CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[Derideo_Te]

What I am saying is that healthcare should be considered a universal right, and everyone should be required, according to their ability, to contribute towards making it happen. Anyone opposed to that is, in fact, saying that those who cannot on their own afford healthcare, do not deserve it.

Why just healthcare? Shouldn't all of life's necessities be included?

So many on the left seem to share OE's view that healthcare should be considered an unalienable right to have and each of us should be able to demand that others provide it for us if we do not provide it for ourselves. But why just healthcare when shelter, food, and clothing is even more vital to our health and well being? I just don't understand that rationale.

I don't understand either how it is not a form of involuntary servitude when I am required by law to provide others with food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare just because I did what was necessary to make me able to earn a living and support myself and they didn't.

And for those of us who can agree that each person who is able to do so should work and pay for his/her shelter, clothing, food, etc., what makes healthcare different?

The larger the pool, the greater cost savings. Single payer for Preventative Care, cradle to grave, makes sense health wise, economically and practically. A sea change was necessary and a full court press by the special interests almost defeated the effort again. Because of their hate and fear propaganda, we are still stuck with a private sector insurance industry whose vision and mission is to make a profit.

So why wouldn't the larger pool provide the same savings with food, clothing, shelter, and other necessities of life? Let's focus on that please.

Yes, let's focus. Food, clothing and shelter are diversified items, promulgated by thousands of independent sources, foreign and domestic. A single payer system providing cradle to grave preventative care, funded by income and payroll taxes, would reduce the burden on large and small business and government.

The Insurance market could then advertise and sell products not covered, such as accident and cosmetic, etc.

Where you and I differ is that you seem to see the profit motive as a bad thing. I see it as a wonderful and good and necessary thing for humankind to excel. It is in the providing of a product or service superior to one's competitor, and at a price that people will buy it instead of that of our competitor, that has pushed humankind to greater and greater achievement and quality of life. Take that ability away by allowing one segment of society to dictate how the other shall live and/or allow government, who has no competition and therefore no incentive to provide a better product, too much power, and we all suffer unintended negative consequences. And nowhere has that been more obvious recently than with the ACA.

Did Jesus charge for healing the sick?

"'Nevertheless, I will bring health and healing to it; I will heal my people and will let them enjoy abundant peace and security."
Jeremiah 33:6

 

[Foxfyre]

What I am saying is that healthcare should be considered a universal right, and everyone should be required, according to their ability, to contribute towards making it happen. Anyone opposed to that is, in fact, saying that those who cannot on their own afford healthcare, do not deserve it.

Why just healthcare? Shouldn't all of life's necessities be included?

So many on the left seem to share OE's view that healthcare should be considered an unalienable right to have and each of us should be able to demand that others provide it for us if we do not provide it for ourselves. But why just healthcare when shelter, food, and clothing is even more vital to our health and well being? I just don't understand that rationale.

I don't understand either how it is not a form of involuntary servitude when I am required by law to provide others with food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare just because I did what was necessary to make me able to earn a living and support myself and they didn't.

And for those of us who can agree that each person who is able to do so should work and pay for his/her shelter, clothing, food, etc., what makes healthcare different?

The larger the pool, the greater cost savings. Single payer for Preventative Care, cradle to grave, makes sense health wise, economically and practically. A sea change was necessary and a full court press by the special interests almost defeated the effort again. Because of their hate and fear propaganda, we are still stuck with a private sector insurance industry whose vision and mission is to make a profit.

So why wouldn't the larger pool provide the same savings with food, clothing, shelter, and other necessities of life? Let's focus on that please.

Yes, let's focus. Food, clothing and shelter are diversified items, promulgated by thousands of independent sources, foreign and domestic. A single payer system providing cradle to grave preventative care, funded by income and payroll taxes, would reduce the burden on large and small business and government.

The Insurance market could then advertise and sell products not covered, such as accident and cosmetic, etc.

