- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 11,430
- Reaction score
- 2,282
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Completely irrelevant.
The Constitution does not allow the Congress to nationalize the health care industry.
-
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
House bill would make health care a right
- Thread starter American
- Start date
Completely irrelevant.
The Constitution does not allow the Congress to nationalize the health care industry.
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 79,903
- Reaction score
- 20,981
- Location
- I love your hate.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Another inane post.
Where in the consitution does it outline for the government to take from me to pay for others poor health?
How is health care a "Right" please try to actually answer this time.
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 11,430
- Reaction score
- 2,282
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Yes, I deal in facts as they are in the real world.
Your partisan blindness is an especially important reason why your party should be adorned with tar and turkey feathers and tossed in the Potomac.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2006
- Messages
- 17,343
- Reaction score
- 2,876
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
More partisan bigotry.
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,713
- Reaction score
- 1,907
- Location
- The Derby City
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Rasmussen is a GOP pollster??? Where did you get that bit of priceless info, Daily Kos?
I like Rasmussen better because it was more accurate in the last presidential election.
Gibberish
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2005
- Messages
- 6,339
- Reaction score
- 1,269
- Location
- San Diego, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
If the government is not changing the type of education the doctors are required to receive or how they receive it what is inefficient in regards to education and training under this plan?
You said nurses and doctors will become like DMV workers. If the standards of education and experience aren't being lowered from the current requirements how is that true? DMV workers have the stigma of being illeducated, uncreative, and working only for a paycheck. I don't see that happening with doctors and nurses.
What makes you think that? If anything I would see an increase in medicine as a career due to the fact that the revenue driven private market is no longer a requirement for employment. There will now be a enormous job market in the outrageous budget inflated government programs.
Last edited:
LiveUninhibited
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2009
- Messages
- 548
- Reaction score
- 140
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Which was still before medicine was effective.
You can't make the distinction between negative and positive rights on that basis. Police and military must provide security, lawyers must provide counsel for us, and those are explicit rights granted in the Constitution.
And appeal to authority is not an argument, especially when you're appealing to people who were necessarily limited by their time.
Where do they get the authority to tell states they have to have a 21-year drinking age or else they'll withhold highway funds? Who cares what the Constitution says? They surely don't.
And even if they did, you can justify almost anything not explicitly forbade by the Constitution via the necessary and proper clause, promoting the general welfare, etc.
It's not exactly radical, considering that the rest of the industrialized world has NHI.
That's pretty remote from the polls I've seen. Very sure more than 46% favor some type of reform, but that might be close to people who favor how Obama is doing it.... maybe... source? I'd like to see the exact wording.
While they were pioneers in some of the most basic of rights, they applied them inconsistently. They still had slavery and didn't have women's suffrage. It would be anachronistic of me to villify them for that, but it would be equally stupid for me to idolize them. They were geniuses in their time, but we have learned so much since then.
Well basic education is certainly treated as a positive right.
Actually yes. The VHA between 1998 and 2005, prior to them getting overwhelmed by Bush's wars without an increase in funding.
This isn't government-run healthcare, it's government-funded healthcare. Considering how much America already pays ~3 times as much per capita, on average, than countries with NHI, with worse outcomes, I'd venture a guess they would have trouble doing worse than the private sector.
Doctors in countries with NHI/NHS are paid less, but most good doctors don't go into it purely for the money. Germany is the only country I've heard of where there's a widespread problem of underpaid doctors in general. Primary care has that problem here more than most anywhere.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 11,430
- Reaction score
- 2,282
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Yes, I can.
If I have to pay for someone else's medical care, and I don't know them or don't like them, I'd rather they died and I kept my money. Therefore, the government has to shove a gun in my face to collect that money.
Exist because the function of government is to protect the lives and property of it's citizens from violent foreigners and violent citizens intent on stealing from others.
That is the basic cost of living in a civilized country.
The government stealing to provide health care for people, that's not essential to the security of the republic.
Okie dokie, let's talk about "explicit" rights.
