person mentions even one law that we as a civilized society might need. Yet, faced with the very real fact that we need laws at the very least to protect vulnerable members of our society, like children, she immediately changed her tune.

Funny how people gain understanding when they stop and think for a second.

You want to show me the post where I said other than that. You support big government and control and government infringement on a personal level. You have said so in all of your posts.

The poster isn't being true to his screename...and refues to requisition a new one from the Moderators.

Well said!!!!!

 

[Dick Tuck]

Except ... not.

If you don't have medical insurance and you get critically sick and go in for care, MY premiums go up. I end up paying for YOUR care.

That's not cool.

Second reply to your point.

You are approaching this from the standpoint that the government should somehow be involved in making sure everybody's health care needs are taken care of.
Either by forcing doctors to treat people or forcing people to have medical insurance.

I approach it from the standpoint that people are individually responsible. If they can't afford catastrophic medical care and choose to not purchase insurance, that's their problem if they get sick, not mine. And yes, I am cold hearted enough to say, "let them die".

There is nothing in the Constitution that allows Government to demand the citizens buy into anything...other than what i laid out earlier regarding Article 1, Section 8 where government is responsible for roads and may demand people be licensed and insured as to ensure citizens use the roads safely as the government is responsible for those roads.

Healthcare demands by the Government are way out of line.

Total bullshit. A1S8 provides that congress can pass laws to pay for what they deem to be in the best public interest. The Commerce Clause gives them the power to regulate commerce. Social Security has been deemed constitutional on that basis. You're a nitwit.

 

[The T]

Second reply to your point.

You are approaching this from the standpoint that the government should somehow be involved in making sure everybody's health care needs are taken care of.
Either by forcing doctors to treat people or forcing people to have medical insurance.

I approach it from the standpoint that people are individually responsible. If they can't afford catastrophic medical care and choose to not purchase insurance, that's their problem if they get sick, not mine. And yes, I am cold hearted enough to say, "let them die".

There is nothing in the Constitution that allows Government to demand the citizens buy into anything...other than what i laid out earlier regarding Article 1, Section 8 where government is responsible for roads and may demand people be licensed and insured as to ensure citizens use the roads safely as the government is responsible for those roads.

Healthcare demands by the Government are way out of line.

Total bullshit. A1S8 provides that congress can pass laws to pay for what they deem to be in the best public interest. The Commerce Clause gives them the power to regulate commerce. Social Security has been deemed constitutional on that basis. You're a nitwit.

So Article 1 Section 8 says "best public interest"? Really?

Show it.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Do you want government control in every facet of your life? If you do that's fine. I don't.

Nope. Just help society stay healthy and educated and I think most social programs funded by government - for people as opposed to orgs/companies -- would disappear.

That works for me. An educated and healthy society works and provides. When there are to many safety nets some will not participate for their own good.

When there's zero safety nets, kiss domestic tranquility goodbye.

 

[Katzndogz]

Ok.... my dad, who happens to be a pretty hard core conservative, was on his wife's insurance plan through her work for years. He had some things he was doing on a second home, he had bought a little Mercedes sports car.... he was getting older and was doing all right so he was treating himself to some things he wanted.... but he decided that the cost of the insurance was just getting too high. He dropped it.

Two years later, he came down with PLS, a neuro muscular degenrative and he has had to be taken care of by the VA and SSI disability instead of the insurance he should have kept.

This is fair how?

I've said it a hundred times: I agree with the premise of the Tea Party. When they have the meeting where THEY all bring their government checks and their medicare and SS and disability and VA .... then... then I'll know they aren't a bunch of entitlement idiots screaming about other folks entitlements. Give up yours first. Anyone can scream and holler about taking something from someone else.

There are government entitlements, but you haven't mentioned any. What you point out as entitlements are earned or purchased already. A veteran gets benefits because those benefits were earned during military service. SS is paid into during a lifetime of working. Neither are entitlements. SSI COULD be an entitlement if a person has never worked nor paid into the system.

