Health Care Is Not A Right!

I Love America said:
Well of course if I think they are wrong, I don't like the decision.

You don't? Or do you like the decision but think they are wrong? Or do you oppose the decision and think they are right? Can you give examples of each?

I am giving you an example of something that could be passed using the General Welfare Clause. You claim it is unlimited. Or if you aren't claiming unlimited spending power for the gobblement tell me what limits you think there are?

I can wait
Click to expand...

Ignorant liar. I never claimed it unlimited.

Your gun purchase analogy is laughably absurd.

Give up, moron, when you're just in a deep hole rather than the deepest kind.
 
domer76 said:
Ignorant liar. I never claimed it unlimited.

Your gun purchase analogy is laughably absurd.

Give up, moron, when you're just in a deep hole rather than the deepest kind.
Click to expand...

So define the limits

BAC says it is whatever we as citizens want. Do you agree with him? If there are limits what defines them?

Couldn't ANYTHING be construed as the "General Welfare"
 
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...

In 1948, the United States and the rest of the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which reads in part...

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
Click to expand...

Who gives a shit whether it is in the constitution?

The constitution itself says it does not spell out all possible rights. Amendment nine, as I recall.

The United States, thus recognized that the right to an adequate standard of health and medical care was a fundamental universal right, agreed to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

That's the facts, Jack.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
In 1948, the United States and the rest of the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which reads in part...



Who gives a shit whether it is in the constitution?

The constitution itself says it does not spell out all possible rights. Amendment nine, as I recall.

The United States, thus recognized that the right to an adequate standard of health and medical care was a fundamental universal right, agreed to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

That's the facts, Jack.
Click to expand...

There's such a thing as being right and wrong at the same time. Why bring up the UN when you don't have to?
 
Guille said:
There's such a thing as being right and wrong at the same time. Why bring up the UN when you don't have to?
Click to expand...

Feel free to tell your grandparents, your uncles, and your aunts to their faces that you demand they give up their Medicare because you are ideologically against the idea.
 
Last edited:
I Love America said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think you would be surprised and shocked how many message board wingnuts actually collect disability or Medicare, while at the same time whining and wailing about getting the government out of health care
 
Cypress said:
In 1948, the United States and the rest of the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which reads in part...



Who gives a shit whether it is in the constitution?

The constitution itself says it does not spell out all possible rights. Amendment nine, as I recall.

The United States, thus recognized that the right to an adequate standard of health and medical care was a fundamental universal right, agreed to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

That's the facts, Jack.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant.
 
Cypress said:
Feel free to tell your grandparents, your uncles, and your aunts to their faces that you demand they give up their Medicare because you are ideologically against the idea.
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about medicare, I was talking about you injecting foreign agents into a discussion about the Constitution. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
 
Guille said:
I wasn't talking about medicare, I was talking about you injecting foreign agents into a discussion about the Constitution. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Click to expand...

I was talking about the moral values of humanity and how some American republicans are an exception to values the rest of the world take as fundamental to being a human .
I believe Cypress was alluding to the same thing.
 
Last edited:
The left has made healthcare accessible for everybody. Now, nobody can afford it.

That's what happens when you make something a right.
 
Free health care is a human right, and anyone who denies it should be jailed for murder. It is easily affordable except when it has to compete with vanity prices paid by the thieving classes.
 
Cypress said:
I think you would be surprised and shocked how many message board wingnuts actually collect disability or Medicare, while at the same time whining and wailing about getting the government out of health care
Click to expand...

One of the most virulent right wing nuts ever to disgrace the web was a welfare cheat in Wisconsin.
 
Stretch said:
Whew, you're exasperating. Socialism is living off the handouts from others and not taking care of your needs yourself.:palm:
Click to expand...

No, sorry asswipe, socialism is when many pool their resources so that when a few of that group are in need they can be helped by drawing on that pool.
That is insurance, and socialism, described to a tee.
YOU are a fucking socialist and you never knew it.
LMFAO
 
Rune said:
She would never call the fire dept.,
drive on a paved road, go to a public hospital, collect S.S.
and clearly didn't go to school.
Click to expand...

That's the crux of it. Everything Republicans want they say is integral to what government is about, and everything they don't want they call socialism, meanwhile they use the whole of it unaware, like flicking a lightswitch walking into a dark room. They won't realise they are socialists by their own measure until the power goes out.
 
Buckly J. Ewer said:
No, sorry asswipe, socialism is when many pool their resources so that when a few of that group are in need they can be helped by drawing on that pool.
That is insurance, and socialism, described to a tee.
YOU are a fucking socialist and you never knew it.
LMFAO
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Lets start with this:


Definition of socialism

1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private propertyb : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top