The latest Palin Derangement Syndrome is the fact that Sarah Palin admitted she would cross the border into Canada to partake in some of their health care. Sounds like a sure fire “gotcha” moment right?
Yahoo has it up highlighted: (click to enlarge)
Kos, Think Progress, TPM, Alan Colmes…..all went off the deep end.
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin — who has gone to great lengths to hype the supposed dangers of a big government takeover of American health care — admitted over the weekend that she used to get her treatment in Canada’s single-payer system.
“We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada,” Palin said in her first Canadian appearance since stepping down as governor of Alaska. “And I think now, isn’t that ironic?”
The irony, one guesses, is that Palin now views Canada’s health care system as revolting: with its government-run administration and ‘death-panel’-like rationing. Clearly, however, she and her family once found it more alluring than, at the very least, the coverage available in rural Alaska. Up to the age of six, Palin lived in a remote town near the closest Canadian city, Whitehorse.
Of course they all look foolish thanks to some honest reporting from Politico:
CORRECTION: Whitehorse is in Yukon, not Saskatchewan, and Palin, as a young child, lived closer to it than earlier reported.
UPDATE: Here’s some more context: “My first five years of life we spent in Skagway, Alaska, right there by Whitehorse. Believe it or not – this was in the ’60s – we used to hustle on over the border for health care that we would receive in Whitehorse. I remember my brother, he burned his ankle in some little kid accident thing and my parents had to put him on a train and rush him over to Whitehorse and I think, isn’t that kind of ironic now. Zooming over the border, getting health care from Canada.”
ALSO: Socialized medicine apparently only kicked in in Yukon in 1972, post-Palin.
The irony here is that they PAID for their health care.
Wow….go figure.
And all the other moonbats have ignored this info choosing to keep their PDS on display without correction.
Dan Riehl brings brings up the double standard here:
A sentence in an Associated Press item I blogged last night really brought home to me the double standard the AP and others have employed in covering Sarah Palin, versus their long running coverage of Obama going back to even before he was elected.
Palin’s health care history, even when she was a child, is of interest because of her criticism of Obama and other Democrats working on U.S. health care.
Palin is a former governor, now a private citizen with, admittedly, significant political cache. But Obama ran for and now occupies the office of the so-called leader of the Free World. Shouldn’t his college thesis that, for all we know, doesn’t even exist, have been of at least some interest before November 2008? What about the Law Review articles it seems he’s never written, unlike most every review editor in the past?
That and basically all of his college history remains locked away, evidently of no concern at all to the AP. And I have seen a recent item suggesting his record as a lawyer back in Chicago is far from complete in official records these days, though I can’t find a current link.
As I recall, Obama traveled to Pakistan as a young man in 1981. Back during the campaign, there never was any serious interest in why, or what he did during the trip. But that Sarah Palin! My God, she crossed the border for a check up a time, or two – we’d better dig into her child health care records, it’s now fair game, after all, because, well, who knows what we might turn up??
And Dan has more on the particulars of Sarah’s Canadian health care experience….stuff you just won’t read at Kos and friends.
They embarrassed themselves time and again with their BDS….now, they just look even more foolish.
UPDATE
From The Jawa Report:
Update: Jawa reader and Canadian citizen Garduneh Mehr points out..
Healthcare is not free in Canada; we pay for it with our taxes. And Sarah Palin’s family, not being citizens, would have had to pay full fee.
Of course this whole issue stems from Newfoundland premier opting for his heart surgery in the US.
Updated for clarity:
1972
Yukon creates medical insurance plans with federal cost sharing, April 1.
See author page
@Skye: LOL ..
Like NewsBuster is a trustworthy source.
Its a simple right-wing attempt to counteract Fact -checking site by turnin their own spin on news..
Its so evident, only morons dont see the sign!
Get a life
Wow Skye,
Your lack of empathy is astounding and shameful.
From the White House blog:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/by-the-numbers/8
The reason for pre-existing conditions exclusions or denials is pretty simple.
Think of not having home insurance until your house is on fire and then trying to get coverage, after having not paid for years and years. You want coverage now and you want it to pay for the house currently on fire. Why would anybody carry home insurance until the fire breaks out?
Why would an insurance company offering that kind of coverage not go broke in a week.
The pre-ex thing is designed to keep somebody who hasn’t had insurance for thirty years from stopping in at the agent’s office to get a comprehensive health plan–$600 monthly premium, say–on his way to the Cleveland Clinic for a heart transplant–$250,000, say–and then, when healthy again, dropping the policy. Four months’ premium is $2400, and the company pays out $250,000 (hypothetical cost).
