House votes strict ban on abortion subsidies

Judged:

1

Eleanor wrote:

<quoted text>
People who don't have insurance through their employers get to choose whether or not they want to buy their own insurance. Even when a basic health insurance policy with limited coverage would cost $115/mo, they choose to not buy it. Given the choice, how many people would choose having health insurance rather than having their cable TV. I'm talking about healthy people who have some money, but aren't poor enough to GET FREE public aid. People have the money, but they aren't buying insurance. When an illness strikes them, they are totally unprepared.

Judged:

1

MeganK wrote:

<quoted text>
In the same fashion, many people who get sick and can not afford proper healthcare, are forced to rely on disability or unemployment when they lose their jobs due to illness. These people would also be able to "take care of themselves" if they had access to healthcare. They would be able to take care of themselves by maintaining their job.
I just think it's sad that so many people view healthcare as a privilege. So much for "promoting the general welfare", I guess.

MeganK wrote:

<quoted text>
Um, not quite sure where you are getting your figures from, but the average basic health insurance policy for a single person is roughly $4800, for a family it's roughly $13,400. That's about $400 and $1,120, respectively. That's A LOT of money to a lot of people, especially considering the majority of uninsured Americans make between $25-50K a year (household income).

Judged:

1

1

1

PooPoo Platter wrote:

<quoted text>
If you frame "constitutional" like a legal fundamentalist, straining to be true to what white male Protestants in 1786 would think, probably not.
But most every law school and law professor has moved beyond that, and most lawyers don't think that way. It's a quaint set of beliefs peddled on talk radio and right wing outlets, but nowhere near the mainstream of 2009 America.

Judged:

1

1

1

RayOne wrote:

Western Europe is childless.
Population programming is what I call it.

Judged:

1

1

Eleanor wrote:

<quoted text>
What do you think "promote the general welfare" means? For me the operative word is GENERAL in contrast to INDIVIDUAL. The common collective good. Like roads, so that we can receive goods to the local stores. Like clean water that all can safely drink. Like education so that all are provided the tools to prosper. Like a military so that all are provided with security. FDA, safe food and safe drugs. When it comes to taking care of the individual needs of a person, that is not government business. It is an INDIVIDUAL'S responsibility to take care of their individual needs. Unless the common, collective good is involved (like flu shots for the general populace) it is the responsibility of the individual to make do with what they have in the best way they can. Part of FREEDOM is the ability to GIVE freely to one's neighbor in need. The government TAKING from one to GIVE to another is the anti-thesis of freedom.

Eron wrote:

Our governments track record on effciently administering a program is the main reason why I believe this will not reduce costs. There are billions of dollars worth of fraud in the various government health programs already in existance. If they can identify fraud, waste and abuse easily and eliminate it, as they say, why haven't they done that in the past.
Your trying to compare healthcare of the 18th century to today is not proper, but I will make this point. Generally no one in the 18th century would ask for a hand out from the government nor would they expect their neighbor to pick up their slack. People took care of people however, and this is where I believe we as a society have dropped the ball. We have created generations of citizens who have depended more and more on the government for their needs. The healthcare plan is just one more un neccessary tentacle that makes more people dependant on the government, and relieves more people of their obligation to take care of their fellow man.
<quoted text>

Ink wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't think mandated health care , under penalty of law is constitutional.

OLD LADY wrote:

<quoted text>
What will reduce cost,Eron? That's what I'd like to see,cost reduction for us all. All I hear from you is about people wanting handouts. I've worked all my life,payed taxes,never once have got a damn thing for free. I want to pay for my health insurance at a reasonable cost,nothing more. What don't you get?

Eron wrote:

I do get it. Portability and Tort reform would go a long way at reducing costs for the Average American. Just like it has done for your automobile insurance.
<quoted text>

OLD LADY wrote:

<quoted text>
You can bet if passed,the Supreme Court will let you know,if its constitutional.

BobbySomers wrote:

<quoted text>Not until someone is arrested for not paying the fine and the case goes all the way up.

MeganK wrote:

<quoted text>That's what we thought here in Texas. Sadly, the only thing tort reform has done is insure that Texas is the most expensive healthcare market in the US.
:(

Eron wrote:

Once a final bill is passed, it can be constitutionally challenged in court. Of course, we as Americans have short memories, so it will probably take someone paying a fine/going to jail to get it there.
<quoted text>

OLD LADY wrote:

<quoted text>
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/health-care-...

Eron wrote:

And, all I'm reading here is that no one knows and that it will need to be settled in court.
<quoted text>

MeganK wrote:

<quoted text>
You're serious?
Let's start with the basics. Clearly you're clueless as to the definition of the term "welfare". Wel-fare, or to fare well. Without even using a dictionary, a logical adult, no, high school graduate, would be able to deduce that welfare means to fare well or to get on well. Merriam-Webster's tells us that welfare is the "health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group". Duh, honey. It doesn't get any clearer than that. Health is the first word of the definition of welfare.
The US ranked LAST in a study regarding preventable deaths in the wealthiest industrialized nations, largely due to the fact the the deaths could have been prevented if those patients had adequate access to healthcare. A country that turns a blind eye towards PREVENTABLE deaths in it's own country is SPITTING on the general welfare of it's citizens, not promoting it.
The Preamble neither assigns nor limits powers of the federal government. It's nothing but a preface, a preliminary the the Constitution. I only alluded to that phrase in an attempt to shed light on and remind us of the spirit and beliefs of our founders when they wrote it. Cases are not decided on the words of the Preamble, ipso facto it is foolish for you to try to base your argument on its wording.
Your opinion is your right. But what I have noticed is that many conservatives claim to be the party of God and all morality, and I find it ironic and hypocritical that many conservatives, who claim to be Christian, subscribe to your same Christ-less beliefs. I don't see Christ in the inability to have compassion for your fellow citizen. I don't see Christ in the belief that it's "every man for himself" and if a person can't afford healthcare then it's just too bad. Too many conservatives are of the absurd opinion that money and wealth is a result of virtue, and often think that those who are less fortunate are in their predicament because of some fault of their own. While sometimes that is very well the case, just as often, it is not.
The next time you want to harp on about the "antithesis of freedom", you would do well to remember that same "antithesis of freedom" is what made it possible for you to go to public school in the event that your parents could not afford or chose not to enroll you in private school. You can't pick and choose.