The liberal mythology of healthcare being a right

[Cuyo]

For the sake of this post let's pretend you're right (which you're not).

Every right I can think of involves 2 paths. One to exercise it and one to deny it. Obamacare does the exact opposite. It FORCES you to exercise this so called right. So in essence it oppresses an individuals personal rights to decide for themselves.

You've all been claiming that healthcare is a right so exactly how does this law aid me in EXERCISING my rights? It doesn't, it FORCES me to take a path I may not want to take.

Where is my RIGHT to choose if Obama doesn't offer me a waiver like all his rich friends?

I don't like to frame the debate that way, and it gets on my nerves when people try to.

I'm more for doing what makes sense, and most people will agree with me on that note. We just disagree on what constitutes "Making sense."

 

[Steelplate]

You didn't challenge me...

You dishonestly averaged in an attempt to make your argument seem logical.

Bullshit... We are talking about 30 years of History... 16 out of those 30 years the GOP had the majority in the senate. That means that the Dems had a majority 14 out of those 30 in the Senate.

In the House... it was 18 out of 30 in favor of the Democrats... that means that the GOP had the Majority 12 out of 30.

There were 12 years/party in which they controlled BOTH the House and the Senate.

In the Executive Branch... The GOP had control of a full 1/3 of the Federal government 20 out of 30 years.

It's not my fault you can't fucking read and have to have it spoon fed for you.

EDIT: I STARTED at the Beginning of Reagan's first term, BTW.

Last time I checked the House wrote bills and the Senate passed them and it was up to the President to sign off on the bills manifesting them into law...

The Senate needs the check from the House....

The Senate could authorize 95 trillion dollars in spending but that doesn't necessarily mean the house would justify such a lunatic act or even cut the check.

You'd figure that was common knowledge.

You're a weasel... proved you wrong..so you changed the goalpost again.

The Senate and the House writes bills... hence SB.?? and HB.?? in the title of the bill... SB stands for SENATE BILL... and HB stands for HOUSE BILL.

You'd figure that was common knowledge... There's a reaaaally good documentary on it...

here... I'll provide a link...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxT7QjlvDqM]Schoolhouse Rock- How a Bill Becomes a Law - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Bfgrn]

For the sake of this post let's pretend you're right (which you're not).

Every right I can think of involves 2 paths. One to exercise it and one to deny it. Obamacare does the exact opposite. It FORCES you to exercise this so called right. So in essence it oppresses an individuals personal rights to decide for themselves.

You've all been claiming that healthcare is a right so exactly how does this law aid me in EXERCISING my rights? It doesn't, it FORCES me to take a path I may not want to take.

Where is my RIGHT to choose if Obama doesn't offer me a waiver like all his rich friends?

Do we have a right to refuse to pay for your medical care if you don't have insurance, are involved in a car wreck and an ambulance rushes you to a hospital?

 

[Cuyo]

For the sake of this post let's pretend you're right (which you're not).

Every right I can think of involves 2 paths. One to exercise it and one to deny it. Obamacare does the exact opposite. It FORCES you to exercise this so called right. So in essence it oppresses an individuals personal rights to decide for themselves.

You've all been claiming that healthcare is a right so exactly how does this law aid me in EXERCISING my rights? It doesn't, it FORCES me to take a path I may not want to take.

Where is my RIGHT to choose if Obama doesn't offer me a waiver like all his rich friends?

Do we have a right to refuse to pay for your medical care if you don't have insurance, are involved in a car wreck and an ambulance rushes you to a hospital?

"Oh YES 1000x Over!" he'll say. "On principal ALONE! I don't want a handout from ANYONE!"

As if he lacks human qualities such as survival instinct, and would venture any less than any of us when faced with the death of himself or his family.

This is precisely why this debate is such a difficult one.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It doesn't. Government doesn't protect ALL inalienable rights. It flat out condemns many. I think that's what you guys are getting hung up on. Inalienable doesn't meant must never be violated. It's just an indication that it's not something that is granted by an authority. Again, the point is to distinguish freedoms from grants or favors.

The government doesn’t ‘protect’ anything – the Constitution and its case law protect citizens from government excess. If Congress enacts legislation that is determined un-Constitutional by the courts, the law may eventually be struck down.

Although fundamental rights are inalienable, they are not absolute – government has the authority to restrict or preempt certain rights provided it demonstrates a compelling interest and a rational basis for the desired restriction, the government must provide evidence in support of its desire to preempt a given right.

