Gas price up a $1 a gallon
in [Technical]
|
From: jim on 27 Mar 2010 12:06 Roger Blake wrote: > > On 2010-03-27, Scott Dorsey <kludge(a)panix.com> wrote: > > Whoops! It's unconstitutional to provide free treatment for cancer! > > I guess we need to shut down Medicare, then. > > You are evading the question. The Constitution is a grant of limited > powers to the federal government. (See Amenment 10.) This being the case, > where in that document do you find the authority to provide for > "free treatment for cancer?" Have you even read it? Ever? Who says treatment of cancer is free? For an 80 year old person you may be able to say that it has been prepaid. > > You are also evading the question of how you expect to pay for this > "free" treatment, particularly when other countries can no longer be > suckered into buying trillions of dollars of our debt. Well that is correct. But those countries can not only bankroll the US but also pay for the health care of their citizens. The whole reason that Washington did something about health care is that it was becoming increasingly obvious to any one who doesn't have their head buried in the sand that the US has the most expensive health care while at the same time statistical analysis indicates there is little to show for that expense. That is not to say what Washington did is going to solve anything, but it was an attempt to make it look like they weren't just twiddling there fiddles while Rome burned. The fact is that if current trends continue, within the next 10 years there will be third world countries that will have significantly better health statistics than the US does. The US is already at the bottom of the pile for advanced nations but when the citizens of countries like Cuba are living longer than US citizens yet pay only a small fraction of the cost for health care you have to wonder how long the US citizen is going to accept being screwed like that. > > To answer your question: If you have any respect for freedom, > liberty, limited constitutional government, and the rule of law, > then yes, Medicare needs to be shut down. It should never have > been permitted in the first place in the abscence of a Constitutional > amendment. Well if that were really the choice then there would likely be an amendment pretty damn quick. > > As judge Janice Rogers Brown has observed, there is simply no way to fit > the New Deal or the Great Society into the framework of the Constitution. > Obamacare falls into the same category. Your buddy Barack has crumpled > up what was left of the Constitution and left it laying by the side > of the road for dead. In case you haven't heard the New Deal was 80 years ago. -jim
From: M.M. on 27 Mar 2010 12:24 Roger Blake wrote: > ...Your buddy Barack has crumpled > up what was left of the Constitution and left it laying by the side > of the road for dead. > Not that there was much left of it after Bush & his henchmen were finished with it...
From: Scott Dorsey on 27 Mar 2010 12:54 Roger Blake <rogblake(a)iname.invalid> wrote: >On 2010-03-27, Scott Dorsey <kludge(a)panix.com> wrote: >> Whoops! It's unconstitutional to provide free treatment for cancer! >> I guess we need to shut down Medicare, then. > >You are evading the question. The Constitution is a grant of limited >powers to the federal government. (See Amenment 10.) This being the case, >where in that document do you find the authority to provide for >"free treatment for cancer?" Have you even read it? Ever? I'd look in the preamble under "promoting the general welfare" personally. But, if you require that everything has to be specifically enumerated as a line in the constitution, we'd better get rid of the national transportation system and shut down all the highways. Regulation of gasoline quality? I don't see anything about that in the constitution, so we'll have to shut that down and become like Mexico where you have to try a couple gallons at a station and see if it's good before filling your tank. What about NASA? I don't see space exploration anywhere in the constitution either. Also, the only mention of the military is to "provide for the common defense" so we'll have to get rid of all those nasty offensive weapons and stop promoting wars abroad. I've lived in countries where the government didn't do anything. It was not a pleasant experience. >You are also evading the question of how you expect to pay for this >"free" treatment, particularly when other countries can no longer be >suckered into buying trillions of dollars of our debt. Take a look at the numbers and see who is paying for it right now. For the most part, providing good medical care is cheaper than providing bad medical care. >To answer your question: If you have any respect for freedom, >liberty, limited constitutional government, and the rule of law, >then yes, Medicare needs to be shut down. It should never have >been permitted in the first place in the abscence of a Constitutional >amendment. > >As judge Janice Rogers Brown has observed, there is simply no way to fit >the New Deal or the Great Society into the framework of the Constitution. >Obamacare falls into the same category. Your buddy Barack has crumpled >up what was left of the Constitution and left it laying by the side >of the road for dead. I think it was Jefferson whose attitudes you are objecting to rather than Obama's. But I do suggest you read some of what Jefferson has said about the thing. You might also want to try looking over the actual health care proposals and some of what Obama has said. I disagree with a lot of it too, but some of it I strongly support, and it's certainly an improvement over the horrible disaster we've got right now. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: APLer on 27 Mar 2010 16:29 Roger Blake <rogblake(a)iname.invalid> wrote in news:20100327120710(a)usenet.eternal-september.org: > On 2010-03-26, chuckcar <chuck(a)nil.car> wrote: >> We'll see when you're 80 and getting free treatment for cancer. > > Show us the section of the Constitution that authorizes the federal > government to provide "free treatment for cancer." > Who said anything about the constitution having anything to do with Medical care? Pure nonsence anyways. The constitution (of *anything*) is the contraints under which an administration runs. Yours puts absolutely no contraints on what the federal government can spend tax money on. Hell you can even give it in buckets to a company run by the VP if you like. Sound familiar? However the phrase "a government of the people for the people, by the people" certainly comes to mind as something *way* too many people in the US have forgotten. > Where do you think the funds for this "free treatment" are going to > come from after your buddy Barack and his henchmen in Congress have > finished the job of completely bankrupting this country? > He's not my "buddy" nor did he "bankrupt" the US. That was done by scrub in his final months. Every other developed country in the world has government run medical care. The fact that the US isn't developed enough to have it is merely a sign that your political system is broken and no longer serves the people who allegedly put them in power. Time for another tea party.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 27 Mar 2010 17:55
On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 12:08:49 +0000, Roger Blake wrote: > On 2010-03-26, chuckcar <chuck(a)nil.car> wrote: >> We'll see when you're 80 and getting free treatment for cancer. > > Show us the section of the Constitution that authorizes the federal > government to provide "free treatment for cancer." It's not free. You have to buy it. And if you don't you pay a penalty. > > Where do you think the funds for this "free treatment" are going to come > from after your buddy Barack and his henchmen in Congress have finished > the job of completely bankrupting this country? Who will care? |