Is healthcare a right? why or why not?

[Diuretic]

And how about pointing out the hypocricy of Jillian?

You know, where she complains about Congress having various choices for retirement, but baing happy with her husband having the same choices?

Why not put that to her?

I was focussed on the hypocrisy of Congress regarding universal health care.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So if the Congress can't establish universal health care because it's unconstitutional, does that mean that any of the states could do it?

Sorry, that was for RGS.

Why do I have to keep answering this question? Yes depending on individual State Constitutions a State could have the power to create universal health care for its citizens. The Federal Government could submit through Congress an amendment to the Constitution and see if the people agree. It would require 66 Senators and 290 Congressman to create the Amendment. It would require 37 States to approve it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Did I say Congress shouldn't get health coverage?

Did I say my husband or the military or anyone else shouldn't have health coverage?

Nope. And nope.

No...Congress's isn't a retirment package if it vests after 5 years. 20 years is a retirement package.

So... contrary to your prior statement, your 'issue' isnt their retorement package, it IS how long they have to work before they get it. Right?

My point was that it isn't welfare to provide it to Congress OR to citizens.

It is when those citizens arent retired federal employees. Apples and organges.

 

[Bern80]

Why not put that to her?

I was focussed on the hypocrisy of Congress regarding universal health care.

Except there is no hypocrisy at all. First, we know that it isn't all of congress saying that a government paid for system won't work, as you stated.

You also imply that since it works for a few hundred it will obviously work for a few million. Again you think there is somehow some legitimate comparison in how congress provides its own healthcare and how healthcare ought to be supplied to the nation. When are you gonna figure out you're not comparing apples to apples?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I was focussed on the hypocrisy of Congress regarding universal health care.

Congressmen, like all other Federal employees, have retirement packages available to them because they are Federal Employees.

There's no more hyopcricy in that than in General Motors having a retirement system for its employees and not for the general public.

 

[rOckNrOllsCar11]

Congressmen, like all other Federal employees, have retirement packages available to them because they are Federal Employees.

There's no more hyopcricy in that than in General Motors having a retirement system for its employees and not for the general public.

I know I said that I was finished with this thread but the comment above struck me as half-assed thinking.

GM is privatized, the Congress is an elected office. Why anyone would defend these weaklings is beyond me in contrast to any citizen (despite economic class).

I'll say it again. It's very apparent how few of you REALLY know what poverty is.

The Republican ideology is slick. Exploit the fears of others using pseudo morals, then alienate them as having made "unrighteous" choices.


In closing, and I swear this is my last comment on this thread. America WILL explode in civil unrest in due time and the war will be between the reds and the blues.

The question is, will YOU die for this?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I know I said that I was finished with this thread but the comment above struck me as half-assed thinking.
GM is privatized, the Congress is an elected office.

Doesnt matter. The retirement system for both is for its employees, not the general public. Therefore, arguing that because the govenrnment provides retirement benefits to its employees it should/can provide to the general public is arguing apples and oranges -- which is, indeed, half-assed thinking.

Why anyone would defend these weaklings is beyond me in contrast to any citizen (despite economic class).

You have a problem with federal employees getting retirement benefits? Why?

I'll say it again. It's very apparent how few of you REALLY know what poverty is.

What I hear someone once say? Oh, yeah:

That it sucks to be you doesn't in any way mean that you have a right to expect me to provide the means to make it not suck to be you.

The Republican ideology is slick. Exploit the fears of others using pseudo morals, then alienate them as having made "unrighteous" choices.

As opposed to the Liberal/Dem ideology that seeks to codify the Christian value of Charity, as expressed in the sentiment that 'from each according to his means to each according to his needs' into the Governmental enslavement of the masses -- while at the same time screaming as loud as they can that there must be a 'separation of church and state'.

In closing, and I swear this is my last comment on this thread. America WILL explode in civil unrest in due time and the war will be between the reds and the blues.

Reds? You mean the Socialists? If so, then who are the Blues?

Of course, you mean Red states v Blue states.
The question you need to ask there is:
Who has more guns?

 

[rOckNrOllsCar11]

Of course, you mean Red states v Blue states.
The question you need to ask there is:
Who has more guns?

That's just silly. Every heard of Timothy McVeigh? And don't think for a second that the day care wasn't in the front of the building for a reason.

That it sucks to be you doesn't in any way mean that you have a right to expect me to provide the means to make it not suck to be you.

Spoken like a true Repug. Keep on polishing my friend.

As opposed to the Liberal/Dem ideology that seeks to codify the Christian value of Charity,

Didn't Bush run on morals and shit in 2000? Talking about "a person is judged by how the least are treated".

