endzone_dave Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 So, you would completely write off a relative, decide he is worthless, beyond redemption and let him die in a gutter for the lack of the abiltiy to buy a antibiotic to stop an infection? I think that human life is worth more than the money in my wallet... especially family. I guess it's just a difference in philosophy. Or my relative could sell some of his Playstation 2 games and cut back on the beer to pay for those antibiotics. I know, that sounds pretty heartless of me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 Well, since the Constitution, and specifically, Article 1, Section 8 was mentioned... "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." One of the most genius inclusions by our Founding Fathers was this clause, dubbed the elastic clause, into the document. It ensured a living document that could be used as a GUIDE and FOUNDATION (and not the absolute ironclad rulebook that some here tend to think it is). See, the Founding Fathers no doubt, HAD THE FORESIGHT to actually think that no document could fully list all the rights of the people and government and powers that both had. They knew that no document would last unless that adopted one that was amendable (if needed) but also one that could be adapted as the people and times changed. I tend to think they didn't want a gazillion amendments. We don't really want that either - it bogs down government. Hence the elastic clause. But hey, you knew that already anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 Haven't you heard... it's a "Right" to have health insurance, a driver's license, a job, a home, and food on the table. See Democratic Platform Pillar. :doh:I've never heard democratic party leaders pushing for a drivers license as a right. Is working not a right in this country? If not why does the government enforce fair hiring practices and workers rights? Yes the democratic party does want every American to have a roof over their heads, access to health care, and food to eat. So do republicans. The difference is mostly found in how this can be accomplished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 Or my relative could sell some of his Playstation 2 games and cut back on the beer to pay for those antibiotics. I know, that sounds pretty heartless of me. Unfair debate grounds... you know a little bit more about your relative than I do. Sounds like he does need to get his head together though. Still, I would have a tough time turning away family if they were in desperate need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 Economically, does it cost more to insure everyone or to pay for medical costs for those that are uninsured? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 Haven't you heard... it's a "Right" to have health insurance, a driver's license, a job, a home, and food on the table. See Democratic Platform Pillar. :doh: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Why else would we be here? Certainly isn't religious freedom, we can't even get gay marriage legalized in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted April 5, 2006 Author Share Posted April 5, 2006 So, you would completely write off a relative, decide he is worthless, beyond redemption and let him die in a gutter for the lack of the abiltiy to buy a antibiotic to stop an infection? I think that human life is worth more than the money in my wallet... especially family. I guess it's just a difference in philosophy. Actually this IS the reason for all of our problems: My thing is: A family should have to help a relative 1st: Churches want to remain tax free they need to help the community as a 2nd choice... Then city, then county, then state, then Federal.. Not Federal 1st... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Why else would we be here? Certainly isn't religious freedom, we can't even get gay marriage legalized in this country. You know I was just thinking... Certainly, the life part pertains to healthcare... can't be all that happy if you are sick all the time. And how much personal liberty do you have if you're tied to a sickbed!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 Bet you wouldn't be saying that if someone you loved was dying and you couldn't afford to save their life. Privledge? That's the most selfsish thing I've ever read on this board. And I've been here for a while, too. Renegade, I spent the last 5 years as a contract worker, paying 100% of my own medical insurance. About $365 a month at the time I finally got hired as a direct employee by the company I work for. I have several medical conditions that require medications and regular doctor's visits. Last March (with the insurance I had) I spent $500 in a week to deal with an eye infection (because much of it was not covered under my plan). So, yes I understand what the potential need for insurance is and the real-life impact of not having it. I still believe it's a PRIVLEDGE, not a Right. It's not about me being selfish. In fact, I'd say that these BUMS are being selfish by stealing from MY POCKET to cover their medical bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 So, you would completely write off a relative, decide he is worthless, beyond redemption and let him die in a gutter for the lack of the abiltiy to buy a antibiotic to stop an infection? I think that human life is worth more than the money in my wallet... especially family. No, I wouldn't. However, I wouldn't look to the GOVERNMENT to fix the problem. I'd look to other members of the family, their church, their friends, etc... to remedy the problem, not to steal money from other people to buy the medication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 Actually this IS the reason for all of our problems:My thing is: A family should have to help a relative 1st: Churches want to remain tax free they need to help the community as a 2nd choice... Then city, then county, then state, then Federal.. Not Federal 1st... I'm in almost complete agreement with this, with the hesitation that we know that modern medical pricing will break almost every family within a short duration. Of course, that's a whole 'nother ball of wax. Again, the locus of control, external vs. internal, is key to many of our personal political philosophies. The little guy argument I made earlier I think complements this. If there is no clinic/church/nonprofit, then it becomes our collective moral duty to help our fellow man. The government is our collective will and resources combined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 What is the number of unemployed people in the state of Mass ? Because I have an opinion that may or may not be favorable, and may or may not be accurate, but it would be dependent on that number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 Renegade, I spent the last 5 years as a contract worker, paying 100% of my own medical insurance. About $365 a month at the time I finally got hired as a direct employee by the company I work for. I have several medical conditions that require medications and regular doctor's visits. Last March (with the insurance I had) I spent $500 in a week to deal with an eye infection (because much of it was not covered under my plan). So, yes I understand what the potential need for insurance is and the real-life impact of not having it.I still believe it's a PRIVLEDGE, not a Right. It's not about me being selfish. In fact, I'd say that these BUMS are being selfish by stealing from MY POCKET to cover their medical bills. You're assuming they're bums because they aren't as successful as you. Just because they aren't rich doesn't mean they're all lazy schmucks. Some people just don't have it like the like you. My father