Good deal for the patient, bankruptcy for the company.
Federal law requires each state to have an insurer of last resort who takes everybody without regard to pre-ex.
Gonna be costly because everybody there is going to be submitting hefty bills from the get-go. Insurance companies are not the federal government and are not allowed to create money by putting thousand dollar bills on the color copier.
@Richard Aubrey: Sorry, but your house is an entirely different thing than your life or you body. But you did make an excellent case for the mandate. Everyone has to be in the system, or the system doesn’t work. Exactly.
@Cary:
Please show me in the Congressional Enumerated Powers, on in any Article of the Constitution, or in the Bill of Rights the constitutionality of a mandate to purchase health insurance or any other consumer product.
Without a basis in the US Constitution, the entire discussion of a “mandate” is moot.
Exit question: Let’s just say Congress has the right to mandate that you purchase a certain product of their choice, they don’t, but for the purpose of our discussion let’s just say they do…
Why did they not use that “mandate power” to force people to purchase more efficient automobiles rather than offering the Cash for Clunkers INCENTIVE program?
If they could have forced people to conform to their wishes then participation would not have been voluntary.
@Aye Chihuahua:
While you may indeed have a well informed opinion on this point, you don’t actually know the definitive answer to your question, any more than I do:
Note to Cary: Sourcing information from an organization or government with a vested interest in selling a healthcare product is disengenous. Please cite an independent report corraborating these numbers.
* 8 — The number of people every minute who are denied coverage, charged a higher rate, or otherwise discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition. [Source: HealthReform.gov…]
* 8 — The number of lobbyists hired by special interests to influence health reform for every member of Congress in 2009. [Source: Center for Public Integrity]
@Richard Aubrey: Sorry, but your house is an entirely different thing than your life or you body. But you did make an excellent case for the mandate. Everyone has to be in the system, or the system doesn’t work. Exactly.
Precisely the problem with Obamacare – 100% compliance at all times..however there lies a fatal problem – Obama care does NOT include everyone in the system. There will only be a slight reduction of the number of uninsured. See CBO report: http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=293
@Cary:
Actually, I do.
The US Constitution, and constitutional powers, are really, really simple to read and understand.
The Founders explicitly restricted the boundaries of the Fed Gov’t to the Enumerated Powers ONLY.
The Federalist Papers, the writings of the Founders, and the Constitution itself couldn’t be more clear.
Further, the 10th Amendment expressly states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
So, again, show me where Congress is affirmatively GRANTED the power to force a US citizen to purchase any consumer product.
Is it there?
If the power is not granted to Congress, and it’s not, is it prohibited to the States? No, it’s not.
Therefore, the decision to purchase, or not purchase, insurance or any other product is reserved for the States or the People.
If you cannot show where the power is explicitly granted to US Congress, the power does not exist.
So, back to our earlier hypothetical….If the power to mandate the purchase of consumer goods existed, then why did Congress not use it to force the citizenry to purchase more fuel efficient automobiles?
Why arent’ they using that mythical power to force people to weatherize their homes?
Why aren’t they using that mythical power to force people to purchase and consume only the “right” foods?
Why?
Because it doesn’t exist.
@Aye Chihuahua: Did you click the link I provided? Your points, and the counterpoints, are covered there. There are good arguments, including yours, for either position. I apologize that I don’t have the time to type more, but it’s in the link. When I say that you don’t definitively know the answer, it is because the question has not yet been brought before a court challenge … only then will we know for sure. Until then, we should each fervently stand by our positions, and I’m sure we will.
@Skye: I clearly stated that I sharing what was posted on the White House blog. To say it’s “disingenuous” to do so is to attack what you perceive my motives to be. Please don’t do that. Thanks.
@Cary:
Sorry, but your house is an entirely different thing than your life or you body.
The principles of insurance are nonetheless the same.
Everyone has to be in the system, or the system doesn’t work. Exactly.
That is reason enough to be against the proposed system, and instead seek alternatives, like the following:
I’m sure most of us here could live with a mandate for low-cost, high-deductible catastrophic insurance ONLY. Regular, low- and predictable-cost doctor’s visits would be paid for out of pocket, just like any other line item in a person’s or family’s budget. Higher-cost, one-off expenses (minor surgeries, short hospital visits, specialists, etc.) would be paid for out of accumulated savings or bank loans, just like any other unforeseen high expense. Insurance would be left to cover only VERY expensive things like major surgeries, extended hospitalization, transplants, cancer treatment etc.
