100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: more on why there is no such thing as a right to healthcare( | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
This is the most absurd logic I have ever seen! Oh c'mon! It is a very sick and twisted view....equating health care to slavery? What a joke. 
I also find it interesting how you will not respond to the question about your own health insurance coverage. Nationalized health care can be equated to slavery in that the user is at the whim of the government because the government is in control of the service and the money. If I didn't answer the question, I accidentally overlooked it. I mostly received help from family and friends (like responsible people should), and I am working on finding a way to get off of what little assistance I've needed. I'm a sort of "victim of bad luck", but I choose to work for independence rather than whine (I won't get into the specifics, as that is irrelevant to the argument). Where I come from, receiving help from family and friends is NOT being responsible. Doing it on my own is being responsible to me. The family is societies safety net. Its not about responsibility at all, its a family obligation to take care of their own. If one of them becomes an irresponsible crackhead, however, you might have to cut them off. You missed the point of the conversation. The conversation was about responsibility. Responsibility for what? Health care. I dont know what kind of family you come from but I make sure mine is taken care of and I dont intend to sick the government on my neighbors to accomplish that goal. Responsible for himself. Yes, you're right. You don't know what kind of caring family that I came from. By your logic I can go stick a gun in their face or have a government agent do it to procure their house from them because shelter is a human right and some people have no homes right? They are loving as you say, correct? Or is it only good for you to advocate that fate for us? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In an attempt to get this thread back on topic, and since many of you anti-anti's often quote or refer back to the founding fathers, consider this.
Our Founding Fathers cited the need to interpret the Constitution in light of changing circumstances. Thomas Jefferson wrote, "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." Our rights have changed over time. Get used to the idea and quit living in the past. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Responsibility is not receiving help from family and friends, responsibility is taking care of it on your own, to hear the republican/conservatives tell it. Of course not one of the conservative/republicans that I know got where they are without help from someone. They got grants for school, help from family, help from the government for housing or whatever, etc... Not one of those fiscally conservatives did it alone like they claim everyone else should do. Hypocrits. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Well this is twice we can agree on something . I take this a step farther to. all the rich from old times stole there money . and as far as rights go . once the congress passes this law it well be or right to medical care of some sort . But I finally heard Obama say what its going to cost . and yes you well have no choice . if your a low income worker say $60,000. a year you well pay 13% of your gross . then a per cent of the charge . its the reason I wanted the government to make insurance illegal . when doctors had to compete there prices would have to come down to where we can afford it . the per cent is at least another 20% .... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Responsibility is not receiving help from family and friends, responsibility is taking care of it on your own, to hear the republican/conservatives tell it. Of course not one of the conservative/republicans that I know got where they are without help from someone. They got grants for school, help from family, help from the government for housing or whatever, etc... Not one of those fiscally conservatives did it alone like they claim everyone else should do. Hypocrits. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Well this is twice we can agree on something . I take this a step farther to. all the rich from old times stole there money . and as far as rights go . once the congress passes this law it well be or right to medical care of some sort . But I finally heard Obama say what its going to cost . and yes you well have no choice . if your a low income worker say $60,000. a year you well pay 13% of your gross . then a per cent of the charge . its the reason I wanted the government to make insurance illegal . when doctors had to compete there prices would have to come down to where we can afford it . the per cent is at least another 20% .... They're already amending things now. These are the latest thoughts: "Details weren't final, but one possibility was to lower the maximum amount of income people could pay in premiums before becoming eligible for subsidies. It's now 13 percent. Another was to adjust the new insurance excise tax — now set to hit plans valued at $21,000 for a family and $8,000 for an individual — so that it's limited to even more expensive plans over time." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090921/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is the most absurd logic I have ever seen! Oh c'mon! It is a very sick and twisted view....equating health care to slavery? What a joke.
