Judge rules Obamacare unconstitutional, endangering coverage for 20 million

[ProVobis]

how many people on the expanded Medicaid had employment-based insuranc

Many lost jobs in 2009. They then passed a bill to subsidize COBRA but that was limited, not permanent.

 

[twf]

Certainly the majority did not have full / equal rights / freedoms by any means.

 

[Ridgerunner]

One of the things that actually precipitated the revolution was the unwillingness of the “low end” of society to stay east of the Appalachians. The Brits wouldn’t let people settle there, but poor people defied them and did it anyway. Anybody who wasn’t a slave (and perhaps some who were) could go over the mountains, find a piece of unclaimed land, clear it and claim it. Lots of indentured servants ran away to do that very thing.
“The majority” could cross the mountains at will if they avoided the Brits on the way.

The American populace was, right before the revolution, the richest on earth, largely because of the availability of land and lack of restriction on practicing trades.

 

[JonNC]

White Protestant male land holders chose freedom, sure.

So, is your point that since it was “white, Protestant males “ that developed this system that protects individual rights, we should abandon the concept, or we should continue to expand it?

 

[Ridgerunner]

So, is your point that since it was “white, Protestant males “ that developed this system that protects individual rights, we should abandon the concept, or we should continue to expand it?

Actually, one of the primary sources of the English Common Law was Catholic Canon Law that preceded the Anglican “reformation”. The law of the colonists WAS English Common Law, except in the French and Spanish colonies. In the latter, the desire for freedom was by "partially white, partially non-white, Catholic males and females.

And, of course, Elizabeth I of England and Isabella of Spain definitely influenced the law of their respective lands.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

So, is your point that since it was “white, Protestant males “ that developed this system that protects individual rights, we should abandon the concept, or we should continue to expand it?

Actually, one of the primary sources of the English Common Law was Catholic Canon Law that preceded the Anglican “reformation”. The law of the colonists WAS English Common Law, except in the French and Spanish colonies. In the latter, the desire for freedom was by "partially white, partially non-white, Catholic males and females.

And, of course, Elizabeth I of England and Isabella of Spain definitely influenced the law of their respective lands.

Of course. I just grow weary of every discussion being couched in racial terms.

 

[twf]

Some of those individual rights are worthy of further development. I just took issue with the implication of “if it was good enough for the 18th century, its good enough for today”…overall, life is much better for a much wider segment of humanity today than it was then. And, yes, part of that is due to government intervention…even with things as basic as good roads available to all, trustworthy (more or less) and well trained police available to protect all, etc…

 

[JonNC]

Some of those individual rights are worthy of further development.

Some? Which ones would you discard? Due process? Free speech? Protect from cruel and unusual punishment?
I wold defend them all, and them some!

I just took issue with the implication of “if it was good enough for the 18th century, its good enough for today”…overall, life is much better for a much wider segment of humanity today than it was then.

I don’t see why you would take issue with that.
Life is much better today in America precisely because the “white protestant males” offered their lives, fortunes, and sacred honors, many of them giving up some or all of those three.

And, yes, part of that is due to government intervention…even with things as basic as good roads available to all, trustworthy (more or less) and well trained police available to protect all, etc…

Not the general government. Mostly these were due to state and local government, and it is state and local government that should be making sure those in need have that safety net, and then only necessary if the churches fail to do their call.
Government at the general level has specific enumerated powers, none of which include health care, and they continue to fail at doing it outside those enumerated powers.

 

[pnewton]

Why do you think people who favor their own nation or “nationalists”
are not people “with a sense of morality”?

I am a Catholic and believe in the essential necessity of the Golden Rule.

I am not going to “clarify” in response to such an explosion of rhetoric. It simply is not efficient. You literally posted fifteen (15) questions. If you want to preach to your own like-minded people, then posting such videos is understandable. However, I would like to point out sources that so that those who prefer not to waste time with such blatantly biased op-eds will know what they are. I would have the same response to a HuffPo op-ed disguised as information.

Do you look up the history of CNN producers before accepting their “news” stories too?

I am only a little cautious with CNN. They are not near the same level of bias as MSNBC or FOX, neither of which is near the same level as PragerU or HuffPo, at least as I see it.

