Replying to a message of Bob Klahn to Bob Ackley:

 TR>>>> Much of the healthcare bill foisted on America by this
 TR>>>> president is for the `have nots' at the expense ofthe
 TR>>>> `haves'. Thats socialism.

 DD>>> That's compassion, more like. And healthcare is, IMO, a
 DD>>> legitimate function of gummint.

 BA>> Why do you suppose the founders managed to avoid any
 BA>> mention of such things when they set up the national
 BA>> government here?

 BK>  Perhaps because there was so little health care possible
 BK> then  that they didn't even consider it?

Doctors had been around for a couple of centuries before this country
was founded.  The founders certainly knew what health care was, and
yet they neglected to make any mention of it in the nation's founding
documents.  FWIW they didn't mention public education, either.  

 BA>> And, of course, they DID write that
 BA>> anything they didn't cover was the responsibility of the
 BA>> states or of the people.

 BK>  Well, not really. They reserved it, the did not assign it.

If the Constitution doesn't assign a specific power to the national
government that government doesn't have it.  The national government
cannot assume powers that the Constitution doesn't give it.

 BA>> Since you think health care should be provided by the
 BA>> government, you should also support the government takeover
 BA>> of the food production and distribution system in this
 BA>> country.  People will die a whole lot quicker without food
 BA>> than they will without health care.

 BK>  And you still can't understand what you yourself said. You
 BK> are  the one who kept saying insurance was not to provide
 BK> health  care, but to manage risk. Now that is absurd on the
 BK> face of it,  but your comment above contradicts that.

Insurance *IS* part of risk management.

 BK>  The whole point of national health care, which is nothing
 BK> other  than insurance, is to spread the risk of a
 BK> possibility we know  will happen, but do not know when and
 BK> to whom.

Hardly.  The point is to *control* the health care system, just as
Medicare is about the *control* of health care provided to the elderly
in this country.

 BK>  You can round up 1000 randomly selected people, and I can
 BK>  guarantee every single one of them will require food within
 BK> the  next two weeks, or they will never require food again.

 BK>  You cannot tell me which of that 1000 people will require
 BK> what  medical care in the next two weeks.

True.

 BK>  That is the difference, and that makes your challenge a
 BK> fraud.

 BK>  On top of that, you mischaracterise National Health Care.
 BK> It  doesn't take over health care, it just guarantees it
 BK> will be  covered.

No it doesn't.  That may be what Obama is claiming, but it isn't
true.

 BK>  And I do support the idea that the government should
 BK> guarantee  food to those who are unable to provide for
 BK> themselves. Esp  since the alternative is starvation.

 BA>> BTW, just in case you think you have a "right" to clean
 BA>> drinking water, try not paying your municipal water bill.

 BK>  And you just took another shot at your own position. We do
 BK> pay  our water bill, we will pay for medical care. I do
 BK> have a right  to clean drinking water, and a responsibility
 BK> to pay for it.

Good.  Then your right to health care includes the responsibility that
*you* pay for it.

 BK>  You may have a well, but is the water clean?

It is not treated.  Out of the well pump into the water taps in the house,
no filters.

 BK> Have you had it  tested?

Yes.

 BK> Is it poluted by industries that the government
 BK> didn't  regulate because too many people said the govt
 BK> shouldn't  regulate?

No.  My well water has a high but not unsafe concentration of nitrates
because it's located in the middle of a corn field.

---