I also find it interesting how you will not respond to the question about your own health insurance coverage. Nationalized health care can be equated to slavery in that the user is at the whim of the government because the government is in control of the service and the money. If I didn't answer the question, I accidentally overlooked it. I mostly received help from family and friends (like responsible people should), and I am working on finding a way to get off of what little assistance I've needed. I'm a sort of "victim of bad luck", but I choose to work for independence rather than whine (I won't get into the specifics, as that is irrelevant to the argument). Where I come from, receiving help from family and friends is NOT being responsible. Doing it on my own is being responsible to me. The family is societies safety net. Its not about responsibility at all, its a family obligation to take care of their own. If one of them becomes an irresponsible crackhead, however, you might have to cut them off. You missed the point of the conversation. The conversation was about responsibility. Responsibility for what? Health care. I dont know what kind of family you come from but I make sure mine is taken care of and I dont intend to sick the government on my neighbors to accomplish that goal. Responsible for himself. Yes, you're right. You don't know what kind of caring family that I came from. By your logic I can go stick a gun in their face or have a government agent do it to procure their house from them because shelter is a human right and some people have no homes right? They are loving as you say, correct? Or is it only good for you to advocate that fate for us? What kind of analogy is that? Whatever are you talking about? My comment was "Where I come from, receiving help from family and friends is NOT being responsible. Doing it on my own is being responsible to me." Now you have me and my family doing all of that? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In an attempt to get this thread back on topic, and since many of you anti-anti's often quote or refer back to the founding fathers, consider this. Our Founding Fathers cited the need to interpret the Constitution in light of changing circumstances. Thomas Jefferson wrote, "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." Our rights have changed over time. Get used to the idea and quit living in the past.
One thing I am sure of is he did not write that in support of confiscatory taxation to accomplish the goals of a political philosophy that intends to abolish the constitution in the end. No new discovery or changing time has led to a place where socialism works. In fact its already killed at least 100million in the last century. I would prefer to leave it on that bonepile and not resurrect it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Responsibility is not receiving help from family and friends, responsibility is taking care of it on your own, to hear the republican/conservatives tell it. Of course not one of the conservative/republicans that I know got where they are without help from someone. They got grants for school, help from family, help from the government for housing or whatever, etc... Not one of those fiscally conservatives did it alone like they claim everyone else should do. Hypocrits. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Well this is twice we can agree on something . I take this a step farther to. all the rich from old times stole there money . and as far as rights go . once the congress passes this law it well be or right to medical care of some sort . But I finally heard Obama say what its going to cost . and yes you well have no choice . if your a low income worker say $60,000. a year you well pay 13% of your gross . then a per cent of the charge . its the reason I wanted the government to make insurance illegal . when doctors had to compete there prices would have to come down to where we can afford it . the per cent is at least another 20% .... Now here we go. I totally agree on the mere existence of insurance for health being the problem. We need to pay money and see where it goes. Its like withholding tax, they know youd never scratch out a check for several grand so they get you that way. You would never pay 10 buck for an asprin, but they charge your insurance that all day long. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is the most absurd logic I have ever seen! Oh c'mon! It is a very sick and twisted view....equating health care to slavery? What a joke.
I also find it interesting how you will not respond to the question about your own health insurance coverage. Nationalized health care can be equated to slavery in that the user is at the whim of the government because the government is in control of the service and the money. If I didn't answer the question, I accidentally overlooked it. I mostly received help from family and friends (like responsible people should), and I am working on finding a way to get off of what little assistance I've needed. I'm a sort of "victim of bad luck", but I choose to work for independence rather than whine (I won't get into the specifics, as that is irrelevant to the argument). Where I come from, receiving help from family and friends is NOT being responsible. Doing it on my own is being responsible to me. The family is societies safety net. Its not about responsibility at all, its a family obligation to take care of their own. If one of them becomes an irresponsible crackhead, however, you might have to cut them off. You missed the point of the conversation. The conversation was about responsibility. Responsibility for what? Health care. I dont know what kind of family you come from but I make sure mine is taken care of and I dont intend to sick the government on my neighbors to accomplish that goal. Responsible for himself. Yes, you're right. You don't know what kind of caring family that I came from. By your logic I can go stick a gun in their face or have a government agent do it to procure their house from them because shelter is a human right and some people have no homes right? They are loving as you say, correct? Or is it only good for you to advocate that fate for us? What kind of analogy is that? Whatever are you talking about? My comment was "Where I come from, receiving help from family and friends is NOT being responsible. Doing it on my own is being responsible to me." Now you have me and my family doing all of that?
