Where in the Constitution does it say the Fed gov should provide health care.

Nonsense - It is the most basic function of government.
Why do we have government? To secure the rights of men.
See? No moral component.

Now, then - stop avoiding the questions put to you:
Why do you believe the state should force your morality on others?
And to follow up:
Why do you believe the state should not for the morality of others on you?

 

"Respecting an establishment of religion"....what do you think this means? It means no religion shall rule the land, whereas the land shall make no law FROM religion. It cannot possibly be more clear. No reputable scholar, conservative or liberal or whatever, would ever say that our constitution allows for religious law. None. Zero.

 

Don't bring God into this discussion. You are a hypocrite and don't believe in the teaching of the Bible anyhow. You are going to die anyway so why bother with healthcare....doctors...or hospitals...at all.

 

Securing rights of men IS A MORAL POSITION. Want to know what would be immoral? NOT protecting those rights.

 

National defense is an extension of self-defense, a natural individual right explained quite well by John Locke in his 2nd Treatise on Government.

The post office is directly covered in Article 1, Section 8.

Many people will argue with you whether the income tax was legal under the Constitution or not. In any case, it was passed and is now part of the Constitution.

The Constitution lays out in detail how our representatives are to be elected.

The Constitution says *NOTHING* about the government being responsible for individual health care. The only health care you have a natural right to is that you can provide for yourself, either directly or by trading something of value for it to someone else.

 

I don't know what to make of your many points; seems like a lot of hand waving.

 

Altruism with SOMEONE ELSE'S MONEY!

 

I've already stated healthcare is not in the constitution, it wasn't even a concept for the founding of the country. I believe that healthcare is a right in modern society, when we have so much wealth and ability to stop mass disease and death.

 

Let's say healthcare is written in black and white within the Constitution and if that is in fact the case, why would gov need to pay for it? I love the 2A and it is written in black and white within the Constitution so does the gov owe every US citizen a firearm?

 

Abrogating the Constitution and violating my individual rights to satisfy your personal wants is all you are advocating.

I simply do not agree that you should be able to do that.

That may be a difficult truth for you to accept but it *is* the truth nonetheless!

 

The 2nd says " shall not be infringed". Even more clear.
What does this tell you?

 

It is open to interpretation, and the Supreme Court has something to say, no? For perfectly sound reasons? Yes, and that is why
changes had to be made, to give choices. Private insurance is available today, still.
Not to insulate, no. Picking and choosing who will be insured invites government interference. The tax payer was paying anyway,
through Medicaid. Maybe you will have some empathy for others when you get cancer. Funny how people's minds change when
they experience the experience.

 

But forcing others to be slaves to your *wants* is *NOT* a moral position. And that is what using government force to pay for your individual health care would be!

 

It clearly tells me that the government cannot take a law abiding citizens gun. I disagree with it, but that's what it says.

 

Funny thing is that you and the rest of your conservative brethren will be reaching for Medicare at some point in your life. And that makes you hypocrites.

 

You're using the taxation is slavery argument? Haha.

 

Making slaves out of others in order to satisfy your *wants* is not a right, unless you are a King with Divine Rights. Yet that is what the Marxist Democrats want to do.

Modern society has nothing to do with it. Our rights are no different than they have ever been. If the Marxist Democrats want to identify a new "right" then let them amend the Constitution.

 

All men endowed with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men.
Point out the term(s) that makes this a moral position.

Then, you can stop avoiding the questions put to you:
Why do you believe the state should force your morality on others?
And to follow up:
Why do you believe the state should not for the morality of others on you?

 

So to you, forcing a person to pay a $1000 tax before he exercises his right does not qualify as an infringement - so long as he can still exercise that right, the right is not infringed?

 

Paying taxes is not slavery, such a nonsense argument. Modern society has everything to do with healthcare. We have the means, and ability to cure world hunger. Does this mean we shouldn't if it's not in the constitution?

Also, I am curious about your position. Are you against Medicare for all because of the constitution, or are you against it because taxes would be raised to pay for it?

 

So, a patient cannot sue a doctor for malpractice and collect a ton of money from him or his liability insurance company? That means the France doctor does not shell out one penny for liability insurance instead of the thousands, tens of thousands even hundreds of thousand dollars each year the US doctor has to pay out of his earnings.

I take it your answer to my question, "How many new drugs, procedures, or medical equipment have come out of France recently?" is..... not many.

 

If you believe we have rights, is it moral or immoral to NOT protect those rights?

 

Promote..... promote the general welfare. And this is not some constitutional duty for the Feds. It is found in the preamble and falls to we who formed the union to promote our welfare or if you are willing, to promote yours. But it says nothing about we the public paying for your doctor bills.

We are called on to form a more perfect union. But we are not called on to pay for your nurse or doctor nor pills.

We are called on to insure domestic tranquility, not run amok shouting "Hands up don't shoot" with our pants down to our knees.

We are not called on to riot in New York against the Wall St. people. Nor have them force us to pay for cops.

We are called on to establish the blessings of liberty, not tax you till you bleed nor force you to submit to the IRS. Sure, you found welfare in the preamble. Do you now wish to explain why you fight against personal liberty as it also demands?

 

Taxation for the purposes laid out in the Constitution for the federal government is *NOT* slavery. Don't put words in my mouth!

Taxation for purposes *NOT* in Article 1, Section 8; i.e. the powers and responsibilities delegated by the people to the federal government; *IS* most assuredly slavery.

It is *exactly* why the colonies rebelled against King George and England!

 

Sorry -- you'll have to disprove my position on your own. You cannot, of course.

Why do you believe the state should force your morality on others?
And to follow up:
Why do you believe the state should not for the morality of others on you?