tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post8620163085751984955..comments2023-10-10T05:30:54.239-04:00Comments on Jo-Joe Politico: Liberals Miss the PointJoehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09693381971064363612noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-65295190813754860962013-11-02T17:39:08.962-04:002013-11-02T17:39:08.962-04:00XO: From the moment of conception the developing b...XO: From the moment of conception the developing baby exhibits all of the requirements to be considered life: it grows, it takes on nurishment, it gives of waste products and conforms to all other scientific requirements.<br /><br />That it is human can be immediately demonstrated by the fact that it contains human DNA, not bird DNA, not fish DNA and not plant DNA...human DNA. It is uniquely human.<br /><br />So, if it is life, and if it is uniquely human, it is human life. It is not potential life, potential human life, or anything else potential.<br /><br />To speak in terms of Potentiality is very dangerous. A child of 6 is a potential mature human, but because it is not yet mature it might be considered not worth preserving under certain cirtumstances.<br /><br />I know a country that believed that once. They actually believed they could rule the world.<br /><br />They failed.Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09693381971064363612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-16264070645061041032013-10-30T20:37:42.784-04:002013-10-30T20:37:42.784-04:00G.E.C. - There is not a single shred of scientific...G.E.C. - There is not a single shred of scientific fact in either of those links.<br /><br />I'm not surprised. The folks on your side of the ideological fence have made it embarrassingly clear on so many occasions that they have absolutely no grasp of the fundamental basics of human biology ('legitimate rape').<br /><br />Look, a fertilized egg is no more or less alive than an unfertilized egg or a single sperm cell.<br /><br />When an egg is fertilized, there is no immediate and magical transformation that takes place and turns that mass of cells into a full fledged human being. Fertilization kicks off a biological process that if allowed to continue has the potential of eventually creating a human being.<br /><br />Do I also need to explain to you about the male and female naughty bits and how that whole process works?Xavier Onassishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01345787343828318445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-43150590026269458792013-10-30T17:40:06.279-04:002013-10-30T17:40:06.279-04:00X.O. and others who doubt that a human life exists...X.O. and others who doubt that a human life exists from conception:<br /><br />http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/<br />http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2009/02/20/im-too-pro-science-to-be-pro-choice/Glenn E. Chatfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04117405535707961903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-13376051006894957722013-10-30T17:25:07.151-04:002013-10-30T17:25:07.151-04:00X.O.
No, the lie is YOURS. From conception it is...X.O.<br /><br />No, the lie is YOURS. From conception it is a human life. That is the medical fact.Glenn E. Chatfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04117405535707961903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-30299353177097956632013-10-30T17:10:39.424-04:002013-10-30T17:10:39.424-04:00G.E.C. - "... medical science and biology whi...G.E.C. - "... medical science and biology which says it is a human life from conception."<br /><br />That is a flat out, absolute lie. Science and biology says no such thing.<br /><br />An undifferentiated mass of cells has the POTENTIAL to become a human life if it develops that far.<br /><br />But from scientific and biological point of view, a fertilized egg or a blastocyst is NOT a human life.<br /><br />You are just flat out wrong about that.<br /><br />Now, if you want to believe that the Holy Spirit breathes a soul into that fertilized egg while the man and woman are still naked and sweaty having a smoke, that's fine. But that is your religious belief and it is not supported by science.Xavier Onassishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01345787343828318445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-15855341719767693222013-10-30T16:36:22.026-04:002013-10-30T16:36:22.026-04:00Dave,