Policies would be either purchased as individuals, i.e. completely disconnected from employers, or 100% portable between jobs. This all but eliminates the pre-existing condition problem except perhaps when the condition is present at birth, though that may be dealt with in other ways (family plans that ignore conditions in children, or something).
Full, cross-border competition between insurance companies will drive rates down, and getting insurance out of the regular-checkup business will drive those costs down too – no more deep pockets to charge exorbitant fees to.
The cost savings from buying a catastrophic-only policy instead of an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink policy, and from the downward pressure on prices, would more than cover the regular, everyday routine medical expenses in most cases.
Of course, if one wanted to, one could CHOOSE (key word!) to buy a more comprehensive insurance plan that would cover things like that middle category, if savings accounts and bank loans are too daunting. I personally think regular checkups should never be covered by insurance as they are a certainty as an expense, and you pay for them anyway in the cost of your premiums.
Hawk, would that work for you?
@Yackums: If it came down to what you propose, I’d be much happier than I am with the current conditions.
@Yackums:
No, speaking for me only, I WILL NOT accept a mandate of any type which forces me to purchase an insurance policy or any other consumer good.
Such mandates are not constitutional.
@Cary:
Yes, I read the link.
The Constitution is a remarkably simple, easy to understand document which either specifically grants a power to the Fed Gov’t or does not.
If you don’t find the mythical “mandate power” within the Enumerated Powers, then it doesn’t exist.
No Court challenge necessary.
Don’t feel bad Cary.
I asked my Dim CongressCritter the same questions two Saturdays ago. The best he could come up with was some vague reference to the Commerce Clause but when I informed him that clause only grants Congress the right to regulate, not mandate, commerce, he didn’t have anything else to say about it.
If the power to mandate were in the Constitution, or even implied in the Constitution, then it would have been tried before now.
FDR tried these kinds of overreaches, up to and including, attempts to pack the Court to get the results he wanted…he was promptly smacked down as a result.
The Dims are teetering on a precipice here.
Their only hope is to allow this bill to die, go lick their wounds, and hope for the best in November.
Exit questions: If, as you say, 4,000 people per week are dying as a result of lack of insurance, why does ObamaCare not cover everyone and why does it not kick in for several years instead of the day it’s signed?
Does Dear Reader not care about the thousands that will die before the effective date?
@Aye Chihuahua:
And that’s why it requires 9 Supreme Court Justices to interpret it, who often disagree…
As to your exit question: I totally agree these are major flaws. But I’m not ready to throw out the baby with the bathwater. You seem to be suggesting that if we can’t do it all, we shouldn’t do anything. I reject that idea.
@Aye Chihuahua:
One last link, then I have to head out the door:
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/10/ten-wrong-reasons-to-oppose-health-reform/
Cary. “House”…”life”. Look up “analogy”. That way, presuming you understand it, you’ll be able to make your points more clearly.
@Richard Aubrey: I regret that my writing would lead you to to the assumption that my vocabulary is somehow deficient, or that I’m not privy to your form of rhetoric. In spite of such condescension, I will hold my already lucid stance. Enjoy the rest of your day.
Well, Cary.
If you know what an analogy is, then you just plain screwed up.
As Yackums said, the principles of insurance are the same, and you tried to obfuscate the point with snark.
Fail.
Should have pretended you didn’t know what an analogy was. You wouldn’t look so bad.
@Richard Aubrey: Okay, well if you value both equally, I suppose the analogy is valid for you. Replacing beams is like replacing your kidneys, you can put a price on either! You win the rhetoric war. Good job.
Cary.
You can stop digging any time.
Everybody reading this knows what an analogy is–even if you are pretending to miss it–and how it addresses the principle of insurance.
You’ll note the end of the analogy is the effect on the insurance company, not the house. Which would be the same if we were talking about health insurance.
Shoulda stopped when you only looked somewhat dim.
Oops. I may have offended you.
I have a friend afflicted with Asperger’s Syndrome. We have to be extremely careful to avoid analogy and metaphor with him. Can’t imagine what he’d do with a Scriptural parable.
Poor guy.
@Richard Aubrey: If you can’t debate without ad hominems, then any effort to communicate with you is futile. So continue being clever, and pat yourself on the back. I’m confident that my position on health care has been made. This little repartee of ours is irrelevant, silly, and not becoming of adults. I’m done with it.
