Arguing over how things should be has nothing to do with what the law currently says, even if you could prove that the law has to be based upon original intent. Anti-abortionists should know the former.
Nice try, but you are completely bass ackwards on this. The law currently(as you put it) says that any powers not designated to the federal government shall be held by the states, it's in the constitution. Please show me in the constitution where it says that the government has a right to run healthcare.
Seems I hit a nerve, though that's not surprising. Private health insurance is a poor basis for coverage. You profit by denying care.
Yeah, okay, if you say so.:roll: If companies didn't pay......they wouldn't have clients now would they?
So you've read it? Do you really think the Constitution came about via logic rather than compromise with self-interested groups?
Yeah, it did, if you read the writings of Locke, Jefferson, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, Adams, etc. You would see that the logic was well hashed out before the final drafting of the U.S. Constitution.
No access is a code word for achieveable
No, access means you have use of, plain and simple, everyone who wants access to healthcare can have it, if they do the things they need to do to pay for the SERVICE.
and in this case proportional, we should strive to cause it to have a similar percentage impact on everybody's budget ceteris paribus and encourage, but not coerce, healthier behavior.
But because not everyone pays taxes, then yours is a moot point, oh, and coercion is the only way that a national plan could work since the unhealthy will cost more to the system.
Well you don't have a right to a car, but they're certainly not accessible for everybody. Driving a car is a privilege, healthcare is not.
Healthcare is a service, do use the right terminology.
And no, healthcare is not reliably accessible for everybody. Even beyond the uninsured, many people are underinsured.
Underinsured huh, which campaign are you working for? Or did you just borrow that talking point from one? Let's get this straight, underinsured means someone did not do well in the planning, and with rationing that will happen, everyone will be underinsured and it will be D.C.'s fault.
And most of them would not know it until they have a major health crisis. Most personal bankruptcies are healthcare related, 74% of healthcare bankruptcies are people who are insured.
Bankruptcies are the result of bad financial planning, insurance is part of financial planning, so, cry me a river.
And they are reasonable, what's your point.
Taxes make it not free to everybody who pays taxes.
Okay, what's the tax rate on insurance policies?
Soda VATs cause people who drink a lot of soda to pay more for it too, under the idea that they will require more healthcare later.
Coercion, I thought you said above that people shouldn't be coerced.
It is Russian Roulette unless you're rich.
And now class warfare, wow, just wow, I can't believe you've brought in every irrelevent UHC argument in ONE post, brilliant! :thumbs:
