Health Care...is it a "right"?

[Khariz]

I realize we already have countless threads on this, but I want to talk about it some more. The following is an exchange that I have been having with someone on Facebook. I think this will get the ball rolling on the particular issue discussed.

For ease of Reading, I will put the other person's posts in Quote blocks and my responses in italics below each block. It all started with this status update:


No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day.

No one does die because they can't afford health care unless they lack the ability to comprehend that hospitals must treat them, regardless of their ability to pay.

And what do you mean no one should go broke because they get sick? How far does that line of thinking go? No one should go broke because their house burns down (and they couldn't afford home insurance)? No one should go broke because their husband died (because they can't afford life insurance)? No one should go broke because they got in a car accident (and couldn't afford anything more than liability insurance)?

I'm being serious here. Why am *I* obligated to pay the costs of someone else's misfortune? If I didn't get an education, get a job, pay for insurance, etc. and I needed to have 100k in medical bills, I would expect to have to file for bankruptcy to solve my dilemma. That mechanism is already in place. I shouldn't be able to FORCE my fellow man to pay for me if they don't want to.


Well who do you think bails you out when you file for bankruptcy? I'm not saying that I totally agree with this statement going around, but I certainly don't think that we should all be so selfish and to say figure it out on your own... many people have a college degree and good jobs and still have a hard time affording proper health insurance for themselves and their families...some people are so naive to think only about themselves~ When did we become such a selfish nation?

It's not about selfishness. We've never been a selfish nation when it comes to helping others, but we want to do it VOLUNTARILY. I give to my church, to charities, etc, but I do so because I WANT to.

The second you MAKE me pay for my fellow man, I no longer want to do it, on principal alone. If I have a buddy that's having a hard time paying his medical bills, I'll do everything I can to help him out from helping to pay the bills myself, to running a charity drive for the guy. But every SINGLE cent I obtain for him is going to be a voluntary donation on the part of those giving. I'm not going to MAKE people help him out.

Regardless of what people thing, Health Care is an industry just like every other. The people who work in that industry will charge for the service based on supply and demand, market toleration of price, etc. Insurance (like HMOs, and PPOs) are basically collective bargaining for price reduction. If you don't have one, you pay the full market value. Tough cookies.


I disagree. Currently it is the uninsured that are subsidizing the insured for medical care. Iinsurance company network negotiated charges are 1/7th of what someone without insurance would pay for the same services. Yes, they are collective bargaining agents, but a family should not have to declare bankruptcy to support my medical care. Any system cannot be balanced on the backs of the poor and uninsured. That is not capitalism.

Also, in many of the other instances you cited, the financial problems are based on personal choice. And, although some people make choices that contribute to their health status, many people do not. We need to have a system in which people do not have to choose to between eating and paying for health care. We need to have a system where people do not have their credit destroyed by health care costs. If they end up with bad credit, they cannot even be approved for renting an apartment. Where are they to live then? Who ends up eventually supporting them then?

None of the instances I cited had anything to do with personal choice. All were random catastrophic events that can unfortunately occur to people that can result in serious adverse financial circumstances.

Why do you think health care is different than other industries. Why is your access to health care products and services a "right", but your access to a car is not?

There's nothing that entitles you to health care, just as you aren't entitled to a house. If you disagree, please cite what entitles you to health care without paying the market value of the goods and services, with specificity.

Serious question: If someone can't afford a car, because cars are too expensive, should taxpayers pitch in so that the person can receive a car at a reduced price? How about a house?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jng4TnKqy6A&feature=player_embedded

Unfortunately the guy that made the cartoon has no clue what he's talking about.

The only service that he mentioned that is in fact nationalized is the Postal Service, and the reason that is so, is because the U.S. Constitution provides for the creation of and administration of the Postal Service.

All of the other services are administered on a State/Local level, in comport with the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which reserves all power not delegated to the Federal government to the respective State Governments.

All of the other "socialized services" that the cartoon maker indicates are valid exercises of State police powers that would be Invalid under the U.S. Constitution, should the Federal government attempt to do the same. Health Care is one such service, the power of which is still reserved to the States until such time as we amend the U.S. Constitution to say otherwise.


I disagree with your comparison between health and material possessions. I firmly believe that health care should be a right... not a privilege that only some people are worthy of. I definitely don't feel that material possessions are a right. But not everyone even has the option to buy health insurance under our current system. What about the kid with a serious disease who gets kicked off his parents' insurance plan at 25 and is then uninsurable? What should he do?

If we want health insurance to be based on capitalism, great. But it has to actually be based on capitalism, and the prices charged by physicians and hospitals should not be wildly inflated for people without an insurance plan. Their cost is not the "market rate." The cost for the uninsured is well above the market rate.

And really, the US spends more per capita for health care than any other nation, and for worse health care overall. If we could spend the same amount for better care, why wouldn't we?

Furthermore... my son just had hip surgery. So... if he ever has any lapse in health insurance throughout his entire life--if he ever needs a hip replacement, and he probably will, he will have to pay out-of-pocket. That is really crappy. I know that anecdotes do not=evidence... but it's a really bad system that would allow things like this to happen.

I'm glad to see that you think it SHOULD be a right, instead of claiming that it is.

When we amend the U.S. Constitution to make Health Care a right, I will start paying for the kid with the disease. Until then, the kids parents can either find a way to afford insurance (a collective bargaining plan), or they can bargain with the health care providers themselves.

That is possible, by the way. The cost of an uninsured person to have a CT scan might be 3500 bucks, but it's actually possible to say, "Well, I have 1700, what can we do about that", and it's amazing how many times you can work out a sharp reduction in cost just by asking. In this respect health care IS like cars. I'm not going to pay 22k for that car just because the sticker has that price on it.

It is interesting that these days everyone seems to think that the sticker price is the price that must be paid. Not so. Negotiation and bartering can still go a long way. Even with health care.

[Warriorbird]

So... hell with those uninsured people and the societal cost?

[Khariz]

So... hell with those uninsured people and the societal cost?

I'm not going to seriously respond to a one liner three minutes after I posted a lengthy post.

You one liner has nothing to do with the fact that the Federal government does not have the Constitutional authority to administer health care as if it were a "right" under the U.S. Constitution. Come back when you want to talk about that.

Edit: The individual State governments do, by the way.

[Gelston]

If someone is sick due to their own habits, drinking, smoking, eating too much, I don't think they have a right to healthcare covering illness that comes from those habits. I smoke and if I get cancer then it is my burden, not the taxpayers.

[BriarFox]

I was just talking about this issue last night with my girlfriend (well, mostly I was talking and she was giving me a funny look).

It all depends on the definition of a "right." What exactly is one? If it's an in-born characteristic, then no, health care isn't a right. If it's the inherent attribute of a citizen of a nation, then health care could possibly be a right. But rights must not infringe on the rights of others, so if heath care is a burden on others without compensation, then no, it can't be a right.

[BriarFox]

Of course, a nation could decide that it's the responsibility of the nation to offer health-care to all of its citizens, but if so, it must figure out a way to do it effectively and with the greatest social benefit. The new health care plan has the potential to do that, but it does need a bit of work. Sadly, though, there's a lot of misinformation purposely being put out there for political and economic reasons.

[Khariz]

If someone is sick due to their own habits, drinking, smoking, eating too much, I don't think they have a right to healthcare covering illness that comes from those habits. I smoke and if I get cancer then it is my burden, not the taxpayers.

My point is even grander than that. They don't have a RIGHT to health care either way, just as they don't have a RIGHT to have a car or a house. Heath Care is nothing but another bundle of Goods and Services that people must pay for, as with any business.

Supply, Demand, market conditions, etc. set the price (including stuff like tort litigation, etc.). I'm not making the argument that the prices DO NOT seem too high. Of course they seem too high. I'm not addressing what means I think are appropriate to attempt to curtail rising health care prices (but I can if I need to). I'm just addressing the fact that there's no document, law, constitution, etc. that ENTITLES you to health care as a RIGHT.

That fact can be changed if you want it to be changed, but as it stands, the Federal government lacks the power to directly regulate health care under the auspices of it being a fundamental right.

[CrystalTears]

The recent statuses of people with health care makes me want to vomit. I almost got into an argument with someone the other day because of this very issue.

I was saying that I don't agree of having a government-run insurance option and that insurance companies should be reformed, not the health care management itself. He tells me that a single payer system is NEVER going to happen... and then tells me that I'm using scare tactics. Oh, okayy.

[Khariz]

Of course, a nation could decide that it's the responsibility of the nation to offer health-care to all of its citizens, but if so, it must figure out a way to do it effectively and with the greatest social benefit. The new health care plan has the potential to do that, but it does need a bit of work. Sadly, though, there's a lot of misinformation purposely being put out there for political and economic reasons.

This nation cannot decide that without an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. At least not "legally". The individual States CAN decide that, because they can use their police powers to affect any rational cause, such power being reserved to the States by the Tenth Amendment.

The Federal government, though? Nope. Only specifically delegated powers are available to it. We can add in another specifically delegated power if we want to, but that takes a Constitutional amendment.

[Khariz]

I love it! More responses on Facebook:


The point is that while police, fire, and schools are locally administered, they're still publicly funded for every citizen regardless of socioeconomic status.

Yes, but MY point is that the STATE governments HAVE the power to do all that stuff with their Police Powers, reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The FEDERAL government only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the U.S. Constitution.

To add another Federal power giving the Federal government power to wholly control health care (like the postal service) would require an additional amendment to the U.S. Constituition.

States can do whatever they want in their own state. The Fed needs explicit authorization. This is how we set our country up, to make sure we were free from centralized tyranny.

[Daniel]

My point is even grander than that. They don't have a RIGHT to health care either way, just as they don't have a RIGHT to have a car or a house. Heath Care is nothing but another bundle of Goods and Services that people must pay for, as with any business.

So is security.

Yet, I don't see you railing on the government to dismantle its law enforcement apparatuses because you yourself are not menaced by criminals every day.

[BriarFox]

This nation cannot decide that without an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. At least not "legally". The individual States CAN decide that, because they can use their police powers to affect any rational cause, such power being reserved to the States by the Tenth Amendment.

The Federal government, though? Nope. Only specifically delegated powers are available to it. We can add in another specifically delegated power if we want to, but that takes a Constitutional amendment.


It's kind of a gray area. Under the Constitution's Article 1, section 8, Congress is allowed to provide for the general welfare. That allowance isn't expanded upon. The Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, thus probably doesn't apply.

Constitution, Article 1, section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Khariz]

So is security.

Yet, I don't see you railing on the government to dismantle its law enforcement apparatuses because you yourself are not menaced by criminals every day.

Ahh, but you are wrong. This is not the same.



Article I, Section 8

...

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof

The Federal Government can make laws FOR THE PURPOSE OF carrying out the specific powers that ARE delegated to it. It is a valid exercise of the Necessary and Proper Clause to make laws administering a federal police force to protect that postal service that it has the right to create, to enforce the laws it is allowed to make regarding the collecting of taxes, to "To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union", etc.

Not many people have a good grasp on what the purpose of the Necessary and Proper Clause is, but the making of a law requiring federal police to carry out other specifically enumerated powers falls clearly into the language of the Clause.

If you will point me to which Enumerated Power the carrying out of which would necessitate the creation of Nationalized Healthcare, and why, I will defer this entire argument to your wisdom and sit down.

[Khariz]

It's kind of a gray area. Under the Constitution's Article 1, section 8, Congress is allowed to provide for the general welfare. That allowance isn't expanded upon. The Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, thus probably doesn't apply.

Constitution, Article 1, section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

See my post above. It's not grey at all. The Necessary and Proper Clause is dependent on there being another enumerated power. It IS expanded upon by the language: "which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers".

[BriarFox]

See my post above. It's not grey at all. The Necessary and Proper Clause is dependent on there being another enumerated power. It IS expanded upon by the language: "which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers".

The Constitution doesn't specifically state that only the powers enumerated as subscripts to II.8 are granted to the federal govt. Rather, those just seem to be examples of the general statement of the section. I expect there's enough leeway that health care isn't much of an issue, or it'd have been derailed already. Still, someone might take it before the Supreme Court.

[Khariz]

The Constitution doesn't specifically state that only the powers enumerated as subscripts to II.8 are granted to the federal govt. Rather, those just seem to be examples of the general statement of the section. I expect there's enough leeway that health care isn't much of an issue, or it'd have been derailed already. Still, someone might take it before the Supreme Court.

No! Wrong. It explicitly states that powers delegated to the United States (Read: The Federal government) are its powers, and all other powers are reserved to the States. Once again...the States MAY, with my blessing, each create their own socialized health care systems for use in their state, without any additional Constitutional authority. The Federal government may not, as both it is not an enumerated power AND is reserved to the states (until such time as we pass an amendment saying otherwise).

But...There's an important distinction to be made about something here.

The Federal Government has the power to regulate the Health Care Industry with regard to the fact it is a business that both "touches and concerns" and has a "substantial impact" (and for that matter a cumulative, aggregate effect) on Interstate Commerce. This is an enumerated power under which the federal government seems as if it should have some element of control over the industry, just as it has already taken control of just about every other industry, using the Commerce Clause as the reason.

I don't have a problem with the legislature making laws to REGULATE health care (which they already do), by doing things such as causing malpractice tort reform, setting minimum standards of care, etc.

What I have a problem with is the Federal Government unilaterally declaring that Health Care is suddenly a Fundamental Right, and thus they have the unfettered ability to create, administer, and wholly preempt the entire private sector on this matter. Note: I'm discussing the Federal government's theoretical power to do this, not suggesting that any currently proposed legislation does in fact purport to do such.

For health care EITHER to be an enumerated power of the federal government OR a enumerated fundamental right which the government has complete say over, it would require constitution amendments. There are plenty of things the Fed could get away with regarding the health care industry that falls short of overstepping its bounds.

[Celephais]

If someone is sick due to their own habits, drinking, smoking, eating too much, I don't think they have a right to healthcare covering illness that comes from those habits. I smoke and if I get cancer then it is my burden, not the taxpayers.
My problem with this is causality in health care isn't perfectly tracable. If you get hit by a bus when you went out to go buy smokes, does that count? (exagerated example, but more seriously health issues are rarely single cause).

And Khariz whoever started that facebook status thing, I don't think cared about the constitutionality of federal health care. I'm not well enough informed on the whole topic to be making arguements, but I'd like to see you respond as if they were advocating state health care, or if there was a constitutional amendment on the table.