The lamestreet media are a joke for printing this story. If they want a real story they should check on Obama’s childhood which no one wants to report.
Today’s dueling videos, who to believe?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/03/10/durbin_admits_premiums_will_go_up_if_health_care_bill_is_passed.html
Who is he calling a liar?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/03/10/obama_says_health_premiums_will_go_down.html
Think long and hard, nothing is free. This bill, on top of everything else they have been spending and will be spending not to mention obligations we can’t yet total will be a tremendous burden on the next generations. Should this country be allowed to spend the money of children that are not yet born?
Another 100 billion stimulus being bandied about, tuition, this:
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/438124/U.S.-Taxpayers-on-the-Hook-for-%245T-of-Fannie%2C-Freddie-Debt-No-Matter-What-Barney-Frank-Says
Just a few of the bills coming due, who pays for it all? How many think it’s ok to walk out of your child’s room with their savings in your pocket? Do you steal your grandchild’s piggy bank?
Nothing like that from the majority:
Why Obama Can’t Move the Health-Care Numbers
For every voter who strongly favors the plan, two are strongly opposed.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704784904575111993559174212.html
Another majority, as long as we are talking Constitution, remember, States have Constitutions too, and there are now 36 states trying to protect themselves from……ObamaScare. Another majority, 36 out of 50.
http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=18906
Both, stronger majorities than the democrats are claiming for reconciliation.
It’s noble to want to take care of those who can’t take care of themselves even accepting that you will also be caring for able bodied sloths because that’s how it goes, you feeeellll good about it. But, to agree with this fiasco without first attempting a more common sense approach or opening your minds to a reasonable alternative is unacceptable and deserves scorn.
@Missy:
I appreciate what you say, Missy, right up until the “deserves scorn” part. Thing is, this is not a new discussion, nor is it the first thing we’ve tried. I frankly don’t trust the Republicans to touch this issue at all, and have no delusions that time isn’t running out for my side of the isle, for various reasons.
Trust me, I don’t believe that those who oppose my view don’t care about the problems I, Hawk, and others have raised. Speaking of majorities, this article was just posted, which says that, while most don’t like the way this is playing out, only 4% of Americans don’t want any reform at all:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/10/new-health-care-poll-show_n_493159.html
So again I ask, how much longer do we have to hold out for a perfect solution, while honest people are suffering? When do people take precedent over process?
Cary
The perfect solution will never happen, and I’m not sure who knows even what that is. I know that I don’t, however, I am also quite sure that going further down the road into socialism is NOT the answer, as evidenced by the examples of Canadian healthcare and GB’s healthcare. There isn’t even any arguing to the contrary when comparing our healthcare to theirs, EXCEPT in the singular context of how many are covered. Is that the goal? To cover everyone regardless of the damage to the quality of the care and acquisition of new medical treatment advancements? Not a very good trade-off in my opinion. I am not one of those four percent you have referred to who don’t want any sort of “reform” to healthcare in the US, but I do think that doing nothing right now is a much better alternative than giving over much of the control of the one-sixth of the economy to a government that has shown no ability, whatsoever, in being able to control anything except the further spread of misery across the nation.
Healthcare in Alaska in the 1960s. Geography. And, a 5 year old child. Okay… I know it is asking a lot of people — but the geography of Alaska is quite different then the lower 48. Many towns and villages are not connected to the mainland. Many towns and villages do not have transportation to and from without a ferry or bush plane.
The Palins lived in Skagway. Though it now has a road, it did not then. The only way in or out had to be a consideration. Not having a physician in a town is not uncommon — especially in the smaller, remote communities. A PA or Nurse Practitioner. A physician may come in at regular intervals but it depends on weather.
It was the 1960s. Sarah Palin did not decide where her family would go in an emergency. Her parents did. Burns, fevers, broken limbs — all the things kids have occur — depending on how quickly they needed to see a physician would dictate where they went. Whitehorse is a small town with a hospital but it is also part of the Yukon. The Palin’s as Americans would have paid for the services they received. And, Canadian Medicare took place in 1984.
Get a grip. If you really want to criticize Sarah Palin — first learn about the geography of Alaska. Also — try realizing that times were a bit different 40 years ago. Canada today is not the same as it was in the 1960s with their healthcare system. Try learning about Alaska, the proximity to Canada and to Russia. Alaska boarders Canada. With Russia… at their closest Alaska and Russia are 2.5 miles apart – the distance between Little Diomede Island, Alaska, and Big Diomede Island, in the Bering Sea. In SE Alaska, the community of Sitka has a Russian heritage.
