Fact Check AHCA...

Apparently we don't have the right to refuse paying for someone's accupuncture or homeopathy.

Does anyone have the right to refuse paying for military spending they don't feel they need? How about police that they feel is primarily to keep them in their place?

If you don't like the way our government works, vote to change it. Or get out. You can always leave and live in another country that you feel is more to your liking.

Wrong! That's your idea of how government should work. It's the idea that government has unlimited power and you just need the right people to run it. It's the idea that puts Napoleons in power because you can never rely on having the right people. That's why in OUR concept of government we had a Jefferson who said, "Speak not to me of the goodness of men. Let them be bound by the constitution." That constitution can be changed by a majority of congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures, but you reject that impediment to having your way, so you think you can just invent one New Deal after another and that makes it so.

You talk about a voting process but you want to make up the rules of the process as you go along. You do it with judges who say it's constitutional because it's a tax, which is the same conceit by which they once decided social security was constitutional even while FDR reassured the people that it wasn't a tax. Well the constitution says taxes must originate in the House, and Obamacare originated in the Senate, so if that's so then it's explicitly unconstitutional but you don't care, because you're improvising this voting process you truly believe in.

Just to be clear, you are saying that Trump is Napoleon?

I find your arguments to be a bit of lunacy. If Obamacare was unconstitutional because it "originated" in the Senate why wasn't it struck down by the Supreme Court? I suppose they are just a bunch of sheep that rubber stamp everything the ruling Napoleon says?

You really haven't read the Constitution, have you?

Yes, you are nothing more than a shortrex clone.

If the medical establishment won't kick out accupuncturists or homeopaths - and the German one doesn't - you are stuck. But both idiocies are pretty c heap, and quite effective placebo's, so rather handy if you need to fob off the kinds of patient who is convinced they are sick, but hasn't got any de tectable problems (which doesn't mean that they aren't sick, but does mean that conventional medicine can't help them).

To be clear, you're daft. Going against your wishes is all you give a damn about, selfishly and ignorantly, but he hasn't done anything ouside the bounds of the Constitution.

This is a waste of time because the cause and effect of judicial activism are both over your head. Six or eight months ago you said (and a few months ago another lefty here repeated) that you think the Kelo decision was an example of conservative ideology. You may not have noticed that it was a 5 to 4 decision, and you may not have noticed that during the same year, when the court had the same complement, Roe v. Wade was upheld in another 5-to-4 decision, and you may not have noticed that the division was between the same 5 and the same 4 in both cases. Maybe you would have noticed if it was the conservative Justices who voted for Kelo, and then you would have ranted about Scalia and Thomas taking people's homes, but as it happened you obviously were oblivious to the fact that it was the other way around.

You lefties insist on having Justices who have a 'flexible' approach to interpreting the law (just so that doesn't go over your head, the Constitution is also law) but you naively expect them to apply that flexibility only to Roe v Wade and to nothing else.

Whether it's destroying the black family unit with welfare, or causing airline accidents by breeding birds near runways, you excel only at causing unintended consequenses and then remaining forever oblivious to them.

The weekend is over so I won't reply. You have the last word, so make it something really stupid.

His executive orders trying to prevent people from getting into the US from predominantly Muslin countries were seen to be ignoring a constitutional c onstraint by the judiciary and blocked on that basis, so he has tried to ex ceed the bounds set by the constitution. The fact that he couldn't doesn't earn him any credit.

When it comes to "destroying the black family unit with welfare" the conseq uence is not only unintended, but also non-existent. In the US blacks, like whites, are much less likely to get married before they have kids than the y used to be. Welfare hasn't got anything to do with that, and whether or n ot parents are married doesn't make much difference to the family unit (des pite the hand-wringing of the religious right). Welfare may be called in af ter a family unit has broken up, but the existence of a welfare system does n't seem to have much effect on family stability.

Sweden has welfare that works a whole lot better than the US system, but it isn't littered with destroyed family units.

Why should he bother? Your reaction is already really stupid.

According to the Supreme Court he has and they stopped him. But I didn't say anything about that. I was just asking a question about what you were saying. Your lengthy post seemed vague and assumes a lot about that I was saying (which I didn't say mostly). I think they call that "projecting".

Can you cite my saying, it "was an example of conservative ideology"? I don't think that is a term I very often use.

I think you don't understand the issues in Roe v. Wade. It's not a matter of being "flexible". It is about deciding when a human life begins and who has control over a woman's body.

I deny your accusations. I've never bred birds near runways or anywhere else for that matter!

Applesauce.

Theres Hospis care too here in the US. if the hospital diagnoses 'End stage whatever' then you would be put under Hospis care at home if possible. At the end Hospis makes the call, doctors are notified, and your off directly to the funeral home. And Hospis is usually run by some charity organization with state funds.

Cheers

The usual spelling is "hospice"

Seems grim. The US spends considerably more than the UK on health and yet the US average life expectancy is a little lower. I assume that compared to the UK the life expectancy of a US citizen has a higher correlation to their wealth?

What a pile of nonsense.

Likewise, baloney.

I think it's more related to a wilder life-style... living in the UK appears (to me) to be dullsville ;-) ...Jim Thompson

Isn't that true everywhere? I think the largest factor in longevity in advanced countries isn't healthcare, it's personal habits and possibly heredity. I know lots of people who have health problems that just can't be treated by doctors, but could have been helped by living better.

And the sky is blue in Antarctica.