Where you and I differ is that you seem to see the profit motive as a bad thing. I see it as a wonderful and good and necessary thing for humankind to excel. It is in the providing of a product or service superior to one's competitor, and at a price that people will buy it instead of that of our competitor, that has pushed humankind to greater and greater achievement and quality of life. Take that ability away by allowing one segment of society to dictate how the other shall live and/or allow government, who has no competition and therefore no incentive to provide a better product, too much power, and we all suffer unintended negative consequences. And nowhere has that been more obvious recently than with the ACA.

Did Jesus charge for healing the sick?

Nope. And he didn't expect anybody else to pay for the healing either. And you'll be hunting for a very long time to find any place that he ever suggested that it was the government's responsibility to provide shelter, food, clothing, or healthcare for anybody.

 

[Foxfyre]

For those who insist on thinking this thread is somehow about the ACA being based on the heritage model and who have said that several times now, I wish they would educate themselves on that. Here's a couple of good places to start:

Obama says Heritage Foundation is source of health exchange idea PolitiFact

Is the ACA the GOP health care plan from 1993 PunditFact

HINT: The fact that there are some similarities in the two plans in no way suggests that the ACA was BASED on GOP proposals and/or the Heritage plan--if it had been, we would be in a hell of a lot less mess than we are. Nobody at Heritage would have condoned the wholesale socialist dictates of an ACA as it exists. And nobody in the GOP voted for it.

And my emphasis with this thread is at least in part to express my deepest conviction that if we are to retain any semblance of liberty in this country, we must find a way to ensure that no legislation like the ACA can ever be passed again.

And yet both links just provided by the OP agree that the ACA is based upon the Heritage plan.

Oh, and the Heritage plan included the tax penalty for non participation and there are no "wholesale socialist dictates" in the ACA either.

And how fucked up is that? We vote for Democrats and get a corporatist, Republican health care law. I don't know how supporters of this shit can sleep at night.

The Democratic preferred single payer option was obstructed by the Republicans so the compromise was the Heritage plan. Then the Republicans reneged on the compromise too. The ACA is still better than what was happening before it was implemented.

True.

And there's no reason why republicans can't contribute to make the ACA better, particularly since it's their plan to begin with.

Otherwise, the notion that there's some sort of 'market solution' is naïve an unfounded; indeed, it's the nature of market forces to establish a consistent price for goods and services within a given market – if a low income working family of four can't afford health insurance for $1500 a month, they're not going to be able to afford health insurance for $1300 a month after 'shopping around.'

It's also wrong and reprehensible to say that low income working families 'deserve' to be without health insurance because they 'failed' to earned enough money to afford health insurance; that's not who we are as a people, we're better than that.

I would agree that is wrong to say that low income working families deserve to be without health insurance (for any reason) had any one of us said anything like that. Nobody on this thread has said anything like that.

I have said that the person who does what he has to do in order to be able to provide himself and his family with food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare doesn't deserve to be saddled with responsibility for those who chose not to do that. If we value liberty, what we as individuals or as a society will choose to do at the state or local level for the less fortunate must be our choice to make. A new and improved Constitution would restore that concept of liberty by giving the federal government no authority of any kind to do that.

 

[Derideo_Te]

For those who insist on thinking this thread is somehow about the ACA being based on the heritage model and who have said that several times now, I wish they would educate themselves on that. Here's a couple of good places to start:

Obama says Heritage Foundation is source of health exchange idea PolitiFact

Is the ACA the GOP health care plan from 1993 PunditFact

HINT: The fact that there are some similarities in the two plans in no way suggests that the ACA was BASED on GOP proposals and/or the Heritage plan--if it had been, we would be in a hell of a lot less mess than we are. Nobody at Heritage would have condoned the wholesale socialist dictates of an ACA as it exists. And nobody in the GOP voted for it.

And my emphasis with this thread is at least in part to express my deepest conviction that if we are to retain any semblance of liberty in this country, we must find a way to ensure that no legislation like the ACA can ever be passed again.

And yet both links just provided by the OP agree that the ACA is based upon the Heritage plan.

