realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com — Imagine what the Founders would think if they saw the size and breadth of the federal government today - and what they would think about expanding the scope of its power to include the health care system. I doubt they would call it a victory for freedom.
Dec 24, 2009 View in Crawl 4
photek00Dec 25, 2009
Health insurance is a luxury everyone should have. Just like clean water and air. The US has fallen behind other countries because it hasn't taken the responsibility in making sure all of its citizens have health insurance.
Closed AccountDec 25, 2009
The majority of people support health reform.If this died in the senate I'd here griping that 60-70% of people support this yet it wasn't moving forward. Now that most people want it, and the government is acting in support of the majority, we're playing the victim card?WTF? seriously.
Closed AccountDec 26, 2009
The rails of Liberty, what little we have left. We don't need a government teat to suckle on like you Canadians. Ya;ll ought to grow a set.
kangalanatolianDec 26, 2009
We ARE fighting the neocons IN the party. We even have the upper hand in some areas of the country. But this is a separate issue that we wholeheartedly agree with the majority of the republicans on. When the government pays for your health care, it defines what health care actually is. To understand just ONE problem with this, google and read about codex alimentarius. Now maybe you could have a little talk with the enablers of your neo-lib in chief about his middle east policy.
vegetablelambDec 26, 2009
Someone please build a time machine so we can send the conservatives back to the 18th century they adore. Imagine how much greater we would be as a nation if we didn't have all of this brainless obstructionist dead weight holding us down.......
kangalanatolianDec 26, 2009
I can relate. It is just that the government plan was developed by these guys. It gave us a lot of freedom. We used that freedom to create entitlements, and now the expectations of entitlements are eating away at that freedom.That is why it is relevant to refer to the constitution now.
makisupaDec 27, 2009
I think a lot of you are missing the point. We can still provide universal healthcare without making it a "fundamental" or "constitutional" right. For example, welfare is not a fundamental right. The distinction plays into other doctrines of law such as the equal protection clause (hence his example of the British case) and the due process clause. For example, because welfare is not a fundamental right, disputes are handled by administrative judge with much less formality than a trial in front of an article III judge. A second example, what if a 90 year old patient who will die in anyway in a month wants a heart transplant? Should we be able to discriminate between a sickly 90 year old patient and a otherwise healthy 10 year old? Now we may have an equal protection problem. Not every moral issue necessarily concerns rights. It may be immoral for my GF to cheat on me, but that doesn't mean I get to bring a claim for emotional damages in front of a federal judge.
ghengiskhan1Dec 28, 2009
To Jdusek,I dont treat them for free, dumbass. They pay for themselves with their own money that they worked for and earned.
Closed AccountDec 29, 2009
The new slavery is the acquisition and control of debt. Unless you are debt free, you are still in bondage as you are required to pay off that debt.