There is never, ever a medical need to &qu...Dave, <br /><br />There is never, ever a medical need to "abort." Many times people have been told that to carry a baby to term it would be hazardous to the mother, and yet the mother had the child anyway and survived just fine; a friend of ours had that situation, but she elected to carry the baby. Now, if there is a bonafide, 100% chance of the woman dying, which is an extremely rare thing, then it becomes a matter of which life to save when only one life can be saved. No need for abortion coverage for health care for all for a rare occurrence, and and that type of life-saving procedure could be covered and I don't think anyone would object.<br /><br />My understanding of abortion isn't from a Christian worldview, because I held that opinion prior to becoming a believer. My understanding of abortion is due to medical science and biology which says it is a human life from conception. <br /><br />In our society, someone's morals are being forced on everyone else; the question becomes which morals are best. The leftist homosexual agenda is forcing their same-sex fake marriage on everyone, and yet are you complaining about that? <br /><br />By the way, every law we have is derived from the Judeo-Christian worldview (at least it used to be before sanctioning of homosexuality).<br /><br />But all this is a red herring, since it isn't the Christian worldview which determines that abortion is wrong. I know - and have known - many unbelievers and rabid atheists who are against abortion on the basis of the scientific facts.Glenn E. Chatfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04117405535707961903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-79109641710486709312013-10-30T13:01:47.773-04:002013-10-30T13:01:47.773-04:00Glenn, while I am not fan, or supporter of abortio...Glenn, while I am not fan, or supporter of abortion, I struggle with your view that it is never a medical necessity.<br /><br />I have plenty of medical people in my family who would tell you that there are in fact times when an abortion could be necessary to save the life of the mother.<br /><br />Are you saying that is false information? Never, never, never is an abortion essential to save the life of a living, breathing potential mom?<br /><br />Beyond that, I assume you, like probably Joe, hold your understanding of abortion from a Christian worldview. I too am a Christian so I have no problem with someone holding that view.<br /><br />I would ask this though... is it right for a religious group to force others, in a secular pluralistic society, to live under laws derived from a religious worldview.<br /><br />And if it is right, how do we determine which religion gets to rule the roost?<br /><br />For instance, in Utah, would it be alright for the majority population [Mormons] to impose laws derived from their worldview on the non Mormon population?<br /><br />How about in Hawai'i? As the majority group there is Buddhist, would it be just for them to impose their religious views on Christians in the form of laws to support their worldview?<br /><br />How does a society of people from various backgrounds, countries and cultures make these decisions?Dave Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16777087329254991970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-32891545969407081622013-10-30T11:21:21.525-04:002013-10-30T11:21:21.525-04:00X.O.
My complaints about tax expenditures are abo...X.O.<br /><br />My complaints about tax expenditures are about the WASTE and UNCONSTITUTIONAL expenses. THAT is NOT hypocrisy. My job was neither a waste of money, nor a pork-barrel project, nor unconstitutional. YOU still don’t know the meaning of word.<br /><br />Health insurance is for expenses incurred by medical necessities. Which is why, so far anyway (at least mine doesn’t), they don’t cover bodily mutilation to change external appearances to look like a member of the opposite sex, nor do they pay for breast augmentation, etc. Medical NECESSITIES are the expenses they help with.<br /><br /> Abortion is NEVER a medical necessity. NEVER. It is murder. Your description of the conception is at odds with medical science, demonstrating your abject stupidity and bias against a pre-born child. If they did “everything to prevent it” then they wouldn’t have had sex. If you have sex, accept the personal responsibility and don’t make other people pay for it. You choose to reproduce when you have sex without some sort of birth control. And birth control is as cheap as buying a hamburger, and yet those who want the government to pay for bc will usually be smoking expensive cigarettes. Free birth control is abstinence. Glenn E. Chatfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04117405535707961903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-21345237492543576452013-10-30T11:14:08.237-04:002013-10-30T11:14:08.237-04:00Ducky,
Everyone benefits from THEIR OWN insurance...Ducky, <br />Everyone benefits from THEIR OWN insurance. What next, government homeowners’ insurance, government car insurance, government life insurance?Glenn E. Chatfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04117405535707961903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-20405701539771569062013-10-30T11:12:40.079-04:002013-10-30T11:12:40.079-04:00Ducky:
