Mark Cuban wants constitution amended to make health care a right

[Montrovant]

Hea

Liberals never have enough support to pass a constitutional amendment for any of their zany, Marxist ideas. That's why they try to destroy our rights through regulations and executive orders. Death by a thousand cuts.

Unlike all of the constitutional amendments passed by conservatives.....oh wait.....

At least (if the OP story is true) Cuban talked about amending the constitution rather than simply regulating, or passing unconstitutional laws.

Two thirds of the states would not vote for such an amendment. There isn't going to be a right to compel doctors to satisfy your right to healthcare. There will never be a constitutional right to marry for the same reason.

The USSC has already described marriage as a fundamental and constitutionally protected right.

 

[Montrovant]

The numbers are probably lower because they don't have an underclass of sloth they use for votes.

I have no idea what your post means.

I live in Canada with socialized single payer system. I heard of one single case when a patient died in ER, due to the incompetence of the staff rather than the system itself.

Sure, we wait sometime, but the thing is we get there. We may wait for a surgery for six months while you only have to wait three, but we get it, regardless we can afford it or not.

It is like you going somewhere and you have a choice of going by Cadillac or
Volkswagen. Wait for your Cadillac which may never come or take the WV and get there.

On the downside, I admit, I pay higher taxes than you, but I will never go bankrupt paying my doctor.

Face it: With your sticking to 20th century medical care as well as with your sticking to your inches, gallons and miles when the rest of the world adopted the logical metric system, the 21st century left you behind.

Ouch. That metric system dig is too true.

I understand. How can one know how much it costs you to fill your tank if it is expressed in liters rather than in gallons.

Oh, the horrors!

It would actually be pretty tough to transition I imagine. Not only would we need to change our education system, it would cost a whole lot to change all of the signs and labels that use our current measuring systems. It would also probably be fairly difficult for adults to learn and switch over, at least to the kind of level of familiarity we have with current measurements. I still think metric is far more sensible and I support changing, but it would be a long and probably painful process.

Those semi-illiterate and barbarian Canadians could do it in less than 10 years, surely those superior Americans could if they put their minds to it.

Hah! Semi-illiterate and barbarian? When I think of Canadian stereotypes, it is more like overly-polite socialists who say "ay" a lot.

 

[Defiant1]

The same folks who deny one to die with dignity by ending life support are content to let anyone die because they can't afford healthcare. Go figure.

If they want health insurance they can afford it. It's about priorities.
Unless you're talking about dependent democrat socialist sloth welfare mentality.

Trumpcare will charge a 64 yo more than half his income for healthcare.

Trumpcare isn't going to charge anyone since it won't be mandatory.

So it's not, as republicans keep repeating, accessible to everyone.

Of course it will accessible choose your plan, options, pay the premium or not.

Your choice.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Hea

Liberals never have enough support to pass a constitutional amendment for any of their zany, Marxist ideas. That's why they try to destroy our rights through regulations and executive orders. Death by a thousand cuts.

Unlike all of the constitutional amendments passed by conservatives.....oh wait.....

At least (if the OP story is true) Cuban talked about amending the constitution rather than simply regulating, or passing unconstitutional laws.

Two thirds of the states would not vote for such an amendment. There isn't going to be a right to compel doctors to satisfy your right to healthcare. There will never be a constitutional right to marry for the same reason.

The USSC has already described marriage as a fundamental and constitutionally protected right.

Yet it's not a right under the constitution and there is no amendnent making it so. Marriage is not and can never be an individual right.

 

[Montrovant]

Hea

Liberals never have enough support to pass a constitutional amendment for any of their zany, Marxist ideas. That's why they try to destroy our rights through regulations and executive orders. Death by a thousand cuts.

Unlike all of the constitutional amendments passed by conservatives.....oh wait.....

At least (if the OP story is true) Cuban talked about amending the constitution rather than simply regulating, or passing unconstitutional laws.

Two thirds of the states would not vote for such an amendment. There isn't going to be a right to compel doctors to satisfy your right to healthcare. There will never be a constitutional right to marry for the same reason.

I agree that an amendment is unlikely any time in the near future. That's not just because of the nature of the amendment but the reluctance with which the country seems to view the entire amendment process.

 

[Political Junky]

The same folks who deny one to die with dignity by ending life support are content to let anyone die because they can't afford healthcare. Go figure.

If they want health insurance they can afford it. It's about priorities.
Unless you're talking about dependent democrat socialist sloth welfare mentality.

Trumpcare will charge a 64 yo more than half his income for healthcare.

Trumpcare isn't going to charge anyone since it won't be mandatory.

So it's not, as republicans keep repeating, accessible to everyone.

