Page 12 of 31 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 307

Thread: House bill would make health care a right

  1. #111
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: House bill would make health care a right

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    Take a look at this thread.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/govern...vs-states.html

    The Constitution is not a document giving unlimited power to the federal government. Not even close.
    Never argued it was. For example, I don't think the federal government has the power to abolish the states, and I believe there are a number of other things they aren't allowed to do. All I said that a constitutional rationale will be found for this program (if it already hasn't), and it will. This is hardly the most ambitious project ever undertaken by the federal government.

    I guess I did say "makes anything possible" but I was just being dramatic. That's not the essence of my argument.
    Last edited by Morality Games; 07-16-09 at 01:49 PM.

  2. #112
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: House bill would make health care a right

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    Should be self-evident. The necessary and proper clause basically makes it so there is no limit on the strength or universality of laws Congress can draft to execute the powers apportioned to it in the U.S. Constitution, including the amendments.
    The key concept here being "apportioned to it in the U.S. Constitution,"
    That is, any legislation greated thru the Elastic Clause must be in reference to some explicit power given to Congress by the Constitution.

    And so, unless you can show where the Constitution explicitly gives Congress to create legislation regarding education, you cannot argue that the Elasic Clause allows Congress to create said legislation.

    Retirement, health care... all suffer the same fate.

  3. #113
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 07:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,237

    Re: House bill would make health care a right

    Quote Originally Posted by WillRockwell View Post
    At the time the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, there were 13 new states with no federal beaurocracy, no money for the military, no communication between geographic areas, not even any payment for the framers themselves. It is a bit of a reach to expect them to anticipate a day when the United States is so wealthy and connected that it is capable of insuring health care, education, and other services for its populace. However, I seriously doubt they would object to the concept, as it fits with their premise as stated in the preamble to the Constitution:
    So everyone in the US was living in grass huts? Are you kidding me? We not only had mail service, but plenty of wealth. It's just that Congress had little wealth. And that's what really grinds at you, Congress had little wealth and power. So they couldn't force the populace into paying for insane social schemes like we have today. You don't know your history as well as you think, my friend. We did have a federal bureaucracy, it just didn't have the teeth it has assumed now. The American Dream is the liberty to make something of yourself without government seizing your work and your wealth. Unfortunately, socialist causes are trying to kill it with the cover of taking care of the less fortunate.

    "As to the new Constitution... Would it not have been better to assign to Congress exclusively the article of imposts for federal purposes, and to have left direct taxation exclusively to the States? I should suppose the former fund sufficient for all probably events, aided by the land office." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787. ME 6:395

    "Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1784. FE 4:15, Papers 7:557

    "Would it not be better to simplify the system of taxation rather than to spread it over such a variety of subjects and pass the money through so many new hands?" --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1784. Papers 7:557

    "A rigid economy of the public contributions and absolute interdiction of all useless expenses will go far towards keeping the government honest and unoppressive." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823. ME 15:491

    "The same prudence which in private life would forbid our paying our money for unexplained projects forbids it in the disposition of the public moneys." --Thomas Jefferson to Shelton Gilliam, 1808. ME 12:73

    "If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1802. ME 10:342
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  4. #114
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: House bill would make health care a right

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    The key concept here being "apportioned to it in the U.S. Constitution,"
    That is, any legislation greated thru the Elastic Clause must be in reference to some explicit power given to Congress by the Constitution.

    And so, unless you can show where the Constitution explicitly gives Congress to create legislation regarding education, you cannot argue that the Elasic Clause allows Congress to create said legislation.

    Retirement, health care... all suffer the same fate.
    The Constitution and its amendments are drafted in highly general terms. Edmund Randolph, who wrote the first draft, explained that he had to write it this way so that it would be able to adapt to changing times and circumstances. As to whether we ought to interpret the U.S. Constitution narrowly or broadly; there was no consensus even among the Founding Fathers. It was a topic of hot debate in their time, even among those who together drafted the document, even as they were drafting it. Because of that, there is no definite or final precedent to which either liberals or conservatives can refer to justify their views of the document; the tension which exists between the two ideologies (or something like it) today went into the making of the U.S. Constitution. Because of that fact, the perspective -- "living Constitution" or "strict constitutionalism" -- which prevails at any given point in time will be the one which is most . . . I'll say 'practical'. The perspective which is most practical prevails. But that might be too generous. It might be better to say the perspective which is most powerful prevails.

    That things are not explicitly mentioned does not ultimately matter -- or, at least, it does not "have to" matter, depending on which style of interpretation is winning the American political game at the time; airlines are not explicitly mentioned, but they get grouped under a bunch of constitutional clauses anyway. The same thing can occur with health service. I already offered one possible constitutional rationale for how the health insurance program might be legitimized. But I assure you, it will, barring some unlikely upset from the U.S. Supreme Court down the road, be legitimized.
    Last edited by Morality Games; 07-16-09 at 02:04 PM.