The current judicial review with regard to the ACA concerns Congress’ authority afforded it under the Commerce Clause to regulate the healthcare market, as oppose to a potential infringement on a given right.

In United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)., for example, the Court struck down as un-Constitution a law Congress enacted prohibiting firearms in the vicinity of schools. Congress justified the law under its authority to regulate markets per the Commerce Clause. The Majority ruled that the law addressed criminal activity and provided a criminal penalty, having noting to do with commerce.

Congress subsequently rewrote the law to remove the offensive provisions and it is in effect today.

 

[Dr Grump]

. Socialism doesn't work.

Neither does Capitalism. You think your financial meltdowm was caused by Socialism?

Yep, it certainly was. It was caused by government forcing banks to grant mortgages to people who couldn't pay them.

A mixture of both works. Each on its own is doomed to failure...

Wrong. the empirical evidence shows that the closer to the free market a country gets, the more prosperous it becomes. Government is nothing but a giant leach sucking the life out of the economy.

1) Nobody was forced to do anything. Nobody forced those people to take mortgages.
2) You don't know what socialism is, if you think the above fits the definition.
3) What is this empirical evidence?
4) The more prosperous it becomes? Possibly. Note you do not say what happens when it becomes prosperous - ie, WHO becomes prosperous. It seems the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and in the case of the US, thanks to Ronnie Raygun, your middle class disappears. Just because more wealth is created doesn't mean people or the society as a whole prospers.

 

[Dr Grump]

People, usually collectivists just make up what their rights are...

They're too lazy to read the constitution so they just make shit up.

Of course the SCOTUS will agree...

I suppose 1 man is an army yet 100 men are wrong but 100 men are correct and 1 man is wrong.

9 people decide what is just and injust.

Your constitution was written over 230 years ago. Why do some 200+ year old dead guys get to decide what a right is or isn't. It does have an amendment process ya know

May as well ask why anarchy is illogical??

I mean they only happen to be our founding documents and truly the basis of law outside the Magna Carta - which is of course a prerequisite to the Bill of Rights.

Who says you need anarchy. There are plenty of first world countries without such documents that offer up stable politics and economies.

Nothing wrong with having founding documents, but Americans treat it like the bible. Like there are no flaws in it, or that if anybody dare touch it, it will be the end of your society as you know it...

 

[Dr Grump]

Your constitution was written over 230 years ago. Why do some 200+ year old dead guys get to decide what a right is or isn't. It does have an amendment process ya know

Sure it does. So when did the amendment making healthcare a right get passed?

It didn't. But who's to say there shouldn't be one....

 

[dblack]

The government doesn’t ‘protect’ anything – the Constitution and its case law protect citizens from government excess. If Congress enacts legislation that is determined un-Constitutional by the courts, the law may eventually be struck down.

No, the government does protect our rights. That's the whole point of creating government in the first place, to protect us from those who would violate our rights. The Constitution, on the other hand, protects us from government itself abusing our rights. It's a check to ensure our servants don't become our masters.

 

[Inthemiddle]

It takes someone with a couple brain cells to rub together to understand what he's saying. That's why you don't get it.

Someone with a couple brain cells to rub together would see the inherent contradictory nature of his stance.

Then you should have no trouble showing where the contradiction is.

Really? You're that obtuse? You aren't able to understand that if an "inalienable" right can be "flat out condemned" by government, or can be permissibly violated, then it's not actually inalienable?

 

[dblack]

Someone with a couple brain cells to rub together would see the inherent contradictory nature of his stance.

Then you should have no trouble showing where the contradiction is.

Really? You're that obtuse? You aren't able to understand that if an "inalienable" right can be "flat out condemned" by government, or can be permissibly violated, then it's not actually inalienable?

You're simply not understanding what "inalienable" means in the context of rights, and that's what has you confused. As C. Clayton pointed out, it doesn't mean absolute, or sacrosanct. It doesn't mean it can't be violated or ignored by government. You're focusing on the idea that inalienable means "can't be taken away". It's a subtle distinction, but that doesn't mean the same as "can't be violated". What it means is that these rights are independent of anyone else granting them to you. That even if you were alone on a desert island, you'd still have them. Essentially, it's referring to freedoms as opposed to privileges.

Some examples might help. Freedom of speech is an inalienable right. No one needs to do anything for you, or grant you any special privilege or power for you to exercise it. All that needs to happen for you to have freedom of speech is for you to be left alone, for other people to agree not to violate your rights.

