Is Health Care a Right?

[westvirginia]

Fixed

 

I'd say you're wrong this time, as polling shows most americans don't want this.

 

There's a ton in this thread, from swammi's arrogance at presuming to tell other people what the "right" thing is to do with their money, to cre8in's ignorance of the meaning in the preamble to the constitution. The bottom line though, is that one person's bad planning, bad decisions, or even plain ol' bad luck does not create a mortgage on another. Period. You cannot have a "right" that requires stomping all over the real rights of others for you to claim it - bottom line.

[yo mama]

This is an enormous stretch of an interpretation of the powers of Congress, somehow imposing the wording of the Preamble into the specifically enumerated powers of Congress.

IT'S NOT JUST IN THE PREAMBLE!!!!!!!

 

Article I, Section 8. First freakin' sentence. The power to lay and collect taxes, and provide for the general welfare ARE SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED POWERS OF CONGRESS. You keep talking about how people need to respect what the Constitution "says." That means you too, Nick. You don't get to just ignore the parts you don't like.

Edited March 16, 2010 by yo mama

[yo mama]

US vs Butler was decided by a highly intimidated court, and I question it's validity and think it should be argued by the current court without the executive branch threatening to fundamentally changing the make up of the court. Still, this legislation requires everyone to purchase insurance or face fines, how is that in any way constitutional? You and I both know the car insurance argument doesn't hold water, as driving a car on public roads is a privilege not a right, but breathing is a right.

So you're argument is predicated on pretending US Supreme Court decisions don't exist? I think I'll stick with my side of this debate.

 

Regardless of what you think of Butler, Article I, Section 8 gives Congress' power to provide for the "general welfare." It's right there in black and white. If you won't respect the Supreme Court, at least respect the plain meaning of the Constitution itself. It's a package deal: you don't get to take the parts you agree with and ignore the rest.

 

Now, we can agree to disagree on what Congress "should" do with that power. But let's not pretend Congress lacks that power.

[Ursa Majoris]

I'd say you're wrong this time, as polling shows most americans don't want this.

 

There's a ton in this thread, from swammi's arrogance at presuming to tell other people what the "right" thing is to do with their money, to cre8in's ignorance of the meaning in the preamble to the constitution. The bottom line though, is that one person's bad planning, bad decisions, or even plain ol' bad luck does not create a mortgage on another. Period. You cannot have a "right" that requires stomping all over the real rights of others for you to claim it - bottom line.

My point was that the people will not vote for someone that increases their personal expenses regardless of the necessity.

[Perchoutofwater]

So you're argument is predicated on pretending US Supreme Court decisions don't exist? I think I'll stick with my side of this debate.

 

Regardless of what you think of Butler, Article I, Section 8 gives Congress' power to provide for the "general welfare." It's right there in black and white. If you won't respect the Supreme Court, at least respect the plain meaning of the Constitution itself. It's a package deal: you don't get to take the parts you agree with and ignore the rest.

 

Now, we can agree to disagree on what Congress "should" do with that power. But let's not pretend Congress lacks that power.

 

What constitutional authority does the congress have for forcing all citizens to purchase health insurance?

[Azazello1313]

QUOTE (Azazello1313 @ 3/15/10 5:18pm)

it is the most basic thing that should be included in ANY meaningful health reform. the only reason it's not is that the current bills is the people who vote for the people driving the bus don't want it in there.

Fixed

 

 

the people driving the bus don't seem to care much what the people who vote for them want. if they did, the bills they're trying to ram through wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell.

[Azazello1313]

What constitutional authority does the congress have for forcing all citizens to purchase health insurance?

 

I think you're missing the point. they can basically do whatever they want because the founders were careless enough to use the words "general welfare", despite making their intentions pretty damn clear elsewhere (like in the 10th amendment).

[yo mama]

What constitutional authority does the congress have for forcing all citizens to purchase health insurance?

The power to tax by any other name sucks just as bad. But Congress unambigiously has the power to tax.

 

Again: I'm not debating the wisdom of the policy at issue, merely the legal foundation for Congress' ability to enact what has been proposed.

 

(And the 10th Amendment is toothless per US Supreme Court decision. I don't agree with that, but the law is the law and only an act of Congress or the Supreme Court can change that now).

[TimC]

What constitutional authority does the congress have for forcing all citizens to purchase health insurance?

 

Virginia First State to Pass Health Care Freedom Act: 38 States Lining Up Against ObamaCare

 

Once again, Virginia leads the charge against the Federal Government. Time to suit up and start marching North very soon. This time we'll smack the Obama's teet out of the North's mouth.

 

ETA: Just make it a state's issue. That way the hippies out West can sign their whole paycheck over to the Feds and those of us that think we can do better won't have to. I guaran-dang-tee you that you guys will end up with the leeches of society at every corner sponging off every dime you pay while we roll by you both socially and economically while sawing off the San Andreas fault and dumping your sorry asses into the Pacific.

Edited March 16, 2010 by TimC

[Azazello1313]

I think this is on-point:

 

one hundred years ago progressive thinking was just that--thinking. Today, it is more unconscious.

 

In the thinking days, apparently there was some explicit argument that the original Constitution was out of step with the times. As the country urbanized and industrialized, as science improved and as economists and others began to call themselves social scientists, progressives argued that limited government was a bad idea. Perhaps government by wise technocrats, unburdened by Constitutional limits, would be better.

 

Over the past one hundred years, our government has evolved as if this thinking had triumphed. The Constitution does not restrict government the way it was written to do so, and we have a lot of technocratic government. Yet we no longer read of Progressives criticizing the Constitution--perhaps, having gotten their way, they might as well just keep quiet about the Constitution at this point.

...

I suggest that there are trends cutting the other way. I argue that concentrated political power is inconsistent with the growth in specialized knowledge. The golden age of central planning was the era of mass industrialization, particularly during the two world wars. Since then, central planning has done poorly. Nonetheless, modern progressives still seem committed to it.

 

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/0...ts_vs_gove.html

Edited March 16, 2010 by Azazello1313

[Caveman_Nick]

IT'S NOT JUST IN THE PREAMBLE!!!!!!!

 

Article I, Section 8. First freakin' sentence. The power to lay and collect taxes, and provide for the general welfare ARE SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED POWERS OF CONGRESS. You keep talking about how people need to respect what the Constitution "says." That means you too, Nick. You don't get to just ignore the parts you don't like.

 

True enough...I don't and won't. As to your point of collecting taxes for the General Welfare of the United States, Tell me how it is not an enormous stretch of these powers to give free health care and health care access to the scads upon scads of illegal aliens who in just about every argument that can be made are not a part of the United States in any legal fashion?

[Savage Beatings]

Depends upon how you define what a right is. Here's how I have defined it... a right is an allowance granted by an authority... there are two main kinds of rights; Human rights and Civil rights... Human rights being granted from the authority of our Creator (or Mother Nature or whatever else you pagans and non-believers might agree to) ... while Civil rights are granted from the authority of whichever political state might be governing you at the time.

 

It is my own opinion (which I've never found anyone else to share) that there are no rights, including human rights granted from God, which are inailenable (can never be taken away). Civil rights are never inalienable because governments and their respective laws never last the test of time... so as governments change, so do their explicit or implied Civil rights. Some Human rights might seem inalienable (like the right to life) but I would argue that God can rescind that right as He wishes at any time.

 

Now, the question of whether Health Care is a right?

 

It could be argued that Health Care (not coverage, but care) is a Human right. We may have a moral obligation to provide the best possible care for each person's health as it is within our means to do so. The definition of what is the best possible care for each person is a bit nebulous though... especially when someone is in a vegetative state, etc. I honestly don't know if Health Care should be considered a Human right or not. If it is a Human right though, I don't think that that necessarily means that we are obligated to create a universal governemnt program to fulfill that right.

 

Is it a Civil right? Not yet, at least not universally. It is a Civil right for some Medicare/Medicaid but not for others. If we as a society want to grant Care to more or all of our citizens through our elected representatives, then yes obviously it could easily become a Civil right.

[Ursa Majoris]

True enough...I don't and won't. As to your point of collecting taxes for the General Welfare of the United States, Tell me how it is not an enormous stretch of these powers to give free health care and health care access to the scads upon scads of illegal aliens who in just about every argument that can be made are not a part of the United States in any legal fashion?

I believe the new bill specifically excludes illegal aliens, doesn't it? Other than ER treatment, which has been the case for decades.

[Perchoutofwater]

I believe the new bill specifically excludes illegal aliens, doesn't it? Other than ER treatment, which has been the case for decades.

 

It is my understanding that it does not cover illegals, of course Obama is working on a new amnesty bill also, so these people will be covered.

Edited March 16, 2010 by Perchoutofwater

[bushwacked]

There's a ton in this thread, from swammi's arrogance at presuming to tell other people what the "right" thing is to do with their money, to cre8in's ignorance of the meaning in the preamble to the constitution.

 

So Swammi's arrogant but people that don't agree with your interpretation are ignorant? Well done.

[bpwallace49]

What constitutional authority does the congress have for forcing all citizens to purchase health insurance?

 

Has to do with taxation . . . .

 

Perch, OUR interpretation of the constitution doesnt mean diddly squat. It is how the gubmnet interprets the constitution that counts at the end of the day, especially when it comes to passing laws . . and until there is a Supreme Court case to review any of these issues, nothing will get changed.

[Perchoutofwater]

 

 

How can anyone believe a word of his mouth.

[bushwacked]

 

How can anyone believe a word of his mouth.

 

I like this comment:

 

The margin going down by 100% would make it free. What the hell is this moronic 3000% ?

 

[bpwallace49]

 

How can anyone believe a word of his mouth.

 

"Now back to your regularly scheduled Obama bashing by Perch" . . but that was pretty funny.

 

Incidentally, my sister in law was at that speech . . about 10 rows away . .

Edited March 16, 2010 by bpwallace49

[Azazello1313]

 

How can anyone believe a word of his mouth.

 

talk about fuzzy math. how do you reduce anything by more than 100%?

[yo mama]

True enough...I don't and won't. As to your point of collecting taxes for the General Welfare of the United States, Tell me how it is not an enormous stretch of these powers to give free health care and health care access to the scads upon scads of illegal aliens who in just about every argument that can be made are not a part of the United States in any legal fashion?

My problem isn't with illegals getting the benefit of taxpayer dollars, per se. My problem is with people who aren't in compliance with our federal system of taxation trying to whip-saw the system and take only the benefits of our society with out participating in the burdens of responsibility. That goes for a lot citizens, too.

 

But for the record, illegals aren't supposed to be able to benefit from the current proposal. At least that's what the President has said.

[cre8tiff]

Funny how the folks that are arguing against universal healthcare aren't saying much about the universal system already in place... the emergency room and what the uninsured using that as primary healthcare costs everyone.

[SEC=UGA]

No

[Perchoutofwater]

Funny how the folks that are arguing against universal healthcare aren't saying much about the universal system already in place... the emergency room and what the uninsured using that as primary healthcare costs everyone.

 

It has been discussed several times before. It usually comes up in threads regarding illegal immigration.

[gbpfan1231]

It has been discussed several times before. It usually comes up in threads regarding illegal immigration.

Sure would be nice to try and reduce the number of illegals by 3000%. Dang I would even be ok with 100%.