Majority of Americans Say It Not the Government's Responsibility to Insure Everyone

[francoHFW]

WQ- ''Jake, you amuse me. Please explain to all of us the rights that exist for us as U.S. citizens outside of those enumerated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
I'll be anxiously waiting to be educated.''

Then you said law makers still give us rights. But WE ALSO KNOW THE SC decides whether those laws are constitutional. Thus they are the final deciders. As always, the dupes are WRONG, and WRONG AGAIN...

 

[SuMar]

So the majority believe that the rich have the right to the best healthcare options, and the poor can just suffer with sub standard care?

No, the majority of Americans believe people should take responsibility for their own lives. I know to Libtards this is a alien concept, but it truly is what built America.

Again, the rich get everything and the poor get screwed, as always.

The poor chose their station in life. By not pursuing a good education to further themselves. Why should the rich person be penalized for other's short comings?

 

[Contumacious]

Aca is a tax...lol

No it isn't, it didn't ORIGINATE in the house.......lol

.

yeah, this is a sticking point but until there's a ruling on this the USSC decision stands. It's a tax until it's not a tax.

Its a tax "justice" roberts will not piss off Letterman or the rest of his "liberal" friends.

.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Then you saiD law makers still give us rights. But WE ALSO KNOW THE sc decides whether those laws are constitutional. Thus they are the final deciders. As always, the dupes are WRONG, and WRONG AGAIN...

Sorry Spaghettio, you keep screwing up, and are wrong again. The Supreme Court has no authority to nullify any law by declaring it unconstitutional. We the People have never granted the Court that authority, nor has the Legislature, nor does it exist in the Constitution.

The Court attempted to give itself that authority in the case Marbury vs Madison. Many President's have ignored the Court's unconstitutional rulings in the past and many will probably do so again, because that power does not exist.

Google Marbury vs Madison and educate yourself.


***EDIT***


Spaghettio, I feel sorry for you, so I thought I'd try to help you a little more. This is from Thomas Jefferson.


Jefferson disagreed with Marshall's reasoning in this case :

You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.[33][34][35]

Some legal scholars have questioned the legal reasoning of Marshall's opinion. They argue that Marshall selectively quoted the Judiciary Act of 1789, interpreting it to grant the Supreme Court the power to hear writs of mandamus on original jurisdiction.[36] These scholars argue that there is little connection between the notion of original jurisdiction and the Supreme Court, and note that the Act seems to affirm the Court's power to exercise only appellate jurisdiction.[37] Furthermore, it has been argued that the Supreme Court should have been able to issue the writ on original jurisdiction based on the fact that Article III of the Constitution granted it the right to review on original jurisdiction "all cases affecting … public ministers and consuls," and that James Madison, Secretary of State at the time and defendant of the suit, should have fallen into that category of a "public minister [or] consul."[38]

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Again, the rich get everything and the poor get screwed, as always.

How about you get what you "work" for and contribute with your OWN money to obtain, just like every other policy you're required to have? Do we have the American taxpayer contributing revenue into the government to insure everyone has a whole life insurance policy? I'm sure if people were wise in handling their OWN finances, the no brainer need to set aside a portion towards your own future, there wouldn't be a need for social security either.

I am not sure what it costs for decent health care over there, but for me, I couldn't afford to pay several hundred a month for health care, so I stay a public patient, meaning that any treatment I need is free.
If I chose to go private, I would still be paying taxes into the public system anyway, plus, your insurance doesn't cover your entire medical costs.

For example, if you had $10,000 worth of medical treatment, your insurance may only cover half of that, so you get stuck with what is called a 'Gap' - that is, the amount your insurance won't pay, you get stuck with. As a public patient, the cost to myself is $0.

Having the taxpayer cover for YOUR medical expenses is the exact problem NHS is having with England's out of control health care debt. The outcome only leads to rationing for everyone who requires treatment, in order to try to reduce the government burden of costs. Your example sounds good in theory, but only leads to a reduction to the overall "quality" of care in reality.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, the majority of Americans believe people should take responsibility for their own lives. I know to Libtards this is a alien concept, but it truly is what built America.

Again, the rich get everything and the poor get screwed, as always.

The poor chose their station in life. By not pursuing a good education to further themselves. Why should the rich person be penalized for other's short comings?

Such puritanical determinism was exploded three centuries ago.

Come forward, Sumar into the light of the future.

 

[ShawnChris13]

Aca is a tax...lol

In 2010 I'll bet your favorite thing to keep repeating was "Obama said no new taxes"

 

[ShawnChris13]

WQ- ''Jake, you amuse me. Please explain to all of us the rights that exist for us as U.S. citizens outside of those enumerated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

I'll be anxiously waiting to be educated.''



Then you said law makers still give us rights. But WE ALSO KNOW THE SC decides whether those laws are constitutional. Thus they are the final deciders. As always, the dupes are WRONG, and WRONG AGAIN...

