Do people 'deserve' universal health care?

[MMI]

[Holmes] used one thing to EXPAND UPON and try to introduce another thing.

Aren't you doing something very similar here?

First, I am hoping this works.... I've never successfully done the quote thing.

You have now!

Our illustrious Montana Senator has decided that if we don't buy insurance we will be fined what averages to about $300 per month. There is a bunch of us middle-class folks that make too much money for assistance (wouldn't take it anyway) but not enough for insurance. So where is the logic in fining us, which after that, we still won't have insurance anyway?

No clue ... unless he feels that, if everyone does buy insurance, he won't have to fine anybody. I guess that comes down to an economic calculation: which is cheaper, the fine plus any emergency health bills you might have to meet, or the insurance premium.

I think he's taking entirely the wrong approach. There's no point in forcing your opinions on people who are that unwilling ... I mean, look what happens when I post here!!!

[Thorne]

[INDENT]There's no point in forcing your opinions on people who are that unwilling ... I mean, look what happens when I post here!!!

But you aren't forcing your opinions on anyone. If someone here doesn't like your opinions they don't have to read them. After all, it's not like you can shout them down.

And it's not like your right, anyway.

[steelish]

Aren't you doing something very similar here?

I am? How so. Please explain.

[MMI]

I am? How so. Please explain.

My brief study of Holmes's Opinion in Buck v Bell leads me to believe that his intention was to uphold the practice of eugenics in the US as constitutional, rather than to validate the methods used in particular instances. I don't think that by approving permanent sterilisation in this case he was doing anything new. I have not seen any reference to the exclusive use of temporary sterilisation methods prior to this case.

But accepting, for the sake of argument, that he did legitimise permanent sterilisation for the first time by extending the meaning of "vaccination", I do not see how this demonstrates that the passage of the health bill will enable "Progressives" (who or what are they when they're at home?) to impose different and unintended penalties on the public at some time in the future? By the same logic, should we all not fear some progressive movement in the future declaring that Magna Carta made all forms of imprisonment unlawful, and so all gaols should be emptied forthwith?

[steelish]

By the same logic, should we all not fear some progressive movement in the future declaring that Magna Carta made all forms of imprisonment unlawful, and so all gaols should be emptied forthwith?

Magna Carta is an English legal charter, and not something that effects me in the states...so nope, I'm not worried about it.

Progressives are already making noises that show us they will use the health care bill as a trojan horse. They've even said as much. I am trying to find the video clip of a Senator talking to the press and all but stating that very fact, but I am having difficulty finding it. Maybe the progressives have pulled it off the internet - on that, I'm not sure.