I've spent a fair amount of time struggling with the social, and societal issues surrounding private health care, and public(economic) policy on health care. I'm mostly a radical anarchist when it comes to govt, and I bend some and call myself a Libertarian for the most part. There are a couple of things that govt does moderately well, and many, many, many things that govt does an average job, and still plenty of things that govt does poorly.

A reasonable position to take.

First I can say honestly I don't have an answer. We all know someone who has health challenges that cause misery and grief and hope that they can be taken care of. But - as with anything, it's a matter of priorities. Here's the clause from the constitution that covers these kinds of things: 'provide for the common defense and general welfare'. It is called the 'general welfare clause'. What did it mean when it was written and what does it mean now? Since this is an open ended question and there is no one answer, we have to look to politics to solve it. Politics - is like sausage. People like the finished product, but no one wants to know how it's made. The left wants everything, all the time, for all people with no limits, and no requirement to invest in the sausage making. The money should come from high taxes, and be distributed 'fairly' as needs arise. Well, guess what? Whenever there's a big fat pile of tax money sitting in the bank, everyone suddenly has this great NEED for it. This applies in spades to health care money. No matter how much is piled into medicare, it always runs short. Gee? What a surprise(not). You can never, ever give away enough money to people. No one, on any planet, in any system will stop taking money if offered, or available. This too - applies to health care in spades.

Don't disagree with most of this.  Will quibble with the position that the "left" wants everything, all the time.  From my view the "left" and the "right" are more than willing to feed off the public teat, they just want to spend it on different things.

Want an abortion? Well, did the govt impregnate you? No. So, why do you think it's all right for the govt to pay for your abortion.

Can you provide a verifiable example of government funds going to abortion for convenience?  Might want to start with this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment

Now, having said that, this is the ONE exception that I will gladly pay for with one caveat. If the govt is going to pay for your abortion then you MUST also get permanent conception prevention of some kind(tubal ligation, etc).

Are you also in favor of Federal funding of birth control to minimize the rate of abortions?  Personally believe government should neither promote nor prohibit abortion.  It is such an emotional and personal decision that government should play no role.

 

about the OPs situation with CP? Well, I have a relative with moderate CP. He's 71 years old. He has never been given a dime of assistance for his CP. CP has been around since the dawn of mankind, why should the collective now, in this century be responsible for their care? Have we solved world peace? Have we paid ALL the other bills of the govt that are overdue? Is the nation and world other pressing common problems all taken care of that we can now focus on individuals? These are not rhetorical questions. At what time do we set the individual or family problems ahead of issues and problems that affect ALL US citizens? This is what was meant by the 'common defense and general welfare'. Those issues that rise to the national level of interest that it will be beneficial for all citizens, not just a small minority. Roads = common welfare. Schools = common welfare. Fire equipment = common welfare. Air Traffic Control = common welfare. See a theme here? How does one or ten, or 50,000 with CP in a nation of 3.2 million rate or rank? Sorry, I think you see where this is headed.

I do agree with your premise of "common welfare" and the examples you show.  Not so clear as why you believe that the health of our citizens isn't part of that.

The constitution rights question. The constitution lays out specific rights for protection. Does that mean that this is the limit of those rights, and that any other rights are excluded? Are there rights that are not written but should be considered automatic, and presumed applicable? Like - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Note it says 'pursuit of' happiness. Not the 'guarantee of happiness'. If happiness is being treated for CP, and getting the most out of your life with the disability, then fine - go forth and pursue. If you need help from someone, ask family, ask neighbors, ask church, ask the public. But - this is a far, far cry from taking from those more fortunate and giving to those less fortunate by FORCE(don't pay taxes, and go to prison).

Wish I could offer you more money, but if I pay for you, then I pay for them, and then the other guys, and by the time we're all done - the few are paying all the health bills for the many. Won't work.

Taxes are a necessity of a civilized society, no way around it.  You may believe it is being taken from you by force, but there isn't a way around it.  Funny how the argument usually boils down to dollars - generally follows the line that someone is getting something for free and I'm paying for it, and I don't like it.  Wish we could all pick and choose what our tax dollars go for, most likely the services provided by our government would be quite different.

Liberals are always stunned when they realize that conservatives are not just old white guys but run the gambit of ethnic backgrounds including those who are considered non-white.   As always liberal premises are never close to reality.

Conservatives are always stunned to learn that liberals are not just emotional basket cases with weak arguments not rooted in fact. They are also stunned to learn of their own hypocrisy when it is pointed out that they fail to engage in the very thing for which they are lambasting their opponents.

I wrote "And I write that as someone who thinks Sessions is a danger to liberty."

and what do you base your belief on?

I think Sessions is a danger to civil liberties because of his recent statements on crackdowns on recreational use of marijuana and his defense of current civil forfeiture practices (see http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443299/civil-forfeiture-property-seizure-no-judicial-process-jeff-sesions-justice-department)

Lastly, the following votes on civil liberty issues are contrary to my conception of liberty (though there are many votes he cast that I do agree with):

Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
Voted NO on prohibiting eminent domain for use as parks or grazing land. (Dec 2007)
Voted NO on killing restrictions on violent videos to minors. (May 1999)
Voted YES on regulating tobacco as a drug. (Jun 2009)
Voted YES on limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000. (May 2006)
Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps. (Feb 2011)
Voted NO on requiring FISA court warrant to monitor US-to-foreign calls. (Feb 2008)
Voted YES on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)
Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision. (Dec 2005)
Source: http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Jeff_Sessions.htm

did you also think that holder and obama were a danger to liberty?

The eight years of the Obama administration was a disaster for liberty. I didn't vote for him - nor any other Democrat for any other local or national office anytime in the last 40 years.

This forum appears to be dominated by conservatives, followed by libertarians, populists, and lastly liberals - so it is in danger of becoming a conservative echo chamber. As a result, IMHO attempting to debate posts made by the few liberals is an exercise in redundancy, which only leaves debating posts made by the conservative majority. If posters make posts I suspect are erroneous and I suspect they will go unchallenged I may decide to challenge them, depending on how much effort is involved vs how much time I'm willing to expend. I consider myself a libertarian and there are plenty of differences by libertarians and conservatives.

I'm pretty conservative on most issues.  I hate the idea of burning the flag, and think it is disgusting, however I would not be in favor of any sort of law that made it illegal.

I lump it into the KKK having the right to march, etc.  Disgusting stuff, but I firmly believe it is there right to do so.

-Dan

Good points Gary.  I have a feeling that Trump will be a little more level headed than his staunchest supporters on this forum. 

At least I hope so. 

I'm willing to give him a chance (which says more than anyone said about Obama on this forum).  I hope he succeeds, because I fear his failure may become a disaster. 


Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!

You're no t going to give up, are you?   You are fine with Hillary winning and spending her entire time fighting off investigations until she is impeached or destroys the justice system even more.

You're not going to give up are you?  You're fine with a New York Liberal Democrat Hillary Donor winning and spending his entire time grabbing the pussies of interns and cooking off nukes because someone insulted him on Twitter at 3am.