Where, and be completely explicit here, does the Constitution say the government must provide health care for anyone. In your answer, explain why, if the Constitution was so explicit about this, that the government failed to explicitly provide health care for more than two hundred and twenty two years since the ratification of the Constitution.
No, the fact that the Constitution does not allow federally funded health care is an argument, though.
Pay close attention to what the Tenth Amendment says, and the Ninth.
So you're saying since we're getting raped already by people who ignore the Constitution, we should be totally ready and eager by now for them to haul out the herd of sex starved bull elephants that your demand for socialized medicine entails.
yeah, the old "general welfare" BS. Article 1, Section 8 defines explicitly what Congress is allowed to do to promote the General Welfare. The term "general welfare" is not the blank check the commies make it out to be.
The rest of the industrialized world sucks weenie when it comes to health care.
The Constitution does not allow the Federal government to spend money on public education. Thomas Jefferson himself pointed this out.
A meaningless distinction since we all know that the man paying the piper calls the tune.
Don't Tase Me Bro
Active member
- Joined
- May 30, 2009
- Messages
- 446
- Reaction score
- 195
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
One, I am not the one that said that.
Two, don't answer my question with another question.
You said:
I asked:
I await your answer.
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 79,903
- Reaction score
- 20,981
- Location
- I love your hate.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
We have a "right" to police protection? "right" to having fires put out?
:lol: semantics...
Yah cause Americans are less profit driven than Germans. :lol:
Your username, irony, right? :2razz:
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 79,903
- Reaction score
- 20,981
- Location
- I love your hate.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
LiveUninhibited
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2009
- Messages
- 548
- Reaction score
- 140
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
LOL, O'Reilly is talking to Fox and Friends right now and called private insurance a scam. You should've seen the looks on the Fox and Friends peoples' faces. They were trying not to wince, lol.
Well, physically yes, but not logically. You were saying if you have to provide something for somebody, then it can’t be called a right. Well, negative and positive rights are not different in that regard, as police and lawyers are no freer than doctors and teachers. And we don’t tell people they can’t have access to police protection or lawyers for any reason. It’s a right.
At what point do taxes cease to be stealing? The skyrocketing costs of healthcare sure seem to threaten our economic security at least as much as our enemies stealing oil-rich land from our allies. Healthcare is a need that few can reliably provide for themselves anyway. What you advocate is not only Darwinian, but also inefficient. Private health insurance simply works against the goal of promoting health, especially for the poor but also for the rich who get overtreated to keep hospitals in the black.
I don’t really care what the Constitution says, nor should anybody else. We need a new government system. It’s easy for the Constitution to exist as a self-contradictory document, it was written that way. I just happen to agree with a lot of it, even if it’s not sufficiently broad in its scope.
Well, first you’d have to tell me why we should care. The problem I see is that Congress is composed primarily of idiotic lawyers elected by an idiotic populace by a flawed process. So the fact that they disrespect the Constitution seems pretty small to me.
Not so sure it’s only liberals who use that clause for wide latitude.
If by suck weenie you mean pay less and get better results, I suppose.
Again, why do we care what a hypocritical yet intelligent slaveowner from centuries ago thought? If you think he had a good argument, present it. Simply citing his opinion doesn't prove your point to somebody who doesn't lend credance to appeal to authority fallacies.
Yeah the government would be so much worse than private companies who profit from denying people care, lol.
But actually it is very different. Profit doesn't necessarily work against the provision of healthcare, particularly when there is a prospect of profiting from a new innovation.
Ah so you don't want the government to do that either? I suppose we could adopt feudalism...
Precisely the problem, but it's a cultural one we have to work into policy. We have to assume greed will prevail when we talk about America. Sometimes profit-driven innovation works well with regulation. But private health insurance. It just can't work well. The goal of profit works against its societal purpose.
I first started using this name on a political forum that doesn't exist anymore. At the time I was a hardcore libertarian. Today, I am fiscally liberal and socially libertarian. Healthcare and education are more basic needs, indeed prereqs, to enjoying the negative rights.
Well, physically yes, but not logically. You were saying if you have to provide something for somebody, then it can’t be called a right. Well, negative and positive rights are not different in that regard, as police and lawyers are no freer than doctors and teachers. And we don’t tell people they can’t have access to police protection or lawyers for any reason. It’s a right.
