Christianity supports the health care bill

2. My opponent claims that to be poor means to be less fortunate than the rich. However, to be rich would have to mean to be more fortunate than the poor. Let's take the scenario of everybody making $40,000 per year. Everybody, by these standards, would be average. However, if one man ends up with a salary of $100,000 by means of new technology, and through trickle-down economics, everybody else also benefits, with salaries of $50,000 dollars, these standards would call the people poor, even though they are richer than they once were. This logically doesn't make sense at all. 1b. My opponent gives an example of beneficial government subsidization: scholarships. However, health care is not scholarships. Scholarships are rewarded based on hard work and effort; health care is not. If my opponent believes that the logic that makes scholarships beneficial can be extended to health care, why not use health care as the example itself? I have exposed my opponent's flawed logic, and defended my own logic to provide the base for this argument. My opponent deems this argument irrelevant. However, if the health care plan hurts the poor, then there's no way Jesus would ever support it. 1. Jesus may have told people to pay their taxes; however, that doesn't men that he would support Caesar hiking the tax rate up. A man who believes that people should pay taxes does not by extension believe that government may do whatever it likes. Such is a non sequitor. If my opponent wishes to point to USA being on the dollar as ownership of the money by the government, if the people are to be expected to pay their taxes, the government should uphold its own end of the bargain by following the constitution. However, the health care bill is not constitutional at all. The Constitution [1] authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, but not intrastate commerce, such as health care. Would Jesus really support a government breaking its own laws? I agree with my opponent that Jesus supported the distribution of wealth; however, this is very different from supporting forcing people to redistribute their own wealth. I believe in giving to the poor; however, I do not believe that it is the government's job to force people to do so. My opponent agrees that Jesus does not force anybody to do anything. However, I ask again, if Jesus didn't support Himself forcing other people into doing things, why would He support a fallible, corruptable, mismanaged government to do it instead? I already saw where the source claims that the poor will get health care. However, as I already stated, it doesn't say HOW. My opponent is misprepresenting what I said. I have already asked how this would occur, as it is a necessary step to understand why it isn't as great as it appears. My opponent's source only says, "An invalid bill ID was specified in the URL. " The page provides no detailed explanations of anything. To summarize: 1. I have explained why subsidizing the poor hurts everybody overall. My opponent claims that the bill helps the poor, but is rather vague in doing so, leaving no real clarity for anybody to support. 2. My opponent said nothing against my explanation as to why the bill requiring coverage of pre-existing conditions will lead to America's collapse. It should not be considered dropped until he puts forward an actual argument against it. 3. "I do believe that this response covers Point 2 as well. " I used one argument that I believed covered both points. 4. While the Bible clearly supports voluntary charity to the poor, nothing in it suggests that Jesus would force people to redistribute their own wealth. Good luck in the final round. 1. . http://www.usconstitution.net...