Universal Healthcare?

[jreeves]

That's your narrow minded conservative take on it and I think most would disagree, we the people for the united, not otherwise, states of America.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

On the definition of "General Welfare", but if we look at how they ran government at the beginning of our existence, it sure doesn't seem they meant huge social beaucracies.

 

[Gunny]

You prefer anarchy and you call me absurd???

Duly noted.

Quite a stretch deciding what I "prefer" based on pointing out the flaw in your thinking.

So let me drop another flaw in your thinking on you: There's a LOT of space between one extreme and the other.

 

[Obama4Pres08]

The debate about universal healthcare and so forth, as we all know, has been raging for several years now. To be quite frank, I'm still undecided and conflicted about where I stand on the issue. My question to the members of this forum is this: Is healthcare a right? And by "right," I don't mean the unalienable kind endowed by the creator, as articulated in the Declaration of Independence, but rather the kind defined by the laws of man. What do you think?

My question is if other countries have universal health care why can't the richest country in the world not have it?

Answer: because greedy non-healthcare for profit insurance companies will not make money and doctors will only make 250K instead of 500K per year and big pharma will not be able to hock thier worthless pills on us at theft-like prices.....

its a tough call

 

[jreeves]

My question is if other countries have universal health care why can't the richest country in the world not have it?

Answer: because greedy non-healthcare for profit insurance companies will not make money and doctors will only make 250K instead of 500K per year and big pharma will not be able to hock thier worthless pills on us at theft-like prices.....

its a tough call

Novel idea...if you liberals want to pay for universal healthcare go ahead....Why don't we come up with special fund called universal healthcare? If you don't want to pay then fine. Let's see how much funding it gets?? Sound like a good idea?

 

[Gunny]

My question is if other countries have universal health care why can't the richest country in the world not have it?

Answer: because greedy non-healthcare for profit insurance companies will not make money and doctors will only make 250K instead of 500K per year and big pharma will not be able to hock thier worthless pills on us at theft-like prices.....

its a tough call

Not a tough call at all. If they earn it, they should be allowed to have it.

Why do people like you think it's okay to take from me what I have earned and just give it to someone who hasn't earned shit? That's called STEALING where I'm from.

 

[JeffWartman]

Not a tough call at all. If they earn it, they should be allowed to have it.

Why do people like you think it's okay to take from me what I have earned and just give it to someone who hasn't earned shit? That's called STEALING where I'm from.

 

[Obama4Pres08]

Novel idea...if you liberals want to pay for universal healthcare go ahead....Why don't we come up with special fund called universal healthcare? If you don't want to pay then fine. Let's see how much funding it gets?? Sound like a good idea?

I would say the same thing for the military.....lets make that an opt out choice on tax witholding form as well.......

 

[Obama4Pres08]

Not a tough call at all. If they earn it, they should be allowed to have it.

Why do people like you think it's okay to take from me what I have earned and just give it to someone who hasn't earned shit? That's called STEALING where I'm from.

Well in Texarkana that may be true, but in the civilized world (other countries) people actually have a sense of humanity and altruism that you apparantly don't have.

Its not your fault.

You are just stuck in 1865.

 

[jreeves]

I would say the same thing for the military.....lets make that an opt out choice on tax witholding form as well.......

Sounds like a winner to me

 

[jreeves]

Well in Texarkana that may be true, but in the civilized world (other countries) people actually have a sense of humanity and altruism that you apparantly don't have.

Its not your fault.

You are just stuck in 1865.

No when the top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of the taxes in this country they shouldn't have to constantly fund a circle of poverty...

 

[Gunny]

Well in Texarkana that may be true, but in the civilized world (other countries) people actually have a sense of humanity and altruism that you apparantly don't have.

Its not your fault.

You are just stuck in 1865.

No, I'm stuck in 2008 listening to a bunch of leftwingnuts wanting to help themselves to even MORE of my wallet.

You mean those "civilized" European countries wallowing in mediocrity? It doesn't require humanity to believe people who don't earn something are entitled to it nonetheless. It just requires being kinda dumb.

And I don't know shit about Texarkana, fwiw.

 

[Obama4Pres08]

No, I'm stuck in 2008 listening to a bunch of leftwingnuts wanting to help themselves to even MORE of my wallet.

You mean those "civilized" European countries wallowing in mediocrity? It doesn't require humanity to believe people who don't earn something are entitled to it nonetheless. It just requires being kinda dumb.