At what point do taxes cease to be stealing? The skyrocketing costs of healthcare sure seem to threaten our economic security at least as much as our enemies stealing oil-rich land from our allies. Healthcare is a need that few can reliably provide for themselves anyway. What you advocate is not only Darwinian, but also inefficient. Private health insurance simply works against the goal of promoting health, especially for the poor but also for the rich who get overtreated to keep hospitals in the black.
I don’t really care what the Constitution says, nor should anybody else. We need a new government system. It’s easy for the Constitution to exist as a self-contradictory document, it was written that way. I just happen to agree with a lot of it, even if it’s not sufficiently broad in its scope.
Well, first you’d have to tell me why we should care. The problem I see is that Congress is composed primarily of idiotic lawyers elected by an idiotic populace by a flawed process. So the fact that they disrespect the Constitution seems pretty small to me.
Not so sure it’s only liberals who use that clause for wide latitude.
If by suck weenie you mean pay less and get better results, I suppose.
Again, why do we care what a hypocritical yet intelligent slaveowner from centuries ago thought? If you think he had a good argument, present it. Simply citing his opinion doesn't prove your point to somebody who doesn't lend credance to appeal to authority fallacies.
Yeah the government would be so much worse than private companies who profit from denying people care, lol.
But actually it is very different. Profit doesn't necessarily work against the provision of healthcare, particularly when there is a prospect of profiting from a new innovation.
We have a "right" to police protection? "right" to having fires put out?
Ah so you don't want the government to do that either? I suppose we could adopt feudalism...
Precisely the problem, but it's a cultural one we have to work into policy. We have to assume greed will prevail when we talk about America. Sometimes profit-driven innovation works well with regulation. But private health insurance. It just can't work well. The goal of profit works against its societal purpose.
I first started using this name on a political forum that doesn't exist anymore. At the time I was a hardcore libertarian. Today, I am fiscally liberal and socially libertarian. Healthcare and education are more basic needs, indeed prereqs, to enjoying the negative rights.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 79,903
- Reaction score
- 20,981
- Location
- I love your hate.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Oh, did you confuse O'Reilly with a conservative? Many liberals do this for some reason.
You do know that the police are under no obligation to help you or protect you as an individual right?
And this is where you fail. We don't need a new government system, and that document provided the framework to make us the great nation we are today.
This is sad. Slave owning was common throughout the world at that time. The founders were smart enough to set up the ground work for its abolishment and talked about slavery not being the right thing here.
Ever been to a VA hospital?
Not what I said. That said, I prefer to leave my security up to me, the police can come document the carnage that I cause to those who wish me harm.
Collectivism breeds complacency and no motivation. It breeds the worst more than the best from people. Not a good thing when you have your chest cavity cracked open.
define "Social libertarian"?
LiveUninhibited
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2009
- Messages
- 548
- Reaction score
- 140
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
I wasn't making an argument, that would've been an appeal to authority. I just thought it was amusing. I'm watching Fox News because I like to watch them squirm.
Well I do know they should be, but can you cite something that shows the law agrees with you?
lol. Read "Who Rules America" by Domhoff. We didn't succeed because of it, we succeded in spite of it. Geography (american mainland remarkably untouched by modern wars), resources, diversity... there are many, many reasons for America's success and they do not include single-district plurality voting.
My point is simply that appealing to authority is not an argument. If their arguments still apply today, then present them.
They were the best we had, until very recently I guess. Read this:
Veterans' health system blazing trails
lol, you mean on the part of the doctor? Show me that there are worse mortality statistics for open heart surgeries in, say, France.
There are ways to put sticks and carrots into a public system.
define "Social libertarian"?
pro 2nd amendment, for pragmatic reasons not because it's in the constitution.
pro drug legalization
purist on free speech, against political correctness
Against victimless crimes in general
pro-choice, though I come from it from a different angle than most.
against the death penalty
against affirmative action
etc.