Oh, and the Heritage plan included the tax penalty for non participation and there are no "wholesale socialist dictates" in the ACA either.

And how fucked up is that? We vote for Democrats and get a corporatist, Republican health care law. I don't know how supporters of this shit can sleep at night.

The Democratic preferred single payer option was obstructed by the Republicans so the compromise was the Heritage plan. Then the Republicans reneged on the compromise too. The ACA is still better than what was happening before it was implemented.

True.

And there's no reason why republicans can't contribute to make the ACA better, particularly since it's their plan to begin with.

Otherwise, the notion that there's some sort of 'market solution' is naïve an unfounded; indeed, it's the nature of market forces to establish a consistent price for goods and services within a given market – if a low income working family of four can't afford health insurance for $1500 a month, they're not going to be able to afford health insurance for $1300 a month after 'shopping around.'

It's also wrong and reprehensible to say that low income working families 'deserve' to be without health insurance because they 'failed' to earned enough money to afford health insurance; that's not who we are as a people, we're better than that.

I would agree that is wrong to say that low income working families deserve to be without health insurance (for any reason) had any one of us said anything like that. Nobody on this thread has said anything like that.

I have said that the person who does what he has to do in order to be able to provide himself and his family with food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare doesn't deserve to be saddled with responsibility for those who chose not to do that. If we value liberty, what we as individuals or as a society will choose to do at the state or local level for the less fortunate must be our choice to make. A new and improved Constitution would restore that concept of liberty by giving the federal government no authority of any kind to do that.

I would agree that is wrong to say that low income working families deserve to be without health insurance for any reason had any one of us said anything like that. Nobody on this thread has said anything like that.

First you say that no one is denying anyone healthcare.

I have said that the person who does what he has to do in order to be able to provide himself and his family with food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare doesn't deserve to be saddled with responsibility for those who chose not to do that. If we value liberty, what we as individuals or as a society will choose to do at the state or local level for the less fortunate must be our choice to make. A new and improved Constitution would restore that concept of liberty by giving the federal government no authority of any kind to do that.

Then you go right ahead with your new constitution that would, by default, deny healthcare to those who cannot afford it because your inhumane state would just refuse to pay for it.

In real life that would be no different than impacting the air or water of a neighboring state. The only difference would be "healthcare refugees" fleeing from inhumane states to humane states.

It would make a complete and utter mockery of the concept of equality for all under the law.

 

[Olde Europe]

Repeating my request please for those who insist on making this a party issue or Tea Party issue or your side did it first or your side did it too issue or more of the I'm smart and accurate and you're stupid and dishonest issue:

You mean like that?

I think you are missing the point altogether. Whether intentionally or you are unable to grasp it

Or like that?

But then I don't expect those who insist on that dishonest talking point

Repeating my request please for those who insist on making this a party issue or Tea Party issue or your side did it first or your side did it too issue or more of the I'm smart and accurate and you're stupid and dishonest issue:

Like routinely deriding the other side's legislation, the major accomplishment in the realm of healthcare in decades, like that?

to prevent such bad legislation [the ACA]

Or like that?

that Obama and the leftists like to point to

Or like that?

And nowhere has that been more obvious recently than with the ACA.

I fear, there's a word for that which you're doing here, and it isn't complimentary.

 

[Olde Europe]

I don't understand either how it is not a form of involuntary servitude when I am required by law

"Involuntary servitude"? You don't seem to have the first clue as to what this term means.

And, basically, it's simple. You enjoy the cheap services and products that don't provide those who work to provide them with a living wage, including healthcare costs, and you propagandise tirelessly to make that society more unfair, still. So you cough that up by other means.

And that's not even to mention that it makes eminent sense on economic, health, and moral grounds. Compared to that, your unending resentment towards any and all who receive a dime "unearned", is without weight, and devoid of any merit.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Healthcare should be a right, it seems obvious to me. Not only is preventative health care cost effective, it protects the rest of us from disease easily transmitted from person to person. Early detection saves lives and money, it prevents the spread of diseases such as the flu, TB and STD's, but also reduces abortions since preventative medicine includes education and free contraceptives.

