Is healthcare a right? why or why not?

[Diuretic]

It's nice to log on after a reasonable night's sleep and see that jillian has been in the kitchen. She's been slicing and dicing very finely in the kitchen. It seems that the opposition is now en brochette. Any more flames from the opposition and we'll have ourselves a barbecue. And just to continue the metaphor, you're all well done

Pointing out the hypocrisy of the Congress is a winner.

Well it was a good discussion. For those on the other side of the offence, I know you'll be fuming (tut, there I go again) but hey don't worry about it, I'm strongly of the opinion that it's about participation and not winning.

Now I know you'll keep going with it but without any malice at all I think I'm just about done (medium rare) here, but it has been very educational.

 

[jillian]

Hell, I know that my nephew needed surgery IMMEDIATELY, the 3 day delay was alot, that was only to give surgeons the changes in real time of what was happening.

If he was in any of those countries, from what I've read from the people of those countries, the surgery would not have proceeded on that time schedual. He'd be dead.

I doubt it. Emergencies always come first... especially when the person is young, though there are snafu's even here.

Glad he came out ok.

 

[jillian]

It's nice to log on after a reasonable night's sleep and see that jillian has been in the kitchen. She's been slicing and dicing very finely in the kitchen. It seems that the opposition is now en brochette. Any more flames from the opposition and we'll have ourselves a barbecue. And just to continue the metaphor, you're all well done

Pointing out the hypocrisy of the Congress is a winner.

Well it was a good discussion. For those on the other side of the offence, I know you'll be fuming (tut, there I go again) but hey don't worry about it, I'm strongly of the opinion that it's about participation and not winning.

Now I know you'll keep going with it but without any malice at all I think I'm just about done (medium rare) here, but it has been very educational.

Now that's what I call a metaphor! heh...

Thanks. Always good to see your posts, too!

 

[Bern80]

It's nice to log on after a reasonable night's sleep and see that jillian has been in the kitchen. She's been slicing and dicing very finely in the kitchen. It seems that the opposition is now en brochette. Any more flames from the opposition and we'll have ourselves a barbecue. And just to continue the metaphor, you're all well done

Pointing out the hypocrisy of the Congress is a winner.

Well it was a good discussion. For those on the other side of the offence, I know you'll be fuming (tut, there I go again) but hey don't worry about it, I'm strongly of the opinion that it's about participation and not winning.

Now I know you'll keep going with it but without any malice at all I think I'm just about done (medium rare) here, but it has been very educational.

Jillian complains about congress receiving healthcare for life and that means the argument for universal healthcare has been won? That could be your worst argument yet.

 

[Diuretic]

Jillian complains about congress receiving healthcare for life and that means the argument for universal healthcare has been won? That could be your worst argument yet.

It wasn't solely that but that was definitely a major point that hadn't been introduced before in the thread. Feel better now?

 

[jillian]

Jillian complains about congress receiving healthcare for life and that means the argument for universal healthcare has been won? That could be your worst argument yet.

Yeah...why make them not provide themselves with things they deny people who voted for them? Why make them accountable.

Feeling persnickety tonight?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yeah...why make them not provide themselves with things they deny people who voted for them? Why make them accountable.

Feeling persnickety tonight?

The military gets health care after retirement. Should that be stopped? While I agree giving politicians free health care after 5 short years is stupid, the concept is not. It is part of a retirement package. It does not somehow equate to evidence that every person in the country should have health care provided by the Federal Government. Hell Senators, Congressman and Presidents/Vice Presidents get retirement pay as well, does that equate to every person in the country should get Federal retirement pay?

 

[jillian]

The military gets health care after retirement. Should that be stopped? While I agree giving politicians free health care after 5 short years is stupid, the concept is not. It is part of a retirement package. It does not somehow equate to evidence that every person in the country should have health care provided by the Federal Government. Hell Senators, Congressman and Presidents/Vice Presidents get retirement pay as well, does that equate to every person in the country should get Federal retirement pay?

Did I say Congress shouldn't get health coverage?

Did I say my husband or the military or anyone else shouldn't have health coverage?

Nope. And nope.

No...Congress's isn't a retirment package if it vests after 5 years. 20 years is a retirement package.

This is about health care for our fellow citizens.

My point was that it isn't welfare to provide it to Congress OR to citizens.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Did I say Congress shouldn't get health coverage?

Did I say my husband or the military or anyone else shouldn't have health coverage?

Nope. And nope.

No...Congress's isn't a retirment package if it vests after 5 years. 20 years is a retirement package.

This is about health care for our fellow citizens.

My point was that it isn't welfare to provide it to Congress OR to citizens.

And you would be wrong, while 5 years is a pretty low term for retirement, that IS what it is called. You are aware that military members can receive retirement benefits in less than 20 years? When the military was drawn down several services offered early retirement as low as 15 years. Further medical retirement can occur at any time. I only served 16 years and am permanently retired due to medical. Further you are aware a lot of Companies do not allow retirement until a certain AGE regardless of years on the job? That some offer different levels of retirement based on years and or age at retirement? That there is no STANDARD time, age or service that defines retirement in the United States?

 

[Bern80]

It wasn't solely that but that was definitely a major point that hadn't been introduced before in the thread. Feel better now?

It isn't a major point at all. You are both attempting now to make the argument that since our congress voted itself free healthcare for life it should provide the same for the country.

