Health Care Is Not A Right!

Buckly J. Ewer said:
In most of the civilized world healthcare is most certainly a right.
In fact the USA is the only country in the fucking world where it is legal for an insurance company to make a profit selling health insurance to human beings.
Almost all of humanity sees this as a moral issue, which indeed it is...
Sooooooo... FUCK YOU.
Click to expand...

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah...perfect...glad to see a lib finally admit it. So, it IS actually OK to legislate morality after all!!!!!! :wellplayed:
 
Stretch said:
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah...perfect...glad to see a lib finally admit it. So, it IS actually OK to legislate morality after all!!!!!! :wellplayed
Click to expand...

When the immorality comes from corporate avarice and greed then yes ... of course ...
Left to their own devices, without regulation corporate-think becomes absolutely inhuman ...
I know swine like you are fine with that, but most of humanity are not.
 
Buckly J. Ewer said:
When the immorality comes from corporate avarice and greed then yes ... of course ...
Left to their own devices, without regulation corporate-think becomes absolutely inhuman ...
I know swine like you are fine with that, but most of humanity are not.
Click to expand...

Nice try, get in line...a lot folks have some moral issues they'd like addressed by the gubment.
 
Stretch said:
Nice try, get in line...a lot folks have some moral issues they'd like addressed by the gubment.
Click to expand...

Do you believe it is moral for corporate swine to turn a huge profit from the misfortune and suffering of millions of Americans?
No need to answer...
The question was rhetorical...
I know you do...
fucking swine
 
Buckly J. Ewer said:
Do you believe it is moral for corporate swine to turn a huge profit from the misfortune and suffering of millions of Americans?
No need to answer...
The question was rhetorical...
I know you do...
fucking swine
Click to expand...

I have no problem paying an affordable amount for car ins., home ins. or health ins. rather than be held responsible for an entire astronomical amount should a situation arise. Stick with your GoFundMe to babysit your financial responsibilities.
 
domer76 said:
Cute little tactic that losing shitweasels like you employ. Put words in another's mouth and reply to those. Sorry, douchenozzle, that shit won't fly.

Nobody said anything about changing things "Willy nilly". Quit pulling garbage out of your ass and act as if it's truth.

I also never said it was in the Constitution, you fucking cretin. You asked for a quote from the founders and I provided them.

You have the intellect and comprehension skills of a 5th grader.

Why debate you there? I regularly kick your ass everywhere else.

Fucking illiterate tard.
Click to expand...

Well I read your post five times and never did I find the words "living document"

Maybe you misunderstood?

As for changing the Constitution willy nilly, that is precisely what you support

You stretch the meaning of "general welfare" to a point where the Constitution has no meaning

It was a document written to restrict the power of government. Period. It was not written to bestow rights upon you

Your ignorance is staggering.

You wouldn't last 1:1 with me in app. You cowardice is duly noted for all to see
 
Stretch said:
I have no problem paying an affordable amount for car ins., home ins. or health ins. rather than be held responsible for an entire astronomical amount should a situation arise. Stick with your GoFundMe to babysit your financial responsibilities.
Click to expand...

Any insurance is a form a socialism...
You are a socialist and you don't even know it.
 
Chlorate said:
They were liberals. Sam Adams and Patrick Henry were the radicals. Those who were still around in 1787 also had a habit of being antifederalists. There weren't any leftists around, though.
Click to expand...

Which means there were no modern liberals.

Modern liberals appropriated the term 'liberal'. They were classical liberals that would roll over in their graves if they saw how the constitution has been mangled.
 
I Love America said:
Well I read your post five times and never did I find the words "living document"

Maybe you misunderstood?

As for changing the Constitution willy nilly, that is precisely what you support

You stretch the meaning of "general welfare" to a point where the Constitution has no meaning

It was a document written to restrict the power of government. Period. It was not written to bestow rights upon you

Your ignorance is staggering.

You wouldn't last 1:1 with me in app. You cowardice is duly noted for all to see
Click to expand...

It's impossible to discuss an issue with someone of such massive ignorance as you. Since you were corrected once on my stance, now you have wandered, as you are wont to do, into the realm of the liar. Lying Pussy. Dubious distinction, LP.

The General Welfare Clause gives Congress broad authority to not only spend money for the 'general welfare', but gives them discretionary powers to determine what the'general welfare' is. Don't like that part of the Constitution, cherry-picking cocksucker? Tough shit. The Clause is in there and has been ruled upon. And, despite what your little peabrain thinks, it does not render the Constitution meaningless.

APP debate? lol You're getting your scrawny ass handed to you here. With every post. Not even a contest.

Fucking Constitutional cretin.
 
philly rabbit said:
This is one topic that I completely agree with Ron Paul on while disagreeing with the president, that being the ever growing, tax draining monster called health care. The republicans didn't replace Obama care with a better plan because there is no better plan. Both parties have this belief in their heads that health care is the responsibility of the federal government because health care is a right.

It is not, and under the constitution, it was never meant to be. The monster in the room will continue to grow and it's hunger for tax dollars will never cease because health care is supposed to be a right of the people.

The president should spend his term in office finding ways to slow down the growth of the monster and save billions of dollars doing it such as making cuts to both medicare and Medicaid whenever possible.
Click to expand...

Is proper public sanitation a right?
 
domer76 said:
It's impossible to discuss an issue with someone of such massive ignorance as you. Since you were corrected once on my stance, now you have wandered, as you are wont to do, into the realm of the liar. Lying Pussy. Dubious distinction, LP.

The General Welfare Clause gives Congress broad authority to not only spend money for the 'general welfare', but gives them discretionary powers to determine what the'general welfare' is. Don't like that part of the Constitution, cherry-picking cocksucker? Tough shit. The Clause is in there and has been ruled upon. And, despite what your little peabrain thinks, it does not render the Constitution meaningless.

APP debate? lol You're getting your scrawny ass handed to you here. With every post. Not even a contest.

Fucking Constitutional cretin.
Click to expand...

You are still wrong
 
domer76 said:
It's impossible to discuss an issue with someone of such massive ignorance as you. Since you were corrected once on my stance, now you have wandered, as you are wont to do, into the realm of the liar. Lying Pussy. Dubious distinction, LP.

The General Welfare Clause gives Congress broad authority to not only spend money for the 'general welfare', but gives them discretionary powers to determine what the'general welfare' is. Don't like that part of the Constitution, cherry-picking cocksucker? Tough shit. The Clause is in there and has been ruled upon. And, despite what your little peabrain thinks, it does not render the Constitution meaningless.

APP debate? lol You're getting your scrawny ass handed to you here. With every post. Not even a contest.

Fucking Constitutional cretin.
Click to expand...

James Madison's thoughts on General Welfare Clause

With respect to the two words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.
 
domer76 said:
It's impossible to discuss an issue with someone of such massive ignorance as you. Since you were corrected once on my stance, now you have wandered, as you are wont to do, into the realm of the liar. Lying Pussy. Dubious distinction, LP.

The General Welfare Clause gives Congress broad authority to not only spend money for the 'general welfare', but gives them discretionary powers to determine what the'general welfare' is. Don't like that part of the Constitution, cherry-picking cocksucker? Tough shit. The Clause is in there and has been ruled upon. And, despite what your little peabrain thinks, it does not render the Constitution meaningless.

APP debate? lol You're getting your scrawny ass handed to you here. With every post. Not even a contest.

Fucking Constitutional cretin.
Click to expand...

Alexander Hamilton who supported more centralized power on General Welfare Clause. From Federalist 83

This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top