Health Care Debate

[MasterKiller]

Many conservatives, me included, do not agree with them getting checks. So don't say that's something conservatives are for.

I know. So they shouldn't be allowed to use 9-1-1. No work, no 9-1-1. That's in the constitution, right?

And while we're at it, only taxpayers should be protected against terrorist attacks. Anyone not paying taxes to support the military, FBI, or CIA shouldn't be protected by them. I don't want my tax dollars paying to save poor innocent people. That's for sure.

[BoulderDawg]

I know. So they shouldn't be allowed to use 9-1-1. No work, no 9-1-1. That's in the constitution, right?

And while we're at it, only taxpayers should be protected against terrorist attacks. Anyone not paying taxes to support the military, FBI, or CIA shouldn't be protected by them. I don't want my tax dollars paying to save poor innocent people. That's for sure.

Yep! Seems I read something in the Constitution about 911 and how if you didn't contribute to society you should not allowed to use it.

Also, as far as protecting me from terrorism..... Don't waste your time I can do that myself. I haven't seen any terrorist lately while jogging down the street or at the grocery store.

[1bad65]

Being healthy is a fundamental human right.

But it's not a right granted by the Constitution.

And if you use that argument, explain why it's perfectly legal to suck a healthy child from the womb and kill it because the mom doesn't want it....

If you make a 15 year old girl quit school to pay for a baby, she has no option to better herself. She's doomed herself.

If a 15 year old commits a crime, they aren't usually even tried as an adult. But you expect a girl, just because she had a baby, to grow the f@ck up and pay for her mistake.

Multiple babies is abuse. But rich people abuse systems, too.

But if you don't provide kids, especially low-income kids, with access to proper sex education in the first place, you are pretty much dooming them to a self-fullfilling prophecy.

Again, I asked if it's fair that she gets bigger checks if she messes up AGAIN.

My stance is that if you are on Government assistance and you fail a drug test, get convicted of a crime, or have another kid, the checks stop. It proves you are not trying to better yourself.

FYI, I didn't get sex-ed in school. And I don't have any illigitimate kids. It's the parents responsibility, not the Governments.

[1bad65]

I know. So they shouldn't be allowed to use 9-1-1. No work, no 9-1-1. That's in the constitution, right?

And while we're at it, only taxpayers should be protected against terrorist attacks. Anyone not paying taxes to support the military, FBI, or CIA shouldn't be protected by them. I don't want my tax dollars paying to save poor innocent people. That's for sure.

The first part is true. I agree with you.

The second part is ridiculous, and you should know that.

[MasterKiller]

But it's not a right granted by the Constitution.

And if you use that argument, explain why it's perfectly legal to suck a healthy child from the womb and kill it because the mom doesn't want it....

True.

Again, I asked if it's fair that she gets bigger checks if she messes up AGAIN.

Not fair, no. It's not fair to that baby that he has a d1psh1t mom, either. Is it fair to let him starve because him mom is ignorant?

My stance is that if you are on Government assistance and you fail a drug test, get convicted of a crime, or have another kid, the checks stop. It proves you are not trying to better yourself.

I don't have much of an issue with that stance. Seems reasonable, but by doing so you are leaving children unprotected and stuck in a lifecycle of poverty.

FYI, I didn't get sex-ed in school. And I don't have any illigitimate kids. It's the parents responsibility, not the Governments.

Neither did Sarah Palin's kids. Oooops.

[ittokaos]

Multiple babies is abuse.

Abuse to who? The mother who refused to stop having sex without a condom or birth control? Perhaps masochism considering she did it to herself. I imagine you aren't talking about rape victims here.

As for better sex ed, it is the responsibility of the parent to do it. The reason we have it in school in the first place is the fact that the parents were dropping the ball. It was never the Govts sole responsibilty to teach the kids about condoms, they just helped to pick up the slack. Also, there are after school specials, condom and birth control commercials, planned parenthood centers, education in school, billboards, and tv shows with information on how to either be abstinant or have sex using contraception in order to avoid an unwanted pregnancy. If after all that you still make a "mistake" then perhaps a slap upside the head is in order, not free money.

[BoulderDawg]

But it's not a right granted by the Constitution.

And if you use that argument, explain why it's perfectly legal to suck a healthy child from the womb and kill it because the mom doesn't want it....

Because that is in the Constitution:

Admendant 14

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

********

There is it in black and white. If you are not born or naturalized then you are not a citizen and not subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the US.

I know you're going to say "That's not what that means." But you neos tell me to read the Constitution exactly how it is written.

[1bad65]

Not fair, no. It's not fair to that baby that he has a d1psh1t mom, either. Is it fair to let him starve because him mom is ignorant?

I honestly doubt we would see children starving to death. The able-bodied parents would just get jobs, or stop having kids they can't afford. Problem solved.

I don't have much of an issue with that stance. Seems reasonable, but by doing so you are leaving children unprotected and stuck in a lifecycle of poverty.

But as it is now, children born to unwed mothers have a much higher rate of ending up on Government assistance than those raised by responsible parents.

You do realize that about 1/2 of all black children born in the US are born out of wedlock? That's reprehensible. And it's because of welfare and other programs. Government has assumed the role of the father, and compounded the problem. Women used to look for a provider in a man. Now they know they don't need a provider. The taxpayers/Government will provide for them.

When a system rewards bad judgement, it's doomed to fail.

Neither did Sarah Palin's kids. Oooops.

That's a low blow. You're above that.

[Drake]

And btw, I know plenty of active military personnel that qualify for food stamps and use them.

Because BAH and BAS do not count as income. It's a loophole. We had this discussion at my unit today, and much of it revolves around soldiers who don't know how to budget money. I also work with an NCO who is our unit finance advisor, and it's his job to help soldiers learn how to budget their money.