[Khariz]

My problem with this is causality in health care isn't perfectly tracable. If you get hit by a bus when you went out to go buy smokes, does that count? (exagerated example, but more seriously health issues are rarely single cause).

And Khariz whoever started that facebook status thing, I don't think cared about the constitutionality of federal health care. I'm not well enough informed on the whole topic to be making arguements, but I'd like to see you respond as if they were advocating state health care, or if there was a constitutional amendment on the table.

I agree. If they were advocating state socialized healthcare, I have no issue.

[BriarFox]

Well, as you point out, the whole discussion is moot since the federal govt is using "health care is a right" purely as rhetoric, and not putting it into explicit practice (yet, at least).

Your interpretation of the Constitution is overly strict, I think. Various other programs would violate how you see it: Head Start, Social Security, No Child Left Behind, Medicare and Medicaid, etc.

[Latrinsorm]

Why am *I* obligated to pay the costs of someone else's misfortune?
I'm glad to see that you think it SHOULD be a right, instead of claiming that it is.This is where the poor definition of "right" muddies the waters, and this is the most fundamental point of your argument. Rights aren't created when a bunch of old white guys write them down on paper. Rights are eternal, self-evident, unalienable. That you and I may disagree on a particular right in no way indicates that it is or is not, it only indicates that neither of us are omniscient. What this other person ought to have said is that the right to health care SHOULD be enforced by the government, or SHOULD be recognized by the citizenry.

You're being very particular about what the Constitution says, but you do not appear to have devoted the same level of thought to why we care.
But rights must not infringe on the rights of othersRights always infringe on the rights of others. My right to life is an infringement of your right to liberty - if you kill me (or even try to!), burly men with clubs try to put you in a cage.

[Daniel]

No! Wrong. It explicitly states that powers delegated to the United States (Read: The Federal government) are its powers, and all other powers are reserved to the States. Once again...the States MAY, with my blessing, each create their own socialized health care systems for use in their state, without any additional Constitutional authority. The Federal government may not, as both it is not an enumerated power AND is reserved to the states (until such time as we pass an amendment saying otherwise).

But...There's an important distinction to be made about something here.

The Federal Government has the power to regulate the Health Care Industry with regard to the fact it is a business that both "touches and concerns" and has a "substantial impact" (and for that matter a cumulative, aggregate effect) on Interstate Commerce. This is an enumerated power under which the federal government seems as if it should have some element of control over the industry, just as it has already taken control of just about every other industry, using the Commerce Clause as the reason.

I don't have a problem with the legislature making laws to REGULATE health care (which they already do), by doing things such as causing malpractice tort reform, setting minimum standards of care, etc.

What I have a problem with is the Federal Government unilaterally declaring that Health Care is suddenly a Fundamental Right, and thus they have the unfettered ability to create, administer, and wholly preempt the entire private sector on this matter. Note: I'm discussing the Federal government's theoretical power to do this, not suggesting that any currently proposed legislation does in fact purport to do such.

For health care EITHER to be an enumerated power of the federal government OR a enumerated fundamental right which the government has complete say over, it would require constitution amendments. There are plenty of things the Fed could get away with regarding the health care industry that falls short of overstepping its bounds.


If this were even remotely true, then the Federal Government would be restricted from providing any social function such as unemployment, educational assistance or even health care through Medicaid and Medicare.

[Celephais]

I agree. If they were advocating state socialized healthcare, I have no issue.
You really think the people arguing with you on facebook are either well informed enough or care if it's a federal or a state run health insurance?

It's a big ubiquitous blob called the "government" that they want to handle it, state, federal, galactic, whatever.

[Gelston]

My personal feelings on the matter is that I don't think people should die or suffer from diseases/ailments that are not their fault. I think that life is a right though.

[Khariz]

Well, as you point out, the whole discussion is moot since the federal govt is using "health care is a right" purely as rhetoric, and not putting it into explicit practice (yet, at least).

Your interpretation of the Constitution is overly strict, I think. Various other programs would violate how you see it: Head Start, Social Security, No Child Left Behind, Medicare and Medicaid, etc.

It may seem overly strict, but it comports with the intent of the persons who wrote the darn document, as evidenced by their own writings at the time (Federalist papers, etc). I don't see the Constitution as a living document, the interpretation of which automatically changes just because time has elapsed, and we have evolved as a people. Changes to the document need to happen the way changes are indicated that they MUST happen in the document itself. There needs to be a Constitutional Convention, and we need to vote, through our States, on whether or not the document should be changed.

If it's a change that the majority of the States want, it'll happen anyway, so there is nothing to be afraid of with regard to changing the Constitution the proper way, except for the fear that it is actually NOT what "the people" want.

And yes, absolutely those other programs violate the U.S. Constitution as written. That doesn't mean we need to violate it even more.

[BriarFox]

Rights always infringe on the rights of others. My right to life is an infringement of your right to liberty - if you kill me (or even try to!), burly men with clubs try to put you in a cage.

Actually, you're rather proving my point. A right is a right until it infringes on another's right, at which point it no longer is one.

[Khariz]

My personal feelings on the matter is that I don't think people should die or suffer from diseases/ailments that are not their fault. I think that life is a right though.

Does that mean that it should be legal for a starving man to steal some bread and tunafish from wal-mart because he is hungry and might die without the food?

Why not?

Bread and Tuna are products that Wal-Mart sells. Morphine and IVs are products that my hospital sells. I have to pay for both if I want to live. If I am poor and cannot afford either Bread/Tuna or Medicine there ARE ALREADY programs in place to help me. Food Stamps/Unemployment and Medicare/Medicade already fill these roles.

[Khariz]

Rights aren't created when a bunch of old white guys write them down on paper. Rights are eternal, self-evident, unalienable. That you and I may disagree on a particular right in no way indicates that it is or is not, it only indicates that neither of us are omniscient.

You are correct, BUT...the power of the Federal Government IS (was) determined by those old white guys. You can't give it more power without a Constitutional amendment.

Even if health care is something that we all believe people SHOULD be entitled to as an unalienable right, we still have to go through the technicality of giving the Federal Government the power to do something about that. See Slavery.

[Daniel]

You are correct, BUT...the power of the Federal Government IS (was) determined by those old white guys. You can't give it more power without a Constitutional amendment.

Even if health care is something that we all believe people SHOULD be entitled to as an unalienable right, we still have to go through the technicality of giving the Federal Government the power to do something about that. See Slavery.

Then explain medicare\ Medicaid.

Go.

[Gelston]

There is a system in place to provide foodstamps, regardless of how effective it is or isn't. There are also shelters and homeless food lines. I place human life over money, and as far as I'm concerned the government exists to serve it's citizens, good or bad.

[Khariz]

If this were even remotely true, then the Federal Government would be restricted from providing any social function such as unemployment, educational assistance or even health care through Medicaid and Medicare.

You really don't understand the powers that are enumerated to the government, do you? You already showed that you didn't understand the Necessary and Proper Clause, and now you are showing that you don't understand the Spending Clause.

The Fed can use it's power to spend money as a "Carrot" to induce the States into doing what they want them to do. Implement this very specific Seat-Belt law in your state and we'll give you 100mil in Highway Improvement Grants. This is Constitutional.

(The Federal Government doesn't administer Unemployment benefits. Those are State functions, which are valid exercises of State Police Powers via the rights reserved to the States).

I addressed the illegitimacy of Medicaid and Medicare, and Social Security above.

[Khariz]

Then explain medicare\ Medicaid.

Go.

I did:




And yes, absolutely those other programs violate the U.S. Constitution as written. That doesn't mean we need to violate it even more.

[Celephais]

Khariz, you seem to be making a lot of claims about the process but no opinions on the outcome. Very few people actually care about how the process unfolds, be it old white guy convetions or timetraveling to update the constitution.

You say things like "Why am *I* obligated to pay the costs of someone else's misfortune? ... I shouldn't be able to FORCE my fellow man to pay for me if they don't want to." and then you say "If they were advocating state socialized healthcare, I have no issue." Those two statements invalidate each other.

[Khariz]

There is a system in place to provide foodstamps, regardless of how effective it is or isn't. There are also shelters and homeless food lines. I place human life over money, and as far as I'm concerned the government exists to serve it's citizens, good or bad.

yeah, I already said that.

These are STATE systems, which are VALID under the U.S. Constitution. It is the FEDERAL Government that doesn't have the right to do it, not the states.

Each State DOES, and SHOULD, take care of its indigent. Each State can take up the Socialized Healthcare mantle. It DOES have the power to do that.

The Fed does not.

[BriarFox]

As far as I'm concerned, we've hit an impasse on interpreting the Constitution, which rules this argument more or less dead. Either you think Federal Govt can do things like Social Security under Article II, Section 8, or you think the Tenth Amendment restricts it from doing so. It's a difference between seeing the enumerated powers as exclusive or inclusive.

[BriarFox]

On the other hand, we can pick up on Celephais's point and bypass the impasse somewhat, discussing what things the Fed Govt could do to encourage the states to adopt certain health care policies.

[Khariz]

Khariz, you seem to be making a lot of claims about the process but no opinions on the outcome. Very few people actually care about how the process unfolds, be it old white guy convetions or timetraveling to update the constitution.

You say things like "Why am *I* obligated to pay the costs of someone else's misfortune? ... I shouldn't be able to FORCE my fellow man to pay for me if they don't want to." and then you say "If they were advocating state socialized healthcare, I have no issue." Those two statements invalidate each other.

No they don't. Right from my first post I have said that if there was a Constitutional Amendment allowing the Fed to implement Socialized health care, I would foot the bill.

If my State implements I can move to another State that doesn't do it if I don't like it. I have no problem with entities enacting legislation that they have the AUTHORITY to enact.

I have a problem, on principle, with being forced to do something by an entity that shouldn't have the power to compel me. My State does, my Federal Government does not. I guess my original statement should have read "Why can *I* be obligated to pay the costs of someone else's misfortune, when my Government does not have the power to so obligate me?"

[Celephais]

You're derailing your own thread ...

The original facebook status doesn't advocate any particular type of solution ... and you're turning this thread into some definition of state vs federal powers.

[Khariz]

You're derailing your own thread ...

The original facebook status doesn't advocate any particular type of solution ... and you're turning this thread into some definition of state vs federal powers.

The whole Facebook thread is about (after I turned it into being about) the fact that the Fed cannot force me to pay for a socialized healthcare system because it doesn't have the power to do so.

[Celephais]

If that was your intention, to argue that we need a constitutional amendment, and you articulated it as such, I don't think any of the arguements made to you on facebook would have even occured.

Basically if a group of people are all yelling "Lets go into this building" and you tell them "Okay, but you're going to need to open a door first", I don't think they'd care.

[Daniel]

I addressed the illegitimacy of Medicaid and Medicare, and Social Security above.


You've provided your narrow opinion on what you believe to be their illegitimacy, but their very existence negates the entire basis of your argument.

[Khariz]

If that was your intention, to argue that we need a constitutional amendment, and you articulated it as such, I don't think any of the arguements made to you on facebook would have even occured.

Huh?

The person on facebook is advocating that everyone has a right to health care.

I asked "says who", because I know this girl to be a flaming liberal who advocates universal health care BECAUSE she thinks it is a right. I come here asking if you people think its a right as well (because I know many of you do).

My point to her is that just because you think its a right, doesn't automatically confer upon our Federal government the power to enact legislation as if it were. They have to be specifically given the power, whereas your State can do it at any time.

That's about it. That's the whole discussion in a nutshell.

[Daniel]

Huh?

The person on facebook is advocating that everyone has a right to health care.

I asked "says who", because I know this girl to be a flaming liberal who advocates universal health care BECAUSE she thinks it is a right. I come here asking if you people think its a right as well (because I know many of you do).

My point to her is that just because you think its a right, doesn't automatically confer upon our Federal government the power to enact legislation as if it were. They have to be specifically given the power, whereas your State can do it at any time.

That's about it. That's the whole discussion in a nutshell.

Despite the fact that your argument and conclusions are wrong, it's amazing that you can't personally recognize that someone can have a philosophical belief that is distanced from the actual mechanism that would have to be used to realize it.

Someone saying that they believe healthcare is a right is not a lead in to say that the federal government does not have the right to provide a system of healthcare that you personally disagree with.

[Gelston]

Precisely Daniel.

[Khariz]

You've provided your narrow opinion on what you believe to be their illegitimacy, but their very existence negates the entire basis of your argument.

Half of the legislation from 1900 to Present violates the Constitution as written. When you go through Law School and study the Constitution, you learn just how much of what Congress and the Supreme Court has come up with is pure BS.

ROFL at the "Dormant Commerce Clause". ROFL at "Emanations and Penumbras".

You know WHY Women have a "right" to an Abortion? Because the Court decided that Abortion was something that should be lumped into "Privacy Rights" which exist because the "Enumerated Powers" "emanate" sub-powers from themselves and have "penumbras" that we can mystically use to infer other powers from and are therefore included in the Constitution.

Give me a freakin' break! There were times when reading Constitutional law cases made me Laugh Out Loud at how ridiculous the justification for things were.

The only thing I can possibly say in your defense is that because this is the way we have done things for so long, there is now actual legal precedence on this matter that the U.S. Supreme Court could use to create a legal fiction inferring the "right" to health care as some kind of "emanation" of the other enumerated rights. I can totally see Court Interpretation reading this right (health care) into the Constitution.

This is why *I* feel it very important to keep originalist/constructionist judges on the bench, who can *properly* interpret any new Constitutionally Invalid laws that come before the court.

[Celephais]

Huh?

The person on facebook is advocating that everyone has a right to health care.

I asked "says who", because I know this girl to be a flaming liberal who advocates universal health care BECAUSE she thinks it is a right. I come here asking if you people think its a right as well (because I know many of you do).

My point to her is that just because you think its a right, doesn't automatically confer upon our Federal government the power to enact legislation as if it were. They have to be specifically given the power, whereas your State can do it at any time.

That's about it. That's the whole discussion in a nutshell.
Somehow I don't think the beliefs of this person you started an arguement with are all too concerned with if the power comes from the state or federal government.

The whole talking point of state v federal is monsterously shadowed by the private sector vs government talking points. I imagine if you got everyone together on the real issue, the state v fed would be mere formality.

[Khariz]

Somehow I don't think the beliefs of this person you started an arguement with are all too concerned with if the power comes from the state or federal government.