There is nothing out of the ordinary about this story related by Sarah Palin — only the people who hate her have nothing better to do then hang on every word she utters. Realize the MSM or LSM are filled with a desire to destroy this woman and realize you’ll have to research everything before believing a word of it!
As for the Canadian healthcare system… it works fine if you are healthy… but how long will you have to wait before you can have that procedure? And on what list. Take a look at Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams and his heart surgery. He chose to leave Canada and that speaks volumes about their healthcare, its quality and availability.
@johngalt: I understand what you’re saying. But as I said before, you are presenting only two options when there are many more. I also provided a link in comment #67 which refutes the Socialism argument, among others. While we disagree, I don’t think we do as much as it seems.
Is healthcare a right or a privilege that depends only on income ? Do poor children have a right to healthcare ? Do poor adolescents have a right to healthcare ? Do poor adults have a right to healthcare, up to and including that 250 grand heart transplant? Do vets have a right to healthcare ? Do old people have a right to medicare ? Who does not have a right to healthcare ? Prisoners ? An illegal alien who was in an automobile accident ? Who should be denied healthcare in the USA ? And remember please the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the USA is from medical bills. And personal bankruptcy affects all of us by leaving society to pick up the poeces.
I think it would do well for some to read my favorite columnist today. Maybe he can cut through a lot of the distorted thinking.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=127409
in the USa it is estimated that 25000 die each year from lack of healthcare,
FIFY.
The arguments from that lib columnist could be refuted by my 16 year old, especially the one about Socialism.
Please be cautious when reading my posts so as to not construct presumptuous assumptions regarding our exchanges back and forth on this thread. Doing so will prevent an unpleasant backlash which you will, undoubtedly, interpret as insulting.
I have never once suggested that “we shouldn’t do anything.” In fact, quite the contrary.
Doing what is currently on the table for consideration, however, is much, much, much worse in a thousand ways than the status quo.
I am about to head outside for an afternoon of springtime “Diggin’ in the Dirt” therapy, but I’ll drop back by later to give you a bullet point listing of the things that I propose, none of which include unconstitutional mandates.
I want to start a “Right” to free representation in courts… The constitution says I have that right, but we don’t really get it. The constitution says nothing about free doctors.
There is a terrible two-tiered system in the courts today. Can I get a free lawyer in the capacity of the guy who defended OJ?
No. I get stuck with an idiot intern or some PD who’s biding their time till their election for DA comes around.
FREE LAWYERS FOR ALL!!! (And I want them to all work for no more than $20.00 an hour, and be paid by the Gov.)
@Cary:
Even with this boondoggle you will wait until 2013, by then we could scrap it and put together a bipartisan reform bill that won’t threaten the freedom of the next generation by concentrating onreducing health care costs incrementally borrowing from what works in states that have been implementing hcr. Instead, we have a monstrocity put together that will not only harm the economy, it will burden the states economies, they will in turn raise our taxes and Obama gets to say the feds aren’t raising taxes on anyone making less than $250 grand.
If you don’t/can’t invest in healthcare you will pay a $750 fine as your income increases the fine can be as much as $3,800, then there’s those little confiscation from your bank account issues that have been tossed around and jail time. Prescription drugs as well as OTC drugs and medical devices will be taxed, so will health insurance, unless of course, you are in a union, now, that’s fair.
You may not want to trust Republicans, but you have a party that doesn’t even trust their own party. Isn’t that telling? Nancy Pelosi wants to pass the bill to find out what’s in it. Dick Durbin, on the very same day, tells the country our premiums will rise which is contrary to what Obama is saying out in St. Louis.
If they were serious about hcr they would be listening to the 96% that want reform instead of larding this thing up with pork that has nothing to do with healthcare and paying people off to vote for it. They could be honest instead of manipulating the long term costs, they could give CBO everything, instead they withhold real costs to make it appear cheaper than it is, the public sees right through it. If it was worthy they wouldn’t be having so much trouble passing it but they have proven themselves to be untrustworthy to the public and they are soundly rejecting this bill. Threaten or bribe, whatever they do to pass it, they will pay.
@John ryan:
@John ryan:
The lack of insurance death myth:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/03/myth-diagnosis/7905/
Bankruptcies caused by lack of medical insurance myth:
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=18175
All you mention already have healthcare and for children, adolescents in families that make to much for medicaid and not enough to afford insurance, there’s SCHIP, available for those living in homes whose incomes are up to 250% above poverty level.