The idea that SCOTUS can deem a law unconstitutional is relatively new. This was never an intended purpose of the Supreme Court. The purpose of legislators passing laws is to make.... new..... what are those called? Laws.

Show me where the constitution says it's ok to hold a person without trial indefinitely or invade your privacy without just cause. Then you can explain to me how important SCOTUS takes their "responsibility" of claiming laws unconstitutional.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The poor don't get everything the rich have here - but they do get access to the best health care, no matter what their income.

Well, that's what some of you are trying to dictate, but why? Why is health care different than anything else that costs money?

Because I believe, and my country believes, that everyone has the right to healthcare. Its not a luxury, its a moral right, and a duty of our government to provide it.

There is nothing in the Constitution that specifically gives that role for government to provide for everyone's needs. Our Founders believed in the individual right endowed by our Creator, that of life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness. There is nothing that suggests government is to provide and guarantee everyone's personal happiness.

 

[francoHFW]

The problem NHS has in the UK IS TORIES UNDERFUNDING IT...SAME AS WE'RE HAVING WITH ACA. The Tories run second to Pubs for greedy idiocy...

WQ- I have A Masters in History- a retired teacher- and you're an ignorant. brainwashed waste of time...lol.

SEE...

WQ- ''Jake, you amuse me. Please explain to all of us the rights that exist for us as U.S. citizens outside of those enumerated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
I'll be anxiously waiting to be educated.''

Then you said law makers still give us rights. But WE ALSO KNOW THE SC decides whether those laws are constitutional. Thus they are the final deciders. As always, the dupes are WRONG, and WRONG AGAIN...

 

[ShawnChris13]

The problem NHS has in the UK IS TORIES UNDERFUNDING IT...SAME AS WE'RE HAVING WITH ACA. The Tories run second to Pubs for greedy idiocy...



WQ- I have A Mastersrs in History- a retired teacher- and you're an ignorant. brainwashed waste of time...lol.



SEE...



WQ- ''Jake, you amuse me. Please explain to all of us the rights that exist for us as U.S. citizens outside of those enumerated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

I'll be anxiously waiting to be educated.''



Then you said law makers still give us rights. But WE ALSO KNOW THE SC decides whether those laws are constitutional. Thus they are the final deciders. As always, the dupes are WRONG, and WRONG AGAIN...

Franco you should have taken some English classes during your studies in history.

 

[WelfareQueen]

The problem NHS has in the UK IS TORIES UNDERFUNDING IT...SAME AS WE'RE HAVING WITH ACA. The Tories run second to Pubs for greedy idiocy...

WQ- I have A Masters in History- a retired teacher- and you're an ignorant. brainwashed waste of time...lol.

SEE...

WQ- ''Jake, you amuse me. Please explain to all of us the rights that exist for us as U.S. citizens outside of those enumerated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
I'll be anxiously waiting to be educated.''

Then you said law makers still give us rights. But WE ALSO KNOW THE SC decides whether those laws are constitutional. Thus they are the final deciders. As always, the dupes are WRONG, and WRONG AGAIN...

 

[WelfareQueen]

The problem NHS has in the UK IS TORIES UNDERFUNDING IT...SAME AS WE'RE HAVING WITH ACA. The Tories run second to Pubs for greedy idiocy...



WQ- I have A Mastersrs in History- a retired teacher- and you're an ignorant. brainwashed waste of time...lol.



SEE...



WQ- ''Jake, you amuse me. Please explain to all of us the rights that exist for us as U.S. citizens outside of those enumerated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

I'll be anxiously waiting to be educated.''



Then you said law makers still give us rights. But WE ALSO KNOW THE SC decides whether those laws are constitutional. Thus they are the final deciders. As always, the dupes are WRONG, and WRONG AGAIN...

Franco you should have taken some English classes during your studies in history.

Really...he has a Master's degree.

 

[francoHFW]

Health Care didn't exist in the 1700's fer chrissake, classical morons...

 

[ShawnChris13]

And the curve ball from left field arrives. What are you babbling about Franco?

 

[francoHFW]

When the BS PUB TALKING POINTS GET CRUSHED, THERE'S ALWAYS STUPID INSULTS LOL...

WHAT i MISSED WERE YOUR GREAT TYPING SKILLS, DRONES. lol. GD shift key...

 

[ShawnChris13]

When the BS PUB TALKING POINTS GET CRUSHED, THERE'S ALWAYS STUPID INSULTS LOL...



WHAT i MISSED WERE YOUR GREAT TYPING SKILLS, DRONES. lol. GD shift key...

Roman doctors performed eye surgeries centuries ago. Health care existed there, Franco. Please point out which of my points is wrong.

 

[lakeview]

Health Care didn't exist in the 1700's fer chrissake, classical morons...

Hmmmmm, a Masters in History you say.....

 

[francoHFW]

Well you could go and get bled lol. It only became a good idea to see a doctor after the civil war. ok

 

[ShawnChris13]

Well you could go and get bled lol. It only became a good idea to see a doctor after the civil war. ok

I hope you don't believe the things you say as facts.