Head to head debate

Yurt said:
thats it? a blanket statement?

ok. if you want to debate like that.

the unaffordable healthcare act is not constitutional.

but, i will add more. there is nothing in the constitution that allows the federal government to force you to purchase a product, like an insurance financial product. if you believe there is, then you must also believe that the government can force you to purchase spandex. you cannot cite to anything in the constitution to support your position. if scotus ultimately agrees with you, whats next? spandex? where does the power to force you to purchase something stop?
Click to expand...

of course its constiutional the question is, is it the right thing to do? Will it work? Will it save people money? Will it save the government money? Will it help people get medical treatment?
 
hotdog said:
of course its constiutional the question is, is it the right thing to do? Will it work? Will it save people money? Will it save the government money? Will it help people get medical treatment?
Click to expand...

how is it constitutional? can the government force you to buy spandex?
 
Yurt said:
how is it constitutional? can the government force you to buy spandex?
Click to expand...

Yes but why would congressmon want to get kicked out of office. The government is limited by the fact that if they do something stupid voters might notice.
 
apple0154 said:
The Preamble to the Constitution reads, "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."

It's been recognized that it states the general intent of the Constitution. The purpose of the Constitution.

Promote the general welfare. It's reasonable to conclude that means doing what helps the citizens and the country, as a whole.

Whether it's defense or productivity a healthy person is more capable of carrying out those tasks than would an ill individual.

When it comes to health care take something as simple as Propranolol. It can prevent strokes and potentially increase ones life by 20 or 30 years and at a cost of $0.25 per tablet/day that is equivalent to one hour's pay per month at minimum wage. If any government claims to be concerned about the general welfare of it's citizens would not it ensure everyone who required it would had access to that drug regardless of their ability to pay for it?

If the government is responsible for ensuring drinking water and food is safe to consume in order to prevent illness/death why would it not be responsible for health care in order to prevent illness/death?

Surely it's reasonable to interpret "promote the general Welfare" to include the government doing what it can to prevent the unnecessary illness and death of citizens.
Click to expand...

To PROMOTE, has never meant to REQUIRE.
 
Cancel9 said:
What a devastating mastery of debating techniques, Yurtsie.

Does this mean you're tired of Hotdog?
Click to expand...

hotdog is trolling, you should know as you're the expert. and notice you've never debated the subject yet. oh yeah, because you're a troll.

has your mom agreed to sell you her pinto yet?
 
Damocles said:
Wow Bfgrn stepped up and actually has an opinion of his own that isn't from somebodyelsesleftwingopinion.org!
Click to expand...
Nope! Google: "Among those who have joined in rejecting the century-old, long-defunct decisions" and you will get 9 exact matches, not including his cut-n-paste that he plagiarized here. :palm:
 
hotdog said:
Health care is not a commidity and it is very different from any other service. People can live without luxeries but you can't live without medical treatement.
Click to expand...

We can't live without food either, ....do the liberals want me to buy food insurance?....
I would be arrested if I tried to walk around naked....must I buy clothing insurance?
We survived for over 200 years without the government demanding we have mandatory medical care.

Bfgrn said:
Thank you for your honest self indictment. As I have said before, conservatives never have a penny of human capital in their solutions except for 3 exceptions: ME, MYSELF and I.
Click to expand...
If I could figure out wtf that statement of yours meant, I would reply...

I will not and can not take responsibility for the actions of others....but I certainly will take responsibility for my own actions as every man should.
 
Yurt said:
thats it? a blanket statement?

ok. if you want to debate like that.

the unaffordable healthcare act is not constitutional.

but, i will add more. there is nothing in the constitution that allows the federal government to force you to purchase a product, like an insurance financial product. if you believe there is, then you must also believe that the government can force you to purchase spandex. you cannot cite to anything in the constitution to support your position. if scotus ultimately agrees with you, whats next? spandex? where does the power to force you to purchase something stop?
Click to expand...

WOW Yurt...YOU are the one who chose the topic of the debate, whined that I did not start the debate on the topic YOU chose, and THIS is your argument? spandex?

You're right, the government can't make you buy spandex. A human being can go from womb to grave without wearing, touching or ever seeing spandex. Name ONE human being who can go from womb to grave without needing to enter the commerce of medical care?
 
Bfgrn said:
WOW Yurt...YOU are the one who chose the topic of the debate, whined that I did not start the debate on the topic YOU chose, and THIS is your argument? spandex?

You're right, the government can't make you buy spandex. A human being can go from womb to grave without wearing, touching or ever seeing spandex. Name ONE human being who can go from womb to grave without needing to enter the commerce of medical care?
Click to expand...

irrelevant to the issue of whether the government can FORCE you to purchase something. since your new slant is, well, the government can force you to purchase something because you can't live without it....can the government force you to buy a car? to buy food? afterall, you can't live without them. maybe a car, but food? can the government force you to buy food?
 
i wonder if bfgrn will ever actually provide support for his contention that it is constitutional to have the government force you to buy something...so far...all he has done is whine about the topic because i picked it...well, you said any topic

man up
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top