When you work 40 hours is your paycheck an entitlement, a gift from your employer or is it compensation for services received?

 

[DontBeStupid]

What change of heart?

Katiegrrl0 has been accusing anyone in this thread of wanting total Government control of their lives if that person mentions even one law that we as a civilized society might need. Yet, faced with the very real fact that we need laws at the very least to protect vulnerable members of our society, like children, she immediately changed her tune.

Funny how people gain understanding when they stop and think for a second.

You want to show me the post where I said other than that. You support big government and control and government infringement on a personal level. You have said so in all of your posts.

No. I haven't. And you won't be able to find any posts where I do either.

The Government can, and should, protect vulnerable members of our society. If that means you can't drive drunk and T can't own a tank, well, cry me a river about your lack of "freedom".

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Should the government be forced to pay for emergency room care for everyone who enters a hospital that takes federal funds?

Let's cut to the chase - should the gov't have the power to force you to buy something, anything, or not buy it? Do they have the power to decide for you what's good for you and what isn't, a decision you have no say in? For example, should they be able to determine the conditions for who gets what medical treatment, based on cost analysis by a bunch of bureaucrats?

And let's not change the subject by bitching about the private insurance system. Separate issue, please stick to the basic question. Should the gov't have any limits at all?


My take: the gov't has no business making personal decisions for it's citizens. Nor does it have a responsibility to assist those who make the wrong choices. Gov't should be restricted to ONLY those functions that individual cannot do by themselves, such as national defense.

Should the government be forced to pay for emergency room care for everyone who enters a hospital that takes federal funds?

Should a hospital be forced to provide emergency medical care to people that have no means to pay for it?

Remove that obstacle and see how things play out out for the people responsible enough to actually take care of things.

Hospitals are required to treat emergency care regardless of ability to pay. Teaching hospitals must accept all comers too

 

[Wacky Quacky]

That's not what you've been saying. Throughout this thread you have repeatedly responded to ANY laws with an accusation that just because someone wants A law that means they want the government to have total control of their lives. Obviously, having a law to protect kids from sex offenders is not the same as having total government control of our lives, but this is what you have been espousing.

Well, until now, when suddenly you have a change of heart. Funny how that works.

What change of heart?

Katiegrrl0 has been accusing anyone in this thread of wanting total Government control of their lives if that person mentions even one law that we as a civilized society might need. Yet, faced with the very real fact that we need laws at the very least to protect vulnerable members of our society, like children, she immediately changed her tune.

Funny how people gain understanding when they stop and think for a second.

It's a parent's job to protect their children, not the government's.

And those vulnerable people you speak of are more so just ignorant. They should be educated, not ruled. Educated on what a budget is, educated on why credit cards are retarded, educated that putting food on the table is more important than the Comcast triple-play package.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Should the government force every individual to buy health coverage? Should they pick up the tab, who knows. They do because it is what is expected.

They already do.

And is UnConstitutional and an abridgement to Liberty and Free Will.

Get it Ace?

::: WHOOP ::: WHOOP ::: WHOOP :::
*** USMB Right Wing Tea Party Lunatic Alert ***

*** ding *** ding *** ding *** ding *** ding ***

​

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Nope. Just help society stay healthy and educated and I think most social programs funded by government - for people as opposed to orgs/companies -- would disappear.

That works for me. An educated and healthy society works and provides. When there are to many safety nets some will not participate for their own good.

When there's zero safety nets, kiss domestic tranquility goodbye.

safety nets have kept American society from becoming a second rate nation. They've kept Germany and Japan and most other western/capitalist societies growing and stable

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Should the government force every individual to buy health coverage? Should they pick up the tab, who knows. They do because it is what is expected.

We pay taxes. I would like our taxes to pay for non profit health insurance as any society civilized society not stuck on stupid does

I think national health coverage is a good thing. I do think everyone should be covered. I also think that if some decides they don't want to they would have that right. The hospital would have the right to turn them from the door.

