Posted on 11/11/2002 10:53:53 PM PST by USA21
They already do.
But it must be paid for.
Get the government out of health-care, end the regulation and high taxes - then seniors can afford prescription medication.
And what, pray tell, is there NOT to hold one's nose about? Exactly which level of government has become less costly or less intrusive?
Republicans have been holding their noses so long their nostrils have grown together, completely cutting off their sense of smell.
The only thing Republicans offer over Democrats is that they do the wrong thing a little more slowly.
Show me where I'm wrong.
Regardless of your value choices here, the major vice is that you think you have the right to choose how to spend my money - supporting YOUR values.
Got news for ya, Bub - you don't.
Personally I think we should spay and neuter those who produce children they can't or won't care for. The number of single mothers and non-supportive fathers would drop dramatically, as would welfare costs and crime.
Health care is available; the question is whether some people get their health care for free by making others pay for it.
Funny how people who claim that they "can't afford" health care (whine, sniff) can very well afford cable TV, dinners out, alcohol, lottery tickets and the like.
Logically, then, your position is all tax is theft. Period.
I respect your position but I will point out pigs will fly before your position becomes reality.
Well bully for you! And I guess you think I should pay for it, too. I think all Americnas should have a new red Mustang convertable Can we get a government program for that?
Health care *IS* available. The cost of paperwork and litigation triples the cost of going to the doctor. Even so an office visit is what, about $80? The question is "does everyone deserve as a birthright the most complex and complete health care we can invent". Remember medical science hasn't stopped, and as long as there is a market more and more high end treatments will continue to come out. MRIs are a good example. I don't see the logical case for this claim on my liberty. You must surrender an ever increasing amount of dollars to pay for health care for others because we, the collective, say so. Sounds very socialist to me. Not at all conservative.
Logically, my position is that taxes are an inherent evil that must be controlled. The Constitution actually lays out the few, narrow things that the Federal Govt. is allowed to do and also the mechanisms to fund them. Prior to the 1913 ammendment permitting it the Supreme Court found that the Federal Income Tax was unconstititional. But you know we'd still managed to run the governemnt for 120 years without them somehow.
The invasion of the Federal Govt into every aspect of life started under FDR, who was a Socialist. It violated the Constitution then and it violates it now. The Dems have used the Supreme Court to void the Constitition since his presidency. They know it, which is why they care so much about the Presidency and the Senate. The best thing GWB could do to restore the constititon is find justices to the right of Scalia and Thomas who do not agree with the ongoing voiding of the Constitution and who are prepared to rule abominations like Social Security unconstitional. I agree this is unlikely, but I'll keep working for it anyway. We real conservatives *are* moving the country to the right slowly, at the same time the R's are capitulating to the achieved artifacts of 50 years of liberal, democratic and unconstitional laws and programs. It's a race.
We need to keep finding, funding and recruiting the most right wing (ie: Constitutionalist) people we can to replace RINOs and Democrats. We should be looking for a Presidential candidate a little to the right of Bush2 now, else wise we might get a RINO like Powell shoved down our throats by the media and RINO insiders.
For example, I believe it is clear that the right to an abortion should never have been found in the Constitution based on the "right of privacy". However, I would also assert that the Constitution cannot be used to make abortion illegal based on a "right to life". While it is true that article 14, section 1 states: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;", it is also true that article refers only to "persons" who are "born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Since the unborn are not born yet, they are not covered as "persons".
Ergo, while a constitutionalist justice would (should) throw out any "right to abortion" in the Constitution, they should also not find a "right against abortion" in the same document. And that would make the right-wing very unhappy. Too bad. Abortion should be a state issue, not a federal one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.