The “general welfare” has nothing to do wit...Ducky:<br />The “general welfare” has nothing to do with today’s so-called “welfare.” But if you want to use it that way, as FDR did, then the ACA doesn’t promote the “GENERAL” welfare, rather it screws 90% of the people! The idea - the understanding - of the writers of the Constitution was not that it take care of the “general welfare” of individual people, rather it was for the Fed Gov’t to provide for the general welfare of the individual states - i.e., act on the behalf of the states for defense, taxation, etc. <br /><br /><i>“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”</i><br /><br />Nowhere does it give allowance for micromanaging the insurance industry, You might want to look at what James Madison said about it:<br /><br /><i>“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”</i><br />Letter to James Robertson April 20, 1831<br /><br /><i>“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”</i>Remarks on the House floor, debates on Cod Fishery bill, (February 1792)<br /><br />How about Thomas Jefferson, in 1825:<br /><i>“[We] disavow and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the compact, in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think or pretend would promote the general welfare, which construction would make that, of itself, a complete government, without limitation of powers; but that the plain sense and obvious meaning were, that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others.”</i><br /><br />Only socialist liberals like FDR and Obamanation can twist the Constitution to say the government can micromanage the health insurance industry. Glenn E. Chatfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04117405535707961903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-23543698438614918792013-10-30T00:31:23.082-04:002013-10-30T00:31:23.082-04:00G.E.C. - Civics Quiz! You said "Air Traffic ...G.E.C. - Civics Quiz! You said "Air Traffic Control, just as the Postal Service, is interstate commerce."<br /><br />Your question is, which branch of government, the Executive, Legislative or Judicial gets to interpret the Constitution to decide if Air Traffic Control falls under the Interstate Commerce clause?<br /><br />"What difference does it make who I worked for..."<br /><br />Because you are CONSTANTLY and LOUDLY whining about taxes and government spending when YOU YOURSELF owe EVERYTHING YOU HAVE to taxes and government spending!<br /><br />If you cannot see the hypocrisy in that then you don't have two brain cells to rub together!<br /><br />"It isn’t a matter of what I believe vs what you believe"<br /><br />Yes. That is exactly what it is.<br /><br />"Health insurance is for medical necessities"<br /><br />No, it isn't. It is for medical EXPENSES.<br /><br />"...and neither birth control nor abortion are medical necessities."<br /><br />In some cases it is medically necessary. You don't get to make that decision. The patient and her physician get to make that call. Not you, not your make believe "God".<br /><br />"Abortion is killing an innocent child..."<br /><br />No it isn't. It is preventing an undifferentiated mass of cells from multiplying and creating an unwanted medical condition.<br /><br />An unwanted pregnancy is like cancer. You do everything you can to prevent it but if it happens you remove it as quickly and as early as possible.<br /><br />We aren't animals and we aren't God's meat puppets. We get to choose whether we or not we reproduce.<br /><br />And our medical insurance needs to cover that medical expense.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Xavier Onassishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01345787343828318445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-44753459022884710662013-10-29T23:08:33.641-04:002013-10-29T23:08:33.641-04:00... by the way Glenn, everyone gets benefits from ...... by the way Glenn, everyone gets benefits from health insurance.<br /><br />Although the founders didn't mention it specifically since medical insurance is a 20th century idea. Ducky's herehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14608115001116619877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-52658546969325954992013-10-29T23:05:43.718-04:002013-10-29T23:05:43.718-04:00We the People of the United States, in Order to fo...We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,<i><b> promote the general Welfare</b></i>, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.<br /><br />------<br />That's where the ACA comes in.<br /><br />At least in some readings of the Constitution which don't defer to yours.Ducky's herehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14608115001116619877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-4579386967921528232013-10-29T20:05:31.083-04:002013-10-29T20:05:31.083-04:00X.O.