Closer to liberal than conservative, but not exactly liberal like democrats.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 79,903
- Reaction score
- 20,981
- Location
- I love your hate.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
You can start with these:
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1, 4 (D.C. 1981)
California Government Code, § 845.
Souza v. City of Antioch, 62 California Reporter, 2d 909, 916 (Cal. App. 1997).
Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. Ch. 258 § 10(h).
Ford v. Town of Grafion, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).
No thanks. While geography did play a role, limited government and capitalism allowed us to grow as we did.
"thier argument" is that of natural law.... This is still current.
:mrgreen:
As a Gulf war Vet, I choose to have additional private health insurance to avoid the VA like the plague....
I tried googling the rates, and it was too much a pita, perhaps you can have better luck with this.
Closer to liberal imo, tha libertarian as well.
WillRockwell
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2009
- Messages
- 1,950
- Reaction score
- 387
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
You are correct, my mistake. It was Phattonnez who said "The Founding Fathers did not believe in positive rights."
I ask him, or anyone who believes this quote, to provide evidence it is true.
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 79,903
- Reaction score
- 20,981
- Location
- I love your hate.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
The onus is on you to prove your contention that they did. Thus far you have failed miserably, and have expected others to do the work for you. :2wave:
Councilman
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2009
- Messages
- 4,454
- Reaction score
- 1,657
- Location
- Riverside, County, CA.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Nothing can be construed as a right if participation is mandatory as the Dims (no spill error) have in store for us in the Universally Careless Health Plan for forced euthanasia, eugenics and abortions. By the way if you can't afford insurance under the Liberal plan it will cost you $1,000 in the form of a fine they will already know you don't have.
Add to this that they want to tax your health benefits. I hope everyone has a big nose because you're going to be paying through it. Oh that's right Obama has a big nose because from all the lying so he thinks everyone must have one too.
Candidate Obama; Sept. 12, 2008: "I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."
Recession is when your neighbor loses their job.
Depression is when you lose your Job.
Recovery is when Obama loses his job.
Add to this that they want to tax your health benefits. I hope everyone has a big nose because you're going to be paying through it. Oh that's right Obama has a big nose because from all the lying so he thinks everyone must have one too.
Candidate Obama; Sept. 12, 2008: "I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."
Recession is when your neighbor loses their job.
Depression is when you lose your Job.
Recovery is when Obama loses his job.
Last edited:
TheHat
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 11, 2009
- Messages
- 551
- Reaction score
- 177
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
No you got it all wrong, I am going to force you to subsidize my gun buying and my bullets through government confiscation of your wages b/c that is what my right is now.:mrgreen:
While your busy doing that, if a gun company isnt providing someone with a gun, then they get fined $1,000. Who cares if the gun industry goes belly up, they will just keep making more guns b/c "it is the right thing to do".
I am for affordable guns and ammo!!! This will make guns and ammo cheaper in the long run!!!:shock:
For real though: The same 10-12 million who cant afford insurance now, will still not be able to after this thing passes. Watch and see.
Last edited:
TheHat
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 11, 2009
- Messages
- 551
- Reaction score
- 177
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
....or your tobacco taxes!:mrgreen:
WillRockwell
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2009
- Messages
- 1,950
- Reaction score
- 387
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I quoted from a participant who made a claim that the founding fathers did not believe in positive rights. I am asking him to provide a link proving evidence of that claim. Why don't you just butt out?
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 79,903
- Reaction score
- 20,981
- Location
- I love your hate.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
you quoted me, and made a positive rights argument in post #3
You have been weasling away from proving your contention ever since.
as for "Butting out" you addressed me, and the Good Revernend will do as he pleases.
WillRockwell
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2009
- Messages
- 1,950
- Reaction score
- 387
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 79,903
- Reaction score
- 20,981
- Location
- I love your hate.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Duh, That's exactly what I posted....
I am sorry you fail so often.....
That is a positive rights argument. Please prove that if they knew of modern medicine they would view it as a right.
FAIL
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
- Messages
- 30,870
- Reaction score
- 4,246
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
I have to prove that the Founding Fathers didn't want the government to do something? That's not how they wrote. They specifically laid out those things that the government should do. If it's not there, then it can't be done.