Of course it will accessible choose your plan, options, pay the premium or not.

Your choice.

Cute

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Hea

Liberals never have enough support to pass a constitutional amendment for any of their zany, Marxist ideas. That's why they try to destroy our rights through regulations and executive orders. Death by a thousand cuts.

Unlike all of the constitutional amendments passed by conservatives.....oh wait.....

At least (if the OP story is true) Cuban talked about amending the constitution rather than simply regulating, or passing unconstitutional laws.

Two thirds of the states would not vote for such an amendment. There isn't going to be a right to compel doctors to satisfy your right to healthcare. There will never be a constitutional right to marry for the same reason.

I agree that an amendment is unlikely any time in the near future. That's not just because of the nature of the amendment but the reluctance with which the country seems to view the entire amendment process.

It's because the government can't provide a spouse. There is no individual right to marry.

 

[Montrovant]

Hea

Liberals never have enough support to pass a constitutional amendment for any of their zany, Marxist ideas. That's why they try to destroy our rights through regulations and executive orders. Death by a thousand cuts.

Unlike all of the constitutional amendments passed by conservatives.....oh wait.....

At least (if the OP story is true) Cuban talked about amending the constitution rather than simply regulating, or passing unconstitutional laws.

Two thirds of the states would not vote for such an amendment. There isn't going to be a right to compel doctors to satisfy your right to healthcare. There will never be a constitutional right to marry for the same reason.

The USSC has already described marriage as a fundamental and constitutionally protected right.

Yet it's not a right under the constitution and there is no amendnent making it so. Marriage is not and can never be an individual right.

Legally, yes, it is. The Supreme Court has more authority on this issue than you do. That it isn't explicitly spelled out doesn't mean it cannot be a right.

 

[Montrovant]

Hea

Liberals never have enough support to pass a constitutional amendment for any of their zany, Marxist ideas. That's why they try to destroy our rights through regulations and executive orders. Death by a thousand cuts.

Unlike all of the constitutional amendments passed by conservatives.....oh wait.....

At least (if the OP story is true) Cuban talked about amending the constitution rather than simply regulating, or passing unconstitutional laws.

Two thirds of the states would not vote for such an amendment. There isn't going to be a right to compel doctors to satisfy your right to healthcare. There will never be a constitutional right to marry for the same reason.

I agree that an amendment is unlikely any time in the near future. That's not just because of the nature of the amendment but the reluctance with which the country seems to view the entire amendment process.

It's because the government can't provide a spouse. There is no individual right to marry.

There is a right to choose to marry. That's what is generally meant by saying there is a right to marry.

The government doesn't have to provide every citizen with a gun for there to be a right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Defiant1]

If they want health insurance they can afford it. It's about priorities.
Unless you're talking about dependent democrat socialist sloth welfare mentality.

Trumpcare will charge a 64 yo more than half his income for healthcare.

Trumpcare isn't going to charge anyone since it won't be mandatory.

So it's not, as republicans keep repeating, accessible to everyone.

Of course it will accessible choose your plan, options, pay the premium or not.

Your choice.

Cute

Nothing cute about it.

It's business.

You want the Silver plan for you and your wife, $X.
You want to add adult children, $X added
You want to cover pre-existing allergies to all things American $X added

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Hea

Liberals never have enough support to pass a constitutional amendment for any of their zany, Marxist ideas. That's why they try to destroy our rights through regulations and executive orders. Death by a thousand cuts.

Unlike all of the constitutional amendments passed by conservatives.....oh wait.....

At least (if the OP story is true) Cuban talked about amending the constitution rather than simply regulating, or passing unconstitutional laws.

Two thirds of the states would not vote for such an amendment. There isn't going to be a right to compel doctors to satisfy your right to healthcare. There will never be a constitutional right to marry for the same reason.

The USSC has already described marriage as a fundamental and constitutionally protected right.

Yet it's not a right under the constitution and there is no amendnent making it so. Marriage is not and can never be an individual right.

Legally, yes, it is. The Supreme Court has more authority on this issue than you do. That it isn't explicitly spelled out doesn't mean it cannot be a right.

If the right to marry is an individually held, constitutionally protected right, what happens to the individual who desperately wants to marry. He or she is an acceptable spouse by any criteria but cannot find anyone to marry. Just can't. What happens to this person? The constitutional right is no right at all. Or, the government is obligated to provide a spouse just like the government is supposed to provide a doctor when you get sick.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Hea

Liberals never have enough support to pass a constitutional amendment for any of their zany, Marxist ideas. That's why they try to destroy our rights through regulations and executive orders. Death by a thousand cuts.

Unlike all of the constitutional amendments passed by conservatives.....oh wait.....