  5. #115
    Sage
    DeeJayH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Scooping Zeus' Poop
    Last Seen
    06-21-15 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    11,728

    Re: House bill would make health care a right

    glad I tried the thread
    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Says me, the person that has to be taxed to pay for someone's else's non-existent "right".


    The exercise of a right does not incur expense on others.

    You want to make a speech? Go ahead, ain't costing me a dime.

    You want to buy a gun? Go ahead, but use your money, 'cuz I don't have to buy yours.

    You want to worship some stupid god? Go ahead, be as silly as you want.

    You want to go to the doctor? Fine by me, but don't send me the bill, it's not my responsibility.

    See? Health care ain't a right, not if it involves stealing my money to pay for it.
    that sums it up for me pretty well.

    Human Taxidermist - - now offering his services for all your loved ones
    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    How the hell did you just tie in a retroactive reparative measure with a proactive preventative measure. Not even close to being the same thing.

  6. #116
    Norville Rogers
    Kernel Sanders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 10:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,730

    Re: House bill would make health care a right

    I agree that the health care as a right thing is ridiculous (still don't really know what it means either), but costing money is not the difference. A trial by jury costs taxpayer money, and is indeed a right.

  7. #117
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: House bill would make health care a right

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    The Constitution and its amendments are drafted in highly general terms.
    And yet, the powers given to Congress are limited and highly specific.

    Edmund Randolph, who wrote the first draft, explained that he had to write it this way so that it would be able to adapt to changing times and circumstances.
    Yes... within the powers in question.
    An power that can adapt to the current time does not equate to a power that can mean just about anything.

    As to whether we ought to interpret the U.S. Constitution narrowly or broadly; there was no consensus even among the Founding Fathers. It was a topic of hot debate in their time, even among those who together drafted the document, even as they were drafting it. Because of that, there is no definite or final precedent to which either liberals or conservatives can refer to justify their views of the document...
    Suppose this is true.
    And yet, you support the 'broad interpretation' side.

    That things are not explicitly mentioned does not ultimately matter...
    Sure it does.
    If you argue that something doesn't need to be specified in text the Constitition, then the the text itself is meaningless.

    -- or, at least, it does not "have to" matter, depending on which style of interpretation is winning the American political game at the time
    Fallacy: Appeal to popularity.

    Airlines are not explicitly mentioned, but they get grouped under a bunch of constitutional clauses anyway. The same thing can occur with health service.
    Be specific:
    -Which aspect of airlines are gouped inder which part of the Constitution-
    -How does that example support the idea that a NHIP can be 'grouped' in a similar manner?

    I already offered one possible constitutional rationale for how the health insurance program might be legitimized. But I assure you, it will, barring some unlikely upset from the U.S. Supreme Court down the road, be legitimized.
    Fallacy: Appeal to authority
    Yor assumption here is that the SCotUS is infallable, and that all of its decisions are sound beyond their simply saying so.
    We all know that's not the case.

  8. #118
    Professor
    formerroadie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    06-23-10 @ 08:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    2,014

    Re: House bill would make health care a right

    I'm curious, how is it that all "rights" are supposed to be spelled out in the constitution? Also, doesn't new information (like medical advancement) allow for the extension of said rights in the constitution? It's stupid to think that the document our founding fathers created was the only thing they thought rights would be or become or that they could even fathom some of the possibilities. Is the constitution like scripture or the koran? A holy document? I don't think so. To extend the rights to health, which I think access to health care is inherently a right, does not violate the constitution. Please show me where the constitution says it is NOT a right? To argue otherwise is an argument from omission, which is no argument at all.

  9. #119
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: House bill would make health care a right

    Quote Originally Posted by formerroadie View Post
    I'm curious, how is it that all "rights" are supposed to be spelled out in the constitution?
    They arent. See Amendment IX.

    The issue, however, is the idea that just because something is a right, it means you also have the right to be able to exercise that right for free.

    You have the right to any number of things.
    You no more have the right to expect me to pay for your health care as I do to expect you to pay for my guns.
    Last edited by Goobieman; 07-16-09 at 02:56 PM.

  10. #120
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 07:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,237

    Re: House bill would make health care a right

    Quote Originally Posted by formerroadie View Post
    I'm curious, how is it that all "rights" are supposed to be spelled out in the constitution? Also, doesn't new information (like medical advancement) allow for the extension of said rights in the constitution? It's stupid to think that the document our founding fathers created was the only thing they thought rights would be or become or that they could even fathom some of the possibilities. Is the constitution like scripture or the koran? A holy document? I don't think so. To extend the rights to health, which I think access to health care is inherently a right, does not violate the constitution. Please show me where the constitution says it is NOT a right? To argue otherwise is an argument from omission, which is no argument at all.
    I'm sorry but you soarly do not understand the Constitution. The Constitution prescribes the powers to the Federal government. It does not prescribe the rights of the People. You will not find many of the rights of the People discussed.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

Page 12 of 31 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •