Dave Westlake is on Twitter, and he’s got an important question for you:
I’m in awe of what awaits this great nation if we fight together for solid LEADERSHIP in DC-what do you want YOUR Senator to fight for?
9:43 AM Jul 18th from TwitterFon
To answer Dave’s question, I want MY Senator to fight for health care for all Americans. I want MY Senator to fight to protect a woman’s right to make her own choices when it comes to her reproductive health. What’s more, I want MY Senator to fight to protect my Constitutional rights, including my right not to have the government tap my phone without a warrant.
That’s what I want MY Senator to fight for, and that’s why I don’t want Dave Westlake as my United States Senator.
It’s interesting that you are so concerned (paranoid?) about government intrusion on having your phone tapped, a highly unlikely scenario, but don’t seem to mind the kind of government intrusion that will affect EVERY American by putting government in charge of our health. Way to have your priorities straight.
forgot, you’re comparing apples and hand grenades. I’m concerned about government “intrusion” when it comes to wiretaps because I care about my Constitutional rights.
Based on your comment, I’m left to assume you’re not a fan of government intrusion, so what I’m wondering is if you’re absolutely consistent in your opposition to government intrusion.
We already have health care for all Americans….just step right up and pay for whatever you’d like. Every American has the Liberty to do so or NOT do so.
Instead what you advocate is “Free” health care for all Americans, so they can step right up and demand things that they never would have demanded if they were paying for it themselves, just like an alchy at an open bar wedding reception…”buying” much more than if he’d have to whip out his own cash.
You’re right Rich….and if you’re unlucky enough to not be able to afford health care coverage, then oh well, sucks to be you!
Is the government in charge of farms right now? How about highways? How about radio and TV stations, universities, and international corporations? There are government programs and agencies for all of these things but don’t tell anybody. Does ATF control your alcohol and tobacco consumption? Not too my knowledge.
Also we forget that the one group of people who we honor the most in America have a socialized, single payer healthcare system. The Veteran’s Administration. If it is good enough for our ex-military personnel why is not good enough for others? And what about the Department of Defense Hospital? Those socialistic, single payer care providers seem to be doing just fine in saving and taking care of our military personnel.
These are two fine examples of single payer systems that Congress and the President have been overseeing for decades now. While they are not perfect, they do a fine job in providing healthcare to our military and their families. Don’t you agree?
PB, to borrow Zach’s words: you seem to be comparing apples and hand gernades. Bottom line: I don’t see how your examples are relevant. Would you please be so kind to explain?
Zach, thank you for the “You’re right…”. You are a gentleman and a scholar.
And, yes lots of things suck, and probably nothing more so than Death (if you CHOOSE to see things that way). But just because it may “suck” doesn’t mean that it’s the federal government’s job to un-suck it. And just because the people might “demand” it, doesn’t mean that it’s legal nor Constitutional either.
Rich, I guess that’s the difference between you and me. While I’m concerned about making sure folks have even the most basic of health insurance coverage, you’d rather take a “let them eat cake” attitude while screaming about the unconstitutionality of it all.
If we lose the Constitution, we lose everything.
I and every military member, members of Congress, and the President swore to support and defend the Constitution. I take that very seriously. Deathly serious.
We did NOT swear to support and defend the temporary popular fickle will of the people, nor the issue of the day, but instead we swore to support and defend the Constitution.
I look at it like this: what’s more important to worry about? the foundation? or building a fourth floor for needy folks?
Becuase if the new addition shifts the foundation EVERYONE looses.
But that’s just me. One man’s opinion. Worth spit really.
Rich, we keep going round and round on the “Constitutional Carousel,” and I’m going to stick to my assertion that the provision of health care is in keeping with the general welfare clause contained within the Constitution.
I keep thinking that I am done with discussing healthcare; I mean, after all, if it is not obvious that the moral use of the wealth of America to care of Americans, human beings, your mother, sister, brother, cousin, family, tribe, faith, race, and gender,… if that is not an appropriate use of American wealth then there is nothing that has value. Trillions for war, billions for aircraft to protect America but not a cent to help a man or his family who works every day of his life to make enough money to live on, and also not a cent to help a single mom who works every day to take care of her children, who cannot take off work when they are ill, who cannot pay for medicine for her children; I mean, if the single largest reason for bankruptcy is that middle class people with insurance can’t afford the healthcare they need, well, then, there is nothing for me to say that will convince these anti-healthcare people that money is better spent on taking care of human beings than on killing them, that it is better spent on making people well than forcing them to be in pain, or to be sick, or to be in need of life-saving surgery; that money is better spent on artificial limbs and plastic surgery for accident victims than on dairy price supports or military bases in Kazahkistan.
I am done with talking about healthcare… at least until somebody inflames me again.
PB, This and ONLY this is what our Federal government is for: 1) establish justice, 2) insure domestic tranquility, 3) provide for the common defense, 4) PROMOTE the general welfare, and 5) secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity… No more, no less. NOT for obvious moral uses. Not for spreading wealth to care for people. That’s not in there.
“…there is nothing for me to say that will convince these anti-healthcare people that money is better spent on taking care of human beings…” Actually I agree that spending money on taking care of human beings is money well spent. But not FEDERAL money! Feel free to spend all you want on charity, but that is NOT what the federal government is for. OBTW as stated above, to find out what the federal government is for, it’s right here in the document: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.preamble.html
No one is forcing anyone to be in pain nor to be sick nor to need surgery. Life and death and pain and suffering happens! It will still happen if we give health care away for free. You can’t stop death. What you are advocating is an unreasonable and unconstitutional expectation.
You all prove that you can’t win an arguement against emotions (i.e. moral uses, taking care of people, comparing needy people to national defense – all emotions). Not one firm Constitutional fact. What a shame….
But you have every right to your feelings and opinions. And thank God you live in a nation where you can freely express those. But how long will that last if we blatantly disregard the Constitution repeatedly?
Zach, I agree with you. Health Care is indeed “in keeping with the general welfare” but NOT as it’s written in the Constitution. But instead it is in keeping with how it has been liberally changed and interprettted by politicians pandering to the needy for votes.
Yes indeed. Health Care is most certainly in keeping with the fickle popular notion of the day.