Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
> We're not talking about just indigents.  But the homeless living in our 
> cities spread disease and they can't get treated.  Helping the 46 million 
> people without health care (many of whom are part-time workers who are 
> ineligible for benefits) is a good idea.
> 
> There was an episode of Morgan Spurlock's 30 Days that showed what living 
> on minimum wage is like.  That comes without health care.  These are hard-
> working people, but they have to decide between eating and going to the 
> hospital for necessary care.
> 
> You think it's reasonable to just let them die?

If we're in a lifeboat made for six that is already carrying ten, then yes.

Some people are going to be allowed to die. This decision can be made by 
some "medical moralist" employed by the government or by a patient's 
having participated or not (by his patronage) in the 
construction/support of the healthcare system.

You may feel that the latter is evil. I feel that the former is evil. 
More evil is the degree of control we will insist on having over other's 
unhealthful behaviors once these others are all in our pockets.

> 
>> My being forced to pay for your healthcare isn't competition or the free
>> market, it's the tyranny of the majority, the specific threat our
>> Constitution was authored to protect us from. This is why, beyond a few
>> quips (and maybe even before that), this argument becomes very dull. A
>> statist will never see the most powerful entity in the country as a
>> potential threat and will therefore never understand the value of a
>> Constitutional Republic over a pure Democracy.
> 
> If you pay insurance premiums, you pay for other people's health care 
> NOW.  I really wish the right would stop saying that what we have is "the 
> best in the world" and BS like that.

Insurance premiums are VOLUNTARY.

>> Do you statists hate the Constitution so much that you can't bear to
>> read it?
> 
> First, I've read it.  Second, I understand it.
> 
>> Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3
> 
> You cited the 10th amendment, not this article before.  Please make up 
> your mind.

Making two different points.

> 
> Cherry-picking parts of the constitution is like cherry-picking parts of 
> the bible.  If you are referring to:
> 
> "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, 
> and with the Indian tribes; " - that's one of many items listed as a 
> responsibility of the legislative branch.  Again, this has nothing to do 
> with the topic at hand unless you mean to read this clause as being the 
> only thing Article 1, Section 8 is about.

Article 1, Section 8 - powers delegated to the US Government
10th Amendment - US Government has only those powers delegated to it by 
the Constitution.

You call THAT "cherry picking"?

> 
>> In instances where the TSA, FCC, etc. extend beyond this authority, yes,
>> they absolutely should be stopped.
> 
> And I suppose you think the post office ought to be stopped, too.

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 7:
To establish post offices and post roads;

There I go, cherry picking again.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message