It seriously is the dumbest argument I've heard yet to try and pass off this universal healthcare thing as a good idea. there is absolutely no logic in it whatsoever in the argument that this group is doing it so they should provide to everyone. And yet you're both touting as this amazing argument and think it has swayed the debate in your favor.

despite saying that it is a good idea to always ask why you seem to not be willing to do that too often.

WHY does congress providing itself a healthare plan mean they are somehow obligated to provide the same to the nation?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It isn't a major point at all. You are both attempting now to make the argument that since our congress voted itself free healthcare for life it should provide the same for the country.

It seriously is the dumbest argument I've heard yet to try and pass off this universal healthcare thing as a good idea. there is absolutely no logic in it whatsoever in the argument that this group is doing it so they should provide to everyone. And yet you're both touting as this amazing argument and think it has swayed the debate in your favor.

despite saying that it is a good idea to always ask why you seem to not be willing to do that too often.

WHY does congress providing itself a healthare plan mean they are somehow obligated to provide the same to the nation?

More importantly, they HAVE the power to give themselves health care, show me where the Congress has any power to give Joe blow off the street health care of any kind.

 

[Diuretic]

It isn't a major point at all. You are both attempting now to make the argument that since our congress voted itself free healthcare for life it should provide the same for the country.

It seriously is the dumbest argument I've heard yet to try and pass off this universal healthcare thing as a good idea. there is absolutely no logic in it whatsoever in the argument that this group is doing it so they should provide to everyone. And yet you're both touting as this amazing argument and think it has swayed the debate in your favor.

despite saying that it is a good idea to always ask why you seem to not be willing to do that too often.

WHY does congress providing itself a healthare plan mean they are somehow obligated to provide the same to the nation?

No, the people who have the power to make their own conditions have given themselves a very good health care scheme which persists after their formal employment has ceased. That's an excellent deal in a country like yours where health care is a bit like the curate's egg - good in parts.

But will they think of extending care to the nation? Noooooooooooo. They've got theirs. No instead they'll tut-tut about socialism and suck everyone in thinking a health care scheme that has a single payer, the government, isn't possible. Hypocritical and selfish and totally without consideration for the people they are sworn to serve.

 

[Diuretic]

More importantly, they HAVE the power to give themselves health care, show me where the Congress has any power to give Joe blow off the street health care of any kind.

I don't do this very often but it strikes me that somewhere between the powers of Congress as stated in the constitution and the definite prohibitions on what Congress can't do that there is a big area called "implicit authority." I bet the legal eagles can correct me on that one.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I don't do this very often but it strikes me that somewhere between the powers of Congress as stated in the constitution and the definite prohibitions on what Congress can't do that there is a big area called "implicit authority." I bet the legal eagles can correct me on that one.

We have been over this through out this and some other threads. The Federal Government can only have a power if it is listed in the Constitution. They have the implied and stated power to create any law, any regulation any article any tax, etc etc, in regards to the SPECIFIC powers granted.

Now go find me one that authorizes the Federal Government to provide Health Care to private citizens. You also won't find one authorizing Social Security or Medicare. In fact the Federal Government has no power for welfare at all. The only exception being Washington DC. The Constitution specifies that the Congress has full and total authority over that 10 mile square area. They are free to create any law they want since they in effect are the city managers.

 

[Diuretic]

But you have a Social Security programme - is that unconstitutional?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

But you have a Social Security programme - is that unconstitutional?

Yes it is.

 

[Diuretic]

Yes it is.

Meaning that there is no constitutional authority for Congress to legislate for it or that it's not specifically prohibited by the constitution?

This is where I'm digging around. If the constitution says you won't do this or you won't do that that's one thing but if the constitution is silent on something and it's not specifically prohibited then surely it can be done.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Meaning that there is no constitutional authority for Congress to legislate for it or that it's not specifically prohibited by the constitution?

This is where I'm digging around. If the constitution says you won't do this or you won't do that that's one thing but if the constitution is silent on something and it's not specifically prohibited then surely it can be done.

Why must I explain simple concepts to you over and over? I realize your Government does things differently but it really is a simple concept.

The Federal Government can not do anything it wants, it can not usurp powers not granted to it by the Constitution. The Constitution does not list what the Government can not do, it lists what it CAN do. It can ONLY do those things granted to it by the Constitution. Everything else is a power of the States or Individuals.

The entire argument at the creation of the Document was that the federal Government would grab power for its self and specific restrictions should be added to the document. The response was simple and direct. The Constitution grants specific power ANYTHING not granted is NOT a power of the Federal Government. It is easier to list what IS allowed then to try and make a comprehensive list of what is NOT allowed.

In fact that approach is better for the passing of time. No one 200 years ago could possibly know what conditions would be like now, they could NOT list prohibitions that would cover all the things not granted to the Government. They could however limit the Government successfully by ONLY granting set certain powers and requiring that new powers would have to be amended into the document by the people. Thus limiting, as was the goal, the Federal Government.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Pointing out the hypocrisy of the Congress is a winner.

And how about pointing out the hypocricy of Jillian?

You know, where she complains about Congress having various choices for retirement, but baing happy with her husband having the same choices?

 

[Diuretic]

So if the Congress can't establish universal health care because it's unconstitutional, does that mean that any of the states could do it?

Sorry, that was for RGS.