Democrat Kamala Harris obliterated on Twitter...AGAIN

[Avatar4321]

Healthcare is labor provided by others. You do not have a right to another persons labor. The 13th amendment ended that argument definitively

Simple question, do our current laws allow the emergency room at hospitals to turn away people who need treatment?

No. Which is a major violation of the U.S. Constitution. But that should come as no surprise as it was Tip O'Neill and the Dumbocrats who crafted and passed that unconstitutional legislation in the 1980's.

Got your Constitutional right here Buttsoiler hack:

'“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"
​

You're welcome. You oughta read that thing.

That isn't a statement of rights. That is an explanation of why they are establishing the Constitution. Which is why it's called a Preamble. The system, including rights, to be protected are found in the actual articles and amendments of the Constitution. Anything not mentioned is the responsibility of individuals or the states.

Guess what isn't mentioned?

Health insurance

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Healthcare is labor provided by others. You do not have a right to another persons labor. The 13th amendment ended that argument definitively

Sorry --- "care" is not "labor".

What nurses and doctors do is labor dumb ass.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Healthcare is labor provided by others. You do not have a right to another persons labor. The 13th amendment ended that argument definitively

Sorry --- "care" is not "labor".

You literally get dumber every time you post. If a doctor or nurse provides "care" for you, they are providing their labor. You do not have a right to someone else's labor. We ended slavery in the 1860's (though you Dumbocrats have been trying ever since to bring it back).

Nope.

Building a house is "labor". Delivering the mail is "labor". Driving a truck is "labor".

Care is something you do out of humanity. If it were "labor" we'd all be owed a pretty penny by our aged parents.... that is, after we paid them off for their "labor" when we were infants.

Or in your case, still are.

Care is when you hold the door for somebody who's got their arms full. Or when you buy a friend a smoothie just because it's a nice thing to do. And it's what you do for someone who's injured, or sick, and needs help. You do it because you're both human. Sorry, you must be running to the dictionary at this point trying to figure out what I'm talking about.

Again RETARD the "care" provided by a Nurse or Doctor is LABOR.

 

[Slade3200]

Healthcare is labor provided by others. You do not have a right to another persons labor. The 13th amendment ended that argument definitively

Simple question, do our current laws allow the emergency room at hospitals to turn away people who need treatment?

No. Which is a major violation of the U.S. Constitution. But that should come as no surprise as it was Tip O'Neill and the Dumbocrats who crafted and passed that unconstitutional legislation in the 1980's.

Doesn't the constitution give our elected officials the right to pass laws, and isn't there a process of checks and balances via the supreme court to rule on the legality of such laws? I believe this is the system defined by the constitution, so how can you make the claim that this legislation is a major violation of the U.S. Constitution?

 

[Slade3200]

So again I ask you Slade3200 - is the government required to provide me with firearms since they are a constitutional right? Yes or No?

Of course not

 

[Slade3200]

Right now people go to the ER and get treated. The tax payers pay those bills for those who are uninsured. Correct?

What?!? In what world do you live in?!? Unless they are on Medicaid - the answer is an unequivocal and overwhelming NO. No they don't. The government doesn't cover that at all.

Initially the hospital eats the cost and then they pass it off to the consumer later on (which is why a freaking aspirin costs $10 in a hospital) to cover it.

You are right... I thought that since there was a law requiring hospitals to treat the uninsured the state or feds were covering those costs by reimbursing the hospitals. But I was mistaken. Apparently, as you said, the hospitals absorb the costs and raise prices. The uninsured go bankrupt in many cases.

 

[Lakhota]

Kamala Harris is correct. She may be president someday. Healthcare is clearly an unenumerated right.

CRS/LII Annotated Constitution Ninth Amendment

 

[theHawk]

This woman really needs to get off of Twitter. Every time she tweets something with the arrogant belief that she knows best - the American people obliterate her.