The whole talking point of state v federal is monsterously shadowed by the private sector vs government talking points. I imagine if you got everyone together on the real issue, the state v fed would be mere formality.

I agree with everything you just said.

I'm a rabid, radical capitalist. Check.

Facebook author doesn't care how she gets her Socialized Health care. Check.

"The people" don't care about mechanical differences. Check.

[Cephalopod]

We should probably unsign this (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/), where health care was deemed a right by the UN...



Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

[Celephais]

I agree with everything you just said.

I'm a rabid, radical capitalist. Check.

Facebook author doesn't care how she gets her Socialized Health care. Check.

"The people" don't care about mechanical differences. Check.
So it sounds like you used an issue you knew she cared about to argue an issue she doesn't care about.

[Khariz]

We should probably unsign this (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/), where health care was deemed a right by the UN...

It doesn't matter what the U.N. defines as a right. U.N. documents don't give additional Constitutional authority to our federal government.

You might note that although treaties and laws are on a level playing field, Treaties/Laws and the Constitution are not.

[Khariz]

So it sounds like you used an issue you knew she cared about to argue an issue she doesn't care about.

Well, not really. She wasn't changing her status merely as a benevolent cry for health care rights. You are free to think that she was, but I'm well aware of her agenda from the hundreds of other discussions we have had.

What I actually did was use the mechanical blockade to resolving the issue the way that I know she wants to, merely to push her buttons.

[Daniel]

Half of the legislation from 1900 to Present violates the Constitution as written. When you go through Law School and study the Constitution, you learn just how much of what Congress and the Supreme Court has come up with is pure BS.



Which is of course, your opinion.

[Khariz]

Which is of course, your opinion.

Not exactly. Just because a Judge doesn't WANT to interpret the Constitution the way the people who wrote the document indicated that they Intended it, doesn't mean the judge is correct.

I'll take me being on the Authors' side over what some douchebag over 100 years later thinks it means.

[BriarFox]

What I actually did was use the mechanical blockade to resolving the issue the way that I know she wants to, merely to push her buttons.

As Celephais has pointed out, though, the "mechanical blockade" is really only a technicality. Heck, you've already agreed with that. If people decide that health care is a right, then having an Amendment proposed, passed, and ratified is just a formality. So, it sounds now like you were just being a bit of a jerk to see what she'd do.

[Khariz]

As Celephais has pointed out, though, the "mechanical blockade" is really only a technicality. Heck, you've already agreed with that. If people decide that health care is a right, then having an Amendment proposed, passed, and ratified is just a formality. So, it sounds now like you were just being a bit of a jerk to see what she'd do.

Sounds about right.

As long as you note that the formality technically isn't optional. We can't set aside the Constitution and the way that the Constitution says it has to be amended just because we want to or for some grand altruistic reason.

There is a reason why the mechanics are in place (which the founders explain in the other documents they wrote at the time they were drafting the Constitution). Historically, societies have done many things under the guise that something was being done for "the people" when a majority of the people wanted no such thing done for them.

I suspect that if we took the steps to try to add Health care into the enumerated rights of the Constitution via a constitutional amendment, that not even 1/3 of the states would ratify it.

[radamanthys]

Now, when one says it's a 'right' does that mean that it must be provided, or that the government can't stand in the way of you getting it? (i.e. preventing a certain ethnic group from using hospital facilities).

[Khariz]

Now, when one says it's a 'right' does that mean that it must be provided, or that the government can't stand in the way of you getting it? (i.e. preventing a certain ethnic group from using hospital facilities).

Good point. I'd argue that the government can use the commerce power, the civil rights act, slavery amendment, etc to regulate your parenthetical without need for a grant of any additional constitutional power.

[Daniel]

Not exactly. Just because a Judge doesn't WANT to interpret the Constitution the way the people who wrote the document indicated that they Intended it, doesn't mean the judge is correct.

I'll take me being on the Authors' side over what some douchebag over 100 years later thinks it means.

Once again. Opinion.

You have no idea what the framers intended in regards to the interpretation and evolution of the document.

I for one would doubt they would advocate your position. That's just me though, and that of most of the people in this country, which according to the principles on which this country was founded, is good enough for me.

[TheEschaton]

Thank God, I haven't had a good original intent argument in years.

Now, Khariz, let me debunk you immediately: you believe that the Constitution, as it was written, as intended by the signatories, as indicated by their other writings and feelings on the subject, should be paramount.

Tell me, do you think those old, white men were perfect? Were they incapable of making mistake? Would they have, say, written a piece about certain people being only worth 3/5ths of other people, if they were perfect?

Alas, alack, you cry! This is why such a process exists to amend said Constitution, you decry! They knew they were not perfect, and thus included a process through which we COULD CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION!

But, logically, it then follows, that they could be mistaken about the flexibility and ease through which the Constiution can be changed. You and I both know the political impossibility of changing the Constitution. You and I both know, LOOKING AT THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE FOUNDERS, that they certainly meant it to be more flexibly amended than it currently is.

In essence, an original intent argument merely argues that there must be interpretation of the Constitution, otherwise it fails to serve the purpose delineated by those original founders.

A word on international law: Most countries in the world believe in national sovereignty. Only the United States is so rash to say that the world's consensus on rights, of which we are a signatory to, applies to everyone but ourselves. That goes beyond believing in the sovereignty of one's country, and instead places one's own country as godhead above all others, infallible and incapable of doing wrong.

As Latrin mentioned earlier, rights are not rights because they're written somewhere. They exist time immortal, and, at times, have been grasped at by our merely mortal hands.

Of course, if you want to get into a debate about why legal positivism is also a steaming crock of shit, feel free.

Or capitalism. They're all pet subjects of mine.

I R WENT TO LAW SKOOLZ 2! I R EVEN GRADUATED WIT J.D.!

-TheE-

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I think everyone should have the ability to receive good healthcare. I don't agree with a free anything, nor mandated government programs. I think our healthcare system in the US is fucked up, but only because of insurance companies and gold digging fucks. I personally believe a doctor should be immune from litigation for malpractice (and the hospital, nurses, etc) unless intentional neglect could be proved (by this I imagine operating under impairment, without a license, experimenting, etc). I've never met a doctor who didn't want to help me. They are human and make mistakes, stop having every consultation include 3 lawyers and let them be doctors.

I also don't care the cause or the need for it - be it you eat yourself to 600 lbs and your heart is failing, you should still have the opportunity to get good healthcare. Just because you made decisions detrimental to your health doesn' t mean you shouldn't be able to get help. I feel the same way about imigrants and the poor. The determining criteria for healthcare shouldn't be about how thick your wallet is, but by the fact you are a human being.

Healthcare should be affordable, and frankly it's a sad state if you cannot get it in the richest and most affluent country in the world. Education should also be up there with an entitlement (and I fucking hate entitlements). Abuse of our systems should be handled, I don't know how, but there will be people who abuse it.

I didn't say free, btw. I said affordable. Pay taxes. I think the problems overlap because you'll hear "immigrants are <taking my jobs> <taking my healthcare> <mowing my lawn nicely> <etc>", so open the borders wide open. We'll take everyone.

The only caveate is that you become a citizen of the United States. You pay taxes, you contribute to our society. If you don't contribute, we as passionate human beings won't let you just die, but your options are fewer. You can get healthcare, but you may be enrolled in community service program to help repay for the benefit you got. Yes, some people will abuse it, but isn't that better than letting someone who legitimately needs help suffer? Anyway, I know it's complex, I know it's not easily solved. But I believe, and I'm no liberal, everyone should be able to get certain basic things in our society. Healthcare and education are pretty basic to me.

The fix to our healthcare system, IMO, doesn't lie in taxing those who make more money, more. The fix is that our healthcare system has been brutalized by frivolous lawsuits and corrupt insurance businesses, and the few have ruined it for the many. Figure out how to fix that, and I honestly believe healthcare costs would go WAY down, and so would the urgency of this issue.

[TheEschaton]

Now, I have friends coming in for the weekend in 20 minutes, so all responses should be put in a PM so I can address them point by agonizing point.

Don't worry, I learned the anally overanalytical thing from the pointlessness which was law school. Us liberals laugh at Con Law too, yanno, especially when people are like "OH MAN SEPARATE BUT EQUAL IS WHAT THE FOUNDERS WANTED TO KEEP THESE NIGGERS IN PLACE."

[Khariz]

Once again. Opinion.

You have no idea what the framers intended in regards to the interpretation and evolution of the document.

I for one would doubt they would advocate your position. That's just me though, and that of most of the people in this country, which according to the principles on which this country was founded, is good enough for me.

Daniel, it honestly amazes me that someone who has given an oath to preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States hasn't taken the time to read and understand the supplemental documents that the framers drafted at the time they drafted the Constitution itself. I'm not making fun of you, and this is not an ad hominem attack. I'm serious, and honestly disappointed in you. I'm sure you care.

As with any drafted law, when you need to know how to interpret it, you look to the "legislative intent" of the law. Every Congressional piece of legislature has oodles of Senatorial and Representative blathering that can be read in the Congressional Record. When arguing a case in court, congressional intent is used to make the Court understand WHY a law was drafted with particular language, and WHAT the drafters meant by the words that they chose.

The "legislative intent" of the Constitution is found in the collections of documents that we know as The Federalist Papers, the works of the Anti-Federalists, the Articles of Confederation, etc. By reading and understanding these documents one can come to an understanding of why the Constitution was written particularly the way it was, and what the founders were trying to avoid.

By pretending they meant to allow the document to be a living, breathing document that changes with time without having to systematically amend it when it needs changing is to undo everything they were trying to accomplish. There's no intellectually honest way to claim otherwise. The mechanic is in the documents for the reasons they said it was: to prevent dictatorial tyranny from a king-like centralized government. They wanted the federal government to have the bare minimum amount of power necessary for it to function and to protect us from attack.

You can tell me I'm wrong all day long, but what you are essentially saying is that "The Founders didn't know what they were doing when they wrote the Constitution and explained why they configured it the way the did."

I suppose it's fine for you to have that opinion. Don't try to pretend it was theirs though. My opinion comports with the "legislative intent". Yours doesn't.

[Latrinsorm]

I'll take me being on the Authors' side over what some douchebag over 100 years later thinks it means.You see the irony here, right?

[Madcap]

I realize we already have countless threads on this, but I want to talk about it some more. The following is an exchange that I have been having with someone on Facebook. I think this will get the ball rolling on the particular issue discussed.

For ease of Reading, I will put the other person's posts in Quote blocks and my responses in italics below each block. It all started with this status update:



No one does die because they can't afford health care unless they lack the ability to comprehend that hospitals must treat them, regardless of their ability to pay.

And what do you mean no one should go broke because they get sick? How far does that line of thinking go? No one should go broke because their house burns down (and they couldn't afford home insurance)? No one should go broke because their husband died (because they can't afford life insurance)? No one should go broke because they got in a car accident (and couldn't afford anything more than liability insurance)?

I'm being serious here. Why am *I* obligated to pay the costs of someone else's misfortune? If I didn't get an education, get a job, pay for insurance, etc. and I needed to have 100k in medical bills, I would expect to have to file for bankruptcy to solve my dilemma. That mechanism is already in place. I shouldn't be able to FORCE my fellow man to pay for me if they don't want to.



It's not about selfishness. We've never been a selfish nation when it comes to helping others, but we want to do it VOLUNTARILY. I give to my church, to charities, etc, but I do so because I WANT to.

The second you MAKE me pay for my fellow man, I no longer want to do it, on principal alone. If I have a buddy that's having a hard time paying his medical bills, I'll do everything I can to help him out from helping to pay the bills myself, to running a charity drive for the guy. But every SINGLE cent I obtain for him is going to be a voluntary donation on the part of those giving. I'm not going to MAKE people help him out.

Regardless of what people thing, Health Care is an industry just like every other. The people who work in that industry will charge for the service based on supply and demand, market toleration of price, etc. Insurance (like HMOs, and PPOs) are basically collective bargaining for price reduction. If you don't have one, you pay the full market value. Tough cookies.



None of the instances I cited had anything to do with personal choice. All were random catastrophic events that can unfortunately occur to people that can result in serious adverse financial circumstances.

Why do you think health care is different than other industries. Why is your access to health care products and services a "right", but your access to a car is not?

There's nothing that entitles you to health care, just as you aren't entitled to a house. If you disagree, please cite what entitles you to health care without paying the market value of the goods and services, with specificity.

Serious question: If someone can't afford a car, because cars are too expensive, should taxpayers pitch in so that the person can receive a car at a reduced price? How about a house?



Unfortunately the guy that made the cartoon has no clue what he's talking about.

The only service that he mentioned that is in fact nationalized is the Postal Service, and the reason that is so, is because the U.S. Constitution provides for the creation of and administration of the Postal Service.

All of the other services are administered on a State/Local level, in comport with the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which reserves all power not delegated to the Federal government to the respective State Governments.

All of the other "socialized services" that the cartoon maker indicates are valid exercises of State police powers that would be Invalid under the U.S. Constitution, should the Federal government attempt to do the same. Health Care is one such service, the power of which is still reserved to the States until such time as we amend the U.S. Constitution to say otherwise.



I'm glad to see that you think it SHOULD be a right, instead of claiming that it is.

When we amend the U.S. Constitution to make Health Care a right, I will start paying for the kid with the disease. Until then, the kids parents can either find a way to afford insurance (a collective bargaining plan), or they can bargain with the health care providers themselves.

That is possible, by the way. The cost of an uninsured person to have a CT scan might be 3500 bucks, but it's actually possible to say, "Well, I have 1700, what can we do about that", and it's amazing how many times you can work out a sharp reduction in cost just by asking. In this respect health care IS like cars. I'm not going to pay 22k for that car just because the sticker has that price on it.

It is interesting that these days everyone seems to think that the sticker price is the price that must be paid. Not so. Negotiation and bartering can still go a long way. Even with health care.


I usually don't get involved in political threads, but in response to your 'why should you have to pay for others peoples misfortunes' .. you are right, you shouldnt HAVE to.. but as human beings, we should WANT to help. What's it cost you, honestly, if you broke down how much of the TAX WE HAVE TO PAY REGARDLESS OF WHAT IT GOES TOWARDS, how much of it do you think goes towards free healthcare or reduced cost healthcare for the lower class?

I mean come on you are bitching about maybe 50 cents a week... seriously.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Why should reduced cost healthcare only be available to the lower class? Fix the fucking healthcare system so it's not expensive for anyone.