 

[Cathoholic]

pnewton’s blanket statement concerning people who want to put their own country first or “nationalists” . . .

I prefer to get information from people with a sense of morality.

I asked pnewton a few questions about such a statement (some questions were rhetorical – nothing wrong with rhetorical questions) here.

Part of pnewton’s response? . . .

I am a Catholic and believe in the essential necessity of the Golden Rule.

That’s fine if that is your answer.

But why not extend that same “Golden Rule” to those “nationalists” that you have needlessly indicted here?

 

[pnewton]

Let me insert this quote by way of definition from St. John Paul:

“In this context, we need to clarify the essential difference between an unhealthy form of nationalism, which teaches contempt for other nations or cultures, and patriotism, which is a proper love of one’s country. True patriotism never seeks to advance the well-being of one’s own nation at the expense of others. For in the end this would harm one’s own nation as well: doing wrong damages both aggressor and victim. Nationalism, particularly in its most radical forms, is thus the antithesis of true patriotism , and today we must ensure that extreme nationalism does not continue to give rise to new forms of the aberrations of totalitarianism.”

Patriotism respects the patriotism, and thus the filial ties, that others have to their countries. It is love of country because one respects the love that others have for their country as well, which is the Golden Rule part. Thus, the idea of “America First” in the context of the Golden Rule, must also acknowledge the right to “Mexico First” or “Russia First” equally. The slogan “Make America Great” can be consistent, as long as that greatness is achieved without making others less, which is immoral. But think that America has an entitlement to the number one spot in the world is a contradiction of the moral teaching of the Golden Rule, and something no Catholic should believe.

I asked pnewton a few questions about such a statement

Fifteen. I see that as a lot, not a few.

 

[Cathoholic]

This is irrelevant.

Why?

Because nobody is suggesting they put their own nation first here at the expense of someone else. Nobody.

Not Trudeau (here), not the Clintons (here at least), and not PragerU.

That’d be more likely to be the Globalists and other nanny staters that enrich themselves at people’s expense.

 

[pnewton]

Not Trudeau (here), not the Clintons (here at least), and not PragerU.

Then they should not be advocating for nationalism. Anyone either uneducated or dishonest enough to ignore the meaning of words has nothing to teach me on YouTube.

 

[Cathoholic]

pnewton . . .

Then they should not be advocating for nationalism.

Sure they should.

At least in the sense that puts your home people first while preserving subsidiarity.

Your home is a microcosm of this.

You put your own children first all the time. This does not necessitate attacking your neighbors children.

You can put your own country first without attacking others.

 

[Cathoholic]

What is really putting someone else first while at the same time attacking others is . . . . Abortion.

If this is the principle, abortion must be the pinnacle of crime.

 

[twf]

I have no issue with local governments providing the safety net. I assumed, wrongly, that you wanted NO level of government involved.

 

[JonNC]

As little as possible, to be sure, but the general government should not have such power over the lives of individuals.
The primary providers of care for those in need should be charities.

 

[Inisfallen]

The primary providers of care for those in need should be charities.

And if charities aren’t up to the task of providing for those many, many people in need in this country, then what?

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

The primary providers of care for those in need should be charities.

And if charities aren’t up to the task of providing for those many, many people in need in this country, then what?

First, I reject the notion that it takes government coercion to get people to care for their neighbors, but to answer your question, state and local governments. They have the mandate, the general government doesn’t.

 

[Thorolfr]

Inisfallen:

JonNC:

The primary providers of care for those in need should be charities.

And if charities aren’t up to the task of providing for those many, many people in need in this country, then what?

First, I reject the notion that it takes government coercion to get people to care for their neighbors, but to answer your question, state and local governments. They have the mandate, the general government doesn’t.

State and local governments don’t have the resources to care for a lot of people who rely on government healthcare, especially those with medical conditions that are expensive to treat. If the Federal Government wasn’t picking up many of the costs, even at the state level it would be difficult to pay for it all. There are illnesses where the medication alone costs at least $1000 a month and up. I just read online that renal dialysis costs about $72,000 per year. How many of these people could local or even state government be able to provide with their medical care?