 

[M14 Shooter]

That's just silly. Every heard of Timothy McVeigh? And don't think for a second that the day care wasn't in the front of the building for a reason.

Not sure at all how any of that actually responds to what I said.

Spoken like a true Repug. Keep on polishing my friend.

Whatever you say, Karl.

 

[rOckNrOllsCar11]

My point about T- Mac is that he used cow shit to blow a building up. I made reference to the day care being in the front of the building because most victims were children which in my mind was strategic in design.

The US have more guns than the Iraqis, why are they still losing?

Who's Karl?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Who's the loon. Are the guns a way to make up for a lacking in "other" places?

If so, you better look into buying the USS Iowa -- quick, before they scrap her.

 

[rOckNrOllsCar11]

LOL

How macho.

 

[M14 Shooter]

My point about T- Mac is that he used cow shit to blow a building up. I made reference to the day care being in the front of the building because most victims were children which in my mind was strategic in design.

So... those that don't have guns (the 'blues') are going to defeat those that do (the 'reds') in a civil war by blowing up buildings with kids in them?

Wow. And you call yourselves 'enlightened'.

Who's Karl?

Marx?

 

[rOckNrOllsCar11]

"Is adult entertaining children is killing children entertaining adults?"

Since when do "Blue" states have no guns?

Shit, I can walk down the street and buy one off the street if need be.
So why is it with all the technology and weaponry are Americans still losing this "war"? Because it's how its being fought. Y'all could never win a guerilla war in the streets of NYC pally.

I don't condone the killing of children. I was making a point that the government knowingly put them on the front lines and used them as a shield to make anyone that attacks them look wicked.

Haven't you learned yet, you and I are commodities for their 'movement'.

I thought you were calling me Karl Rove, the turd polisher, than I really would have been offended.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Since when do "Blue" states have no guns?

No guns? that was too strong.
How about this:
It is FAR less likely for a liberal from a blue state to have a gun than it is for a conservative from a red state to have one. Thus, red-state conservatives will have far more guns - and be far more proficient with them - that blue-state liberals.

Y'all could never win a guerilla war in the streets of NYC pally.

But, you and your NYC posse will do SO much better in the hills of Idaho.

I don't condone the killing of children.

And yet, you argue that's how you'd fight w/o guns.

I thought you were calling me Karl Rove, the turd polisher, than I really would have been offended.

And its of no surprise whatsoever that likening you to Marx doesnt have the same effect.

 

[rOckNrOllsCar11]

But, you and your NYC se will do SO much better in the hills of Idaho

Idaho

Fuck Idaho, I've been there. Y'all can keep it.

We'll just drop grits from the sky Y'all , no need for a gun...Y'all.

I've lived all over this country. I can say with certainty that southern people are much more stupid. If it wasn't the case than why would national news use anchors that speak actual english....Y'all?

When all is said and done, I'd prefer the unions divided. We'll take care of ours and "y'all" can take care of you and your incest ridden states. No wonder they're all stupid, its all that inbreeding going on down "yonder".
Its a wonder "y'all" are against abortion, umm or should I say Choice.

 

[Diuretic]

Why do I have to keep answering this question? Yes depending on individual State Constitutions a State could have the power to create universal health care for its citizens. The Federal Government could submit through Congress an amendment to the Constitution and see if the people agree. It would require 66 Senators and 290 Congressman to create the Amendment. It would require 37 States to approve it.

I like to be thorough. So states can do it. Okay, that's similar to the Canadian model which is provincially-based.

Now, this is hypothetical, if, say the House proposed and passed a bill and it was also passed by the Senate and wasn't struck down by veto, how would that bill be deemed unconstitutional?

 

[Diuretic]

Except there is no hypocrisy at all. First, we know that it isn't all of congress saying that a government paid for system won't work, as you stated.

You also imply that since it works for a few hundred it will obviously work for a few million. Again you think there is somehow some legitimate comparison in how congress provides its own healthcare and how healthcare ought to be supplied to the nation. When are you gonna figure out you're not comparing apples to apples?

I found it hypocritical, in principle at least. It struck me as the rulers being kind to each other and ignoring their real bosses.

As for healthcare, I know single payer and universal systems work, it's always a question of how well they can be funded.

 

[Diuretic]

Congressmen, like all other Federal employees, have retirement packages available to them because they are Federal Employees.

There's no more hyopcricy in that than in General Motors having a retirement system for its employees and not for the general public.

So who's the collective bargaining agent for members of Congress?

 

[Diuretic]

............


And its of no surprise whatsoever that likening you to Marx doesnt have the same effect.

Don't compare Marx to Rove, they were/are polar opposites. One was a thinker the other is a rat-cunning bastard.