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/LowCostHealthInsFamChild/
Very interesting thread. Keep up the good work people.
@Aye Chihuahua:
Thank you for clarifying, I’m glad you’re not part of the 4%.
Anyway, I look forward to reading your ideas.
Cary
What you presented was an opinion piece that glossed over much of the detail of what little of the bill has come out. As for only presenting two options, that is all that is before us at the moment. We conservatives here are not against doing something positive about healthcare, but we are totally against the powergrab that the Senate bill will be, and against the intrusion into our lives, the mandates that will be forced on us, and the thievery of more of our hard-earned dollars.
On the subject of A.C.’s posts, he is correct. There are many of the founders who have presented writings on the Constitution, and the meanings of certain clauses contained therein. Knowing something about those writings, and of the constitution itself, I would state that the government has overstepped it’s bounds on numerous occasions already, and the push towards socialist tendencies that started around the time of FDR, brought about many changes in the government that many of the founders would find abhorrent, and completely against the original intentions written down in the Constitution. IOW, you can disagree all you want, but you would be incorrect in that regard when considered against what the founders have also stated. No offense, but I will take the words of the founders over yours any day.
giving poor babies free healthcare is socialism
The 2nd amendment grants “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”. Since this is a Constitutional RIGHT then shouldn’t the government be buying us all guns? Just a thought.
right the founders would have definitely been against spending any money on trying to send a man to the moon. they would have thought that was crazy !! and of course we know what they thought about Black humans, but that doesn’t mean that we must blindly follow what they thought 200 years ago
social conservatives have always fought against change whether slavery, or giving women the right to vote. Progressives have made the USA better for the changes in American life. And American life will CONTINUE to change
My point is that the RIGHT to keep and bear arms is constitutional. The mandate to purchase any good or service is not one of the 18 enumerated powers of Congress and is therefore unconstitutional. Period. There is an amendment process, that is how the constitution is amended **legally**.
@johngalt: I’m not offended by that at all. However, as I brought up before, the founders also set up a Supreme Court that consisted of 5 judges at the time, which was later amended to other numbers between 6 and 10, now 9 (see? they made plenty of room for things to expand and change! That’s a large part of their genius!) to interpret the Constitutionality of laws. If things were as cut and dry and clear as you and Aye suggest, then every decision would be unanimous. Since this matter has not come before them, we only have our opinions, and I’m not going to try to take yours away from you any more than I’ll sell mine as fact. When it does come before them, and they issue a ruling, only their word should be taken as definitive, because that’s what the Constitution dictates.
@PatriotGirl: Well, given that the Right to Bear Arms is there for the purpose of creating a militia to overthrow government, if it should become tyrannical, handing out free guns would be counter to its own interest, wouldn’t it?! 😉
What color is the sky in your world Cary?
@PatriotGirl: Oh, I don’t think you’d wanna talk about what the sky looks like here, trust me! That’s a whole other topic!
johngalt —
It is simply beyond the word “incomprehensible” to think that what slaveowners who died 230 years ago thought about this clause or that clause should control how we apply laws governing, for instance, whether a known gang member should be permitted to have a bazooka. Times have changed, technology has changed, so you cannot apply a mans musings in 1797 as a “solution” to a 2010 problem.
It is wonderful that you have your own quirky interpretation of what the Constitution “really means” and what it “should’ mean. But unless and until you and other protesters marshall some Supreme Court precedents, or at least a coherent argument, to explain why government, in exchange for covering your a$$ when you get deathly sick, can’t require you to spend part of your welfare check or your income tax refund on health insurance to defray the cost, I will remain unimpressed by your protests.
giving poor babies free healthcare
Yes, we do: http://www.bcnepa.com/ohpCHIP.aspx
Pennsylvania Governor Edward G. Rendell has made the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) available to all uninsured children and teens (up to age 19) through his Cover All Kids initiative. This initiative expands CHIP, regardless of family income. Click here for income guidelines.
Every uninsured child and teen (up to age 19), who is not eligible for Medical Assistance and who meets the eligibility requirements, can now have comprehensive health insurance*. Click here for eligibility requirements.
Many families will not have to pay for CHIP. Under the expanded CHIP program, families with higher incomes will have low monthly premiums and copayments for some services. Click here for copayments and benefits. Click here for monthly cost
Of course, I’m can only speak for PA, but I’m sure all state have a similar ‘chip’ program.