Those who won't buy health insurance are scofflaws, and those who support such behavior should be ashamed.

 

[Foxfyre]

Repeating my request please for those who insist on making this a party issue or Tea Party issue or your side did it first or your side did it too issue or more of the I'm smart and accurate and you're stupid and dishonest issue:

You mean like that?

I think you are missing the point altogether. Whether intentionally or you are unable to grasp it

Or like that?

But then I don't expect those who insist on that dishonest talking point

Repeating my request please for those who insist on making this a party issue or Tea Party issue or your side did it first or your side did it too issue or more of the I'm smart and accurate and you're stupid and dishonest issue:

Like routinely deriding the other side's legislation, the major accomplishment in the realm of healthcare in decades, like that?

to prevent such bad legislation [the ACA]

Or like that?

that Obama and the leftists like to point to

Or like that?

And nowhere has that been more obvious recently than with the ACA.

I fear, there's a word for that which you're doing here, and it isn't complimentary.

I fear that you, as have all the other self-proclaimed progressives on this thread, continue to completely miss and/or mischaracterize the point being made.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't understand either how it is not a form of involuntary servitude when I am required by law

"Involuntary servitude"? You don't seem to have the first clue as to what this term means.

And, basically, it's simple. You enjoy the cheap services and products that don't provide those who work to provide them with a living wage, including healthcare costs, and you propagandise tirelessly to make that society more unfair, still. So you cough that up by other means.

And that's not even to mention that it makes eminent sense on economic, health, and moral grounds. Compared to that, your unending resentment towards any and all who receive a dime "unearned", is without weight, and devoid of any merit.

So what do you call it when one person is required to contribute his labor, expertise, productivity, and/or property to another who did nothing to earn it? How can you say that you have liberty if the government says you must provide the needs of that person or else?

 

[Wry Catcher]

I don't understand either how it is not a form of involuntary servitude when I am required by law

"Involuntary servitude"? You don't seem to have the first clue as to what this term means.

And, basically, it's simple. You enjoy the cheap services and products that don't provide those who work to provide them with a living wage, including healthcare costs, and you propagandise tirelessly to make that society more unfair, still. So you cough that up by other means.

And that's not even to mention that it makes eminent sense on economic, health, and moral grounds. Compared to that, your unending resentment towards any and all who receive a dime "unearned", is without weight, and devoid of any merit.

So what do you call it when one person is required to contribute his labor, expertise, productivity, and/or property to another who did nothing to earn it? How can you say that you have liberty if the government says you must provide the needs of that person or else?

How can you claim your liberty is infringed, you have every right to petition the government to change or go somewhere you feel is fair. When the Callous Conservative movement moves out of the fringe, maybe then you will get what you want. But as for now, the words of your Messiah, President Reagan, are just words, for he did raise taxes and didn't send the poor, the hungry and the sick into the desert as the Callous Conservative hope to do.

 

[dblack]

First you say that no one is denying anyone healthcare.

I have said that the person who does what he has to do in order to be able to provide himself and his family with food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare doesn't deserve to be saddled with responsibility for those who chose not to do that. If we value liberty, what we as individuals or as a society will choose to do at the state or local level for the less fortunate must be our choice to make. A new and improved Constitution would restore that concept of liberty by giving the federal government no authority of any kind to do that.

Then you go right ahead with your new constitution that would, by default, deny healthcare to those who cannot afford it because your inhumane state would just refuse to pay for it.

Sure. And by they same logic (reductio ad absurdum) it also denies children loving parents, denies us nice clothes and quality entertainment. It denies us friends and family and a good job. Those reciting this slogan would have us believe we are 'denied' everything not provided by government.

It would make a complete and utter mockery of the concept of equality for all under the law.

I'm not sure you understand what "equality under the law" means. It doesn't mean "equality enforced by law".

 

[dblack]

I don't understand either how it is not a form of involuntary servitude when I am required by law

"Involuntary servitude"? You don't seem to have the first clue as to what this term means.

