The Albatross
MyPTSD Pro
Romney ran on a whole lot more than Obamacare... whether he won or lost (I didn't support Romney myself) was not a mandate for Obamacare when Obama won reelection, it was a vote as to whether or not he should be the President of the United States. I could take you down memory lane by the numbers of the last election, but it would take up too much time so I will leave you to google the various other hot topics of the last presidential election cycle.There was an election, and Mitt Romney lost. By a lot.
The thing is, we already DO provide the services, albeit too late for many. We already all pay for these. If we're going to pay for them anyway, let's pay for prevention to minimize the cost and the human suffering, I say.
Exactly we already do provide services. Many services. USA today's cover story says:
'Family glitch' in health law could be painful
It could leave up to 500,000 children without coverage and cost some families thousands of dollars.
So, if it's not a human right, do you believe that babies born into poverty should just be allowed to die? Because...they don't have a right to medical care? That if the poor get cancer, they should be denied care? If disabled, they should be left to fend for themselves? They should somehow have the "earn" it?.
It's completely unacceptable situations like this that make me believe we must take action..
As you noted above, there are already programs to provide care for the impoverished or disabled. Obamacare leaves up to 30 million still uninsured in spite of it's initial claims and does not (As the USA today story I provided demonstrates) include all children. I think that should our government be able to be fiscally responsible either existing programs could be expanded as the need has exploded... not at a time when the financial state of our Union is in peril. Unsustainable, is a red flare, it is not entitlement at all costs at this time. Sucks? Yeah sure. But I want my government to run the way we run my household. On a budget, responsibly. Until it is able to do so without printing money out of nothing and artificially inflating the dollars that I earn to meet my immediate needs (housing, food, utilities and the means to perform my job)... I simply can not in good conscious lay down and generously give consent to an entitlement that further burdens me and the 53% of people who actually pay taxes. Improve the economy, pass a budget, revamp existing programs as you wish... but don't burden me further until I can bear the burden of my own household.
It is admirable to extend services to citizens. But it is unacceptable to shove it down my throat, tell me to like it and be quiet when I am being unduely taxed by legislation that was not presented as a TAX until it went to the Supreme court. Due process was circumvented in the passage of this legislation and I'm tired of distortions and lies. It is incredulous to me that you are so prepared to exercise this perceived "right" that you would risk our Republic for it. I do not agree. My nation, comes first so to me that means fiscal viability and sustainability over providing commodities or services to our citizens until the state of the nation economically improves.
Can't help but notice, you're position is to press for the entitlement in spite of unsustainability. Reckless and irresponsible in my opinion. It isn't popular to operate under a budget... but it is necessary. Or should I say necessary for anyone but the Obama Administration and progressives?