At least (if the OP story is true) Cuban talked about amending the constitution rather than simply regulating, or passing unconstitutional laws.

Two thirds of the states would not vote for such an amendment. There isn't going to be a right to compel doctors to satisfy your right to healthcare. There will never be a constitutional right to marry for the same reason.

I agree that an amendment is unlikely any time in the near future. That's not just because of the nature of the amendment but the reluctance with which the country seems to view the entire amendment process.

It's because the government can't provide a spouse. There is no individual right to marry.

There is a right to choose to marry. That's what is generally meant by saying there is a right to marry.

The government doesn't have to provide every citizen with a gun for there to be a right to keep and bear arms.

Some what different. Can you buy a wife or a husband?

 

[FJO]

I have no idea what your post means.

I live in Canada with socialized single payer system. I heard of one single case when a patient died in ER, due to the incompetence of the staff rather than the system itself.

Sure, we wait sometime, but the thing is we get there. We may wait for a surgery for six months while you only have to wait three, but we get it, regardless we can afford it or not.

It is like you going somewhere and you have a choice of going by Cadillac or
Volkswagen. Wait for your Cadillac which may never come or take the WV and get there.

On the downside, I admit, I pay higher taxes than you, but I will never go bankrupt paying my doctor.

Face it: With your sticking to 20th century medical care as well as with your sticking to your inches, gallons and miles when the rest of the world adopted the logical metric system, the 21st century left you behind.

Ouch. That metric system dig is too true.

I understand. How can one know how much it costs you to fill your tank if it is expressed in liters rather than in gallons.

Oh, the horrors!

It would actually be pretty tough to transition I imagine. Not only would we need to change our education system, it would cost a whole lot to change all of the signs and labels that use our current measuring systems. It would also probably be fairly difficult for adults to learn and switch over, at least to the kind of level of familiarity we have with current measurements. I still think metric is far more sensible and I support changing, but it would be a long and probably painful process.

It goes to show that a very large portion of the population suck at math. Otherwise it would be very easy to switch to the metric system, perhaps even welcomed by most people (that don't suck at math).
1 Gallon is approximately equal to 3.785 liters. My truck holds about 15 gallons of gas. A quick estimate of how many liters it holds is to multiply by 4. So roughly 60 liters (a little less).

My point is that having to do the estimate would turn a lot of people off. They already know gallons, they've used gallons for many years, it would take time and effort to train their minds not to automatically think in gallons.

It's not an impossible task, nor a prohibitively difficult one, even, but I don't think most Americans would care enough to want to make the effort.

That doesn't take into account the financial and time issues, of course. Those would be significant for both government and private companies most likely.

It would be worthwhile in the end, but there would probably be a somewhat rough transition period.

Technology provides comfort to the lazy and the fool. All new vehicles have dials indicating speed in mph and in km/h. Most will have a panel telling you how far you can travel with a full tank, in miles or in kilometers.

There is no law compelling anyone to THINK in metric. After 30 years I still think about miles per gallon rather than that ass backwards liters per 100 kilometers. There are still 2 by 4's at the lumberyard. There are still quarter pounders at Canadian McDonalds.

Of course, all those are for the undereducated and plain uneducated masses. The educated class such as doctors, pharmacists, engineers etc. have been using metric for generations, even in America.

Just for kicks: How many of those who desperately cling to an ancient system could how many yards in a mile, how many pecks in a bushel, how many cups in a quart, how many pounds in a stone, how many inches in a foot, or for that matter in a hand, how many ounces in a pound and so forth.

If having 100 cents in a dollar is OK what is wrong with having a system of 10's and 100's in anything else you measure?

 

[FJO]

I have no idea what your post means.

I live in Canada with socialized single payer system. I heard of one single case when a patient died in ER, due to the incompetence of the staff rather than the system itself.

Sure, we wait sometime, but the thing is we get there. We may wait for a surgery for six months while you only have to wait three, but we get it, regardless we can afford it or not.

It is like you going somewhere and you have a choice of going by Cadillac or
Volkswagen. Wait for your Cadillac which may never come or take the WV and get there.

On the downside, I admit, I pay higher taxes than you, but I will never go bankrupt paying my doctor.

Face it: With your sticking to 20th century medical care as well as with your sticking to your inches, gallons and miles when the rest of the world adopted the logical metric system, the 21st century left you behind.

Ouch. That metric system dig is too true.

I understand. How can one know how much it costs you to fill your tank if it is expressed in liters rather than in gallons.

Oh, the horrors!

It would actually be pretty tough to transition I imagine. Not only would we need to change our education system, it would cost a whole lot to change all of the signs and labels that use our current measuring systems. It would also probably be fairly difficult for adults to learn and switch over, at least to the kind of level of familiarity we have with current measurements. I still think metric is far more sensible and I support changing, but it would be a long and probably painful process.

