Is health care a right? Is free speech a right? What is a right?

[dblack]

Health care is not a right, but it's nonsense to feel like that settles the question. Roads aren't a right either, but no one is suggesting the government stop building them.

Exactly. Saying health care isn't a right, doesn't mean government can't provide it as a service. It merely means it doesn't fall under government's express purpose of protecting our rights. Whether we think government should have the power to provide health care, or health insurance, depends on our reading of the Constitution.

In the case of ACA, whether health care is a right is irrelevant, as the Court has decided that government has the power to use the tax code to force us to buy products from their corporate sponsors. The right in question is the right to refuse to buy a product or service you don't want.

There has been a lot of government spending that I do not are with and don't support. Did I have the right to withhold my funding? Did I have the right not to fund their wars? What is the difference?

What I'd I have no children? Can I chose not to fund the public education system?

(I wouldn't because I'm not an a$$hole, just sayin)

Well, that's the difference between taxation to fund government spending and a mandate to pay a third party. The Constitution gives government the power to tax us to fund its legitimate functions. The whole point of taxation is that you can't 'opt-out'.

The question here is whether the taxation power can be used to coerce taxpayers into giving their money directly to non-government entities, e.g. insurance corporations. I think that's an obvious abuse of the taxation power. Chief Justice Roberts doesn't see it that way and has endorsed the practice with his decision on ACA.

 

[Polk]

Exactly. Saying health care isn't a right, doesn't mean government can't provide it as a service. It merely means it doesn't fall under government's express purpose of protecting our rights. Whether we think government should have the power to provide health care, or health insurance, depends on our reading of the Constitution.

In the case of ACA, whether health care is a right is irrelevant, as the Court has decided that government has the power to use the tax code to force us to buy products from their corporate sponsors. The right in question is the right to refuse to buy a product or service you don't want.

There has been a lot of government spending that I do not are with and don't support. Did I have the right to withhold my funding? Did I have the right not to fund their wars? What is the difference?

What I'd I have no children? Can I chose not to fund the public education system?

(I wouldn't because I'm not an a$$hole, just sayin)

Well, that's the difference between taxation to fund government spending and a mandate to pay a third party. The Constitution gives government the power to tax us to fund its legitimate functions. The whole point of taxation is that you can't 'opt-out'.

The question here is whether the taxation power can be used to coerce taxpayers into giving their money directly to non-government entities, e.g. insurance corporations. I think that's an obvious abuse of the taxation power. Chief Justice Roberts doesn't see it that way and has endorsed the practice with his decision on ACA.

I think that argument puts far too much emphasis on form over function. How do you feel about school vouchers, for example?

 

[dblack]

There has been a lot of government spending that I do not are with and don't support. Did I have the right to withhold my funding? Did I have the right not to fund their wars? What is the difference?

What I'd I have no children? Can I chose not to fund the public education system?

(I wouldn't because I'm not an a$$hole, just sayin)

Well, that's the difference between taxation to fund government spending and a mandate to pay a third party. The Constitution gives government the power to tax us to fund its legitimate functions. The whole point of taxation is that you can't 'opt-out'.

The question here is whether the taxation power can be used to coerce taxpayers into giving their money directly to non-government entities, e.g. insurance corporations. I think that's an obvious abuse of the taxation power. Chief Justice Roberts doesn't see it that way and has endorsed the practice with his decision on ACA.

I think that argument puts far too much emphasis on form over function. How do you feel about school vouchers, for example?

I oppose them for the same reasons. How tax funds are spent should be under democratic control of government and not up to individuals or businesses. It's a mistake to think that granting such control is a net increase in liberty. Liberty is lost when taxes are levied. Getting some of that money back 'with strings attached' is not a win in my view.

Many libertarians would disagree with me on this, but I think they're failing to see the damage done by this kind of 'mixed-mode' taxation. Government should be government and private economic decisions should remain private economic decisions.

 

[Polk]

I posed it as a question because I was interested in hearing your take. The larger issue you seem to be hitting as is that many libertarians see their ideas as ones about efficiency., without much concern for the "morality" of the action. I agree with you that the morality imposes an actual constraint (if the desire is to be consistent).

I still think the argument places too much emphasis on form over function. There doesn't seem, from my perspective, a significant difference between the following transactions.

1) taxes paid -> government provides service -> service received

2) taxes paid -> government pays service provider -> service provider provides service - service received

There are differences that have an practical impact on public policy, but that's a separate question.

 

[ClosedCaption]

All you did was Scream liar really loud then link to proof that its wrong...Wait, no you posted a link to a rebuttal lol. Written by the guy at Heritage Foundation lol. In 2012 RLMAO...That says

-caused me to conclude we had made a mistake in the 1990s

Of course NOW its wrong...When OBAMA DOES IT.

We is who, the GOP....sorry, but no.

I guess you just can't let of the meme when to do so only forces you to face the reality that the head fraud and all his little minions can't run a web site much the health care system for a large nation....well, that just gotta be painful.

