Re: Obamacare

[Big Crotch on a Small Fish]

Snit wrote:
> Flint stated in post igdh7o$65j$1...@news.eternal-september.org on
> 1/9/11 4:43 PM:
>
>> On 1/9/2011 11:17 AM, Snit wrote:
>>> Flint stated in post igbqtf$cat$1...@news.eternal-september.org on
>>> 1/9/11 1:16 AM:
>>>
>>>> On 1/8/2011 8:25 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> May not much matter if it can't get past the Constitutional
>>>>> legalities it faces.
>>>>
>>>> Clearly it IS _unconstitutional_. What concerns me is just how the
>>>> SCOTUS will rule on the case as its inevitably headed there.
>>>> Remember the assinine ruling it made just a few short years ago on
>>>> Emminent Domain? That should have been a slam-dunk too, but they
>>>> broadened that too as being Constitutional.
>>>>
>>>> This ain't no slam dunk, either...
>>>
>>> Nor should it be. Both sides should be heard and a reasoned ruling
>>> should be made. There are things about the current health plan
>>> which I find to be absurd and likely unconstitutional, but I can
>>> see where they are gray areas (pretty much a new tax has been
>>> added).
>>>
>>> What is clear is that our current health care plan where HMO red
>>> tape and paper pushers act as "death panels" - to use the absurd
>>> terminology of the right wing - is just stupid. Beyond stupid.
>>> The private sector has completely and utterly failed to be able to
>>> provide reasonable health care options - and given that their goal
>>> is to make money and not to provide for the common welfare of the
>>> nation, that makes sense. If only there was an organization tasked
>>> with promoting the general welfare of the nation.
>>>
>>> Hmmm....
>>
>>
>> And just *whom* do you propose be the 'tasked organization', and just
>> 'whom' does the 'tasking'?.
>
> Well, in the US is there any organization that is already tasked with
> promoting the general welfare? Hmmm...
>
>> Furthermore, show me where exactly in the Constitution >anyone< has a
>> "right" to healthcare, _period_? And if healthcare is a >right<,
>> perhaps we should amend the Constitution to include "guaranteed
>> happiness" a >right< while we're pipe-dreaming....
>
> How do you guarantee happiness? You seem a bit lost.
>
>> Look, if healthcare is to be a _right_, the way to go about it is
>> already provided by means of the Constitutional _amendment_ process,
>> not some power grabbing maneuvers of elitist power monger
>> progressives who try everything in the book to push through their
>> agenda like Pelosi's famous 'go around, under, pole-vault over'
>> tactics which should in itself mandate a death sentence for her -
>> preferably a death by injection of a Botox overdose in her case.
>
> We already largely have free health care... hospitals cannot turn
> patients in great need away. And who do you think pays for that?
>
> If you need to do some research I understand. :)

I understand you want me to pay for your health care and the health care of
the far too many kids you insist on having.

--
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch