Is healthcare a right? why or why not?

[mattskramer]

Ahh there we go, finally to the crux, no right or wrong. As long as you believe so.

Yes. That is pretty much how right and wrong is decided. I’m still waiting for an answer from you. Where do you draw the line with respect to animal abuse? Also at what age should people be allowed to buy cigarettes (21 years and 1 month or 21 years and 3 months)? Do you think that people should be allowed to smoke cigarettes even though we know that they are unhealthy? Why not allow people to use marijuana then? People are reluctant to admit it but there really is no right and wrong except as constructed by society (populations) in order for it to function as it thinks best. Yet, even popular vote can be wrong.

As to the Government providing for everyone, the Federal Government does NOT have the authority to do so. In fact Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The Constitution is clear, it does not list what the Government can NOT do until some amendments are added. The Document lists what the Government CAN do. With out an amendment the Federal Government can NOT usurp powers NOT given to it by the Constitution.

Okay. I am not a constitutional scholar. If what you say is true then perhaps you should file suit are call on people to remove legislation that violates the constitution.

States can run these welfare programs depending on what their Constitutions say. The Federal Government can NOT. They can not legally tax for nor administer the programs LEGALLY. Just because the Courts haven't taken it up doesn't change the fact the Federal Government does NOT legally have the power to run, oversee or tax for these programs.

In my question, I included state and local government. It is still your belief that, even at the local level, government should not help the needy – correct?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I missed that bit can you point it out?

As to the Government providing for everyone, the Federal Government does NOT have the authority to do so. In fact Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.{/quote]

I missed that too, can you point it out?



Can you do it again? Point out to me where your constitution says that?



It doesn't? Why not? Why hasn't it been stopped?

This is interesting.

You really need me to link you once again to the US Constitution? It is easily found by doing a Google. It is not a very long document, Read it your self. Pay special attention to the part where it lists what exactly Congress can do. It is under the section on the Legislature. Find me a listed power they have to run welfare and health care. Ohh and while you are there find the listed power where they can run Education as well.

I will give you a hint, most of the illegal powers Congress has usurped are claimed to somehow fall under the Commerce clause, the claim being, for example, Commerce requires Education thus giving the Federal Government the power.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Here let me spoon feed you once again...

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

Article 1 Section 8. It lists all the powers of the Legislature, but do read the whole document, there are a couple more powers they have in the other sections, though they are not enumerated powers for running the Country, but rather powers to do with who and how Congress runs and interaction between the Branches.

 

[mattskramer]

Slavery is OK so long as it is in "moderation"?

On the issue of slavery, moral relativism, and situational ethics, I enjoy asking conservatives if it was wrong to own slaves. Many people would not give me a quick yes/no answer. They would say, “Well, times were different. If we freed the slaves early, the south would revolt and we might not be able to hold the nation together.” They might say “we are such a young nation that we need the cheap labor that the slaves provide. In due time, we will set them free”. I simply respond by saying that those are examples of situational ethics. Was it wrong for our founding fathers to keep slaves and allow for people to have slaves? Okay. If you said no, don’t you realize that the survival of the nation would have been at risk?

 

[mattskramer]

Here let me spoon feed you once again...

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

Article 1 Section 8. It lists all the powers of the Legislature, but do read the whole document, there are a couple more powers they have in the other sections, though they are not enumerated powers for running the Country, but rather powers to do with who and how Congress runs and interaction between the Branches.

Okay. Thanks for the spoon. So the federal government is not allowed to run social programs. That would fall under state and local governments. I got it! So how about answering my questions:

Can you sue the federal government? If so, will you do so?
Will you vote for people who will remove the illegal federal welfare programs?
Do you oppose state and local assistance for the needy?
Where do you draw the line on animal cruelty?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Okay. Thanks for the spoon. So the federal government is not allowed to run social programs. That would fall under state and local governments. I got it! So how about answering my questions:

Can you sue the federal government? If so, will you do so?
Will you vote for people who will remove the illegal federal welfare programs?
Do you oppose state and local assistance for the needy?
Where do you draw the line on animal cruelty?

The Courts are NOT interested in doing anything about the encroachment of the Government on our rights and expanding it's power. I can not do anything through the legal system because the courts will claim I have no legal standing.

States are free to do as they please depending on how their Constitutions are written. It is none of my business except in the State I live in. But your question is pointless because the States don't have to do anything, they allow the Federal Government to usurp the power.

I would vote for anyone that met my goals, the repeal of Social Security is not high on my list, but it would be a plus. What is more needed though is forcing the Government to ONLY use the taxes for Social Security ON Social Security. Since it was created the money has been General Funds used to run all and any Government program. That is why the system will go bankrupt. Realisticly we will never repeal it, but we should make it work if we haven't the will to eliminate it.

Animal cruelty is a moral question. We have a moral obligation to treat animals as humanely as we can within the needs of Society. Some laws I support, some I do not. You would have to be specific. Taking the term cruelty could be used to, for example, to stop the butchering of animals for our food. You will NOT find me in support of that. I also am not against using animals for testing purposes for the betterment of man, in medicine, in military. I am not so sure I support testing for cosmetics though. That one I might oppose if convinced.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

On the issue of slavery, moral relativism, and situational ethics, I enjoy asking conservatives if it was wrong to own slaves. Many people would not give me a quick yes/no answer. They would say, “Well, times were different. If we freed the slaves early, the south would revolt and we might not be able to hold the nation together.” They might say “we are such a young nation that we need the cheap labor that the slaves provide. In due time, we will set them free”. I simply respond by saying that those are examples of situational ethics. Was it wrong for our founding fathers to keep slaves and allow for people to have slaves? Okay. If you said no, don’t you realize that the survival of the nation would have been at risk?

If I had lived back then, I like to believe I would have been vehemently opposed to slavery. As to breaking up the Country? It was and is morally wrong. Further it CLEARLY was illegal by our own Documents. The Constitution may have allowed it in one section but the rest of the document clearly makes it illegal. At some point whats right is more important then allowing something that repugnent to continue.

 

[Diuretic]

I missed that bit can you point it out?



You really need me to link you once again to the US Constitution? It is easily found by doing a Google. It is not a very long document, Read it your self. Pay special attention to the part where it lists what exactly Congress can do. It is under the section on the Legislature. Find me a listed power they have to run welfare and health care. Ohh and while you are there find the listed power where they can run Education as well.

I will give you a hint, most of the illegal powers Congress has usurped are claimed to somehow fall under the Commerce clause, the claim being, for example, Commerce requires Education thus giving the Federal Government the power.

So where does it say the Congress can't do certain things? It seems to me that the writers of the constitution had to give Congress certain authority to get things done so they knocked up a pretty comprehensive list in a fairly short time. But I wonder if they thought to themselves, that's it then, that's all the Congress will need to do forever. Somehow I doubt it. So perhaps they left it open and allowed that other branch of government, the Supreme Court, to decide whether or not certain novel actions by Congress were in accordance with the spirit of the constutition.

 

[mattskramer]

The Courts are NOT interested in doing anything about the encroachment of the Government on our rights and expanding it's power. I can not do anything through the legal system because the courts will claim I have no legal standing.

States are free to do as they please depending on how their Constitutions are written. It is none of my business except in the State I live in. But your question is pointless because the States don't have to do anything, they allow the Federal Government to usurp the power.

I would vote for anyone that met my goals, the repeal of Social Security is not high on my list, but it would be a plus. What is more needed though is forcing the Government to ONLY use the taxes for Social Security ON Social Security. Since it was created the money has been General Funds used to run all and any Government program. That is why the system will go bankrupt. Realisticly we will never repeal it, but we should make it work if we haven't the will to eliminate it.

Animal cruelty is a moral question. We have a moral obligation to treat animals as humanely as we can within the needs of Society. Some laws I support, some I do not. You would have to be specific. Taking the term cruelty could be used to, for example, to stop the butchering of animals for our food. You will NOT find me in support of that. I also am not against using animals for testing purposes for the betterment of man, in medicine, in military. I am not so sure I support testing for cosmetics though. That one I might oppose if convinced.

Who says that we have a moral obligation to treat animals as humanely as we can within the needs of society? Does the Bible say that? Well, the Bible says many things that people would question. Does the general public say that? Well, just because something is popular does not make it right? Again, where does this moral obligation come from? Perhaps you just happen to think that it is a moral obligation – it is what you think.

What about ants in the street – do I have a moral obligation to not kill them? They are not bothering me. Should I steer around them? What about spiders – is it okay to kill them? They can be a help sometimes. They eat flies – those poor flies. Do you support rat extermination? What if the rat population is so small that it does not create a problem? How many rats must cities have before you approve of extermination - 51, 51, 52?

Don’t you understand that so much of this is relative and subjective? Even the very notion that we have a moral obligation when it comes to how we treat animals is debatable. Following that, what animals we can kill and under what circumstances is debatable. Ethics is subjective and relative.

By the way, people eat dogs in some parts of the world.

 

[Bern80]

As I pointed out, it's not a right. I don't regard it as a right. I haven't seen any proof here of it being a right. I do regard it as a social obligation though.

and for the umteen gazillionth time, WHY is it an obligation? You said you were a believer in the five whys theory, so lets get the ball rolling. WHY am I obligated to provide you with healthcare?

See this is where I get lost (obviously). To me if I am obligated to provide you with something that would mean the obligation to provide for you doesn't fall on you. Yet you have more control over your health than I do. I again use the car analogy. True one is human life, one isn't but both can have strikingly similar scenarios play out.

A parralell analogy would be you're in a car accident. There is nothing you could have done, no precautions you could have taken , no one is at fault.

the paralell. You get sick with cancer. There is nothing you could have done, no preventative care you that would have stopped it, it is no one's fault that you contracted it.

