House votes strict ban on abortion subsidies

Judged:

1

Eron wrote:

If you knew the difference between a right and a privilege, you would understand. The fact that you don't and post like you do only serves to make you look uninformed, arrogant and ignorant...(smirk)
<quoted text>

I dont get it wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe you can help me with two points. I don't care which woman doesn't have an abortion simply because it's none of my business.(as long as I don't pay for it)

I dont get it wrote:

<quoted text>
Illegals will still go to the E.R. and get FREE care.
God I love being a libertarian.

RayOne wrote:

<quoted text>
Those around him promised revenge.

Judged:

1

1

1

I dont get it wrote:

<quoted text>
I must disagree. The great U.S Constitution is NOT nor never was intended to be a "living document". The only way to change something you disagree with is by an amendment being ratified by 3/4 of the states. The great founders were well aware that laws and views change with time, that is why they made an amendment process.
Although "the living Constitution" is itself a characterization rather than a specific method of interpretation, the phrase is associated with various non-originalist theories of interpretation.
Another common view of the Living Constitution is as synonymous with "judicial activism," a phrase generally used to accuse judges of resolving cases based on their own political convictions or preferences.
Most of our problems come from not following a more literal sense of the Constitution. It's pretty simple actually, even Scallia wrote "you would have to be an idiot to believe that; the Constitution is not a living organism; it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things".
What people like you want is rigidity, like providing for abortion coast to coast instead of the persons right to privacy for example. So I respectfully disagree with your interpretation.
IMHO what we NEED to do is go BACK to the original concept of the Constitution.

Judged:

1

1

1

OLD LADY wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you telling me healthcare is a privilege,and not a right? The Founding Fathers declared that we are "endowed with unalienable rights, among them are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." In order to have life,shouldn't healthcare be a part of life? Currently prisoners are the only group who are specifically granted the right to health care,I'll be willing to bet,you weren't informed...LOL

Judged:

1

C Hamilton wrote:

<quoted text>Really? I assume you're also against your state's requirement of mandatory auto insurance?

Judged:

3

2

2

OLD LADY wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you telling me healthcare is a privilege,and not a right? The Founding Fathers declared that we are "endowed with unalienable rights, among them are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." In order to have life,shouldn't healthcare be a part of life? Currently prisoners are the only group who are specifically granted the right to health care,I'll be willing to bet,you weren't informed...LOL

Judged:

2

Eron wrote:

What I'm telling you is that driving a car is a priviledge not a right. Having a right to 'Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness' talks about your ability to achieve those things on your own, which at the time the British government weren't allowing their citizens in North America to do. How you link that to Healthcare is beyond me.
The founders in their wisdom figured that most people could make it on their own, if they were protected and government would let them prosper. Those that couldn't would be taken care of by their families, the community or the church,(historically these were the entities that took care of the indigent).
You're an 'old lady', if this is true, why don't you have a family willing to take care of you in your old age? Why is it that you have to stand around with your hand out.
<quoted text>

Judged:

2

Eron wrote:

What I'm telling you is that driving a car is a priviledge not a right. Having a right to 'Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness' talks about your ability to achieve those things on your own, which at the time the British government weren't allowing their citizens in North America to do. How you link that to Healthcare is beyond me.
The founders in their wisdom figured that most people could make it on their own, if they were protected and government would let them prosper. Those that couldn't would be taken care of by their families, the community or the church,(historically these were the entities that took care of the indigent).
You're an 'old lady', if this is true, why don't you have a family willing to take care of you in your old age? Why is it that you have to stand around with your hand out.
<quoted text>

Judged:

2

1

1

OLD LADY wrote:

<quoted text>
Health care was generally available to all citizens, in the 1700s. There was no major issue of lack of affordability or lack of access to care. Now we are blessed with a system that has enormous potential for the improving the quality and quantity of life. You sir, think only some people should benefit from it.
What I fail to understand is if health insurance can be lowered,why in the world,wouldn't you want it to be? I get it, your employer is paying for most of it.

Judged:

1

C Hamilton wrote:

<quoted text>I currently have a top of the line health care policy. However, I see no reason NOT to help others. It's tough to pursue "life, liberty & happiness" when one is sick and can't get adequate medical care. It's a damn shame you care so little for your fellow man.

Judged:

1

C Hamilton wrote:

<quoted text>I currently have a top of the line health care policy. However, I see no reason NOT to help others. It's tough to pursue "life, liberty & happiness" when one is sick and can't get adequate medical care. It's a damn shame you care so little for your fellow man.

Judged:

1

Eleanor wrote:

<quoted text>
You have a good point there. When someone like you has a passion to help others to pursue life, liberty & happiness without sickness, there should be an option for that. Those who have insurance should be given an opportunity to voluntarily double, triple or quadruple their insurance premiums for the sake of the less fortunate. Many non-affluent people in this country don't buy insurance because it's not a priority for them (preferring to drive a nice car, pay for cable/phone/internet, etc.) I'm sure they would appreciate your generousity.

Eleanor wrote:

<quoted text>
You have a good point there. When someone like you has a passion to help others to pursue life, liberty & happiness without sickness, there should be an option for that. Those who have insurance should be given an opportunity to voluntarily double, triple or quadruple their insurance premiums for the sake of the less fortunate. Many non-affluent people in this country don't buy insurance because it's not a priority for them (preferring to drive a nice car, pay for cable/phone/internet, etc.) I'm sure they would appreciate your generousity.

C Hamilton wrote:

<quoted text>You honestly believe this is how it is for most of the people who don't have insurance? And, yes, I'd be happy to pay more to make sure everyone gets coverage.

MeganK wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm just curious as to whether or not you feel the same way about public and private schools? My parents paid for years, and still pay into the public school system through their property taxes, even though me and my brother never set foot into a public school. Using your logic, why should they have to pay for other peoples kids to go to school? If only those kids' parents wold stop paying for cable and water and gas and cell phones then perhaps they'd be able to afford private school too. That type of logic is disgusting.
Public school is subsidized education. Student loans and federal grants for higher education are subsidies. Assuming you are a product of public education (please forgive me if you are not), what makes you any different than those that would benefit from subsidized healthcare?
Oh and as an after thought, I do hope no one reads this and comes to the conclusion that I think less of public education. I definitely do not, I was only trying to prove a point.

C Hamilton wrote:

<quoted text>You honestly believe this is how it is for most of the people who don't have insurance? And, yes, I'd be happy to pay more to make sure everyone gets coverage.

Eleanor wrote:

<quoted text>
The purpose of education is to give youngsters the ability to make a living for themselves as they grow into adulthood. It is helpful to the entire community to not have to bear the burden of non-productive people. We pay to educate them so they can take care of themselves. The entire community as a whole benefits from providing young people the skills to make their way in the world.

MeganK wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm just curious as to whether or not you feel the same way about public and private schools? My parents paid for years, and still pay into the public school system through their property taxes, even though me and my brother never set foot into a public school. Using your logic, why should they have to pay for other peoples kids to go to school? If only those kids' parents wold stop paying for cable and water and gas and cell phones then perhaps they'd be able to afford private school too. That type of logic is disgusting.
Public school is subsidized education. Student loans and federal grants for higher education are subsidies. Assuming you are a product of public education (please forgive me if you are not), what makes you any different than those that would benefit from subsidized healthcare?
Oh and as an after thought, I do hope no one reads this and comes to the conclusion that I think less of public education. I definitely do not, I was only trying to prove a point.

dark miner wrote:

<quoted text>I made a choice NOT to have children,why then is it up to me to pay for anyone else to get an education? This is up to the parents to provide an education for their children not the American people.