National defense is healthcare? LOL.
We all have identical needs when it comes to national defense. By contrast, healthcare is a personal service based on an individual’s immediate health needs. The services given to an individual will vary depending upon their personal circumstances.
To say national defense = health care is laughable. Only a statist could come up with such an association.
Nonsense. In both cases, we are speaking of threats to the general welfare. In other words, one of the main things government exists to deal with.
Just about anything can be defined as “general welfare.” Do you really believe the Framers intended the federal to have unlimited authority? If so, why would they have bothered to write the 10th Amendment? We have a ***limited ***federal government; the federal government can’t do anything it wants. If it’s not already enumerated in the Constitution, then it must be left to the states, or the people.
Keep in mind we do not have a national government. We have a *federal *government…
Well, I’ll be damned! The lily-livered pussy-footing namby-pamby liberals actually won one ! Will gutless wonders never cease?
So ferderally-provided health care is a slippery slope issue for you? Do you envision the next step being federally-provided health care for animals? If so, may I direct your attention to this link.
Even more wonder-making, Republicans strongly endorsed the Democrats’ expansion of the welfare state (by prohibiting federal funds for abortion)!
If anything, the doctors may have more freedom – how many times do doctors prescribe a specific drug, only to have the insurance company change it to something cheaper?
When has she EVER had anything had anything substantial to offer?
And before she insults me (or rather, tries to), I’ve heard it all before, Carol. So save it. (Frankly, nothing she could say right now could piss me off more than the way the Penguins game is going so far!!!)
I sure hope vBulletin can handle recursion.
The same people who intended blacks to be slaves and women second class citizens without the vote? Why should we care what they intended? This isn’t the 1700s anymore.
And UHC is nowhere near “unlimited authority”. Nor is it likely to lead to that; amazingly enough, governments can typically handle helping people survive without turning into dictatorships.
So, now we got to decide what’s next. Do we round up all the guns, or the mandatory gay marriage thing?
No, we make it a requirement that to own a gun you need to be in a gay marriage!
Will an open relationship as part of a 10 person commune work?
This distinction you make just seems like special pleading to me.
I don’t see why a government service has to serve everyone identically for it to be a valid program. Not everyone is going to make equal use of police or fire department services, or roads for that matter. What about federal government funding to build levees in flood prone areas? Each individual’s need for a levee varies with their geographical location (e.g. their "personal circumstances). Someone in the Nevada desert certainly doesn’t need one that’s built in New Orleans.
Republicans bad!
Which reminds me, is there a font size measured in microns? Would that come with a premium membership?
Almost forgot! One Pubbie vote, that Louisiana guy. So, bipartisan. (snicker!)
You used tiny font. That means that you’re a 12 year old troll.
Font size use is inversely proportional to age of troll. Therefore, elucidatoro is ancient.
Jk, I <3 you, elucidator. Please don’t unleash southern awesome on me
Sorry, only microcephalics can qualify for that feature.