Air Traffic Control, just as the Postal Serv...X.O.<br /><br />Air Traffic Control, just as the Postal Service, is interstate commerce. Not only that, but ATC and USPS are both international services. The Postal Service is specifically mentioned in the Constitution. But ATC involves international treaties and agreements which can not be done by individual states.<br /><br />Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE gets benefits from aviation, which is kept safe by ATC. Mail, food, products of every sort are shipped via from aviation. Fire fighting, air evac, pipeline and powerline patrol, crop dusting, etc. Everyone is affected.<br /><br />I AM an American taxpayer, so you could also say I paid my own salary. But what difference does that make - the Federal government needs employees in such things as the military, postal service and ATC. How do you think they pay employees? And how does my being a fed employee change anything about my status? What difference does it make who I worked for when I worked my butt off and paid my taxes just like everyone else.<br /><br />“Lavish lifestyle”!?!?! ME!!!! I wish. You are so full of B.S. You haven’t a clue.<br /><br />It isn’t a matter of what I believe vs what you believe. Health insurance is for medical necessities, and neither birth control nor abortion are medical necessities. How is birth control medically necessary? Can’t individuals practice self control? Abortion is killing an innocent child - how is that ever, ever medically necessary? Should I demand you pay for my movie ticket by claiming it is medically necessary?<br /><br />THAT is the primary problem AFTER the unconstitutional idea of the ACA.<br /><br />You don’t seem to know the meaning of the word, “hypocrite.” It means one who preaches something but practices the opposite of it. I have never asked anyone to pay for my birth control, nor have I ever tried or even hinted at preventing people from getting affordable health insurance, let alone health care. So you are again proven to be a bald-face LIAR!Glenn E. Chatfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04117405535707961903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-88382744844846070972013-10-29T19:29:07.263-04:002013-10-29T19:29:07.263-04:00G.E.C. - "... I was employed in a Constitutio...G.E.C. - "... I was employed in a Constitutionally-approved job..."<br /><br />Really? Where in the Constitution does it say we will have a federal agency that keeps airplanes from crashing into each other?<br /><br />Because I've read the Constitution many times and I missed that part?<br /><br />Look, the bottom line is, because you worked for the federal government and have a federal pension, every dime you ever made, every dime you get today, and all of your health care and benefits are now and have always been paid for by the American Taxpayer.<br /><br />I bet a lot of those people have never flown on an airplane. There are probably some who view flying as unnatural and think if God had wanted man to fly He would have given us wings! Why should their hard earned money from the PRIVATE SECTOR get taxed to subsidise something they don't support, don't benefit from just to support your lavish lifestyle?<br /><br />I'm being facetious, of course. But that makes just as much sense as your argument that because YOU don't believe in birth control and YOU don't believe mental health issues are real that YOU shouldn't be forced to subsidize those things with YOUR tax dollars.<br /><br />That, sir, is why you are a HYPOCRITE.Xavier Onassishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01345787343828318445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-1208489085967501082013-10-29T17:00:54.174-04:002013-10-29T17:00:54.174-04:00Dave,
How can we tell the Constitutionality of som...Dave,<br />How can we tell the Constitutionality of something? Read the text! Something few people do nowadays. It was not written only for scholars and lawyers - it was written for the average person to understand.<br /><br />Schizophrenia is a debatable topic, but if it is caused by a problem in the brain, then it can be medically treated. Bi-polar is nonsense, and is indeed a matter of self-control or ceasing self-focus leading to depression. IF there ever is found a brain malfunction, that can be treated medically. Panic attacks are not medical - they are emotional.Glenn E. Chatfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04117405535707961903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-55654839894023543982013-10-29T16:54:31.970-04:002013-10-29T16:54:31.970-04:00Glenn, how are we to determine the constitutionali...Glenn, how are we to determine the constitutionality of something? Is that not the role of the SCOTUS?<br /><br />Also, would you call schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, or panic attacks lack of self control, or are they legitimate problems that can be addressed through medical means? Dave Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16777087329254991970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-11785837698419511602013-10-29T16:25:55.616-04:002013-10-29T16:25:55.616-04:00Ducky,
