www site     

HomeStoreAboutTotal TruthBlogContactDonateSpeakingArchives
pro-existence banner no. 2 black by Rick and Nancy Pearcey.jpg

Friday, August 28, 2009

Heathcare a Moral Imperative

By Rick Pearcey • August 28, 2009, 11:17 AM

But it's not a Constitutional right. "The two are as different as a squirt gun and an Uzi," writes columnist Larry Elder.
 
"If something is not permitted under our Constitution, the federal government simply cannot do it. Period."

More . . .

Comments

Well, this is still a tweo edged sword. I believe the first concern should be to avoid aspects related to "growing government"... which the author appropriately points out is significantly less efficient. So, this would seem to leave the entire funding aspect in a voluntary framework. But THAT edge of the blade is that such a framework may well be less stable, varying with donors activities, which may vary due to FEELINGS of need or non-need.... I heartily endorse the concept that heaalthcare (whether good or poor, in fact) is not a right, but a privilege. That is why employers classify it as a BENEFIT. AARP and union activity notwithstanding, itseems really like thievery to attempt to move a benefit over into the "rights" category, whether inalienable or not..... I propose we need to focue more on fiscal responsibility and stability in the government, and leave the benefits out of the equation. BUT, while we're at it, the thought published widely also comes to mind.... Remove this benefit from the lawmakers, and only THEN may they begin to really appreciate the significance of how much they rob their constituents. Let the home folks make decitions about their benefits and see how they grovel!!!

Post a comment

Please enter the letter "n" in the field below: