The Fifth Amendment speaks specifically to denying someone their life and liberty without due process. That is what HR-2 does and I rise in opposition to it, and I rise in opposition because it is important that we preserve lives, and we recognize that 40 million plus are uninsured. Can you tell me what is more unconstitutional than taking away from the people of America their Fifth Amendment rights, their 14th Amendment rights, and their right to equal protection under the law? This bill is constitutional, and it protects the constitutional rights of those who ask the question, "Must I die, must my child die because I am now disallowed from getting insurance?"Apparently, medical insurance has been Constitutional right all of this time (see here). For consistency sake, would not car insurance also be a Federal Right? After all, it was the Left that compared the two to begin this debate. Why stop there? Why not insure every home owner? In fact, don't I need a home, and therefore the government should buy me one?
Whether you are Prolife or Prochoice, if she is going to be consistent, why does she stand with the party that takes away the Fifth Amendment rights of unborn children. So apparently, the Media and the Left get to control the frame of the debate by arguing that it is unconstitutional to repeal Obama Care. So if it is repealed, does that mean she could take the Right to court because the Constitution is being violated?
It is quite ironic that the number of murdered children in this country that could have received proper medical care, the right to due process and the right to life, reached 53 million as opposed to her made up number of 40 million uninsured. But as my friend likes to say, "Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument."
But all of this only critiques her own inconsistencies. The fact is, the Left can't even begin to justify their assumptions and presuppositions. For instance, why is Caesar Lord? Where did the Right to Life come from? How did the State become the source for the right of insurance or life? Why do insurance companies have to insure anyone?
What is stopping Left-wing owned companies from doing the very things the Left wants the government to do? I have a friend who believes that companies should do business differently by doing things like profit sharing, etc. That's fine. So why not start a business doing just that instead of forcing by law his ideas of how things should be? Why is it just assumed the government has the right to do what the Left wants and force the rest of us by the power of taxation to pay into their giant insurance scheme? (which would be illegal in any legitimate company)
But in all of this, my same friend can't even begin to explain why government has the right to exist. It is just assumed because to attempt to justify his position would bring him to a reality that he must suppress. The answer is simple. God exists, but we don't like God. Since man is an idolater, we must replace God at all costs. In this case, it is with the State.