reply to post by Salara4
There is nothing at all wrong with a national health care system, and Congress has jurisdiction over health, and if they so choose, they can attempt
to establish a health care system, that they haven't done so, just goes to show how ignorant and brainwashed you are. If Congress wants to
establish a health care system, where there are hospitals and clinics run by the government, and all people have access to them, without being
mandated to use them, or unfairly taxed because of them, then they should get down to the business of doing so and quit pretending that insurance
schemes is the only way to reform health care.
You are correct that everyone deserves health care and it is a right, but so is speech, and the press, and there is a PBS and NPR, to facilitate that
speech. In this way, it could be argued that the government has the right to establish hospitals and clinics to facilitate the right to health.
Mandating people purchase private insurance policies is not within the authority Congress has, and this current legislation will, in all likelihood,
be struck down as unconstitutional.
I agree with you that we need to get back towards more reliance upon natural cures, but natural cures often times do not require the services of a
health care professional. Do you understand? If garlic is a strong enough anti-biotic to handle certain infections, or colloidal silver, for
example, then there is no need to get a prescription, so there is no need to see a doctor, which frees up the system allowing doctors to handle the
more severe cases.
We as humans will always be selfish, just as we have always been, just as all species on the planet are. Selfishness is nothing more than a chief
concern for ones own interest, and if it is qualified to mean more, as in especially with disregard for others, then what word in the lexicon would
describe a chief concern for ones own interest without any qualifications. I would further assert that being the social beings we are, and how our
survival in many ways depends upon being social, that any disregard for others would not be in a persons best interest. Do you understand? Perhaps
many of us have been brainwashed to believe that selfishness is a pejorative, and by implication that selflessness is preferable.
Selflessness is having a chief concern for others over your own interests. There are many problems with this concept, beginning with explaining how a
subjective being can possibly know what the chief concern of others are? They can ask, or they can respond to another who has declared their own
interests, and you can choose to help them achieve those interests, but I would suggest to you that if you chose so, you did so, in a large part,
because you recognized it was in your best interest to do so.
We do need take of each other, and this begins with family not government, outside of immediate family it extends to distant relatives, friends and
loved ones, neighbors, communities, states, and nations, and finally the world, but let's be honest here, how much of that can you personally handle?
You are more than capable of helping your immediate family, distant relatives, loved ones and neighbors, and probably even your community, maybe your
state, quite possibly your country, and on a global scale, the impact you have on a local scale certainly affects the global scale, even if it be
difficult to register.
Our responsibilities towards each other are to survive! We are not obligated to suffer on behalf of others, but instead have the responsibility to
help how ever we can. So yes, let's get together, and on a local scale, help each other, but what has that got to do with federal legislation
mandating people to purchase private insurance policies?