[Khariz]

Now, Khariz, let me debunk you immediately: you believe that the Constitution, as it was written, as intended by the signatories, as indicated by their other writings and feelings on the subject, should be paramount.

Tell me, do you think those old, white men were perfect? Were they incapable of making mistake? Would they have, say, written a piece about certain people being only worth 3/5ths of other people, if they were perfect?

Alas, alack, you cry! This is why such a process exists to amend said Constitution, you decry! They knew they were not perfect, and thus included a process through which we COULD CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION!

But, logically, it then follows, that they could be mistaken about the flexibility and ease through which the Constiution can be changed. You and I both know the political impossibility of changing the Constitution. You and I both know, LOOKING AT THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE FOUNDERS, that they certainly meant it to be more flexibly amended than it currently is.



No, sir, I do not know that bold part to be true. I know that they crafted a document with appropriately difficult flexibility so that most of the many States have to be in agreement on something before it can be changed.

I'll solve the dilemma you provide here. If we want the Constitution to be so flexible as to be able to be changed without the horrible, draconian (sarcasm) method of amendments being used...guess what we can do?

We can use the amendment process to create one last amendment to allow further changes to the Constitution to be made without further amendment. Tada! Problem Solved.

Or not...because the States would never ratify that amendment, just as they would never ratify a Healthcare amendment. When you find the answer to why such amendments would never be ratified, you will see the forest instead of the trees.

[Madcap]

Why should reduced cost healthcare only be available to the lower class? Fix the fucking healthcare system so it's not expensive for anyone.

I agree, 100 percent.

[Khariz]

I agree, 100 percent.

Yep, smack that capitalist system down! Prices shouldn't be determined by the market. Prices shouldn't be determined by supply, demand, what people are willing to pay, or any of that other nonsense!

Take control of the industry and control the god damn price so that everyone can have cheap health care!

YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN!

[Daniel]

Daniel, it honestly amazes me that someone who has given an oath to preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States hasn't taken the time to read and understand the supplemental documents that the framers drafted at the time they drafted the Constitution itself. I'm not making fun of you, and this is not an ad hominem attack. I'm serious, and honestly disappointed in you. I'm sure you care.


First correct thing you've posted all day.



As with any drafted law, when you need to know how to interpret it, you look to the "legislative intent" of the law. Every Congressional piece of legislature has oodles of Senatorial and Representative blathering that can be read in the Congressional Record. When arguing a case in court, congressional intent is used to make the Court understand WHY a law was drafted with particular language, and WHAT the drafters meant by the words that they chose.

The "legislative intent" of the Constitution is found in the collections of documents that we know as The Federalist Papers, the works of the Anti-Federalists, the Articles of Confederation, etc. By reading and understanding these documents one can come to an understanding of why the Constitution was written particularly the way it was, and what the founders were trying to avoid.

By pretending they meant to allow the document to be a living, breathing document that changes with time without having to systematically amend it when it needs changing is to undo everything they were trying to accomplish. There's no intellectually honest way to claim otherwise. The mechanic is in the documents for the reasons they said it was: to prevent dictatorial tyranny from a king-like centralized government. They wanted the federal government to have the bare minimum amount of power necessary for it to function and to protect us from attack.

You can tell me I'm wrong all day long, but what you are essentially saying is that "The Founders didn't know what they were doing when they wrote the Constitution and explained why they configured it the way the did."

I suppose it's fine for you to have that opinion. Don't try to pretend it was theirs though. My opinion comports with the "legislative intent". Yours doesn't.

1. You really think the constitution and the founding of this country wasn't the result of "politics"? I submit to you the 3\5th clause.

As you admit, the document was intended to protect against a king like centralized government. Considering that's not really an issue today I'd find it hard to believe that any reasonable and rationale human being would not revise their arguments in light of that.

That's just me.

[Daniel]

Or not...because the States would never ratify that amendment, just as they would never ratify a Healthcare amendment. When you find the answer to why such amendments would never be ratified, you will see the forest instead of the trees.

Let me throw something out there to address the question behind your hypothetical: Because they don't fucking have to.

[Khariz]

1. You really think the constitution and the founding of this country wasn't the result of "politics"? I submit to you the 3\5th clause.

As you admit, the document was intended to protect against a king like centralized government. Considering that's not really an issue today I'd find it hard to believe that any reasonable and rationale human being would not revise their arguments in light of that.

That's just me.

Here's what I submit to you:

How was the 3/5 clause changed? Exactly.

And about the King stuff: You don't think a centralized, federal government exercising power that isn't granted to it isn't functioning like a dictatorial monarch? Really?

[Khariz]

Let me throw something out there to address the question behind your hypothetical: Because they don't fucking have to.

They do unless you can show me where the power of the Federal government to manage my health care is.

[Daniel]

Here's what I submit to you:

How was the 3/5 clause changed? Exactly.


Does it matter for the topic at hand? No.



And about the King stuff: You don't think a centralized, federal government exercising power that isn't granted to it isn't functioning like a dictatorial monarch? Really?

Uh. Yea. You really think social security is an example of a dictorial monarch run amok?

[Daniel]

They do unless you can show me where the power of the Federal government to manage my health care is.

Ahh, but providing medical care and managing YOUR medical care are two different things aren't they?

[Madcap]

these are never ending arguments.. might as well just deaden the thread, drink a beer, and enjoy the fact that we live in the greatest country in the world, regardless of what we have to pay and who we have to pay it for.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Yep, smack that capitalist system down! Prices shouldn't be determined by the market. Prices shouldn't be determined by supply, demand, what people are willing to pay, or any of that other nonsense!

Take control of the industry and control the god damn price so that everyone can have cheap health care!

YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN!

Making money regardless of the impact it has on society is what leads to things like blood diamonds, child labor and <insert most bad things here>. I'm all for making a buck, but I'm not going to climb over the dead bodies of the poor to do it. As with all things, extremes are usually bad.

Let me ask you this... if someone creates a pill that cures cancer, but it's terribly expensive. So expensive that you cannot afford it for the person you love most in the world, who has cancer. The cost of the pill was only high because the manufacturer wanted more money. Is that right?

When people pick money over lives I think the answer is pretty easy. It is not right.

[Khariz]

Making money regardless of the impact it has on society is what leads to things like blood diamonds, child labor and <insert most bad things here>. I'm all for making a buck, but I'm not going to climb over the dead bodies of the poor to do it. As with all things, extremes are usually bad.

Let me ask you this... if someone creates a pill that cures cancer, but it's terribly expensive. So expensive that you cannot afford it for the person you love most in the world, who has cancer. The cost of the pill was only high because the manufacturer wanted more money. Is that right?

When people pick money over lives I think the answer is pretty easy. It is not right.

Why do you assume that's why the pill is as expensive as it is? Maybe it's because all the other horrible capitalists destroyed the rain forests, and so only 1/100th of a percent of the earth has the substance necessary for the pill to be manufactured, so supply and demand dictates the price.

To answer your question though: If I developed that cure for cancer and my government wouldn't let me charge what I choose to for me to manufacture and sell it, I won't bring the drug to market, and everyone can kiss my ass. How you like them apples?

[Khariz]

these are never ending arguments.. might as well just deaden the thread, drink a beer, and enjoy the fact that we live in the greatest country in the world, regardless of what we have to pay and who we have to pay it for.

I think I might defer to this. We've already come full circle on the founders three times.

Daniel's already back on the "if we've done it wrong in the past, we should keep doing it wrong" argument. Yes, Daniel, the government exceeding its power is wrong and exercising power the way a dictator would...without the consent of its people (and the consent comes from using the political mechanics in place in such country, instead of doing whatever the government wants to without using the mechanics).

[Tolwynn]

Let me ask you this... if someone creates a pill that cures cancer, but it's terribly expensive. So expensive that you cannot afford it for the person you love most in the world, who has cancer. The cost of the pill was only high because the manufacturer wanted more money. Is that right?

When people pick money over lives I think the answer is pretty easy. It is not right.

Just to stir the pot here, but how many starving people could be fed or lives saved with the money you personally spend on luxuries and/or entertainment? It's a choice we all make in effect, though few ever like to consider that.

[Khariz]

Just to stir the pot here, but how many starving people could be fed or lives saved with the money you personally spend on luxuries and/or entertainment? It's a choice we all make in effect, though few ever like to consider that.

But didn't you know...the bourgeoisie always oppress the proletariat! Even when the proletariat become the bourgeoisie!

I totally think we should fix societal problems that 15% (or much, much, much, less if you don't use BS inflated numbers) of people have at the expense of the other 85%!

YES WE CAN!

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

To answer your question though: If I developed that cure for cancer and my government wouldn't let me charge what I choose to for me to manufacture and sell it, I won't bring the drug to market, and everyone can kiss my ass. How you like them apples?

And your answer is fine, it's defines the type of person you are. I'm a firm supporter of capitalism, but on healthcare and education I waver. On these things I care more for my fellow man than I do myself.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Just to stir the pot here, but how many starving people could be fed or lives saved with the money you personally spend on luxuries and/or entertainment? It's a choice we all make in effect, though few ever like to consider that.

I don't know, but if you believe Sally Struthers, a LOT. I donate food, money, and clothes to charities all year round though (usually 5-6k worth) so I have no guilt when I enjoy a thick juicy steak or a night out. I work hard for my money, I deserve it.

I still think healthcare should be inexpensive and good.

[Khariz]

And your answer is fine, it's defines the type of person you are. I'm a firm supporter of capitalism, but on healthcare and education I waver. On these things I care more for my fellow man than I do myself.

And I have no problem with that at all! I just ask that people decide to make laws that effect me, that they use the correct process.

I really don't think that's asking too much.

Again: If either my State passed a socialized health care bill, or if the United States Government is Constitutionally authorized or otherwise legitimately empowered to pass such a law, then I will, as a law abiding citizen, foot the bill that is provided to me.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I've at no point said I support socialized health care.

[Khariz]

I've at no point said I support socialized health care.

I guess I did imply that, eh? Sorry.

I just wanted to separately make clear that anyone's agenda is fine by me as long as when they bind me, they do so properly.

[Celephais]

Excuse me, sir, but would you please fill out Ass Requisition form T-17 before raping me in the shower?

[Khariz]

Excuse me, sir, but would you please fill out Ass Requisition form T-17 before raping me in the shower?

Pretty Much :yes:

Except my point is...if we did it the right way, it'll never happen because the actual majority of the country (which is satisfied with its health insurance) does NOT want this. A vocal minority and a political class full of benevolent socialists wants to do this "for the people" even when the "people" don't want it.

An attempt to ratify a constitutional amendement giving the government control of our health care system would fail.

Hell even a pure majority vote on the passage of H.R. 3200 would fail miserably.

Yet, the people need this, so let us ram it through, even though it will result in 85% of people receiving worse/less healthcare and less than 15% of the legitimate population having any kind of increase in care whatsoever.

Of the supposed 15% of people who don't have insurance, if you subtract the illegal aliens (don't pretend there are none in this pool), the people who choose not to have health care on purpose, and the people who are eligible for medicaid/medicare but don't know how to get in on the system, you are left with almost nobody. And those almost nobody people who are left over can walk into any emergency room in the country and get health care (which they don't have to pay for because they don't have money, houses, cars, or even identification have the time anyway).

For the "people" to solve a problem, there has to be a problem to solve. The only problem pretty much everyone is interested in solving is the rising COST of health care (not the availability of it or health insurance). This can be done in many other ways including tort reform, tax deductions, and lifting restrictions on buying out of state health insurance. Aggregate those three solutions and you've more than halved the cost of health care already.

[Back]

IF someone steals your car the police try and find it. No bill.

If your house is on fire the fire department will put it out. No bill.

If you are struck by a bus the ambulance comes and you get one hell of a bill.

I believe health care should be a public service.

[Celephais]

If you are struck by a bus the ambulance comes and you get one hell of a fucking payday! JACKPOT!
Fixed.

[daisey]

"Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane." ~Martin Luther King, Jr

[Khariz]

"Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane." ~Martin Luther King, Jr

Yep, it sure does suck ass that everyone in this country has access to health care at any time, regardless of their ability to pay.

Oh, the humanity of it all!

[Daniel]

I think I might defer to this. We've already come full circle on the founders three times.

Daniel's already back on the "if we've done it wrong in the past, we should keep doing it wrong" argument. Yes, Daniel, the government exceeding its power is wrong and exercising power the way a dictator would...without the consent of its people (and the consent comes from using the political mechanics in place in such country, instead of doing whatever the government wants to without using the mechanics).

You're once again shifting your argument.

You yourself said that you weren't arguing about the higher level "right" but rather the ability of the Federal Government to administer said right.
You even went as far to say that you would be fine with it if the "states" did it.

So, if you once again want to take the argument back to whether or not it's "right" or "wrong" in the ethical sense, you're going to have to go back and retract the rest of the bullshit you've spewed over the place.

As is, you are purposefully conflating two entirely separate issues and are assuming that the people here have the inability to see through it.

I won't even get into the completely fallacious assertion that anything that has been done, like social security, has been *against* the will of the people.

[Mabus]

You've provided your narrow opinion on what you believe to be their illegitimacy, but their very existence negates the entire basis of your argument.
By that logic torture is now legal, as it has happened.

Is that your opinion, Daniel?

[Daniel]

By that logic torture is now legal, as it has happened.

Is that your opinion, Daniel?

That's a good question Mabus.

As it were, Torture was argued to be legal under the last administration. That is something that I, personally, feel to be wrong. I would, and have argued against that policy and would welcome it being changed. That doesn't mean I would be naive enough to believe that no one, ever, could come into power and make the same argument that was made previously or that my beliefs were nothing more than a personal opinion.

I get it, Khariz doesn't believe the federal government has the authority to provide healthcare (or any other social service). The problem is that he states his opinion, as a fact and somehow thinks that people are going to accept his arguments by virtue of the fact that he is making them. Too bad many many people disagree with him, including almost every presidential administration and supreme court in the last 100+ years. Nevermind that his statement of fact conveniently supports his own personal political beliefs.

[Methais]

Health care isn't a right.

It's a left!

(BA-DUM...TSSSS!)

http://www.tomatocasual.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/rotten.jpg

[Warriorbird]

I'm not going to seriously respond to a one liner three minutes after I posted a lengthy post.

You one liner has nothing to do with the fact that the Federal government does not have the Constitutional authority to administer health care as if it were a "right" under the U.S. Constitution. Come back when you want to talk about that.