Liberal senator says health care a ‘right’ not a ‘privilege’ — gets bold reality check from constituents

It is a "right" technically. No one is being persecuted for having health care. Ironically under the ACA you do get persecuted for not having health care, which actually violates the idea of health care being a "right". But these moronic liberals twist the meaning of words and now a "right" is something that the government must provide to you. This is a complete fallacy though. Anytime a dumb liberal brings up this nonsense, just ask them where your government provided firearm is. If we had a law similar to the ACA for firearms, we'd require every American to own a firearm, and if they don't...fines and jail.

 

[P@triot]

Healthcare is labor provided by others. You do not have a right to another persons labor. The 13th amendment ended that argument definitively

Simple question, do our current laws allow the emergency room at hospitals to turn away people who need treatment?

No. Which is a major violation of the U.S. Constitution. But that should come as no surprise as it was Tip O'Neill and the Dumbocrats who crafted and passed that unconstitutional legislation in the 1980's.

Doesn't the constitution give our elected officials the right to pass laws, and isn't there a process of checks and balances via the supreme court to rule on the legality of such laws? I believe this is the system defined by the constitution, so how can you make the claim that this legislation is a major violation of the U.S. Constitution?

You're under the impression that as long as Congress votes on something and passes it into law - it is magically legal and constitutional. That's simply not the case.

Tomorrow, Congress could pass a law stating that it's ok to execute black people (after all, at one time the government said it was ok to own them). And the Supreme Court could uphold that legislation. So in your mind, that would immediately make it ok to start executing black people? Or would you recognize how unconstitutional that is?

Congress is not free to do anything they want just because they were elected representatives. They are still very much restricted by the U.S. Constitution. And relying on the judicial branch to restrain them is absurd - especially in this era of partisan, political activists such as Elana Kagen, Sonja Sotomayor, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Not a one of them acts as actual justices. They serve as political activists and they were appointed specifically for the purpose of rubber stamping the Democrat agenda.

The founders were extremely clear that every person was responsible for knowing the U.S. Constitution and for resisting anything government did which was unconstitutional. Thomas Jefferson said it best:

“In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution”. – Thomas Jefferson (1798 in the Kentucky Resolutions)

Congress cannot pass any legislation they want just because they want to. They are bound by the chains of the Constitution. Unfortunately, the left in this country hates the U.S. Constitution and has allowed them to egregiously violate it.

Excerpt From: Andrew M. Allison. “The Real Thomas Jefferson: The True Story of America's Philosopher of Freedom.”

 

[P@triot]

So again I ask you Slade3200 - is the government required to provide me with firearms since they are a constitutional right? Yes or No?

Of course not

So wouldn't logic and reason dictate that if they have no responsibility to pay for my firearms to fulfill my 2nd Amendment rights, there is absolutely no responsibility for them to pay for healthcare to fulfill my healthcare rights?

A right is not something the government provides. A right is something that the government cannot prevent.

 

[P@triot]

Right now people go to the ER and get treated. The tax payers pay those bills for those who are uninsured. Correct?

What?!? In what world do you live in?!? Unless they are on Medicaid - the answer is an unequivocal and overwhelming NO. No they don't. The government doesn't cover that at all.

Initially the hospital eats the cost and then they pass it off to the consumer later on (which is why a freaking aspirin costs $10 in a hospital) to cover it.

You are right... I thought that since there was a law requiring hospitals to treat the uninsured the state or feds were covering those costs by reimbursing the hospitals. But I was mistaken. Apparently, as you said, the hospitals absorb the costs and raise prices. The uninsured go bankrupt in many cases.

Correct! Thank you

(Again...unless the individual in question is on Medicare or Medicaid. Then of course the government does cover the majority of the cost - though some is still the responsibility of the individual). But traditionally there have been quite a few people that were uninsured but doesn't qualify for Medicare or Medicaid. I actually knew an individual like that once. They had to have a life saving surgery. The hospital simply ate the cost. They send the individual a bill, but they aren't able to pay it. So the hospital passes those costs on to insurance companies and other consumers. One of many reasons why that Tip O'Neil Congress should have never passed that law.