Between base pay, BAH, and BAS, no soldier actually needs food stamps, ESPECIALLY when BAS is more than enough for a family of 3-4 to get groceries. The rent is covered too, so unless their spending habits need adjusting (which has always been the case), they should be fine. I have yet to see a junior enlisted without a PS3/XBox360 and a nice HDTV to play Madden on.

What active duty personnel do you know? What are their pay grades? Because this doesn't pass the smell test. Bear in mind, I was an enlisted soldier, later an NCO, and now a commissioned officer, so don't try and blow smoke up my tailpipe.

[ittokaos]

Because that is in the Constitution:

Admendant 14

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

********

There is it in black and white. If you are not born or naturalized then you are not a citizen and not subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the US.

I know you're going to say "That's not what that means." But you neos tell me to read the Constitution exactly how it is written.

That is very true, however just because the Constitution doesn't directly say it doesn't mean that one's humanity shouldn't compel them to save a child, born and protected by law or otherwise, from being terminated. The constitution is a piece a paper that we use to govern ourselves and nothing more. Now before anyone climbs on a soapbox, sticks their "enlightened" nose in the air and call me an ignorant "neo"(I have not now nor have I ever been a Matrix character ;D), let me say that I am not. I am simply a man that believes that people should stop hiding behind something to make themselves feel better about their actions. Be it religion or law or whatever everyone should at least know right from wrong. Just because law says one thing is ok doesn't mean it is not wrong. Also, just because the law says something is bad doesn't mean that it is. Right is right. Wrong is wrong. If i had a license to kill and killed someone's family because the govt. wanted me to I would still be wrong even though I wouldn't get punished by the law because in this case I would be well within my right. The fact that law says it is ok doesn't make dead feel happy about being killed nor does it help the remaining friends and family with their grieving.

Another example, i was recently pulled over. The officer was a motorcycle cop (or CHIPS as we call them in these parts) who, in my city, look for the most random reasons to pull you over in order to meet their quota. The reason, I believe, was because I swerved as to not hit a driver that was jstu trying to force his way into my lane without signaling. His reason was that my windshield was cracked which it was. The officer was behind me the whole time and thus was not able to see my windshield. Once I was pulled over he walked to the front of my car, stopped and stared at my windshield for a few seconds, then asked me if I knew why i was pulled over. I gave my reason and then he gave his.

I presented him with the items he requested and he proceeded to review my information. Then, he began questioning me about why the car is in someone else's name. I told him the car is technically my mother's and I make the pymts on it. After about 10 mins, he asked to step out and informed me that the insurance card had expired, the car was not mine, and my license didnt look like me. He impounded the car. I offered to give him my mom's ph # so she could straighten all this out he laughed and had me sign the ticket.

Now, the insurance card was old but the insurance was still active, something that he could have checked easily. He didnt believe the car was my mom's because she has a french last name and mine is clearly hispanic(my stepdad is french). I tanned over the summer so the license, that I recieved during the fall season, didnt look like me. I also overheard him say something about my friend, who appears middle eastern but is greek, and myself probably stealing the car(none of which did he feel the need to whisper). One of the back up officers called my mom and because of that neither of us were arrested but we did get some tickets. I got one for not having a license and a fix it for the windshield. My mom got one for having no insurance, one for letting an unlicensed driver drive her car, and one for having a cracked windshield.

Most of it we were able to straighten out but the car was impounded for 2 weeks while we did so. Even though we were in the right with the tickets we still had to pay a small fine(like $25) for each just for getting them as well as $1300 to get the car out and $130 to fix the windshield.

Now, legally, the cop was in the right. However, that did not make what he did right.

In my opinon anyway...

[Drake]

I think a lot of people aren't aware of requirements for driving, and what is expected of them. I can't say it's their fault or not, because this is a local issue, and we were discussing a federal issue. My only advice for folks is to educate themselves on local laws and requirements when it comes to driving. For all you know, the cop may have had no choice but to follow those rules. His comments were not appropriate, however, and though nothing may come of it, I'd suggest reporting him on that part.

[BoulderDawg]

Keith Olbermann made a good point about the latest protest in Washington by Michelle Bachman and her ilk against the health care bill. That was the fact that the protest was held in Washington and the area around Washington is a black majority area yet when they panned the crowd you could not find one black face...not one...in the entire crowd. That kinda tells you something doesn't it.

Also a word about Michelle Bachman.....She's one of the crazies. No doubt about that. Both sides have them. However the problem is she's also a freshman congressperson. How does she find time to service the people of her district in between being on TV and rubbing elbows with Glenn Beck and others at all sorts of neo rallies?

[BoulderDawg]

The Neos are at it again....

Trying to put abortion debate into the health care bill......not surprising.

You know what, I think it's time to call their bluff. It's obvious they are trying to make the hurdle so high that the bill will die.

I say give them whatever they want, pass the bill and then introduce legislation to correct it.

Of course no matter what health care bill is introduced no GOP member is going to vote for it. But hopefully they can get the handfull of blue dogs on board. If not have then move over to the other side. That's where leiberman belongs anyway.

[BoulderDawg]

Just saw it on the news.....

The so-called "progressives" in the senate have caved in and dropped the public option....the insurance companies are throwing parties in the street.

And people wondering why I don't support anyone in congress...

[BoulderDawg]

The vote on this will be interesting.

The 40 teabaggers in the senate...how will they vote? Don't know don't care.

The blue dogs (90% of the Democrats) will probably vote for it.

The rest who call themselves liberal....I guess we'll see. I only know of three senators who I think will vote against it (Sen Burris, Sen Sanders and Sen. Franken).

I know if I were in the senate I could never vote for anything that did not include a public option.