Edit: The individual State governments do, by the way.

You could say it doesn't even have the authority to create Federal crimes. That isn't going to stop it from happening or a justification that will really get you much of anywhere in Federal court.

...and there's a really simple rebuttal... but it's almost too 1L Con Law to even make.

[Khariz]

You could say it doesn't even have the authority to create Federal crimes. That isn't going to stop it from happening or a justification that will really get you much of anywhere in Federal court.

...and there's a really simple rebuttal... but it's almost too 1L Con Law to even make.

I've already explained all the stuff many pages later. I'm done with those "page one" discussions. I explained federal laws and federal law enforcement and their legitimacy.

Daniel, just because the Federal Government exercises authority on matter and nobody does anything about doesn't mean they do, in fact, have the Constitutional authority to do said action.

I understand your point though, I truly do. And I do believe in the rule of law and the legitimacy of precedent. That's why, regardless of any personal beliefs or plain meaning readings of the writings of the drafters of the Constitution, I accept such things as a woman's right to an abortion (as a matter of law).

If you think that the Federal government's right to enact new social(ized) programs is equally as settled under Supreme Court precedent, and you are correct, then perhaps I am 100% wrong. I just don't happen to see the matter as being so settled...and I've read the applicable law myself, so I think my opinion is at least a valid one.

Until we either amend the Constitution to allow the Federal government to enact new social programs that encompass areas that are not included among the Enumerated Powers OR until the Supreme Court Explicitly interprets the Constitution allowing the same (like they did with Privacy Rights using the emanations and penumbras argument), I at least have a valid argument.

I hereby acknowledge that it is possible that you are entirely correct.

[Warriorbird]

I'm not Daniel.

General welfare.

[Stanley Burrell]

You shouldn't have to end up in the emergency room in order to get treatment.

Boost the fuck out of Tort reform and make the medical doctor franchise an easier career.

Blacklist and make examples out of people who would abuse their stubbed toe for a vial of narcotics.

Sieg heil Motherland.

[Khariz]

I'm not Daniel.

General welfare.

I was talking to Daniel, not you, after my first sentence.

The Federal Government does not have General Welfare powers.

Edit: Only States have police powers. The Fed can only enact laws that further other enumerated powers under the necessary and proper clause.

[Warriorbird]

And y'know? I see your point. Jurisprudentially and practically it doesn't work that way, however. This Federalist Society ideal isn't reality.

[Khariz]

And y'know? I see your point. Jurisprudentially and practically it doesn't work that way, however. This Federalist Society ideal isn't reality.

I agree, unfortunately. Especially after 100 years of rather liberal (meant as a label, not a pejorative) judicial interpretation. That's why I admit that Daniel may very well be right, haha.

[Ker_Thwap]

My friend, who is currently battling colon cancer, posted this same blurb on facebook. She's a wonderful person. Very nice to everyone, fairly creative, and has a great sense of humor.

However, she doesn't have much of a work ethic, when she was working she'd laugh about using sick days to take the bus to the casino. She spent and still spends her free time playing WOW. She's living rent free with her in-laws, but has a PS3, the latest digital camera and other toys that she "needed."

She panicked about her finances when she got cancer of course. She had no savings, she had no sick leave. She complained bitterly that the medical providers wanted to be paid 10% in advance for their services.

Even after getting cancer and treatment, her diet consists nearly entirely of fast food, mac and cheese and other junk food. She's made no attempt to lose weight or exercise. These are huge factors for colon cancer.

As a friend, I spent about a week learning everything I possibly could about colon cancer, I sent her information, prepared letters for her to send to various care providers, etc. etc.

Her odds of surviving are not good, because she'd rather be a slacktivist who bitches about her situation than to actively take charge of her life. She won't even spend her own money on her care, I certainly don't think she has a right to the limited resources I have to care for my own family.

[Warriorbird]

I think those who would be most served would be those with chronic conditions who can't keep up with the constant and rising costs. I think the societal cost of the number of uninsured people who don't receive care is a lot higher than your complaints about paying for them. People want to opt out of a lot of things (paying for education when they have no children in school, paying for the military when they disapprove of wars) but neglect to realize that if everybody opted out of things we wouldn't have the wonderful country we have today.

Remote area medical units shouldn't be so successful in major American cities. We're not Bangladesh.

[Killer Kitten]

The only government branch that is remotely efficient is the one that only serves the government, the IRS. Their job is to take money from the taxpayers to support the government. They perform no services for the American people.

Everything else that is government-run is inefficient, indifferent and overpriced. Not to mention generally riddled with corruption.

I have private insurance and Medicare. I am SO grateful for the private insurance because Medicare covers NOTHING. When I was awarded Medicare I thought great now I can quit spending so much for insurance. Then I read the information packet and realized I'd be insane to opt out of private insurance.

I can't see government-run health care as anything but a disaster.

[Lord Orbstar]

With only reading the first post and none other:

it is not a right. It is earned and paid for. There will always be cases where assistance is the correct and moral thing for a society to provide, but that is the exception and not the norm.

[Gan]

The only government branch that is remotely efficient is the one that only serves the government, the IRS. Their job is to take money from the taxpayers to support the government. They perform no services for the American people.

Everything else that is government-run is inefficient, indifferent and overpriced. Not to mention generally riddled with corruption.

I have private insurance and Medicare. I am SO grateful for the private insurance because Medicare covers NOTHING. When I was awarded Medicare I thought great now I can quit spending so much for insurance. Then I read the information packet and realized I'd be insane to opt out of private insurance.

I can't see government-run health care as anything but a disaster.

Not that Medicare is any example of how the US Government can manage a healthcare organization or anything...

Here's a thought, instead of wasting all this money, effort, time, and attention on something new; Why not fix Medicare so that it actually performs what a public healthcare option would be?

That would be efficient and like killing two birds with one stone!

[Parkbandit]

Not that Medicare is any example of how the US Government can manage a healthcare organization or anything...

Here's a thought, instead of wasting all this money, effort, time, and attention on something new; Why not fix Medicare so that it actually performs what a public healthcare option would be?

That would be efficient and like killing two birds with one stone!

Because you obviously don't understand what the motives are behind healthcare "reform". It has very little to do with health or care and everything about creating bigger government and more power.

[Warriorbird]

You sound about as convincing as people do when they suggest that people actively go out to create pollution. People may chase power but the idea that somebody's in the corner chanting, "Must have big government!" is laughable.

[Tsa`ah]

Not that Medicare is any example of how the US Government can manage a healthcare organization or anything...

Here's a thought, instead of wasting all this money, effort, time, and attention on something new; Why not fix Medicare so that it actually performs what a public healthcare option would be?

That would be efficient and like killing two birds with one stone!

I think had the thrust been to eliminate or combine medicade with medicare, and then just expand the option to everyone, things would have gone much better.

The largest problem with either program stems from "up charging" and "over charging" what is billed to the government. While we can place blame on the government for these practices, we can't place the whole of that particular burden on the system .... not when you have insurance provider controlled networks that intentionally bilk the system at our expense.

As far as the current state of medicare and those eligible, I hear the entire spectrum. My grandparents never had a problem with it and in the end suggested they could have done without secondary coverage. Yet I've got an uncle and two aunts that currently struggle on the system and have secondary coverage. The system is too much hit or miss ... it needs works.

I do agree that before we start spending more, we need to see what can be cut and where that cash should be redirected ... and there's a great deal that can be cut.

Per the original topic, healthcare is a right ... there's no question.

[Parkbandit]

You sound about as convincing as people do when they suggest that people actively go out to create pollution. People may chase power but the idea that somebody's in the corner chanting, "Must have big government!" is laughable.

Who are you posting this to... because before I respond and make you look even more foolish than normal, I'd rather not get the typical "I wasn't referring to you, I was referring to someone else" routine from you.

Like I've said in the past, if you are replying to a post.. you should go ahead and quote it so there is no question. I realize this doesn't give you a way "out".. but that is the generally accepted decorum on any internet forum.

[Parkbandit]

Per the original topic, healthcare is a right ... there's no question.

That is your opinion.

If you believe that healthcare is a right.. then you probably also agree that the following are rights of every citizen:

* Having food is a right.
* Having shelter is a right.
* Having a job is a right.
* Having transportation is a right.
* Having electricity is a right.
* Having running water / sewer is a right.
* Having access to a television / radio is a right.
* Having access to the internet is a right.

[Tsa`ah]

That is your opinion.

If you believe that healthcare is a right.. then you probably also agree that the following are rights of every citizen:

* Having food is a right.

Yes


* Having shelter is a right.

Yes


* Having a job is a right.

No


* Having transportation is a right.

No


* Having electricity is a right.

To an extent


* Having running water / sewer is a right.

Yes


* Having access to a television / radio is a right.

No


* Having access to the internet is a right.

And ... no.

You make some awefully large stretches in an effort to skew.

[Parkbandit]

There was no effort to skew anything Tsa'ah... simply wanted you to articulate what you believe is a right of every citizen.

So.. you believe that healthcare, food, shelter, basic utilities are a right of every citizen.. and do not believe that having transportation, employment, tv/radio and internet are not.

I think you have necessities and rights confused, but that's clearly your opinion.

[CrystalTears]

I don't see how anything is a "right" in this country. I thought the whole point of coming to this country was to make something of yourself when you arrive with nothing.

If anything, I'd rather there be a right to a job to help pay for that roof or that hunk of meat than the other way around.

[Tsa`ah]

I don't see how anything is a "right" in this country. I thought the whole point of coming to this country was to make something of yourself when you arrive with nothing.

If anything, I'd rather there be a right to a job to help pay for that roof or that hunk of meat than the other way around.

Yet not everyone "arrives" with nothing, but that's another topic.

A right does not indicate absolution of responsibility.

[CrystalTears]

Yet not everyone "arrives" with nothing, but that's another topic.

A right does not indicate absolution of responsibility.

For the most part they do. Most people don't show up to this country with a paying job and a house to live in. If they do, those aren't the welfare people I'm referring to seeing as how we're discussing the less fortunate.

When something is handed to you (general you), such as a check or a house, how much effort is made to make sure you work to sustain yourself? Serious question.

Other than asking "did you try and find work today" before handing someone their welfare/unemployment check, what else can be done to help people get on their own feet?

I'm seriously asking as I've never been on welfare and haven't been unemployed for more than a couple of months to know if anyone helps you.

[Tsa`ah]

For the most part they do. Most people don't show up to this country with a paying job and a house to live in. If they do, those aren't the welfare people I'm referring to seeing as how we're discussing the less fortunate.

Again, we're not talking about "arriving" with nothing for the majority. You're suggesting immigrants ... I'm talking about citizens.


When something is handed to you (general you), such as a check or a house, how much effort is made to make sure you work to sustain yourself? Serious question.

That depends on what is handed to you and how much that something is worth. You're angling for the welfare mom and illegal or poor immigrant angle and only looking at handouts.

I see no reason to kick someone who's down, nor do I see a need to perpetuate that cycle through children that have no choice.


Other than asking "did you try and find work today" before handing someone their welfare/unemployment check, what else can be done to help people get on their own feet?

I'm seriously asking as I've never been on welfare and haven't been unemployed for more than a couple of months to know if anyone helps you.

I don't believe in a welfare state and I don't believe people should be handed things for nothing. I also don't subscribe to the common stereotypes either. People on welfare do not live in the lap of luxury, they have bills to pay, they have needs to meet ... and a majority of people that utilize welfare remove themselves from the system.

That being said, we can employ people in need of assistance. We can train people in need of assistance ... and we can prepare people on assistance to not need it.

Just because someone is getting an assistance check, food stamps, medicade, and subsidizing doesn't mean they're absolved of responsibility.

I'm not saying the current workfare systems ... because those are largely predatory and abusive. There's no need to shuttle a single mother of three of to another town for less than minimum wage when that same mother can work in her own town or neighborhood at the behest of the local government.

There are far too many opportunities down the road and across the street for many of these people, and though someone is going to laugh in their hands over it, Van Jones was pretty on the spot when he said these people can be the backbone of a renewable energy revolution .... and a good many other jobs to boot.

[radamanthys]

Yet not everyone "arrives" with nothing, but that's another topic.

A right does not indicate absolution of responsibility.

A right does not indicate a necessity for provision of services either. Just because we have the right to free speech doesn't mean that there should be a "free speech enforcement office". Just because there's a right to food doesn't mean that the government should be running factory farms, either.

The government is there to protect our rights, not to provide.

[Tsa`ah]

The government is there to protect our rights, not to provide.

The existence of the military, police force, fire department, highway system, public education, health department and a slew of other examples seems to indicate quite the opposite.

[CrystalTears]

Again, we're not talking about "arriving" with nothing for the majority. You're suggesting immigrants ... I'm talking about citizens.Seeing as how I'm the one who brought up "coming to this country", I meant immigrants.


That depends on what is handed to you and how much that something is worth. You're angling for the welfare mom and illegal or poor immigrant angle and only looking at handouts.

I see no reason to kick someone who's down, nor do I see a need to perpetuate that cycle through children that have no choice.
Granted, I'm all for helping people get BACK on their feet. But for how long? How long do you house someone with nothing? How long do you support their food needs? How long do you provide them health insurance?

[Parkbandit]

The existence of the military, police force, fire department, highway system, public education, health department and a slew of other examples seems to indicate quite the opposite.

Actually, those are all (except maybe public education) excellent examples of government doing their primary job.. protecting us and protecting our rights.

[radamanthys]

The existence of the military, police force, fire department, highway system, public education, health department and a slew of other examples seems to indicate quite the opposite.

And which of those are federal entities, other than the military (who's role in 'protection' is pretty fucking obvious)?

Protection means that the government does not interfere, or allow anyone else (within certain bounds) to interfere with your rights.

Provision means that the government provides a good or service.

Your rights are protected by highway patrolmen. The roads are provided by the government for your use. You're entitled to drive (with a license); you're not entitled to a free car.

Whether we have a 'right' to healthcare is moot. Yes, we have a right to get healthcare. Just because it may be a right does not mean that the government has to provide it for us.

Sorry, everyone, for the rather simple lesson. It was apparent that Tsa'ah didn't understand the difference.

[Daniel]

And which of those are federal entities, other than the military (who's role in 'protection' is pretty fucking obvious)?

Protection means that the government does not interfere, or allow anyone else (within certain bounds) to interfere with your rights.