ACA is NOT Constitutional any more than i...Ducky, <br /><br />ACA is NOT Constitutional any more than is abortion. In both cases SCOTUS had to dream up something to make things fit. ACA became a tax, and therefore it is Constitutional. What sort of tax is a huge program like the ACA?!??!? For abortion they had to find "emanations" from a "penumbra" surrounding the Constitution. Oh, Yeah, and don't forget Dred Scot.<br /><br />Yep, we know the SCOTUS really cares about what the Constitution says, don't we?Glenn E. Chatfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04117405535707961903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-42927386938021340882013-10-29T16:21:17.062-04:002013-10-29T16:21:17.062-04:00Glenn, you go on about constitutionality as if you...Glenn, you go on about constitutionality as if you are unaware that SCOTUS has ruled the ACA to be in compliance.<br /><br />What's your beef?<br /> Ducky's herehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14608115001116619877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-2930061265389622582013-10-29T15:46:33.972-04:002013-10-29T15:46:33.972-04:00X,O,
So, if my employer was the Federal Governmen...X,O,<br /><br />So, if my employer was the Federal Government, and I was employed in a Constitutionally-approved job (5 years military, 3 years Postal Service, 30 years FAA), then I’m not supposed to have gotten a retirement program? My uncle worked his whole life with Railway Express Agency and he got a retirement with benefits. Many, many people I know have pension programs with the corporations they work for. So your LIE that corporations don’t offer them is exposed. <br /><br />Admittedly, these friends have been working for many years, before IRA’s became popular, etc. How many corporations today still offer pensions I don’t think you have a clue about - you just make an assertion.<br /><br />But let’s say no one nowadays offers pensions - SO?!?! I worked for mine! Should I not accept the benefits of the job? I earned every penny I was paid.<br /><br />Even the government retirement program changed during my tenure, so that those who hired on in the late 1980s don’t have the same plan. SOOO????!!! <br /><br />While you put money in Social Security, I didn’t. I’m not qualified for it. For 33 years I put 7% of my pay into my retirement plan. So I’m not supposed to benefit from it? And by taking the Health insurance, I reduced my annuity - I didn’t have to take it.<br /><br />I don’t want to deny anyone healthcare, which exposes another lie of yours. I just don’t want the abomination of a program that the ACA is. That program is unfair, super costly, forces employers to cut hours, forces more employers to let people go so there are more jobless people out there, etc, etc. IT was not thought through - it was just ram-rodded on us.<br /><br />X.O. you are the danger to other people - you want to deny people what they earned. Typical left-wing wacko. <br /> Now explain why it is hypocrisy for me to decry the abomination called Obamacare? And explain to me why you are so damned jealous of me because I worked for the government! You do know, I hope, that a large majority of the people trying to get the job don’t even make it past the Civil Service Test, don’t you? Probably not. And even then, they didn’t hire anyone making less than a 90% [I made 100%]. And then for my post office job I had to train on a letter sorting machine and pass the test on that one, which weeds out another big percentage of people. Then I had to pass city schemes where you had 60 seconds to look at an address an decide which letter carrier got it, a requirement that got many people dismissed because of its difficulty. Then I had to taken more tests to get into the FAA, had to spend four months training at the Academy in order to qualify for OJT, and that place also washes out a high percentage of people. Then you have to train OJT until certification on all positions and if you don’t do it in the allotted time you suddenly have no job! It wasn’t any walk in the park to get my job, and it isn’t a walk in the park to work the airplanes at busy airports.<br /><br />But you somehow think that it was just out of courtesy that I was paid to do a job that not many people can do, but is a 100% necessary occupation, unlike a large majority of government jobs. <br /><br />Funny, isn’t it, how people like you want the government to take care of people from the cradle to the grave, but if someone actually WORKED for the government, it was somehow a sweet deal courtesy of the American taxpayer!!