And, basically, it's simple. You enjoy the cheap services and products that don't provide those who work to provide them with a living wage, including healthcare costs, and you propagandise tirelessly to make that society more unfair, still. So you cough that up by other means.

And that's not even to mention that it makes eminent sense on economic, health, and moral grounds. Compared to that, your unending resentment towards any and all who receive a dime "unearned", is without weight, and devoid of any merit.

So what do you call it when one person is required to contribute his labor, expertise, productivity, and/or property to another who did nothing to earn it? How can you say that you have liberty if the government says you must provide the needs of that person or else?

How can you claim your liberty is infringed, you have every right to petition the government to change or go somewhere you feel is fair.

How can you claim the right to petition government protects our liberty?

 

[ScienceRocks]

If the constitution really does say anything about NOT investing in our own country...Well, I believe it needs an amendment to change that.

 

[Derideo_Te]

First you say that no one is denying anyone healthcare.

I have said that the person who does what he has to do in order to be able to provide himself and his family with food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare doesn't deserve to be saddled with responsibility for those who chose not to do that. If we value liberty, what we as individuals or as a society will choose to do at the state or local level for the less fortunate must be our choice to make. A new and improved Constitution would restore that concept of liberty by giving the federal government no authority of any kind to do that.

Then you go right ahead with your new constitution that would, by default, deny healthcare to those who cannot afford it because your inhumane state would just refuse to pay for it.

Sure. And by they same logic (reductio ad absurdum) it also denies children loving parents, denies us nice clothes and quality entertainment. It denies us friends and family and a good job. Those reciting this slogan would have us believe we are 'denied' everything not provided by government.

"Sure. And by they same logic (reductio ad absurdum) it also denies children loving parents, denies us nice clothes and quality entertainment. It denies us friends and family and a good job. Those reciting this slogan would have us believe we are 'denied' everything not provided by government."​

That has to be the most inane excuse for an argument that I have ever heard from any Libertarian. It is so utterly ludicrous as to be incomprehensible as to how you even came up with it in the first place.

It would make a complete and utter mockery of the concept of equality for all under the law.

I'm not sure you understand what "equality under the law" means. It doesn't mean "equality enforced by law".

If equality is not enforced by law then there is no meaning to the term.

The law says that you cannot discriminate against someone because of their race, creed or gender.

If that law was not enforced then you could discriminate against them and get away with it thereby rendering the law null and void.

 

[dblack]

"Sure. And by they same logic (reductio ad absurdum) it also denies children loving parents, denies us nice clothes and quality entertainment. It denies us friends and family and a good job. Those reciting this slogan would have us believe we are 'denied' everything not provided by government."

That has to be the most inane excuse for an argument that I have ever heard from any Libertarian. It is so utterly ludicrous as to be incomprehensible as to how you even came up with it in the first place.

Which part confused you?

It would make a complete and utter mockery of the concept of equality for all under the law.

I'm not sure you understand what "equality under the law" means. It doesn't mean "equality enforced by law".

If equality is not enforced by law then there is no meaning to the term.

The law says that you cannot discriminate against someone because of their race, creed or gender.

If that law was not enforced then you could discriminate against them and get away with it thereby rendering the law null and void.

That's what I was afraid of. Read that link.

 

[Derideo_Te]

"Sure. And by they same logic (reductio ad absurdum) it also denies children loving parents, denies us nice clothes and quality entertainment. It denies us friends and family and a good job. Those reciting this slogan would have us believe we are 'denied' everything not provided by government."

That has to be the most inane excuse for an argument that I have ever heard from any Libertarian. It is so utterly ludicrous as to be incomprehensible as to how you even came up with it in the first place.

Which part confused you?

It would make a complete and utter mockery of the concept of equality for all under the law.

I'm not sure you understand what "equality under the law" means. It doesn't mean "equality enforced by law".

If equality is not enforced by law then there is no meaning to the term.

The law says that you cannot discriminate against someone because of their race, creed or gender.