Provision means that the government provides a good or service.

Your rights are protected by highway patrolmen. The roads are provided by the government for your use. You're entitled to drive (with a license); you're not entitled to a free car.

Whether we have a 'right' to healthcare is moot. Yes, we have a right to get healthcare. Just because it may be a right does not mean that the government has to provide it for us.

Sorry, everyone, for the rather simple lesson. It was apparent that Tsa'ah didn't understand the difference.

Do you really need someone to explain to you how the police forces, fire department and health department "protect" rights?

[Parkbandit]

Do you really need someone to explain to you how the police forces, fire department and health department "protect" rights?

Obviously Tsa'ah did..

[Tsa`ah]

Seeing as how I'm the one who brought up "coming to this country", I meant immigrants.

Considering we're a nation founded upon immigration, if a person wants to come to this country ... it's not likely to be for handouts. That's another stereotype that irks me.

Sure, there will be those who immigrate just for that, but one could hardly call it indicative of the majority. I believe there should be a "grace" period for assimilation ... but if you're not productive, if you're not contributing, and if you're not living up to the responsibility of citizenship well ... then this isn't the place for you.

I'm at odds with that considering we do have a small minority that doesn't live up to that standard and yet they're free to stay simply because this is where the vagina was geographically located when they popped out.


Granted, I'm all for helping people get BACK on their feet. But for how long? How long do you house someone with nothing? How long do you support their food needs? How long do you provide them health insurance?

This is part of the problem with medicare, too many absolutes in a system that isn't conducive to absolutes.

How long do you help a person out ... in a down economy? Boom economy? Did the person have a rug pulled out from underneath of them ... as is all too common today? Or did they tear up their own rug being irresponsible?

The answer depends on the markets within the economy, the person, and what it will take to get them on their feet. You can't hand down the same rule to two completely different people with completely separate circumstances.

Do you set the rule at X amount of aid for Y amount of time and then you're done if said person is 40 and has worked the same industry for 22 years and the industry collapsed and then flew north or south and said person's retirement, home, and savings pretty much went with it? Does that same rule apply to a 22 year old who has worked 4 different jobs since the age of 18 and has really nothing to show for it?

If you're looking for a hard set answer, there isn't any. The answer has to be flexible and adaptable to the person, situation, and economy.

Again, that doesn't mean we simply hand out aid until the person finds something on their own. We have to hold people accountable and responsible. I'm willing to bet that if you were to poll people on assistance that are out of work ... you would find a huge number of people willing to work for their benefits so long as the trade in labor was fair and productive. Especially if that work meant a better opportunity.

[Tsa`ah]

Actually, those are all (except maybe public education) excellent examples of government doing their primary job.. protecting us and protecting our rights.

You left out the "slew of other examples".

I would argue that providing for basic living where needed is also protecting us and our rights.


And which of those are federal entities, other than the military (who's role in 'protection' is pretty fucking obvious)?

I'd have to say the FDA, CDC, USDA ... do you want me to go on?

[quote]Protection means that the government does not interfere, or allow anyone else (within certain bounds) to interfere with your rights.

That is of course an opinion, an opinion I'd question the merit of anyway.


Provision means that the government provides a good or service.

So you're suggesting that the federal government doesn't provide any goods or services? That's not what they do?


Your rights are protected by highway patrolmen. The roads are provided by the government for your use. You're entitled to drive (with a license); you're not entitled to a free car.

No ... I'm sorry no.

State troopers patrolling the highway are for protection and enforcement. You are not entitled to drive, nor are you entitled to a license to do so. No one has suggested that a vehicle is a right ... I fail to see what parallel you're attempting to make.


Whether we have a 'right' to healthcare is moot. Yes, we have a right to get healthcare. Just because it may be a right does not mean that the government has to provide it for us.

Again, this is your opinion ... and again, an opinion in which the merit of is questionable.

People have the right to live healthy lives. Nothing should stand in between people and their health. When something does, it is up to the government to remove said obstacle or provide for the need.


Sorry, everyone, for the rather simple lesson. It was apparent that Tsa'ah didn't understand the difference.

You're not in a position to determine what I do and do not understand. Unemployed clowns with degrees don't rate much higher than illegals in my book.

When your AGI meets the amount I pay in annual taxes ... I may accept a portion your drivel as meritorious.

[CrystalTears]

Considering we're a nation founded upon immigration, if a person wants to come to this country ... it's not likely to be for handouts. That's another stereotype that irks me. I meant quite the opposite, that the whole point of coming here was to make something of yourself when you have nothing to start with. I never mentioned anything about handouts. Why would I be against handouts for citizens but for handouts for immigrants? I don't even want illegal immigrants to have our country's benefits.


I don't see how anything is a "right" in this country. I thought the whole point of coming to this country was to make something of yourself when you arrive with nothing.


Sure, there will be those who immigrate just for that, but one could hardly call it indicative of the majority. I believe there should be a "grace" period for assimilation ... but if you're not productive, if you're not contributing, and if you're not living up to the responsibility of citizenship well ... then this isn't the place for you.
So when you are a citizen, naturalized or born, what do you consider "contributing"? Is that a dollar amount? A certain length of time working? Working at all? Volunteering?


If you're looking for a hard set answer, there isn't any. The answer has to be flexible and adaptable to the person, situation, and economy.And I guess that's where I challenge a national option for the sake of those few who can't afford it for whatever reason. I think it should be by evaluation and not a blanket effort.


Again, that doesn't mean we simply hand out aid until the person finds something on their own. We have to hold people accountable and responsible. I'm willing to bet that if you were to poll people on assistance that are out of work ... you would find a huge number of people willing to work for their benefits so long as the trade in labor was fair and productive. Especially if that work meant a better opportunity.
I'm all for that. There needs to be a serious reform in how public assistance is done. I'd rather reform begin there prior to messing with a healthcare reform that merely needs to be an insurance company reform.

[Tsa`ah]

I meant quite the opposite, that the whole point of coming here was to make something of yourself when you have nothing to start with. I never mentioned anything about handouts. Why would I be against handouts for citizens but for handouts for immigrants? I don't even want illegal immigrants to have our country's benefits.

My misunderstanding then.

Illegals are a completely different tangent, but considering the majority are from our southern border and are more often than not more productive than a good many of our own ... I have a hard time suggesting that they be cut off rather than be given a valid road to travel. Immigration and the enforcement there of is another area in dire need of reform.


So when you are a citizen, naturalized or born, what do you consider "contributing"? Is that a dollar amount? A certain length of time working? Working at all? Volunteering?

If we had a system in place were those receiving aid worked, in some fashion, for the community/city/county/state ... work that was commiserate of the aid they received ... I wouldn't have a problem if a person received said aid for the entirety of their existence. It could be menial municipal work such as cleaning and grounds keeping. It could be cleaning and maintaining public buildings and works ... so long as the work and aid were on an even ratio. I wouldn't want to see what we have now where corporations are given tax credit and we end up paying sub minimum wage. It's our tax dollars and our communities ... that's where the work needs to be done.

I'm not for sending out ag crews on aid to spend 40 hours stooped over in fields, 10 hours in commute for 10-15k a year plus health.


And I guess that's where I challenge a national option for the sake of those few who can't afford it for whatever reason. I think it should be by evaluation and not a blanket effort.

This is where we part philosophically. Those who can't afford it don't do so out of willful neglect.

Let me give you an example, anecdotal and personal, but an example none the less.

I'll spend 5-6k this year on asthma medication alone. I can afford that hit, hell I could afford (if it made sense) to buy into a plan that would cover a portion of that hit though it would cost me more to do so.

The wife and I, years ago, set up our budget to where we were not to expend more than 50k a year ... no matter what we earned beyond that. We had to amend that when my condition resurfaced. Now HAD our joint income been 50k a year, we'd would be bankrupt right now. Flat ass broke.

Our provider won't cover my meds, ER or hospitalizations for anything asthma related when it comes to me. Luckily, not just for income, my wife's position allows for ER and hospitalization through the network.

Last week the opthamologist discovered cataracts in both of my eyes. I thought my vision was just slowly degrading ... but no. Prednisone usage through the years has caused cataracts.

Because of my wife's job, and our income, this isn't a problem for me. On 50k a year and with this letter the insurance company dropped in my box yesterday ... stating that this stems from the treatment of a pre-existing condition ... that they will not cover it ... guess what the wife and I would likely lose next year? Our home.

Nothing is being done about the cost ... nothing. There are token suggestions, but nothing suggested is likely to impact the cost of healthcare. Make it impossible for insurers to drop people because of conditions or not cover them at all ... and still nothing is addressing costs.

If something were suggested or introduced that would magically make the cost drop and remove coverage road blocks ... I could and would get behind it. The reality is that healthcare is about money currently, not healthcare.



I'm all for that. There needs to be a serious reform in how public assistance is done. I'd rather reform begin there prior to messing with a healthcare reform that merely needs to be an insurance company reform.

I'll stand by my prior statement, but I agree that assistance needs reform and in a bad way. Unfortunately all of the aid reform is for nothing if people lose their healthcare and as a result their homes, lively hood, and ultimately security and then just add to the number of people in need of assistance.

It's simple traffic flow. Think of a stretch of highway between two exits. There are multiple accidents on this stretch and now nothing is moving.

You don't start at the rear and work your way forward ... you're just going to invite more accidents. You start at the front and work your way back. Sure, people will be sitting and twiddling ... but they'll do so for a shorter span of time.

[CrystalTears]

Nothing is being done about the cost ... nothing. There are token suggestions, but nothing suggested is likely to impact the cost of healthcare. Make it impossible for insurers to drop people because of conditions or not cover them at all ... and still nothing is addressing costs.This is why I feel that we need to start with health insurance reform from the private companies. Set a profit cap. Allow competition across state lines. Companies need to insure anyone that applies, regardless of pre-conditions. Provide several tiers of insurance that start from very affordable that covers preventative care, to the card blanche of insurance policies that covers everything.

When everyone has insurance, doctors will have no choice but to work with their rates and prices. They won't have the uninsured to raise the cost to make up for the insurance companies stiffing them. They'll know they'll be getting paid so there's little incentive to jack up the prices. That's my hope, anyway. It's a big dream, but not as unfeasible as an insurance option that covers everyone for nearly nothing.


If something were suggested or introduced that would magically make the cost drop and remove coverage road blocks ... I could and would get behind it. The reality is that healthcare is about money currently, not healthcare.

I'll stand by my prior statement, but I agree that assistance needs reform and in a bad way. Unfortunately all of the aid reform is for nothing if people lose their healthcare and as a result their homes, lively hood, and ultimately security and then just add to the number of people in need of assistance.

It's simple traffic flow. Think of a stretch of highway between two exits. There are multiple accidents on this stretch and now nothing is moving.

You don't start at the rear and work your way forward ... you're just going to invite more accidents. You start at the front and work your way back. Sure, people will be sitting and twiddling ... but they'll do so for a shorter span of time. I still feel that if you help people get jobs, help them be productive, even if it IS manual crap labor so long as they were paid decently, the healthcare will just follow suit because they'll be able to afford it. People will be encouraged to get a physical in order to stay fit for work. There's incentives to being a lively, productive part of society, and I feel that the productively and livelihood will just lend the hand to wanting to improve life all around, including health.

As for your personal aspect on healthcare, I'm right there with you and understand. I'd be living in a box and half blind if it weren't for health insurance. Last year I had three surgeries on my right eye alone. Then again, I'm not sure how far I would have gone to have that done so that I could see if it meant that I'd be homeless.

[Stretch]

That is your opinion.

If you believe that healthcare is a right.. then you probably also agree that the following are rights of every citizen:

* Having food is a right.
* Having shelter is a right.
* Having a job is a right.
* Having transportation is a right.
* Having electricity is a right.
* Having running water / sewer is a right.
* Having access to a television / radio is a right.
* Having access to the internet is a right.

lulz. I am pretty sure PB stole that from the National Welfare Rights Union (seriously, it exists).

Here are the eight rights they believe all people deserve:

(1) A Guaranteed Annual Income
All residents of the U.S. will be eligible for a guaranteed annual income to protect them from falling below the poverty level.

(2) Universal Health Care with a Single-Payee
All residents will be eligible for a single-payee health care system funded by the federal government. We oppose private insurance that profits off of the medical conditions of low-income, uninsured people.

(3) Nationalization of Child Care
All children should be eligible for free, quality child care. We also support a living wage for child care providers.

(4) Nationalization of Education, Including the Headstart Program
All residents will be entitled to education from birth to death. The Headstart Program must be preserved, funding must be increased, and eligibility should be expanded.

(5) Nationalization of Utilities
All utilities including electricity, natural gas, heating fuels, water, alternative energy, and communications should be properties of the public domain and not subject to privatization. All forms of communication, such as telephones and Internet access should be included.

(6) Nationalization of Housing
Everyone has a right to a home. It is the duty of the government to provide affordable housing for all residents, and provide periodic maintenance and upgrades. We recommend a permanent moratorium on the demolition of public housing.

(7) Nationalization of Public Mass Transit
All forms of mass, rapid transit should be fully accessible (including to those with physical disabilities,) and affordable to all residents in communities across the country. Routes must include access to major transportation hubs with connecting routes in small and large communities.

(8) Troop Withdrawal from Iraq, Afghanistan, and No New Deployments
The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have depleted the American economy with no end in sight. Poor people have disproportionately suffered from the last eight years of these costly deployments physically, emotionally, and financially.

[Parkbandit]

You left out the "slew of other examples".

I would argue that providing for basic living where needed is also protecting us and our rights.


I didn't leave out anything. You mentioned 5 out of 6 departments that have a direct impact on our rights and our protection.. which is funny, because you were trying to make the direct opposite point.

It's like you tried to bat 1000, and batted 5000 instead.

[Sean of the Thread]

This probably deserves it's own thread but W T F is going on? This off the AP 40 minutes ago. I've been off the tv (well except sports recently) and news wire/papers so I may have missed if this has been touched on and if so excuse me.

Fines proposed for going without health insurance (AP) (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/topstories/*http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090909/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_overhaul)

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/afp/20090909/capt.photo_1252466863559-1-0.jpg?x=130&y=85&q=85&sig=C6dY7.M.aOyGGIKROMJqZg-- (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/topstories/*http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090909/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_overhaul)AP - Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy health insurance under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday as divisions among Democrats undercut President Barack Obama's effort to regain traction on his health care overhaul.




Seriously?