And I don't know shit about Texarkana, fwiw.

Get ready gunny, kicking and screaming you will learn to help others and realize no man or country is an island. It will be a learning experience for you.

old dogs can learn new tricks!

even you

 

[jreeves]

Get ready gunny, kicking and screaming you will learn to help others and realize no man or country is an island. It will be a learning experience for you.

old dogs can learn new tricks!

even you

Wishful thinking on your part....when people find out about 800 billion in new governmental spending....they will think twice. Who's going to expose him now, Hillary...LOL

 

[Obama4Pres08]

Wishful thinking on your part....when people find out about 800 billion in new governmental spending....they will think twice. Who's going to expose him now, Hillary...LOL

yes and that Bush signed it into law, they are going to say great he is finally working with the democrats....heck we may make Bush an honorary democrat for a day for all this spending he has agreed to! HAHA Pelosi is pushing him around like the empty suit he really is!

This is great stuff!

 

[jreeves]

yes and that Bush signed it into law, they are going to say great he is finally working with the democrats....heck we may make Bush an honorary democrat for a day for all this spending he has agreed to! HAHA Pelosi is pushing him around like the empty suit he really is!

This is great stuff!

Obviously there is no one home....800 billion dollars is what Barrack "can't spend enough" Obama has proposed in "additional" governmental spending....D-Do y--yyyou g---gget m--me? I thought maybe if I slowed it down for you, you might understand....LOL

 

[Gunny]

Get ready gunny, kicking and screaming you will learn to help others and realize no man or country is an island. It will be a learning experience for you.

old dogs can learn new tricks!

even you

Got news for you junior, I do not nor have I ever had a problem with helping those truly in need, and I surely doubt the likes of you are going to teach me a damned thing. You didn't invent backwards-assed thinking ... it's been around awhile and I rejected it before you were a twinkle in your parents' eyes then as I do now.

And you would be wrong about the being dragged kicking and screaming. I'll just resort to what everyone else who's tired of being ripped off does and hide my money. Better that than using it to chase your will 'o' wisps.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I would say the same thing for the military.....lets make that an opt out choice on tax witholding form as well.......

You really are a oron, this proves it yet again. The Federal Government is RESPONSIBLE for defending us. The Military is one of the FEW things in the Federal Budget that can NOT be claimed as not being a power of and responsibility of the Government. RETARD.

 

[manifold]

The Federal Government solely exists to ensure the individual States Get along, a unified voice is present for foreign diplomacy and policy and to provide for the Common defense.

LOL!


That might've been true for a nano-second after the Constitution was ratified, but nary a moment longer. For better or worse states rights were eroded with every passing moment from that point forward and the death knell was finally rung by honest Abe and the Civil War. It still is cute though to see politicians touting states rights as if it still exists. And even cuter how people buy into the nonsense.

 

[manifold]

And yet you can not site a single granted power in the Constitution that allows any social program AT ALL. Other then claiming there is a "general welfare" clause that somehow supercedes the STATED LIMITED powers of the Federal Government in the document.

LOL! Redux!

Your interpretation is spot on, no argument here. It's just that it is inconsistent with reality. The Tenth Amendment was the first to get shit on and it started right from the get go. See Gibbons vs. Ogden for example:

Gibbons v. Ogden
US Supreme Court case of 1824 that established the federal government's authority over the states in the regulation of interstate commerce. The decision, involving steamboat operation between New York and New Jersey, abolished monopoly control over navigation and led to increased federal regulation of the economy.


The conflict arose when New York issued an injunction against Thomas Gibbons, prohibiting his steamboat operation between New York and New Jersey. Although Gibbons was federally licensed, his business was in violation of a state law that granted to Aaron Ogden a monopoly on all steamboat operation in New York. Gibbons appealed to the US Supreme Court, which ruled that the New York law was de facto interference with the federal regulation of interstate commerce and therefore was unconstitutional.


The case was argued by US Congressman (later secretary of state) Daniel Webster. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the opinion, which became an important interpretation of the commerce clause of the US Constitution.

 

[manifold]

Quite a stretch deciding what I "prefer" based on pointing out the flaw in your thinking.

Not really. Correct me if I'm wrong but you said the strong don't need civilization and laws to survive, only the weak do. In my simple-minded understanding of reality, the absence of civilization and laws = anarchy. Please educate me as to where my understanding is incomplete.