On the off chance that you're not tolling and are really just this confused:
rdmcandie wrote:
Made my point, you quoted it twice. You do not know what you are talking about. Want to know why...
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.gadling.com/media/2007/07/healthcareworldbig.jpg
That's a picture, not a point, much less an answer to any kind of question. And it's no more those things now that you've linked to it 6 times.
Quote:
yep that brig gray blob is the USA and yes it represents a country that has not had a Universal Health care program.
And? I don't think anyone was arguing that the US did have universal health care, so what's the point. We get it. The US doesn't have universal health care. How does that in any way support your claim that I don't know what universal health care is?
Quote:
I don't blame you for not knowing, but you certainly are an idiot if you keep rambling on about stuff that you obviously do not understand the functioning of. But keep working at it mate, I am having a great time.
Not knowing what? You keep insisting that I don't know what universal health care is, and as some kind of support for your argument, link to a.... map. And in the midst of this, you've failed to grasp that my reason for even mentioning universal health care had nothing at all to do with who had it, why they had it, whether it was "good" or "bad", or anything of that nature. My *only* point was that within a universal health care system, the government chooses how to allocate health care to the people. That is correct, right?
Now. Go look up the definition of "discriminate", and maybe it'll dawn on you that it's impossible for the government to allocate health care funds without discriminating in some way. I'll give you a hint: To discriminate is to tell the difference between things (and/or to act upon those differences). That's it. That's what the word means. So if the government has to provide health care to those who need it, it must be able to differentiate between different health needs. It must "discriminate" between people based on those needs and act differently towards those people based upon those needs.
Thus, if the 14th amendment really prohibited the government from discriminating, it would make universal health care unconstitutional. Of course, it would make thousands of other government programs unconstitutional as well, which is why it should be abundantly apparent that said amendment does *not* actually prohibit discrimination. Thus, stating that it doesn't prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex should not be shocking or even unusual. It doesn't do so for sex just as it doesn't do so for anything else. It never did.