[Parkbandit]

Seriously?

You will do what you are told.. or else.

[radamanthys]

You left out the "slew of other examples".

I would argue that providing for basic living where needed is also protecting us and our rights.


PB answered this appropriately. You just reinforced my point.



I'd have to say the FDA, CDC, USDA ... do you want me to go on?


That's a better example of federal entities. Now which of those are in the business of providing rather than protecting? I'd say you NAILED the entities most responsible for protection. Doesn't do your own case much justice, now, does it?



That is of course an opinion, an opinion I'd question the merit of anyway.


"Of course" my left ass cheek. I was making a basic assertion of the definition of a word. That's why I was trying to explain it in simple terms.

Please feel free to redefine it. Otherwise, saying "NO UR WRONG I KNOW BETTER" just doesn't cut it.



So you're suggesting that the federal government doesn't provide any goods or services? That's not what they do?

Did I say that?



No ... I'm sorry no.

State troopers patrolling the highway are for protection and enforcement. You are not entitled to drive, nor are you entitled to a license to do so. No one has suggested that a vehicle is a right ... I fail to see what parallel you're attempting to make.


Just trying to make the point that "have a right to" <> entitled to. Bad example.



Again, this is your opinion ... and again, an opinion in which the merit of is questionable.

People have the right to live healthy lives. Nothing should stand in between people and their health. When something does, it is up to the government to remove said obstacle or provide for the need.

People have the right to maintain their own healthy lives. Say... you know... Alcohol stands in the way of people and their health. Shall we ban it? It went REALLY well last time.

The government is not an entity I trust to make that decision for me.



You're not in a position to determine what I do and do not understand. Unemployed clowns with degrees don't rate much higher than illegals in my book.

I've read your drivel for long enough to understand your capacity for understanding. You're a zealot with an extremely slight capacity for intellectual disputation.

You are just not that bright of a person. Passionate and able to regurgitate knowledge from other sources, yes. Just not able to form your own opinions outside of party-line pedantry. Shit, I'd be surprised if you even had a degree. Of course, your kind of indoctrination doesn't just happen- it's possible you have one of those useless liberal arts degrees. Like basket-weaving.



When your AGI meets the amount I pay in annual taxes ... I may accept a portion your drivel as meritorious.

John Adams was a farmer. Abraham Lincoln was a small-town lawyer. Plato and Socrates were teachers. Jesus was a carpenter. To equate judgement and wisdom with profession is at best... insulting.

[Tsa`ah]

lulz. I am pretty sure PB stole that from the National Welfare Rights Union (seriously, it exists).

Unfortunately such groups are so counter productive that they ultimately cause the alienation of those they profess advocacy for.


I didn't leave out anything. You mentioned 5 out of 6 departments that have a direct impact on our rights and our protection.. which is funny, because you were trying to make the direct opposite point.

It's like you tried to bat 1000, and batted 5000 instead.

You cherry picked the remark and fashioned it to fit your trolling. If you're incapable of responding to the post ... just don't respond. It's probably better for you if you don't ... the whole axiom of fools and mouths you know.

[Tsa`ah]

PB answered this appropriately. You just reinforced my point.

In what third world country were you educated? First, PB answered something appropriately? And then by debunking your ... what did you call it ... point?? ... I somehow reinforced it?

You're not doing yourself any favors here.


That's a better example of federal entities. Now which of those are in the business of providing rather than protecting? I'd say you NAILED the entities most responsible for protection. Doesn't do your own case much justice, now, does it?

Umm ... protection is a provision. It's a service provided to the general public.

Then again, you're hitting the same stone wall face first that PB is, and then repeating the process. When I say "a slew", this means the list continues and maybe you should attempt to find some of the answers on your own. You claim to be a degree bearing person ... employed or not you need to justify that the ink on the parchment isn't for just staining your ass when you use the document as TP.


"Of course" my left ass cheek. I was making a basic assertion of the definition of a word. That's why I was trying to explain it in simple terms.

Please feel free to redefine it. Otherwise, saying "NO UR WRONG I KNOW BETTER" just doesn't cut it.

When you're responding to someone in an attempt to debate or debunk ... it probably helps to actually make the attempt and not blather on incoherently like an idiot who just found out his thumb will fit snuggly into his rectum.


Did I say that?

To be honest ... it's rather difficult to understand what you're saying because there's just no substance to it. You're jumping all over the place, contradicting yourself and claiming some sort of victory. I understand moral victories are important for people such as yourself ... but lest you want to advertise to the world that your moral victories are below the special olympics bar ... you should probably keep them to yourself.


Just trying to make the point that "have a right to" <> entitled to. Bad example.

Not only a bad example, but a bad leap. No one is suggesting entitlement except for you. A right does not translate into entitlement by any stretch, just as I have said that a right doesn't absolve one of responsibility.


People have the right to maintain their own healthy lives. Say... you know... Alcohol stands in the way of people and their health. Shall we ban it? It went REALLY well last time.

The government is not an entity I trust to make that decision for me.

Where in the hell do you people get these fantastic stretches of delusional logic?

You want to throw out alcohol when I have mentioned responsibility? Seriously, and this is probably going to insult someone else far more than you ... but it's almost (and that's a big stretch on my part) like I'm talking to 2002 Bobmuhthol without the wit. He had an excuse and at the same time was at least more than a little more thought provoking, and coherent, than you.

That statement is just parallel to "death committees" and "socialism" bullshit.


I've read your drivel for long enough to understand your capacity for understanding. You're a zealot with an extremely slight capacity for intellectual disputation.

You are just not that bright of a person. Passionate and able to regurgitate knowledge from other sources, yes. Just not able to form your own opinions outside of party-line pedantry. Shit, I'd be surprised if you even had a degree. Of course, your kind of indoctrination doesn't just happen- it's possible you have one of those useless liberal arts degrees. Like basket-weaving.

And here's the apex of your failure. Not only are you incapable of original thought, but you have to borrow from others in an attempt to insult me.

How long ago did you graduate from college? What are you doing with that degree?

Kid, I worked through college, I was working the day of my graduation. My "useless" liberal arts degree was a LA&S. The only reason the for the liberal arts portion (which covered less than a quarter of the actual curriculum) is on there is due to said curriculum. My degree is a science degree.

I'll also remind my wife that she has a useless liberal arts degree, three of them. When I stand you up to her degree and the work she does ... you're nothing more than a piece of flotsam waste that gets flushed from the system every time there's a cyclical recession.

That aside, I've busted my ass working longer than you have been breathing. I've been paying taxes probably far longer than you have been able to read at any level of competence.

The degree, in the end, is of little consequence ... especially in your case.


John Adams was a farmer. Abraham Lincoln was a small-town lawyer. Plato and Socrates were teachers. Jesus was a carpenter. To equate judgement and wisdom with profession is at best... insulting.

Does the irony of your conflicting statements escape you as you drool yourself into another cranial defecation session?

These people achieved success. Historical success. What have you done? What degree have you attained and what success have you (other than apparently wasting cash) achieved due to it?

[Tsa`ah]

Seriously?

It'll go down in flames.

[radamanthys]

In what third world country were you educated? First, PB answered something appropriately? And then by debunking your ... what did you call it ... point?? ... I somehow reinforced it?

You're not doing yourself any favors here.



Umm ... protection is a provision. It's a service provided to the general public.

Then again, you're hitting the same stone wall face first that PB is, and then repeating the process. When I say "a slew", this means the list continues and maybe you should attempt to find some of the answers on your own. You claim to be a degree bearing person ... employed or not you need to justify that the ink on the parchment isn't for just staining your ass when you use the document as TP.



When you're responding to someone in an attempt to debate or debunk ... it probably helps to actually make the attempt and not blather on incoherently like an idiot who just found out his thumb will fit snuggly into his rectum.



To be honest ... it's rather difficult to understand what you're saying because there's just no substance to it. You're jumping all over the place, contradicting yourself and claiming some sort of victory. I understand moral victories are important for people such as yourself ... but lest you want to advertise to the world that your moral victories are below the special olympics bar ... you should probably keep them to yourself.



Not only a bad example, but a bad leap. No one is suggesting entitlement except for you. A right does not translate into entitlement by any stretch, just as I have said that a right doesn't absolve one of responsibility.



Where in the hell do you people get these fantastic stretches of delusional logic?

You want to throw out alcohol when I have mentioned responsibility? Seriously, and this is probably going to insult someone else far more than you ... but it's almost (and that's a big stretch on my part) like I'm talking to 2002 Bobmuhthol without the wit. He had an excuse and at the same time was at least more than a little more thought provoking, and coherent, than you.

That statement is just parallel to "death committees" and "socialism" bullshit.



And here's the apex of your failure. Not only are you incapable of original thought, but you have to borrow from others in an attempt to insult me.

How long ago did you graduate from college? What are you doing with that degree?

Kid, I worked through college, I was working the day of my graduation. My "useless" liberal arts degree was a LA&S. The only reason the for the liberal arts portion (which covered less than a quarter of the actual curriculum) is on there is due to said curriculum. My degree is a science degree.

I'll also remind my wife that she has a useless liberal arts degree, three of them. When I stand you up to her degree and the work she does ... you're nothing more than a piece of flotsam waste that gets flushed from the system every time there's a cyclical recession.

That aside, I've busted my ass working longer than you have been breathing. I've been paying taxes probably far longer than you have been able to read at any level of competence.

The degree, in the end, is of little consequence ... especially in your case.



Does the irony of your conflicting statements escape you as you drool yourself into another cranial defecation session?

These people achieved success. Historical success. What have you done? What degree have you attained and what success have you (other than apparently wasting cash) achieved due to it?

Looks like I hit a nerve.

I like that.

As to respond to the personal attack: I'm confident in my own utility.

[Tsa`ah]

Looks like I hit a nerve.

I like that.

As to respond to the personal attack: I'm confident in my own utility.

You didn't hit a nerve, I doubt you could do so intentionally ... let alone by blind luck.

Just the same, unemployed shit stain with a degree and not a fucking clue to show for it ... you're a dime a dozen.

[Gan]

This probably deserves it's own thread but W T F is going on? This off the AP 40 minutes ago. I've been off the tv (well except sports recently) and news wire/papers so I may have missed if this has been touched on and if so excuse me.

Fines proposed for going without health insurance (AP) (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/topstories/*http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090909/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_overhaul)

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/afp/20090909/capt.photo_1252466863559-1-0.jpg?x=130&y=85&q=85&sig=C6dY7.M.aOyGGIKROMJqZg-- (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/topstories/*http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090909/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_overhaul)AP - Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy health insurance under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday as divisions among Democrats undercut President Barack Obama's effort to regain traction on his health care overhaul.




Seriously?

Resistance is futile.

[Parkbandit]

lulz. I am pretty sure PB stole that from the National Welfare Rights Union (seriously, it exists).

Here are the eight rights they believe all people deserve:

(1) A Guaranteed Annual Income
All residents of the U.S. will be eligible for a guaranteed annual income to protect them from falling below the poverty level.

(2) Universal Health Care with a Single-Payee
All residents will be eligible for a single-payee health care system funded by the federal government. We oppose private insurance that profits off of the medical conditions of low-income, uninsured people.

(3) Nationalization of Child Care
All children should be eligible for free, quality child care. We also support a living wage for child care providers.

(4) Nationalization of Education, Including the Headstart Program
All residents will be entitled to education from birth to death. The Headstart Program must be preserved, funding must be increased, and eligibility should be expanded.

(5) Nationalization of Utilities
All utilities including electricity, natural gas, heating fuels, water, alternative energy, and communications should be properties of the public domain and not subject to privatization. All forms of communication, such as telephones and Internet access should be included.

(6) Nationalization of Housing
Everyone has a right to a home. It is the duty of the government to provide affordable housing for all residents, and provide periodic maintenance and upgrades. We recommend a permanent moratorium on the demolition of public housing.

(7) Nationalization of Public Mass Transit
All forms of mass, rapid transit should be fully accessible (including to those with physical disabilities,) and affordable to all residents in communities across the country. Routes must include access to major transportation hubs with connecting routes in small and large communities.

(8) Troop Withdrawal from Iraq, Afghanistan, and No New Deployments
The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have depleted the American economy with no end in sight. Poor people have disproportionately suffered from the last eight years of these costly deployments physically, emotionally, and financially.

:rofl:

Actually I just thought of the craziest liberal I know and posted what she thought should be rights.

It's a fantastic list.. with no thought about how to bring it about. I wanted to include sunshiny days and ice cold Popsicles for everyone.

[Parkbandit]

You cherry picked the remark and fashioned it to fit your trolling. If you're incapable of responding to the post ... just don't respond. It's probably better for you if you don't ... the whole axiom of fools and mouths you know.

Do you even know the meaning of "cherry picked" Shit4Brains? If I had pulled out Public schools.. then you might have a point. I picked 5 out of 6 of the examples you gave.. that's not cherry picking.. that's taking a post from a very stupid person and pointing out exactly how stupid they are.

And Shit4Brains, you are very stupid.

[Killer Kitten]

This is probably wandering too far off-topic, but a post a few pages back got me thinking about the inter-relatedness of welfare and government-run health care.

Our shelter is in a poor area, and we get a lot of people stopping in who are on welfare. Most of the welfare folks have cell phones and are smokers. They tend to dress way better than I can afford to. All of them have large families. A great many of the women in this area have their first baby at 16 or even younger. They get free prenatal care and delivery.

Our local high schools have free daycare for the students' offspring, and offer free home tutoring for pregnant students during the last 2 months of pregnancy. Children of people on welfare also get free breakfast and lunch, free after-school programs with snacks and free transportation to and from school. In addition, if a welfare child comes to school inappropriately dressed free clothing is provided.

What does free healthcare cover? Should people on government assistance be permitted to have children? People tend to be very defensive about reproductive rights, but is unlimited reproduction a right? Should it be, and if so should the costs associated with bearing and raising the children of non-workers rest upon the shoulders of those who work and pay taxes?

[Tsa`ah]

This is probably wandering too far off-topic, but a post a few pages back got me thinking about the inter-relatedness of welfare and government-run health care.

Our shelter is in a poor area, and we get a lot of people stopping in who are on welfare. Most of the welfare folks have cell phones and are smokers. They tend to dress way better than I can afford to. All of them have large families. A great many of the women in this area have their first baby at 16 or even younger. They get free prenatal care and delivery.

I'm curious, do they carry signs stating that they're on welfare, is it stamped on their forehead ... or do you have a welfare radar?