No you are advocating a law that would empower the government to extort money at gunpoint from your neighbors to pay for your own health care or someone elses. Sure we dress it up a bit, but if I dont want to pay, they come with guns. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is the most absurd logic I have ever seen! Oh c'mon! It is a very sick and twisted view....equating health care to slavery? What a joke.
I also find it interesting how you will not respond to the question about your own health insurance coverage. Nationalized health care can be equated to slavery in that the user is at the whim of the government because the government is in control of the service and the money. If I didn't answer the question, I accidentally overlooked it. I mostly received help from family and friends (like responsible people should), and I am working on finding a way to get off of what little assistance I've needed. I'm a sort of "victim of bad luck", but I choose to work for independence rather than whine (I won't get into the specifics, as that is irrelevant to the argument). Where I come from, receiving help from family and friends is NOT being responsible. Doing it on my own is being responsible to me. The family is societies safety net. Its not about responsibility at all, its a family obligation to take care of their own. If one of them becomes an irresponsible crackhead, however, you might have to cut them off. You missed the point of the conversation. The conversation was about responsibility. Responsibility for what? Health care. I dont know what kind of family you come from but I make sure mine is taken care of and I dont intend to sick the government on my neighbors to accomplish that goal. Responsible for himself. Yes, you're right. You don't know what kind of caring family that I came from. By your logic I can go stick a gun in their face or have a government agent do it to procure their house from them because shelter is a human right and some people have no homes right? They are loving as you say, correct? Or is it only good for you to advocate that fate for us? What kind of analogy is that? Whatever are you talking about? My comment was "Where I come from, receiving help from family and friends is NOT being responsible. Doing it on my own is being responsible to me." Now you have me and my family doing all of that?
No you are advocating a law that would empower the government to extort money at gunpoint from your neighbors to pay for your own health care or someone elses. Sure we dress it up a bit, but if I dont want to pay, they come with guns. I was talking about this: "Where I come from, receiving help from family and friends is NOT being responsible. Doing it on my own is being responsible to me." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Responsibility is not receiving help from family and friends, responsibility is taking care of it on your own, to hear the republican/conservatives tell it. Of course not one of the conservative/republicans that I know got where they are without help from someone. They got grants for school, help from family, help from the government for housing or whatever, etc... Not one of those fiscally conservatives did it alone like they claim everyone else should do. Hypocrits. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Well this is twice we can agree on something . I take this a step farther to. all the rich from old times stole there money . and as far as rights go . once the congress passes this law it well be or right to medical care of some sort . But I finally heard Obama say what its going to cost . and yes you well have no choice . if your a low income worker say $60,000. a year you well pay 13% of your gross . then a per cent of the charge . its the reason I wanted the government to make insurance illegal . when doctors had to compete there prices would have to come down to where we can afford it . the per cent is at least another 20% .... I would only agree to a certain extent. People who are incapable of certain tasks are morally and reasonably correct to rely on friends/family who voluntarily help. When the "help" is not voluntary on all parties' behalf, the action is no longer moral. (all actions that are done against/to a person unvoluntarily are, by their nature, immoral and unethical) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In an attempt to get this thread back on topic, and since many of you anti-anti's often quote or refer back to the founding fathers, consider this. Our Founding Fathers cited the need to interpret the Constitution in light of changing circumstances. Thomas Jefferson wrote, "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." Our rights have changed over time. Get used to the idea and quit living in the past.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
heavenlyboy34
on
Mon 09/21/09 11:16 PM
|
|
In an attempt to get this thread back on topic, and since many of you anti-anti's often quote or refer back to the founding fathers, consider this. Our Founding Fathers cited the need to interpret the Constitution in light of changing circumstances. Thomas Jefferson wrote, "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." Our rights have changed over time. Get used to the idea and quit living in the past.