<br /><br />You a a stinking jackass.Glenn E. Chatfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04117405535707961903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-61900731607341436802013-10-29T15:22:51.515-04:002013-10-29T15:22:51.515-04:00Oh, and G.E.C., if there is ANYONE that I have eve...Oh, and G.E.C., if there is ANYONE that I have ever encountered online or in real life who could benefit from comprehensive affordable mental health care, it is YOU!<br /><br />Everytime you scream "Cloward-Piven" all I hear is "WACKO-WACKO!"<br /><br />Get some help buddy. You're a danger to yourself and those around you.Xavier Onassishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01345787343828318445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-27461217441385459252013-10-29T15:20:29.306-04:002013-10-29T15:20:29.306-04:00Just so everyone is clear, when G.E.C. says "...Just so everyone is clear, when G.E.C. says " I worked for my employer for 38 years before I was forced to retire due to my age. You always begrudge the fact that I have health insurance as part of my retirement plan. Does it really matter who I was employed by?"<br /><br />He worked for the FAA. Part of the Federal Government.<br /><br />Which means for all of those 38 years and to this very day, the U.S. Taxpayer has been footing the bill for G.E.C.'s income, healthcare and benefits.<br /><br />Oh, and G.E.C., your "retirement" is called a Fedral Pension.<br /><br />Corporations these days do not offer pensions. When I retire, my employer is completely shed of me within 30 days. They contribute absolutely nothing to my healthcare or income.<br /><br />But you, courtesy of the American Taxpayer, have a really sweet deal that you want to deny to others.<br /><br />Whet's the word I'm looking for here...oh yeah, HYPOCRITE.Xavier Onassishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01345787343828318445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-63471412235001786002013-10-29T14:28:09.147-04:002013-10-29T14:28:09.147-04:00Dave,
FIrst, there is nothing the Constitution ...Dave, <br /><br /><br />FIrst, there is nothing the Constitution that even allows the ACA. The SCOTUS had to call it a tax to get past them. <br /><br />I don't care if birth control saves health care money - if someone wants that as part of THEIR policy, let THEM pay for it or keep their pants on. Birth control is free.<br /><br />As for abortion, there is no medical need for abortion - none, nada. Abortion is the murder of an unborn child, and the government shouldn't be subsidizing it in any way, nor should other people who don't want their policies to pay for it be forced to do so.<br /><br />"Mental health" is a boondoggle. Most of what passes for "mental illness" is nothing more than lack of self control. (The mind can't be ill, by the way, because it is intangible.) If someone has a brain malfunctioning due to genetic defects or injury, that is treated by the medical profession and not the psychobabble profession.<br /><br />Again, if someone wants coverage for "mental illness" let THEM pay for it. Otherwise you are treading on MY liberties by forcing me to pay for unnecessary medical expenses that others want free of charge.<br /><br />And if you want to believe the what Cruz demonstrated is false, then go ahead and drink the Cloward-Piven kool-aid.Glenn E. Chatfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04117405535707961903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-63844958395832714932013-10-29T14:16:58.446-04:002013-10-29T14:16:58.446-04:00Glenn, he does not present facts... he is presenti...Glenn, he does not present facts... he is presenting his opinion, as most politicians do.<br /><br />What he is positing, and you are to, is a potential future worry about something that has yet to happen.<br /><br />I am having a hard time seeing undocumented/illegal workers taking jobs away from people because of the ACA.<br /><br />As for the Heritage Foundation, their plan is the very plan that Romney signed in MA.<br /><br />And their ideas for the plan are the very ideas that GOP Congressional leaders have pushed for years as solutions to the problems of Medicare and Social Security.<br /><br />Let me ask something... if it could be shown that the elements of the ACA that you oppose, birth control and abortion, actually lowered health care costs, would that be a good thing for our country? What if by including mental health coverage we could lower health care costs overall because we'd be treating issues earlier rather than in the middle of a crisis... would that be a good thing? Dave Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16777087329254991970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7632224842501413538.post-700262404691290702013-10-29T14:14:14.980-04:002013-10-29T14:14:14.980-04:00Yep, millions are losing their current insurance b...Yep, millions are losing their current insurance because of the ACA which Obama promised would not do that.<br />http://www.dennyburk.com/millions-losing-current-insurance-plans-under-obamacare/Glenn E. Chatfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04117405535707961903noreply@blogger.com