 

[Pogo]

Healthcare is labor provided by others. You do not have a right to another persons labor. The 13th amendment ended that argument definitively

Simple question, do our current laws allow the emergency room at hospitals to turn away people who need treatment?

No. Which is a major violation of the U.S. Constitution. But that should come as no surprise as it was Tip O'Neill and the Dumbocrats who crafted and passed that unconstitutional legislation in the 1980's.

Got your Constitutional right here Buttsoiler hack:

'“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"
​

You're welcome. You oughta read that thing.

That isn't a statement of rights. That is an explanation of why they are establishing the Constitution. Which is why it's called a Preamble. The system, including rights, to be protected are found in the actual articles and amendments of the Constitution. Anything not mentioned is the responsibility of individuals or the states.

Guess what isn't mentioned?

Health insurance

I didn't even MENTION "rights" there Evelyn Wood. Read it again, and this time pay attention.

Hint --- look for the word "violation".

 

[Slade3200]

Healthcare is labor provided by others. You do not have a right to another persons labor. The 13th amendment ended that argument definitively

Simple question, do our current laws allow the emergency room at hospitals to turn away people who need treatment?

No. Which is a major violation of the U.S. Constitution. But that should come as no surprise as it was Tip O'Neill and the Dumbocrats who crafted and passed that unconstitutional legislation in the 1980's.

Doesn't the constitution give our elected officials the right to pass laws, and isn't there a process of checks and balances via the supreme court to rule on the legality of such laws? I believe this is the system defined by the constitution, so how can you make the claim that this legislation is a major violation of the U.S. Constitution?

You're under the impression that as long as Congress votes on something and passes it into law - it is magically legal and constitutional. That's simply not the case.

Tomorrow, Congress could pass a law stating that it's ok to execute black people (after all, at one time the government said it was ok to own them). And the Supreme Court could uphold that legislation. So in your mind, that would immediately make it ok to start executing black people? Or would you recognize how unconstitutional that is?

Congress is not free to do anything they want just because they were elected representatives. They are still very much restricted by the U.S. Constitution. And relying on the judicial branch to restrain them is absurd - especially in this era of partisan, political activists such as Elana Kagen, Sonja Sotomayor, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Not a one of them acts as actual justices. They serve as political activists and they were appointed specifically for the purpose of rubber stamping the Democrat agenda.

The founders were extremely clear that every person was responsible for knowing the U.S. Constitution and for resisting anything government did which was unconstitutional. Thomas Jefferson said it best:

“In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution”. – Thomas Jefferson (1798 in the Kentucky Resolutions)

Congress cannot pass any legislation they want just because they want to. They are bound by the chains of the Constitution. Unfortunately, the left in this country hates the U.S. Constitution and has allowed them to egregiously violate it.

Excerpt From: Andrew M. Allison. “The Real Thomas Jefferson: The True Story of America's Philosopher of Freedom.”

That's a nice story but you aren't right. They actually can and they have passed laws since the inception of our government that people like you have argued are unconstitutional. But like it or not they are our laws. This is our reality

 

[Slade3200]

So again I ask you Slade3200 - is the government required to provide me with firearms since they are a constitutional right? Yes or No?

Of course not

So wouldn't logic and reason dictate that if they have no responsibility to pay for my firearms to fulfill my 2nd Amendment rights, there is absolutely no responsibility for them to pay for healthcare to fulfill my healthcare rights?

A right is not something the government provides. A right is something that the government cannot prevent.

Right now they have no responsibility to pay for everybodies healthcare. But again we have laws, bills and acts that dictate how our government strands our tax money to best benefit the welfare of the people. That's what elections, debate, and legislation is all about

 

[Slade3200]

Right now people go to the ER and get treated. The tax payers pay those bills for those who are uninsured. Correct?

