As opposed to giving people medical insurance they did not pay for which results in everyone else paying more to offset those expenses.

The difference here, however, is that at least the uninsured will end up having to contribute something prior to bankruptcy rather than simply having the rest of us carrying their water totally.

So?  The founders explicitly expected states and local communities to be able to do just this.

The 1st amendment states "CONGRESS shall make now law.."  The meaning of that is that the federal government will not establish a religion or decide what can and can't be said.

The matter would be explicitly left up to states and local communities to decide.  This was because the various colonies at the time had radically different (from their perspective) religious views.  A person in Virgnia might feel the people in Massachusets was a heathen and didn't want them being able to tell them what they could and couldn't do in their schools and communities.

Allowing an individual to talk about God or whatever is their right.

You make the mistake in assuming that I'm okay with it because it's Christian. Let me be clear: I think all of you people who believe in magical super beings based on 2,000 year old books are silly. Some girl or group talking about Jesus means the same to me as some Star Trek zealot talking about Spock. 

But I believe that people should have the freedom to express their religious views without interference from the federal government. Let states and local communities deal with it as was intended.  

Please point out the language in the law that states only Christian prayer is allowed? This is the sort of absurd emotional hyperbole that causes Liberals to not be taken seriously.

pros·e·ly·tize (prŏs'ə-lĭ-tīz') Pronunciation Key
v. pros·e·ly·tized, pros·e·ly·tiz·ing, pros·e·ly·tiz·es

v. intr.

1. To induce someone to convert to one's own religious faith.

Last time I checked, a prayer doesn't even come close to meeting the definition of proselytizing. Sheer hyperbole.

Admit it, Liberals believe in religious freedom for everyone except Christians, that's the real point isn't it? Christians are the majority in this country and as usual Liberals hate the majority.



On average Liberals pay far less in taxes than Conservatives, so yes they are in fact demanding that other people pay for the programs they support. They could just as easily pony up a few bucks to start their own program for these things but they simply won't cough up the cash or do the work. It's easier to talk the talk than to actually walk the walk.

Let me point out the dangerous line of thinking you're taking here:

To me, liberalism is as much of a religion as christiainity. Both believe in a magical, all powerful super entity (the Government or God depending on which group we're talking about).

They both have blind faith that their beliefs are backed by reality despite ample evidence to the contrary.

The difference is that the religion of liberalism is constantly proselytized at me and my children every day.  The mantra "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" is constantly shoved down our throats in a far more obnoxious way than any traditional religion pushes their beliefs on me.

I'd far rather sit through a graduation listening to a valedictoriam talking about God in her life than having to sit through the guest speaker's rant about the need for us to provide universal health care.

sorry dude but there is a slight difference here. Spock is a made up character. Jesus is/was a real person.

liberals want to legislate morality. you cannot do that.

not people - children. The last I checked children can't hold jobs and purchase their own insurance until they are at least 18. Lazy kids. Where are the compassionate conservatives? In George W. Bush's first state of the union speech he talked extensively about helping poor people. He talked in another state of the union about Schip covering more children. What happened?

So you are saying that if we didn't have any compassionate policies, all families could afford for one parent to stay home with their children?

the last i checked children were people. and the age is 16 not 18

and if they deliver newspapers it is 12.

No more complaining about the budget deficit for me! I'm going to start a charity! "Give some money for the government, ma'am?"

Your example at the end provides the way to undermine your idea. I would hope everyone who's interested in thinking and not just sneering realizes the "chicken-hawk" idea is stupid. It's ad hominem and it denies civilians a voice in policy. Moreover, if we tried to fight a war based on voluntary contributions from the people who support it, we'd surely lose. Every volunteer who signs up gives more people an excuse to free ride, since it makes it more likely they can share in the fruits of victory even if they don't sign up for the risks of combat.

If the economics of children's health insurance is the same as the economics of war, it would be foolish to try to solve the problem with charity instead of government. Even if everybody agreed children's health care would cost them $5 but benefit them $10, the only way to get them all to contribute without free-riding is to force them into a compact that says, "I will pay $5, but only if someone makes sure everyone else contributes their $5 too."

Now there are liberals who view the government as a charitable enterprise that can force other people to donate to it, and they should just start charities. I'm approaching this from the perspective of those who support government programs because they think their benefit to society is greater than their cost.

Nice thread. Buddhist's don't pray, by the way. There's no one to pray to. For the record.



Quite so. I remember this kid in High School that everyone made fun of because not only was he fat, but he was really foppish. In order to try and be "cool" I remember clearly him getting a biology test back where he had failed and he was bragging about it. I guess so that he could be considered "cool" by the idiots that never studied or paid any attention in class. I pulled him aside and told him "Listen...I'm as guilty as any of making fun of you, but don't you EVER be proud of sucking. There is nothing there to be proud of."

Part of the ignorance chain starts in our schools with kids like the one I just mentioned. They are so wrapped up in being popular that the idea of learning anything is secondary, at best. Most of the kids getting beat up by stereotypical jocks and bullies in my school were beat up because they were smart. Evolution ain't done. There are still a lot of apes running the show. Many of them are parents.

Leonard Nimoy is the man who played Spock. Jesus is the man who played the Messiah.  People don't worship Jesus because he was a real person. They worship him because they think he was the son of God, the messiah.

Children aren't hatched out of thin air. They are produced by people who either could not afford to purchase health insurance for them or choose not to buy health care for them.