is the hardest working man I ever meet. True man, great human being. But if something happened to him that was serious and we couldn't afford to help him, by your logic he should just die. I'm not having that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 One of the most genius inclusions by our Founding Fathers was this clause, dubbed the elastic clause, into the document. It ensured a living document that could be used as a GUIDE and FOUNDATION (and not the absolute ironclad rulebook that some here tend to think it is). Only because it is improperly read. The "elastic clause" allows Laws related to the 18 prescribed powers to be written. It DOESN'T allow for an expansion beyond those 18 powers. THAT'S where people have gotten it wrong over the years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 Yes Mass, everyone, including all legislators, constitution historians, teachers. supreme court judges, etc. have read the clause wrong and allowed it to be improperly used. It's a conspiracy I say. A conspiracy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 You're assuming they're bums because they aren't as successful as you. Just because they aren't rich doesn't mean they're all lazy schmucks. Some people just don't have it like the like you. My father is the hardest working man I ever meet. True man, great human being. But if something happened to him that was serious and we couldn't afford to help him, by your logic he should just die. I'm not having that. That's fine. Good for you. I applaud you for that. Just don't ask ME or MY FAMILY to pay for your father's medical care. We're not going to ask you to pay for us, why should we pay for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 Yes Mass, everyone, including all legislators, constitution historians, teachers. supreme court judges, etc. have read the clause wrong and allowed it to be improperly used.It's a conspiracy I say. A conspiracy! I wouldn't call it a Conspiracy. What I would call it is reading what one wants to read instead of what's there. The same way that entire Section has been read since 1860. The "General Welfare" and "Elastic" clauses are the only two parts of the Constitution I've ever seen that are more incorrectly read than the Second Amendment. Heck, this country had a CIVIL WAR over the "General Welfare" clause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 Curse that FDR and his social security... I'm sure our grandparents would consider us all a bunch of *******.... my grandfather rode the railroads during the depression in order to find work and ended up loading coal in a the Navy. He saw it was a **** job and ended up flying blimps and planes and then doing ejection seat testing. Eventually he was comissioned and made it to CAPT before retiring and becoming a teacher. I'm sure he laid down the smack as a school administrator. Probably all the beatdowns in his generation led to the ***** generations we have now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCBnG21 Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 Says who? Moral codes from religion tell us to help our fellow man, and that includes health right? Well as you know our government was built on traditional Christian values so basically the government is required to do this. Remember, there is no difference between law and morality. Wrong, if you're basing that on the Bible, than the church is responsible for taking care of our fellow man. NOT the government...you won't ever find that mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 So, being a Christian, the Bible says I am not supposed to help my fellow man. I am supposed to have my church do it? Or I am only to do it through my church? And what does the Bible say about representative democracies? Can I do good things through them too? Wow, talk about a mixed message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 That's fine. Good for you. I applaud you for that. Just don't ask ME or MY FAMILY to pay for your father's medical care. We're not going to ask you to pay for us, why should we pay for you? If I had the money, I would help you with your family if it meant using my taxes. I don't value money over human life, I just don't. Point is, you wouldn't have to ask me, and you wouldn't be asking me if it was tax money being used to help your family. So what they take a couple bucks out my paycheck, at least I know it's going to help people. For the record, I wouldn't ask you to empty out your pocket for my dad. But once the government takes taxes from you, technically it isn't your money anymore. Ya feel what I'm sayin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 So, being a Christian, the Bible says I am not supposed to help my fellow man. I am supposed to have my church do it? Or I am only to do it through my church? And what does the Bible say about representative democracies? Can I do good things through them too? Wow, talk about a mixed message. According to the bible the least among us represent Christ. It's interesting to think about that in the context of this debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 If I had the money, I would help you with your family if it meant using my taxes. I don't value money over human life, I just don't. Point is, you wouldn't have to ask me, and you wouldn't be asking me if it was tax money being used to help your family. So what they take a couple bucks out my paycheck, at least I know it's going to help people. The thing is, we wouldn't ask. Nor would we take the money if it was offered... either privately or via the government. I value my money over your life EVERY SINGLE TIME. For the record, I wouldn't ask you to empty out your pocket for my dad. But once the government takes taxes from you, technically it isn't your money anymore. Ya feel what I'm sayin? Yes, I do "feel" what you're saying. You're for larceny. You're for stealing MY money to support other people, which is something I am totally against. The Government only has the right to tax me for LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL services, which this does not qualify as. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heyholetsgogrant Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 The thing is, we wouldn't ask. Nor would we take the money if it was offered... either privately or via the government. I value my money over your life EVERY SINGLE TIME.Yes, I do "feel" what you're saying. You're for larceny. You're for stealing MY money to support other people, which is something I am totally against. The Government only has the right to tax me for LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL services, which this does not qualify as. :blahblah: :violin: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 The thing is, we wouldn't ask. Nor would we take the money if it was offered... either privately or via the government. I value my money over your life EVERY SINGLE TIME.Yes, I do "feel" what you're saying. You're for larceny. You're for stealing MY money to support other people, which is something I am totally against. The Government only has the right to tax me for LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL services, which this does not qualify as. Once upon a time it was against the law for anybody except rich white males who owned property to vote. Once upon a time there were colored only signs. Just cause it's law, doesn't mean its right. Granted, you'll defend the laws you agree with to the fulliest because, well, you agree with them. I don't agree with them, and regardless of what you or I believe, changes are being made to the system. They aren't raising taxes for this anyway, so what are you so mad about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.