On the other hand, something like a right to a ten-percent discount at Sam's club is NOT an inalienable right. I there were no Sam's club, or if the store closed, there would be no way for you to exercise your right. Likewise, health care - a service that must be provided to you by others - could never qualify as an inalienable right. I there was no one around to take care of you, you would not have health care.

Hopefully that helps.

 

[Oddball]

I think that view is obtusely literal. The idea of god-given rights isn't a religious concept. It's a statement that rights are a consequence of existence, they are freedoms you have by default and can only be take from you by other people interfering - by others actively violating your rights. We establish government to protect those rights, not 'create' them.

While I agree with the first part, your argument still maintains that without a god rights, and their preservation, exist as social reality, not objectively. Such rights can only be recognized to exist, and subsequently protected, upon agreement of the society. For example, our right to free speech is something that our society recognizes and has agreed to protect. If not for that, then that right would de facto not exist anymore than our non-existent right to smoke pot.

By that definition, there are no rights....Only privileges extended to the hoi polloi from the indeterminate mythical "society".

That is the cornerstone of communism, not a republic of free people.

 

[Dr Grump]

I think that view is obtusely literal. The idea of god-given rights isn't a religious concept. It's a statement that rights are a consequence of existence, they are freedoms you have by default and can only be take from you by other people interfering - by others actively violating your rights. We establish government to protect those rights, not 'create' them.

This god-given rights in your constitution is a joke brought about by those who have a particular point of view on the amendments that suits their agenda.

"Hey, I love guns, and god, via our contitution, gave me those rights."

Phooey. Why did he only give you ten? Why not more?

 

[dblack]

I think that view is obtusely literal. The idea of god-given rights isn't a religious concept. It's a statement that rights are a consequence of existence, they are freedoms you have by default and can only be take from you by other people interfering - by others actively violating your rights. We establish government to protect those rights, not 'create' them.

This god-given rights in your constitution is a joke brought about by those who have a particular point of view on the amendments that suits their agenda.

"Hey, I love guns, and god, via our contitution, gave me those rights."

Phooey. Why did he only give you ten? Why not more?

eh? Not sure what you're getting at.

 

[bripat9643]

I think that view is obtusely literal. The idea of god-given rights isn't a religious concept. It's a statement that rights are a consequence of existence, they are freedoms you have by default and can only be take from you by other people interfering - by others actively violating your rights. We establish government to protect those rights, not 'create' them.

This god-given rights in your constitution is a joke brought about by those who have a particular point of view on the amendments that suits their agenda.

"Hey, I love guns, and god, via our contitution, gave me those rights."

Phooey. Why did he only give you ten? Why not more?

You're simply a dick who doesn't even bother with a coherent response. Spewing ad hominems is all you're capable of.

I don't know why dblack wastes his time trying to pound sense into morons like you.

 

[bripat9643]

I think that view is obtusely literal. The idea of god-given rights isn't a religious concept. It's a statement that rights are a consequence of existence, they are freedoms you have by default and can only be take from you by other people interfering - by others actively violating your rights. We establish government to protect those rights, not 'create' them.

This god-given rights in your constitution is a joke brought about by those who have a particular point of view on the amendments that suits their agenda.

"Hey, I love guns, and god, via our contitution, gave me those rights."

Phooey. Why did he only give you ten? Why not more?

eh? Not sure what you're getting at.

He doesn't either. He's simply spewing insults.

 

[Bfgrn]

He's simply spewing insults.

Which you never do...

 

[Inthemiddle]

You're simply a dick who doesn't even bother with a coherent response. Spewing ad hominems is all you're capable of.

 

[JohnA]

Your constitution was written over 230 years ago. Why do some 200+ year old dead guys get to decide what a right is or isn't. It does have an amendment process ya know

Sure it does. So when did the amendment making healthcare a right get passed?

a right of yours is okay IF i does,nt effect my right
your right to live is okay cus it does,nt effect my right to live


your right to health care care is not alright if it takes away my right not to purchase it
your right to health care is okay if you FUCKING pay for it

 

[Listening]

I think that view is obtusely literal. The idea of god-given rights isn't a religious concept. It's a statement that rights are a consequence of existence, they are freedoms you have by default and can only be take from you by other people interfering - by others actively violating your rights. We establish government to protect those rights, not 'create' them.

This god-given rights in your constitution is a joke brought about by those who have a particular point of view on the amendments that suits their agenda.

"Hey, I love guns, and god, via our contitution, gave me those rights."

Phooey. Why did he only give you ten? Why not more?

Ask him.

You get what you got.