Yes, we all know.....it's painful.

We is the Heritage Foundation. Repubs all supported it for a decade then suddenly, at the same time Obama backs it, its a bad idea. They actually promoted and backed a bad idea for a decade and didn't realize it and I have a bridge to sell you

Boo hoo a website...big deal

Repubs spend a lot of time saying what something ISNT. No one cares if you call Healthcare a Right, a choice, Deserved or a blueberry pie.

Its needed because the cost of healthcare is too dam high

No it isn't......

Yes, yes it is. Interesting debate style you got there

 

[dblack]

I posed it as a question because I was interested in hearing your take. The larger issue you seem to be hitting as is that many libertarians see their ideas as ones about efficiency., without much concern for the "morality" of the action. I agree with you that the morality imposes an actual constraint (if the desire is to be consistent).

I still think the argument places too much emphasis on form over function. There doesn't seem, from my perspective, a significant difference between the following transactions.

1) taxes paid -> government provides service -> service received

2) taxes paid -> government pays service provider -> service provider provides service - service received

There are differences that have an practical impact on public policy, but that's a separate question.

There's not an appreciable difference there, and such delegation is unavoidable. But that's not what's happening with the mandate. With the mandate, and with 'tax incentives' in general, taxes aren't actually paid. Taxation is used as a threat to coerce payment to a third party. If we choose to view such coerced payment as 'taxation', then it would seem to qualify as 'taxation with representation' at the very least.

In case it's not clear, the main issue I have with ACA isn't the government assuming responsibility for health care, or spending tax money on such. It's the radical expansion, and relatively unquestioned acceptance, of the use of taxation as a means of coercing behavior. The practice has been going on for a long time, albeit in more limited scope, but that doesn't make it right. Roberts had a golden opportunity to turn things around and he caved. In my view he sealed our fate in the transition from a liberal democracy to a corporatist regime.

 

[dblack]

We is the Heritage Foundation. Repubs all supported it for a decade then suddenly, at the same time Obama backs it, its a bad idea.

Ok... so I have to ask, again - what's the point in voting for Democrats if they're just going to pass Republican legislation?

 

[Polk]

I posed it as a question because I was interested in hearing your take. The larger issue you seem to be hitting as is that many libertarians see their ideas as ones about efficiency., without much concern for the "morality" of the action. I agree with you that the morality imposes an actual constraint (if the desire is to be consistent).

I still think the argument places too much emphasis on form over function. There doesn't seem, from my perspective, a significant difference between the following transactions.

1) taxes paid -> government provides service -> service received

2) taxes paid -> government pays service provider -> service provider provides service - service received

There are differences that have an practical impact on public policy, but that's a separate question.

There's not an appreciable difference there, and such delegation is unavoidable. But that's not what's happening with the mandate. With the mandate, and with 'tax incentives' in general, taxes aren't actually paid. Taxation is used as a threat to coerce payment to a third party. If we choose to view such coerced payment as 'taxation', then it would seem to qualify as 'taxation with representation' at the very least.

In case it's not clear, the main issue I have with ACA isn't the government assuming responsibility for health care, or spending tax money on such. It's the radical expansion, and relatively unquestioned acceptance, of the use of taxation as a means of coercing behavior. The practice has been going on for a long time, albeit in more limited scope, but that doesn't make it right. Roberts had a golden opportunity to turn things around and he caved. In my view he sealed our fate in the transition from a liberal democracy to a corporatist regime.

You see it as a radical because you see it as relatively new. It's not. The home mortgage deduction, for example, is something I certainly wouldn't describe as limited in scope.

 

[Polk]

We is the Heritage Foundation. Repubs all supported it for a decade then suddenly, at the same time Obama backs it, its a bad idea.

Ok... so I have to ask, again - what's the point in voting for Democrats if they're just going to pass Republican legislation?

Then again, that rests of the assumption that Republicans actually support the plans they pimp.

 

[Contumacious]

Is health care a right? Is free speech a right? What is a right?.

Nice avatar.


Human Beings are endowed with rights by nature,ie, life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.

Those rights do not depend on the Constitution nor upon bureaucrats.


If someone claims to have a right which necessitates that taxpayers or their neighbor provide it then it is not a right.

.

 

[thereisnospoon]

A right is something you have regardless of the actions of others. Freedom of speech for instance. I can say whatever I want with no help from anyone else.

Health car, however, is a service. Without doctors electing to work in the field of health care, no one would receive it. It's dependent on someone else providing it to you.

You pretty much ignored my example of how free speech would not be a right, if people in power outlawed it.

That's because your 'example' was not one at all. It is a conspiracy scenario which apparently lives in your head.

 

[dblack]

I posed it as a question because I was interested in hearing your take. The larger issue you seem to be hitting as is that many libertarians see their ideas as ones about efficiency., without much concern for the "morality" of the action. I agree with you that the morality imposes an actual constraint (if the desire is to be consistent).

I still think the argument places too much emphasis on form over function. There doesn't seem, from my perspective, a significant difference between the following transactions.