I love the proposal, but I have one change. It should be done at the state level, not federal.

 

[The T]

They already do.

And is UnConstitutional and an abridgement to Liberty and Free Will.

Get it Ace?

::: WHOOP ::: WHOOP ::: WHOOP :::
*** USMB Right Wing Tea Party Lunatic Alert ***​

*** ding *** ding *** ding *** ding *** ding ***​

This all you have Dantoid? Too clever by zero.

 

[DontBeStupid]

What change of heart?

Katiegrrl0 has been accusing anyone in this thread of wanting total Government control of their lives if that person mentions even one law that we as a civilized society might need. Yet, faced with the very real fact that we need laws at the very least to protect vulnerable members of our society, like children, she immediately changed her tune.

Funny how people gain understanding when they stop and think for a second.

It's a parent's job to protect their children, not the government's.

And those vulnerable people you speak of are more so just ignorant. They should be educated, not ruled. Educated on what a budget is, educated on why credit cards are retarded, educated that putting food on the table is more important than the Comcast triple-play package.

Hmm. So, it's SOLELY a parent's job to protect their child from sex offenders, drunk drivers and drug peddlers?

How about we agree to disagree on that one.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And is UnConstitutional and an abridgement to Liberty and Free Will.

According to who?

The DOI and The Constitution...the Founders. Those of us with a concience that belive in powers larger than man himself and the tyranny of Government(s).

I see you didn't pay attention in Civics Class...(That is assuming YOU were ever IN one)...

You didn’t answer the question. You merely exhibited your ignorance, as usual.

The Answer Is: only the Supreme Court can determine what is or is not Constitutional. Your continued rejection of this settled fact only calls into question your educational background, not other’s.

Constitutional case law places limits on both government and citizens; it restricts government excess with regard to citizens’ rights, such as the 6th Amendment right to counsel (Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)), as well as authorizing the state to preempt free expression, upholding statutes prohibiting the sale of sexually explicit material to minors, for example (Sable Communications of California, Inc. v. FCC (1989)).

Thus the courts seek to find a balance between individual liberty and responsible governance, where government seeks to regulate things ‘necessary and proper’ but not at the expense of civil rights.

In general, and with regard to fundamental rights in particular, the courts place the greater burden on the state, requiring a compelling governmental interest or reason supported by evidence before a court considers restricting a citizen’s rights.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Katiegrrl0 has been accusing anyone in this thread of wanting total Government control of their lives if that person mentions even one law that we as a civilized society might need. Yet, faced with the very real fact that we need laws at the very least to protect vulnerable members of our society, like children, she immediately changed her tune.

Funny how people gain understanding when they stop and think for a second.

It's a parent's job to protect their children, not the government's.

And those vulnerable people you speak of are more so just ignorant. They should be educated, not ruled. Educated on what a budget is, educated on why credit cards are retarded, educated that putting food on the table is more important than the Comcast triple-play package.

Hmm. So, it's SOLELY a parent's job to protect their child from sex offenders, drunk drivers and drug peddlers?

How about we agree to disagree on that one.

There are already laws on the books making the things you listed illegal. The insinuation in your post was that the government needs to speficially tailor laws to "protect" children in lieu of parents.

 

[Katiegrrl0]

But, should I be forced to accept the consequences of YOUR actions?

Many of you seem to think I should.

In a sense you have a point. But freedom involves responsibility. It involves making choices. Not just for you but everyone. As soon as government starts to take away the freedom to make decisions that take away free thought they keep walking and making laws they think are for everyone's good. The more they are ushered in and expected to act.

poor argument that slippery slope.

government isn't taking away freedoms in America. We live in a representative republic. They act in our name.

Grade: F

Do they act in your name when they fund research projects that tell us that young people text? Is this what you want your tax dollars to be spend on?