Yet in the first it is perfectly reasonable to assume that even though there is nothing you could have done to prevent it, you are responsible for the bill in getting your car fixed. Why shouldn't the same hold true for the medical industry?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So where does it say the Congress can't do certain things? It seems to me that the writers of the constitution had to give Congress certain authority to get things done so they knocked up a pretty comprehensive list in a fairly short time. But I wonder if they thought to themselves, that's it then, that's all the Congress will need to do forever. Somehow I doubt it. So perhaps they left it open and allowed that other branch of government, the Supreme Court, to decide whether or not certain novel actions by Congress were in accordance with the spirit of the constutition.

Learn history my friend. The Framers of the Constitution claimed publicly, repeatedly that they did not need a "Bill of Rights" or any language prohibiting something in the document BECAUSE it said only what the Government COULD do. They finally agreed to the "Bill of Rights" our first 10 Amendments, when it became clear they probably wouldn't get the 9 States needed to Ratify the Constitution with out it.

Further the document is clear, the Government only has the powers listed in the Document. No others. The claim that in the future they may need more is easily countered by the inclusion of the Amendment process. This Government is supposed to be For and BY the People. The people need to , through the amendment process, authorize further powers for the Federal Government, not the Courts.

 

[mattskramer]

WHY am I obligated to provide you with healthcare?

I guess that it would be for the same reason that RetiredGySgt thinks that:

we have a moral obligation to treat animals as humanely as we can within the needs of Society.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I guess that it would be for the same reason that RetiredGySgt thinks that:

Wrong again. But do keep trying, it is so much fun watching you flail around.

 

[mattskramer]

Wrong again. But do keep trying, it is so much fun watching you flail around.

Please explain how I am wrong. I quoted you word-for-word.

 

[Bern80]

Please explain how I am wrong. I quoted you word-for-word.

Because they aren't analgous.

And I'm not sure RGS statement is even true.

Quit dodging and answer my question

 

[mattskramer]

Wrong again. But do keep trying, it is so much fun watching you flail around.

In summary: If we have a moral obligation to treat animals as humanely as we can within the needs of Society, then don’t we also have a moral obligation to help those who fall on hard times within the needs of society? If people refuse to help those who fall on hard times, shouldn’t it be government’s responsibility to require people to help those who fall on hard times.

Moral obligations are moral obligations.

 

[mattskramer]

In summary: If we have a moral obligation to treat animals as humanely as we can within the needs of Society, then don’t we also have a moral obligation to help those who fall on hard times within the needs of society? If people refuse to help those who fall on hard times, shouldn’t it be government’s responsibility to require people to help those who fall on hard times.

Moral obligations are moral obligations.

Don’t feel too bad. You had me thinking for a while, but when you said that there were these things called “moral obligations” that was the card that I needed and the “nail in your coffin". You mentioned this thing called “obligations” long after you posed the question about “obligations”. Why should I be obligated (forced) to care for animals and you not be obligated (forced) to care for people? I’d like to stay and see you work your way around it but I should go to bed. Nice debate. Good night.

 

[Diuretic]

Learn history my friend. The Framers of the Constitution claimed publicly, repeatedly that they did not need a "Bill of Rights" or any language prohibiting something in the document BECAUSE it said only what the Government COULD do. They finally agreed to the "Bill of Rights" our first 10 Amendments, when it became clear they probably wouldn't get the 9 States needed to Ratify the Constitution with out it.

Further the document is clear, the Government only has the powers listed in the Document. No others. The claim that in the future they may need more is easily countered by the inclusion of the Amendment process. This Government is supposed to be For and BY the People. The people need to , through the amendment process, authorize further powers for the Federal Government, not the Courts.

So the Constutiton contains a method for amendments? That means that the constitution must have been seen as a document that could, in effect, be altered as necessary and that government could be permitted to do things that were seen as necessary in the future. So it seems to me that the constitution doesn't really limit government all that much if it can be amended to allow government to do certain things.

 

[Bern80]

So the Constutiton contains a method for amendments? That means that the constitution must have been seen as a document that could, in effect, be altered as necessary and that government could be permitted to do things that were seen as necessary in the future. So it seems to me that the constitution doesn't really limit government all that much if it can be amended to allow government to do certain things.

Oh most definately does. As RGS pointed out the government cannot change the constitution at it's whims. An changes to it must be through ammendments which the citizenry must pass. Not the government. It would be more accurate to state the document can be altered as deemed neccessary by the people, not if deemed neccessary by the government.

P.S. please see post 230

 

[Diuretic]

Oh most definately does. As RGS pointed out the government cannot change the constitution at it's whims. An changes to it must be through ammendments which the citizenry must pass. Not the government. It would be more accurate to state the document can be altered as deemed neccessary by the people, not if deemed neccessary by the government.

P.S. please see post 230

Congress can pass amendments can't it?