What?!? In what world do you live in?!? Unless they are on Medicaid - the answer is an unequivocal and overwhelming NO. No they don't. The government doesn't cover that at all.

Initially the hospital eats the cost and then they pass it off to the consumer later on (which is why a freaking aspirin costs $10 in a hospital) to cover it.

You are right... I thought that since there was a law requiring hospitals to treat the uninsured the state or feds were covering those costs by reimbursing the hospitals. But I was mistaken. Apparently, as you said, the hospitals absorb the costs and raise prices. The uninsured go bankrupt in many cases.

Correct! Thank you

(Again...unless the individual in question is on Medicare or Medicaid. Then of course the government does cover the majority of the cost - though some is still the responsibility of the individual). But traditionally there have been quite a few people that were uninsured but doesn't qualify for Medicare or Medicaid. I actually knew an individual like that once. They had to have a life saving surgery. The hospital simply ate the cost. They send the individual a bill, but they aren't able to pay it. So the hospital passes those costs on to insurance companies and other consumers. One of many reasons why that Tip O'Neil Congress should have never passed that law.

It's a sticky situation. Would you propose that hospitals allow people to die in their waiting rooms if they don't have insurance or prove to have the means to pay for care? Obviously the best solution is to have as many people covered as possible, would you agree with that?

 

[P@triot]

They actually can and they have passed laws since the inception of our government that people like you have argued are unconstitutional. But like it or not they are our laws. This is our reality

Oh I'm well aware of the fact that the Dumbocrat Party can and does violate the law. I'm well aware of their unconstitutional nonsense like welfare, Social Security, etc.

But just because they do something doesn't mean it was legal. Every day in this nation, women are raped and beaten by left-wingers. But just because they do that doesn't make it ok or legal. That's an obvious reality that you need to embrace.

 

[P@triot]

Right now they have no responsibility to pay for everybodies healthcare. But again we have laws, bills and acts that dictate how our government strands our tax money to best benefit the welfare of the people. That's what elections, debate, and legislation is all about

More importantly - we have a U.S. Constitution that dictates how our government must operate and it absolutely trumps elections, debates, and legislation. And it clearly dictates that the federal government has no authority to redistribute wealth.

 

[Slade3200]

They actually can and they have passed laws since the inception of our government that people like you have argued are unconstitutional. But like it or not they are our laws. This is our reality

Oh I'm well aware of the fact that the Dumbocrat Party can and does violate the law. I'm well aware of their unconstitutional nonsense like welfare, Social Security, etc.

But just because they do something doesn't mean it was legal. Every day in this nation, women are raped and beaten by left-wingers. But just because they do that doesn't make it ok or legal. That's an obvious reality that you need to embrace.

You think it's just the democrats? WHEre have you been? DID You happen to get a look at the new healthcare bill the GoP is trying pass? You really don't see anything in there that you consider unconstitutional? It keeps half of what the ACA had. Also, welfare, SS and Medicare all passed with bipartisan support. SS only had 6 nay votes.

 

[P@triot]

It's a sticky situation. Would you propose that hospitals allow people to die in their waiting rooms if they don't have insurance or prove to have the means to pay for care?

No. I would propose that we allow the individual to handle their own business and in the cases where they didn't or were unable to - we allow charity to handle it.

• St. Jude's provides healthcare to children at absolutely no cost to the family.

• The Shriners Hospital provides healthcare to children at absolutely no cost to the family.

Both are proof that it can be done. And if we eliminate over $1 trillion per year in entitlements - it can be done even better.

Obviously the best solution is to have as many people covered as possible, would you agree with that?

Ideally? Absolutely.

 

[P@triot]

DID You happen to get a look at the new healthcare bill the GoP is trying pass? You really don't see anything in there that you consider unconstitutional?

Any legislation Congress creates, discusses, or passes into law is 100% unconstitutional as healthcare is not the constitutional responsibility of the federal government.