1) taxes paid -> government provides service -> service received

2) taxes paid -> government pays service provider -> service provider provides service - service received

There are differences that have an practical impact on public policy, but that's a separate question.

There's not an appreciable difference there, and such delegation is unavoidable. But that's not what's happening with the mandate. With the mandate, and with 'tax incentives' in general, taxes aren't actually paid. Taxation is used as a threat to coerce payment to a third party. If we choose to view such coerced payment as 'taxation', then it would seem to qualify as 'taxation with representation' at the very least.

In case it's not clear, the main issue I have with ACA isn't the government assuming responsibility for health care, or spending tax money on such. It's the radical expansion, and relatively unquestioned acceptance, of the use of taxation as a means of coercing behavior. The practice has been going on for a long time, albeit in more limited scope, but that doesn't make it right. Roberts had a golden opportunity to turn things around and he caved. In my view he sealed our fate in the transition from a liberal democracy to a corporatist regime.

You see it as a radical because you see it as relatively new. It's not. The home mortgage deduction, for example, is something I certainly wouldn't describe as limited in scope.

No, as I said, it's been going on for a long time. But that doesn't make it right. And the individual mandate brings the use of tax incentives to the fore and establishes it overtly as a means of coercing behavior. What Roberts recognized was the penalty/mandate aspect of ACA was fundamentally no different than other tax incentives like the home mortgage deduction. In my view, that simply shows that such incentives are wrong and an abuse of the taxation power.

 

[Polk]

There's not an appreciable difference there, and such delegation is unavoidable. But that's not what's happening with the mandate. With the mandate, and with 'tax incentives' in general, taxes aren't actually paid. Taxation is used as a threat to coerce payment to a third party. If we choose to view such coerced payment as 'taxation', then it would seem to qualify as 'taxation with representation' at the very least.

In case it's not clear, the main issue I have with ACA isn't the government assuming responsibility for health care, or spending tax money on such. It's the radical expansion, and relatively unquestioned acceptance, of the use of taxation as a means of coercing behavior. The practice has been going on for a long time, albeit in more limited scope, but that doesn't make it right. Roberts had a golden opportunity to turn things around and he caved. In my view he sealed our fate in the transition from a liberal democracy to a corporatist regime.

You see it as a radical because you see it as relatively new. It's not. The home mortgage deduction, for example, is something I certainly wouldn't describe as limited in scope.

No, as I said, it's been going on for a long time. But that doesn't make it right. And the individual mandate brings the use of tax incentives to the fore and establishes it overtly as a means of coercing behavior. What Roberts recognized was the penalty/mandate aspect of ACA was fundamentally no different than other tax incentives like the home mortgage deduction. In my view, that simply shows that such incentives are wrong and an abuse of the taxation power.

I disagree with you that such incentives are wrong, but you are correct in arguing that they have the same genesis and should be judged under the same standard.

 

[dblack]

I disagree with you that such incentives are wrong, but you are correct in arguing that they have the same genesis and should be judged under the same standard.

Do you at least recognize how the practice does an end run around limited government? A government needs no other express powers if it can dictate behavior via discriminatory taxation. Everything can fall under such a power, including forcing us to give our money to corporations favored by the regime in power.

 

[Polk]

I disagree with you that such incentives are wrong, but you are correct in arguing that they have the same genesis and should be judged under the same standard.

Do you at least recognize how the practice does an end run around limited government? A government needs no other express powers if it can dictate behavior via discriminatory taxation. Everything can fall under such a power, including forcing us to give our money to corporations favored by the regime in power.

I wouldn't dispute that it certainly expands the range of policy options.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Not exactly spelled out in black and white but...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Oh God.. not this stupid argument again...


<<< facepalm >>>

 

[Listening]

Not exactly spelled out in black and white but...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Oh God.. not this stupid argument again...


<<< facepalm >>>

Give him a break.

For a lib....anything with the word Welfare in it ....is like honey to a fly.

 

[hunarcy]

I posed it as a question because I was interested in hearing your take. The larger issue you seem to be hitting as is that many libertarians see their ideas as ones about efficiency., without much concern for the "morality" of the action. I agree with you that the morality imposes an actual constraint (if the desire is to be consistent).

I still think the argument places too much emphasis on form over function. There doesn't seem, from my perspective, a significant difference between the following transactions.

1) taxes paid -> government provides service -> service received

2) taxes paid -> government pays service provider -> service provider provides service - service received

There are differences that have an practical impact on public policy, but that's a separate question.

What if we went to a: Taxes lowered->private citizen takes the money that would have gone to the government to purchase what they desire from the service provider->service provided. Take the government inefficiency out of it.

 

[hunarcy]

Not exactly spelled out in black and white but...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Note it says promote, not provide.

 

[hunarcy]

People are only entitled to rights that those in power allow them to have.

Awfully good to hear the totalitarian point of view, but it's not to be taken seriously.

Another candidate for the ignore list.