If that law was not enforced then you could discriminate against them and get away with it thereby rendering the law null and void.

That's what I was afraid of. Read that link.

Nothing in that link supports your position.

 

[dblack]

"Sure. And by they same logic (reductio ad absurdum) it also denies children loving parents, denies us nice clothes and quality entertainment. It denies us friends and family and a good job. Those reciting this slogan would have us believe we are 'denied' everything not provided by government."

That has to be the most inane excuse for an argument that I have ever heard from any Libertarian. It is so utterly ludicrous as to be incomprehensible as to how you even came up with it in the first place.

Which part confused you?

It would make a complete and utter mockery of the concept of equality for all under the law.

I'm not sure you understand what "equality under the law" means. It doesn't mean "equality enforced by law".

If equality is not enforced by law then there is no meaning to the term.

The law says that you cannot discriminate against someone because of their race, creed or gender.

If that law was not enforced then you could discriminate against them and get away with it thereby rendering the law null and void.

That's what I was afraid of. Read that link.

Nothing in that link supports your position.

It defines equality under the law. It's not what you think it is.

 

[Derideo_Te]

"Sure. And by they same logic (reductio ad absurdum) it also denies children loving parents, denies us nice clothes and quality entertainment. It denies us friends and family and a good job. Those reciting this slogan would have us believe we are 'denied' everything not provided by government."

That has to be the most inane excuse for an argument that I have ever heard from any Libertarian. It is so utterly ludicrous as to be incomprehensible as to how you even came up with it in the first place.

Which part confused you?

It would make a complete and utter mockery of the concept of equality for all under the law.

I'm not sure you understand what "equality under the law" means. It doesn't mean "equality enforced by law".

If equality is not enforced by law then there is no meaning to the term.

The law says that you cannot discriminate against someone because of their race, creed or gender.

If that law was not enforced then you could discriminate against them and get away with it thereby rendering the law null and void.

That's what I was afraid of. Read that link.

Nothing in that link supports your position.

It defines equality under the law. It's not what you think it is.

Onus is on you to prove that it means what you imagine it says.

 

[dblack]

"Sure. And by they same logic (reductio ad absurdum) it also denies children loving parents, denies us nice clothes and quality entertainment. It denies us friends and family and a good job. Those reciting this slogan would have us believe we are 'denied' everything not provided by government."

That has to be the most inane excuse for an argument that I have ever heard from any Libertarian. It is so utterly ludicrous as to be incomprehensible as to how you even came up with it in the first place.

Which part confused you?

I'm not sure you understand what "equality under the law" means. It doesn't mean "equality enforced by law".

If equality is not enforced by law then there is no meaning to the term.

The law says that you cannot discriminate against someone because of their race, creed or gender.

If that law was not enforced then you could discriminate against them and get away with it thereby rendering the law null and void.

That's what I was afraid of. Read that link.

Nothing in that link supports your position.

It defines equality under the law. It's not what you think it is.

Onus is on you to prove that it means what you imagine it says.

That's what the link was for. I can't make you drink.

 

[Derideo_Te]

"Sure. And by they same logic (reductio ad absurdum) it also denies children loving parents, denies us nice clothes and quality entertainment. It denies us friends and family and a good job. Those reciting this slogan would have us believe we are 'denied' everything not provided by government."

That has to be the most inane excuse for an argument that I have ever heard from any Libertarian. It is so utterly ludicrous as to be incomprehensible as to how you even came up with it in the first place.

Which part confused you?

If equality is not enforced by law then there is no meaning to the term.

The law says that you cannot discriminate against someone because of their race, creed or gender.

If that law was not enforced then you could discriminate against them and get away with it thereby rendering the law null and void.

That's what I was afraid of. Read that link.

Nothing in that link supports your position.

It defines equality under the law. It's not what you think it is.

Onus is on you to prove that it means what you imagine it says.

That's what the link was for. I can't make you drink.

Your link supports my position. Onus is on you to try and make it support your specious claim. Failure to do so means you forfeit your position.