Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you have anything substantial to back up that claim, or just more bull**** Republican rhetoric?
Yes I do (assuming the health slaver bill sails on through). I do not use your health care system. I do not believe in it. I do not want it. I have been to the doctor exactly three times in the last 25 years. I have never filed an insurance claim in my entire LIFE. You tell me how being forced to pay for your system (that I am not a part of) and want nothing to do with and paying for your medical care and being FORCED to go to a god***med doctor is constitutional. Let's hear it. The right to refuse medical care has been upheld in court MANY times in the past. None of you people will respond to that because it's pretty inconvenient to your pet project.
I am not coming at this from the perspective of a republican. I am not and never have been a republican. I am coming at this from a personal liberty standpoint. This bill is a serious infringement on personal liberty. And if the Civil Liberty Union had any balls at all and really cared about personal liberty and freedom, they'd be ALL OVER THIS BS.
Here's an excerpt from a law office website on the matter (I can provide about 100 more if you have trouble believing it):
As a general rule, every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body and cannot be subjected to medical treatment without his consent.
^Unless, of course, it was a child refusing treatment, or the parents refusing treatment for the child. There was a thread here a while back about a boy who refused medical treatment because of his religious beliefs, and the court found against him and his family.
^Unless, of course, it was a child refusing treatment, or the parents refusing treatment for the child. There was a thread here a while back about a boy who refused medical treatment because of his religious beliefs, and the court found against him and his family.
Yes, exactly. But as long as we are talking about adults, the court rulings are clear on the matter and this bill is in direct violation of US Court rulings.
Yes I do (assuming the health slaver bill sails on through). I do not use your health care system. I do not believe in it. I do not want it. I have been to the doctor exactly three times in the last 25 years. I have never filed an insurance claim in my entire LIFE. You tell me how being forced to pay for your system (that I am not a part of) and want nothing to do with and paying for your medical care and being FORCED to go to a god***med doctor is constitutional. Let's hear it. The right to refuse medical care has been upheld in court MANY times in the past. None of you people will respond to that because it's pretty inconvenient to your pet project.
I am not coming at this from the perspective of a republican. I am not and never have been a republican. I am coming at this from a personal liberty standpoint. This bill is a serious infringement on personal liberty. And if the Civil Liberty Union had any balls at all and really cared about personal liberty and freedom, they'd be ALL OVER THIS BS.
Here's an excerpt from a law office website on the matter (I can provide about 100 more if you have trouble believing it):
As a general rule, every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body and cannot be subjected to medical treatment without his consent.
So basically you do have a bunch of bull**** Republican Rhetoric? Thanks, that's all I needed to know.
So basically you do have a bunch of bull**** Republican Rhetoric? Thanks, that's all I needed to know.
Okay smart guy, avoid the fact that I pointed out like EVERY OTHER ONE OF YOU on this forum.
Let me make it a bit simpler for you. Maybe you can respond with an answer rather than insult and deflection:
A) US COURTS have upheld time after time the right of the individual to refuse medical treatment. That is a fact.
B) This bill (assuming it doesn't morph) mandates that everyone be a part of the medical system. It mandates semi-annual medical procedures.
Now, rather than your smug response, maybe you can tell me how that is NOT a direct conflict with established laws and rights. My prediction is that you won't because you can't. You will simply call me another name and think you won an argument that you never engaged in. You people are great at calling names like two-year-olds, but pretty lacking when it comes to actual discussion.
Also, I told you I'm not a republican. Why can't you respect that?
Here is some proof that I'm not simply making this up. This is from an actual court document:
3. The Right to Refuse Medical Treatment.
(1) "[A] person of adult years and in sound mind has the right, in the exercise of control over his own body, to determine whether or not to submit to lawful [***10] medical treatment." ( Cobbs v. Grant (1972) 8 Cal.3d 229, 242 [104 Cal.Rptr. 505, 502 P.2d 1].) It follows that such a patient has the right to refuse any medical treatment, even that which may save or prolong her life. ( Barber v. [**301] Superior Court (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 1006 [195 Cal.Rptr. 484]; Bartling v. Superior Court (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d 186 [209 Cal.Rptr. 220].) In our view the foregoing authorities are dispositive of the case at bench. Nonetheless, the county and its medical staff contend that for reasons unique to this case Elizabeth Bouvia may not exercise the right available to others. Accordingly, we again briefly discuss the rule in the light of real parties' contentions.
The right to refuse medical treatment is basic and fundamental. It is recognized as a part of the right of privacy protected by both the state and federal constitutions. (Cal. Const., art. I, � 1; Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) 381 U.S. 479, 484 [14 L.Ed.2d 510, 514-515, 85 S.Ct. 1678]; Bartling v. Superior Court, supra, 163 Cal.App.3d 186.) Its exercise requires no one's approval. It is not merely one vote subject to being overridden [***11] by medical opinion.
Is that rhetoric too??? Is a court document rhetoric???
There's a big difference between being electable and speaking to lots of people or having lots of people in line to sign a book. I didn't say she wasn't a celebrity.
Liberals and moderates don't like her. Thus Palin is unelectable.
I'm not so sure about that. I haven't made up my mind. There is part of me that thinks she shouldn't run (and there is no evidence that she is even considering it) and there is part of me that thinks she is what we need. I dunno.
It depends on who else shows up. Palin has given no indications that she has any plans to run for President, and I think (I'm guessing) that she isn't interested.
What we do need is someone who believes in the Constitution as our Founders did. A "Constitutionalist". At this point, I don't know who that would be.
What we do need is someone who believes in the Constitution as our Founders did. A "Constitutionalist". At this point, I don't know who that would be.
If only. I'd give my left *** for one of those in office.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