The issue has never been about rights, as it has always been recognized in this country that positive rights belong to citizens and negative rights belong to the government (note that all the "thou shalt nots" in the constitution are on the government). The 10th amendment spells out clearly that all rights not spelled out specifically in the body and amendments belong to the States and the People respectively. Thomas Jefferson also said (since you quote him) “ In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By the way, how do you sleep at night knowing you always made a profit and all those people are starving right now? Unless you gave it all to charity and live in a cardboard box Im smelling some hypocrisy here... It's not an all or nothing proposition-- I can honestly point to the fact that it's almost unknown for people in the United States to die of starvation. And where does the money come from to accomplish that? From, as you're fond of saying, the point of a gun, or from a society that recognizes that taxation with representation can accomplish many great things? So if you're into scratch-n-sniff, you might want to recalibrate your own arguments. 'Cause the rich in Mexico have to live behind their own private little armies, bristling with barrels of guns to protect themselves from the poor. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MirrorMirror
on
Tue 09/22/09 05:52 PM
|
 EVERYBODY NEEDS TO WATCH THIS
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/041b5acaf5/protect-insurance-companies-psa |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By the way, how do you sleep at night knowing you always made a profit and all those people are starving right now? Unless you gave it all to charity and live in a cardboard box Im smelling some hypocrisy here... It's not an all or nothing proposition-- I can honestly point to the fact that it's almost unknown for people in the United States to die of starvation. And where does the money come from to accomplish that? From, as you're fond of saying, the point of a gun, or from a society that recognizes that taxation with representation can accomplish many great things? So if you're into scratch-n-sniff, you might want to recalibrate your own arguments. 'Cause the rich in Mexico have to live behind their own private little armies, bristling with barrels of guns to protect themselves from the poor. -Kerry O. Look, if you advocate using armed force to confiscate wealth from your neighbor to accomplish charity we have a fundamental different view. I think charity should be voluntary, not legislated. Mexico is a socialist country and by fomenting class warfare for political gain for a few decades now their liberals are forced to pay people like me to protect them. Why you want to bring that about here is beyond me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's not an all or nothing proposition-- I can honestly point to the fact that it's almost unknown for people in the United States to die of starvation. And where does the money come from to accomplish that? From, as you're fond of saying, the point of a gun, or from a society that recognizes that taxation with representation can accomplish many great things? So if you're into scratch-n-sniff, you might want to recalibrate your own arguments. 'Cause the rich in Mexico have to live behind their own private little armies, bristling with barrels of guns to protect themselves from the poor. -Kerry O. Look, if you advocate using armed force to confiscate wealth from your neighbor to accomplish charity we have a fundamental different view. I think charity should be voluntary, not legislated. Mexico is a socialist country and by fomenting class warfare for political gain for a few decades now their liberals are forced to pay people like me to protect them. Why you want to bring that about here is beyond me. Which, of course, I didn't, but I guess it's always easier to twist someone else's argument and yell 'The British are coming! The British are coming!' than to refute what's been offered. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In an attempt to get this thread back on topic, and since many of you anti-anti's often quote or refer back to the founding fathers, consider this. Our Founding Fathers cited the need to interpret the Constitution in light of changing circumstances. Thomas Jefferson wrote, "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." Our rights have changed over time. Get used to the idea and quit living in the past.
One thing I am sure of is he did not write that in support of confiscatory taxation to accomplish the goals of a political philosophy that intends to abolish the constitution in the end. No new discovery or changing time has led to a place where socialism works. In fact its already killed at least 100million in the last century. I would prefer to leave it on that bonepile and not resurrect it. Do you really believe that President Obama intends to abolish the Constitution? That appears to be what you are saying.
Is Canada a scary, failed socialist country? How about Europe? Have they gone socialist too?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In an attempt to get this thread back on topic, and since many of you anti-anti's often quote or refer back to the founding fathers, consider this. Our Founding Fathers cited the need to interpret the Constitution in light of changing circumstances. Thomas Jefferson wrote, "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." Our rights have changed over time. Get used to the idea and quit living in the past.
Indeed. But he was also quoted saying something along the lines of, If we ever question what the constitution means by something we should revisit the time in which it was written and look at those circumstances. I would like to know how times have changed so much, that princibles of freedom, noninterventionalism, and personal responsiblity no longer applies. Although i must admit, i do think some did see this coming. This quote visits much of what you are saying... "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." -Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
|
|
EVERYONE NEEDS TO SEE THIS