[Clove]

I'm curious, do they carry signs stating that they're on welfare, is it stamped on their forehead ... or do you have a welfare radar?I'm curious, are you implying that the welfare examples that Killer Kitten relates don't exist because she hasn't verified each individual she perceives? For some reason that reminds me of a man and NYC cab...

[Tsa`ah]

I'm curious, are you implying that the welfare examples that Killer Kitten relates don't exist because she hasn't verified each individual she perceives? For some reason that reminds me of a man and NYC cab...

So what you're suggesting is that one can tell who is on welfare by the way they dress, where they live, and what they have on their person.

Maybe I give you too much credit.

[Clove]

So what you're suggesting is that one can tell who is on welfare by the way they dress, where they live, and what they have on their person.

Maybe I give you too much credit.No, I'm saying that Killer Kitten is intelligent enough to make accurate assumptions without needing to ID everyone.

For example if you walked down to your local projects it would be a fair assumption that most of the people that appeared to live there would be on some sort of public assistance. It isn't a certainty, but still a reasonable assumption.

Because you don't like her opinion, you'll assume that she's ignorant and demand she prove that she has brain enough to draw a simple conclusion. Typical.

[Gan]

<Insert Tsa'ah anus reference post here>

[Parkbandit]

<Insert Tsa'ah anus reference post here>

Or leg humping.

Or ball hanging..

You can pretty much boil down Tsa'ah's response with something homosexual in nature.

[Tsa`ah]

No, I'm saying that Killer Kitten is intelligent enough to make accurate assumptions without needing to ID everyone.

For example if you walked down to your local projects it would be a fair assumption that most of the people that appeared to live there would be on some sort of public assistance. It isn't a certainty, but still a reasonable assumption.

Because you don't like her opinion, you'll assume that she's ignorant and demand she prove that she has brain enough to draw a simple conclusion. Typical.

It's not reasonable by any stretch of the imagination to assume someone is on welfare due the area they live in. Nor is it a reasonable to assume that I believe KK ignorant ... exactly the opposite, which is why I'm more than a little shocked she would make such assumptions.

[Killer Kitten]

My statement about knowing that a lot of the people who come into our shop are on welfare wasn't based upon assumptions, but upon the answers they give when filling out our questionaires.

When people want to adopt a cat we ask for their place of employment and occupation. We also do this when people wish to surrender a cat to the shelter.

Sorry if I was unclear, I should have listed how I know. I wasn't trying to judge people, just throw out some questions as food for thought and discussion fodder.

[Clove]

You're fucking retarded if you think she's assuming someone is on welfare based on what they are wearing. And you're also retarded if you're going to take the stance that "just because all these people are hanging out on the porch in the projects doesn't mean they are on public assistance". Like I said a person can make reasonable, educated assumptions.

Ordinarily I would accuse you of playing stupid because you're offended by the implications of her statements, but I know better.

[Clove]

I'm curious, do they carry signs stating that they're on welfare, is it stamped on their forehead ... or do you have a welfare radar?


My statement about knowing that a lot of the people who come into our shop are on welfare wasn't based upon assumptions, but upon the answers they give when filling out our questionaires.Satisfied, shit for brains?

[CrystalTears]

It's not reasonable by any stretch of the imagination to assume someone is on welfare due the area they live in.
It's not? Are you saying that people who can afford to live in their own dwelling CHOOSE to live in the projects/ghetto?

[Clove]

It's not? Are you saying that people who can afford to live in their own dwelling CHOOSE to live in the projects/ghetto?It ought to be abundantly clear by now that Tsa'ah does NOT know what he's saying.

[g++]

It's not reasonable by any stretch of the imagination to assume someone is on welfare due the area they live in. Nor is it a reasonable to assume that I believe KK ignorant ... exactly the opposite, which is why I'm more than a little shocked she would make such assumptions.

Erm in baltimore we have huge swaths of houses that are "section 8" hud subsidized houses and in order to live there you must qualify for assistance....so I think at least in many major cities there literally are areas where you know immediately whether someone is on at least some form of assistance by their address. I dont think its a huge stretch to say if someone needs subsidized housing from the government they are also likely receiving other forms of assistance like welfare. They tendt to go hand and hand. New York, philly etc have similiar HUD programs.

[Delias]

Didn't read this thread- Just wanted to say that rights are a societal fiction... human beings by nature have no rights, they are subject to the same whimsical natural forces as all other creatures. "Rights" are an illusion.

Now the government exists to serve the people...if you want to talk about the duties such an organization should be responsible for, by all means, do so, but lets drop this notion of "rights". Our constitution promises us "rights" which are quite often denied us by those in power, because the strong do and the weak abide.

[Clove]

Now the government exists to serve the people...Without the notion of "rights" the government is not obligated to serve "the people" or any such thing but its own interest.

[Methais]

My statement about knowing that a lot of the people who come into our shop are on welfare wasn't based upon assumptions, but upon the answers they give when filling out our questionaires.

When people want to adopt a cat we ask for their place of employment and occupation. We also do this when people wish to surrender a cat to the shelter.

Sorry if I was unclear, I should have listed how I know. I wasn't trying to judge people, just throw out some questions as food for thought and discussion fodder.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/DoyleHargraves/filephp2file4904filenamepwned-funny.jpg

[Methais]

And just because it's so awesome, I'm reposting this from the other thread because no place exists where this shouldn't be seen:

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/DoyleHargraves/twilightjpgroflposterscom1248483-1.jpg

[AnticorRifling]

Didn't read this thread- And yet you felt it important to vomit upon it.

[Delias]

And yet you felt it important to vomit upon it.

Generally while vomiting I am not reading. The fact remains that a "Right" is a fiction. Show me one thing you've had since birth that cannot be taken away from you- and I don't mean strictly by the government. That which we call rights are privileges we pay for by relinquishing some of our freedoms to ensure that everyone has an equal chance to thrive. It's an imperfect system, but human nature being what it is, it's probably the best we'll ever manage. Anyone who goes to bed at night and leaves the door unlocked because they are confident the law will protect them is an idiot. Rights...its a lovely idea, but it's just an idea. Fact of the matter is anything can be taken from you if someone has enough motivation to do the taking, unless you can protect it.

[Killer Kitten]

Show me one thing you've had since birth that cannot be taken away from you- and I don't mean strictly by the government.


I know it's a serious question and your post was well stated. But when I read this all I could think about was my oversized posterior. Anybody wanna make some soap?

[Clove]

Generally while vomiting I am not reading. The fact remains that a "Right" is a fiction. Show me one thing you've had since birth that cannot be taken away from you- and I don't mean strictly by the government.My thoughts, for one thing.

What you're describing is the construct of "inalienable rights", which doesn't exist except by creation of law. It is however a moot point, we gather as societies to form governments to establish laws to preserve rights and privileges, among other things.

You're in the wrong thread. Read, contribute, or STFU (I think Thomas Paine said that).

[AnticorRifling]

Generally while vomiting I am not reading. The fact remains that a "Right" is a fiction. Show me one thing you've had since birth that cannot be taken away from you- and I don't mean strictly by the government. That which we call rights are privileges we pay for by relinquishing some of our freedoms to ensure that everyone has an equal chance to thrive. It's an imperfect system, but human nature being what it is, it's probably the best we'll ever manage. Anyone who goes to bed at night and leaves the door unlocked because they are confident the law will protect them is an idiot. Rights...its a lovely idea, but it's just an idea. Fact of the matter is anything can be taken from you if someone has enough motivation to do the taking, unless you can protect it. Please tell me more about relinquishing freedoms to ensure others have an equal chance I'm new to this.....

I leave my door unlocked at all times, to include when I go to bed, and I'm confident the law will protect me.

[Parkbandit]

I leave my door unlocked at all times, to include when I go to bed, and I'm confident the law will protect me.

Or that arsenal you keep around....

[AnticorRifling]

Or that arsenal you keep around.... Which would be the law, more to the point the one(s) that allow me to own and use said arsenal.

[Delias]

The arsenal is not in and of itself "Law". A weapon is not a law, it is an object. Law is an abstract and literary construct which is enforced by some, flouted by others, and generally ignored by many. Much harder to ignore a gun, especially when pointed at you, which is how we lend weight to the abstract concept of Law. Not counting physical laws, of course, like gravity.

Oh, I'm not saying the freedoms we give up are necessarily freedoms we are wise to be entrusted with in the first place... for instance, were it not for the consequences of going to jail for the rest of my life, I'd love to kill my boss. The freedom to do so is one we have relinquished so that our society might function on something better than survival of the fittest.

Clove, as to gathering "as societies to form governments to establish laws to preserve rights and privileges, among other things.", these laws and privileges and "rights" are all dependent upon the society in which they are formed. If you don't believe your thoughts can be taken away, they can be snuffed out as easily as your life, usually hand in hand with it. Our entire society is just a thin veneer over our animal nature. Only thing you have the "right" to do is to pay taxes and die... I don't suppose anyone will ever stop you from doing so. Everything else is relative to circumstance.

[Daniel]

And just because it's so awesome, I'm reposting this from the other thread because no place exists where this shouldn't be seen:

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/DoyleHargraves/twilightjpgroflposterscom1248483-1.jpg

Rofl.

That's fucking awesome.

[Tsa`ah]

My statement about knowing that a lot of the people who come into our shop are on welfare wasn't based upon assumptions, but upon the answers they give when filling out our questionaires.

When people want to adopt a cat we ask for their place of employment and occupation. We also do this when people wish to surrender a cat to the shelter.

Sorry if I was unclear, I should have listed how I know. I wasn't trying to judge people, just throw out some questions as food for thought and discussion fodder.

That makes a good deal more sense. I hadn't pegged you as someone to make blind assumptions.

I understand the frustration as well.


It's not? Are you saying that people who can afford to live in their own dwelling CHOOSE to live in the projects/ghetto?

You're making the mistake of project/ghetto = welfare. While it is a safe assumption that everyone in the ghetto is poor, it's not safe to assume they're on welfare. People live there because they can't afford to live elsewhere. That doesn't mean everyone receives a foodstamps and living assistance. Believe it or not, people in the projects actually work and don't live beyond their means.

[AnticorRifling]

The arsenal is not in and of itself "Law". A weapon is not a law, it is an object. Law is an abstract and literary construct which is enforced by some, flouted by others, and generally ignored by many. Much harder to ignore a gun, especially when pointed at you, which is how we lend weight to the abstract concept of Law. Not counting physical laws, of course, like gravity.

Oh, I'm not saying the freedoms we give up are necessarily freedoms we are wise to be entrusted with in the first place... for instance, were it not for the consequences of going to jail for the rest of my life, I'd love to kill my boss. The freedom to do so is one we have relinquished so that our society might function on something better than survival of the fittest.

Clove, as to gathering "as societies to form governments to establish laws to preserve rights and privileges, among other things.", these laws and privileges and "rights" are all dependent upon the society in which they are formed. If you don't believe your thoughts can be taken away, they can be snuffed out as easily as your life, usually hand in hand with it. Our entire society is just a thin veneer over our animal nature. Only thing you have the "right" to do is to pay taxes and die... I don't suppose anyone will ever stop you from doing so. Everything else is relative to circumstance. Just give your boss a few earfulls of this shit, he'll die of stupid posioning or kill himself.

It's like if Neo was in a college law class. There is no spoon ZOMG there is no law. Woooah, I'm teh one.

[Daniel]

Rofl.

That's fucking awesome.

Haha. I'm still loling @ this.

[AnticorRifling]

Blade would have made that movie very short, and 600000% better. The only side effect would be a bunch of emo girls and boys cutting over whatever his name was getting killed. Really it's win/win.

[g++]

it's not safe to assume they're on welfare..


Believe it or not, people in the projects actually work and don't live beyond their means.

You just replaced the original generalization with a generalization you find more appealing.

[AnticorRifling]

You just replaced the original generalization with a generalization you find more appealing.
That's a damned generalization and you know it!

[Clove]

That makes a good deal more sense. I hadn't pegged you as someone to make blind assumptions.Oh I think we can all disagree with that...


I'm curious, do they carry signs stating that they're on welfare, is it stamped on their forehead ... or do you have a welfare radar?Sure sounds like YOU had some assumptions pegged, now doesn't it?


Believe it or not, people in the projects actually work and don't live beyond their means.
I'm sorry, I don't address stereotypes in serious arguments.


You're making the mistake of project/ghetto = welfare. While it is a safe assumption that everyone in the ghetto is poor, it's not safe to assume they're on welfare.Exact words Marsha, exact words!!!!1!!1 First of all this has to be one of your lamest attempts to show teh internet that UR never wrong. The national average of welfare recipients living in public housing is 30% and welfare recipients comprise approximately 46% of people living in public housing (according to Urban Studies Institute); I'm going to call that a "safe assumption" (you'd take those odds in a casino, wouldn't you?). It's also a "safe assumption" that living in public housing qualifies as taking public assistance.

WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE ORIGINAL POINT OF THE ASSUMPTION...

http://xore.ca/missingthepoint.png
(Because for fucks sake....)

[Clove]

If you don't believe your thoughts can be taken away, they can be snuffed out as easily as your life, usually hand in hand with it.Pointing out that we're mortal is a bullshit rationalization. Stopping is not the same as taking. I have had my thoughts since birth and they cannot be taken.

[radamanthys]

Nobody's really defined what a 'right' is. Everyone's working on a different assumption.

[Methais]

Haha. I'm still loling @ this.

I wanna get it put on a t-shirt and wear it to the mall.

[Mabus]

Nobody's really defined what a 'right' is. Everyone's working on a different assumption.
BINGO!

And only 18 pages into the thread!

[AnticorRifling]

Rights aren't real, nothing is real, I think therefor I think, we all fell down the rabbit hole while taking the blue pill!

[Tsa`ah]

You just replaced the original generalization with a generalization you find more appealing.

Well to make you happy ... it's not safe to assume those dwelling in the ghetto are on welfare or the working poor ... chances are they're either or.


...

Let's see ... large text, over used jpeg ... standard bullshit that amounts to the same old same old.

Go piss down someone else's leg, you're not worth the effort today.

[Delias]

Pointing out that we're mortal is a bullshit rationalization. Stopping is not the same as taking. I have had my thoughts since birth and they cannot be taken.

I suppose they could be changed (via drugs) or stopped (via death) but not taken. You've proven me wrong- you have the right to think. At least until thought-crimes become a reality, heh.