Those semi-illiterate and barbarian Canadians could do it in less than 10 years, surely those superior Americans could if they put their minds to it.

Hah! Semi-illiterate and barbarian? When I think of Canadian stereotypes, it is more like overly-polite socialists who say "ay" a lot.

Better than being dismissed and ignored as nobodies as most Americans see Canadians.

And it's not "ay", it's "eh".

 

[Political Junky]

Trumpcare will charge a 64 yo more than half his income for healthcare.

Trumpcare isn't going to charge anyone since it won't be mandatory.

So it's not, as republicans keep repeating, accessible to everyone.

Of course it will accessible choose your plan, options, pay the premium or not.

Your choice.

Cute

Nothing cute about it.

It's business.

You want the Silver plan for you and your wife, $X.
You want to add adult children, $X added
You want to cover pre-existing allergies to all things American $X added

Business is good, but not in healthcare.

 

[Montrovant]

Hea

Unlike all of the constitutional amendments passed by conservatives.....oh wait.....

At least (if the OP story is true) Cuban talked about amending the constitution rather than simply regulating, or passing unconstitutional laws.

Two thirds of the states would not vote for such an amendment. There isn't going to be a right to compel doctors to satisfy your right to healthcare. There will never be a constitutional right to marry for the same reason.

The USSC has already described marriage as a fundamental and constitutionally protected right.

Yet it's not a right under the constitution and there is no amendnent making it so. Marriage is not and can never be an individual right.

Legally, yes, it is. The Supreme Court has more authority on this issue than you do. That it isn't explicitly spelled out doesn't mean it cannot be a right.

If the right to marry is an individually held, constitutionally protected right, what happens to the individual who desperately wants to marry. He or she is an acceptable spouse by any criteria but cannot find anyone to marry. Just can't. What happens to this person? The constitutional right is no right at all. Or, the government is obligated to provide a spouse just like the government is supposed to provide a doctor when you get sick.

That person still has a right to marry. Not being able to find a willing spouse does not mean they do not have the right. I have a constitutionally protected right to vote, but I don't have to exercise that right to have it. I have a constitutional right not to be taxed when exporting goods from any state, but the government does not need to provide me with goods and the means to export them.

A person has a constitutional right to choose to marry. That is not an obligation for the government to insure they are married.

 

[Political Junky]

Trumpcare will charge a 64 yo more than half his income for healthcare.

Don't crush that dwarf, hand me the pliers.
Did I say anything that was even remotely advocating any form of socialist medicine?

No, but I do.
Folks in other developed countries never go broke for healthcare bills.

No, they just wait in line and die.

Hyperbole of the highest and most ridiculous order.

The number of people who die waiting in line and die in other western nations is no greater than those in America.

The numbers are probably lower because they don't have an underclass of sloth they use for votes.

The underclass lives primarily in red states .. like the South.

 

[Defiant1]

Trumpcare isn't going to charge anyone since it won't be mandatory.

So it's not, as republicans keep repeating, accessible to everyone.

Of course it will accessible choose your plan, options, pay the premium or not.

Your choice.

Cute

Nothing cute about it.

It's business.

You want the Silver plan for you and your wife, $X.
You want to add adult children, $X added
You want to cover pre-existing allergies to all things American $X added

Business is good, but not in healthcare.

So you believe companies should pay YOUR health bills for no profit.

 

[FJO]

Don't crush that dwarf, hand me the pliers.
Did I say anything that was even remotely advocating any form of socialist medicine?

No, but I do.
Folks in other developed countries never go broke for healthcare bills.

No, they just wait in line and die.

Hyperbole of the highest and most ridiculous order.

The number of people who die waiting in line and die in other western nations is no greater than those in America.

The numbers are probably lower because they don't have an underclass of sloth they use for votes.

The underclass lives primarily in red states .. like the South.

Actually, more like in barrios, ghettos, inner cities, all run by Democrats. they speak some bastardized version of English, or no English at all. They all blindly vote Democrat.

That is why they are not only the under class but the subclass.

You know, your kind of people.

 

[Political Junky]

So it's not, as republicans keep repeating, accessible to everyone.

Of course it will accessible choose your plan, options, pay the premium or not.

Your choice.

Cute

Nothing cute about it.

It's business.

You want the Silver plan for you and your wife, $X.
You want to add adult children, $X added
You want to cover pre-existing allergies to all things American $X added

Business is good, but not in healthcare.

So you believe companies should pay YOUR health bills for no profit.

No, I believe in single payer like the rest of the world has.