As I've pointed out elsewhere, conservatives are the ones who, overwhelmingly, voluntarily contribute to and run the charities that help children. That's where the compassionate conservatives are.

A better question is, where are the compassionate liberals?

Consider this: rich liberals build and create things like MoveOn.org. Even though conservatives donate far more money to charities and make a lot more money, you don't see conservatives creating things like MoveOn.org. They would, instead, put their money into things like the Red Cross, The United Way, Children's Cancer Research, etc.

I'm saying no such thing.  As long as people choose materialism over their children you will have both people working.

But if working families weren't having their earnings looted from them to give over to the parasitic class, then more of those families would earn enough money to reach the material threshold they want to live at that would allow one of the parents to stay at home.

Which is why I pointed out the absurdity of both arguments.  I do not seriously expect people to go out and start charities.  I am demonstrating that both arguments are flawed.

Moreover, the analogies are only workable on the surface. Unlike national defense, which requires people to both volunteer to do it and in your analogy require people to volunteer to support it, a charity to provide health care to the "needy" simply requires people to volunteer to pay for charity.

And if that isn't enough, conservatives tend to be the ones who favor the military more strongly and who also pay the most in taxes.  By contrast, liberals tend to be the ones who favor giving money to others while paying very little themselves.

There is no black and white position on this.

For instance, if we only paid for government programs that we supported, government would be OVERWHELMINGLY conservative in policy. 

According to the data I provided earlier (from CNN), people who vote for Republicans (who tend to be conservatives) pay 70% of the taxes.

Conservatives tend to be the ones who favor the military, law and order, private schools, private health care.

Democrats, who pay 30% of the taxes, tend to be the ones who favor taking money from one person to give to another. And liberals pay less, even taking % of income into account, donate less to charities.

LIberals aren't compassionate. They're posers.

Come on, Sabrina. What kind of sense does that make? *rechecks calculations* Oh - my bad. Perfect sense. I forgot to carry the one.

No, you walk by knowing that they have a choice of a good life and they reject it utterly. They want to suffer on the streets, so why waste your money on them, a person who wilfully rejects everything their society offers them? If they want to be on their own, they can, and there's no good reason for you to support them with private donations.

It's not like they're entertaining you or providing some service you appreciate.



Sure. It might encourage them to go the press, the place they should have gone in the first place, and get their treatment subsidised properly (cos presumably they're begging on the streets because they've got something obscure that Medicare doesn't account for).

A few bucks isn't going to pay for a 500k treatment plan (cost enforced by US drug companies), although it might end up funding a trip to India to have it treated with vastly cheaper and chemically identical generic drugs, so maybe that would be a good idea. So on second thought I'd probably ask them what they're raising money for, and make a decision accordingly.

Right, Loca. I abandoned my children to die in the streets. Nope. Don't care about 'em!

Are you conservative Gideon? And even if you are I'll rephrase, why don't conservatives care about other people's children?

If we lived in a perfect world that would fix many problems. Too bad we live in messy reality. There may even be people who have a change in circumstance, divorce, job loss etc., that could meet their baby's needs when they were born but things change. The fact is 20% of jobs DO NOT offer insurance. The fact is that 12% of children in our country have no insurance. The fact is that the average cost of insurance for a family of four is $11,000 per year. That is a stretch for many middle class families. I would say that that is equal to or more than housing expenses for many middle class families. This is the issue. This is reality in our country today.

I am a fiscal conservative, yes. I do NOT believe in stealing people's money to take care of people who were irresponsible.

You stating that conservatives don't care about other people's children proves your ignorance, Loca. In helping others through the years (the main reason that I'm not wealthy is because I've spent a large portion of my money through the years on other people), I have NEVER found a conservative unwilling to give when presented with a need. These conservatives that you claim don't care about other peoples' children have let me use vehicles to deliver things to these families, have donated NICE furniture, food, gas, you name it. I can tell you literally hundreds of stories outlining the overwhelming generosity of the conservatives you cast as "uncaring".

When I was 20 years old, my wardrobe was probably worth $5-6,000, yet I was making $6.50 an hour. Because these conservatives you loathe did a great deal to make sure I was always well fed, well clothed, and had adequate shelter. Their personal investment in me probably had much to do with why I did not adopt the welfare mentality that has all but crippled my family.

No person ever goes away from my door hungry, Loca. But you're right, I don't care, because to you, caring means spending someone ELSE's money. Next time someone comes to my door, I'll tell 'em to step off and get their butts to the welfare office, k?

OK, this just pisses me off. Why is it that liberals do not understand what the word AVERAGE means?

Here's a hint, Loca: Average includes high end policies that cost WELL over $11,000/year! It also includes policies for many Americans that cost far less!

sorry guys i have to agree here.

the majority of the people living on the streets are there because they want to be.

the only reason that most of them are begging IS to get a bottle. they already of food and shelter if they want it. i will not give money to anyone on the street but if so moved i will buy them a hamburger or a tank of gas.

this is more accurately stated as insured by the rest of the world. cost enforced by the US drug companies.


the rest of the world has profit caps on the drug companies. if the drug companies don't make a big enough profit they cannot do research or make enough drugs.


proof. 2001 the united states ran out of flu shots. why did we run out of flu shots. because when Clinton ordered the flu shots in 2000 he told the drug companies that we would only pay so much for them.