Lefty 0
Recommended Posts
Andy9o8 0
QuoteI concede it is a right declared in the DOI and not the constitution. I misspoke again. But (I honestly don't know) how does that make it different in US law?
As for public services you make a good point (and a much more accurate statement than your first, of doctors would have to work for free.)
As for legal defense being required by the constitution, that is also paid for by tax payers. My original question was not meant to be a legal question, but a moral one.
That's been my point about healthcare, too - that some "rights" are defined not by codified law, but by public policy; which is to say that some "rights" in a society are what the people collectively, and in the context of the times, say they are.
In the US in 2009, things like public school education, fire department protection, adequately-maintained roads, etc. are all things that the majority of Americans, as a matter of public policy, have come to define as rights (and not merely privileges or luxuries) in our society. In many countries, universal health care is considered by the majority of the citizenry to be, as a matter of modern public policy, a right. I am one of the Americans who feels that, as a matter of public policy, it should be that way in the US, also.
Lefty 0
QuoteThat's been my point about healthcare, too - that some "rights" are defined not by codified law, but by public policy; which is to say that some "rights" in a society are what the people collectively, and in the context of the times, say they are.
In the US in 2009, things like public school education, fire department protection, adequately-maintained roads, etc. are all things that the majority of Americans, as a matter of public policy, have come to define as rights (and not merely privileges or luxuries) in our society. In many countries, universal health care is considered by the majority of the citizenry to be, as a matter of modern public policy, a right. I am one of the Americans who feels that, as a matter of public policy, it should be that way in the US, also.
That's a bit too democratic for me, though I agree with you on how new "rights" come about. If we follow the whims of the majority on what makes a right and what doesn't, we might find ourselves in trouble.
Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin
-Calvin
rlucus 0
It's nice to see SC having a civil and constructive discussion 
As for doctors not getting to decide how much there time is worth, I think that goes along with it being a public service job... Public servants don't decide their own compensation. It is a combination of respect, pride, and compensation vs. hassle.
As a fellow service member I'm sure you understand this.
I have a fundamental belief that our current system is broken. I have a strong feeling against private insurance companies when it comes to health (and car insurance, but thats only because they managed to make it required by law)
QuoteFound the vaccine for that gun crime epidemic of yours, yet?
He has but he doesn't have to the balls to tell what it is. We all know he would call for a outright ban on everything.
If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!
QuoteIt is interesting that out of all that is written, it is spelling that you can find issue with. though, isn't it?
Don't you know that how Kallend debates? Duck and dodge the issue is his style.
If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!
billvon 2,384
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>he doesn't have to the balls . . .
Avoid attacks like this, please.
Avoid attacks like this, please.
kallend 1,621
QuoteQuoteHaha, man you're something. I went ahead and changed the thread title so as not to crowd your pedestal with peasants. Now, how about addressing Lewis' points?
Should have titled it:
"Visiting Duke Associate Professor Who's Been Unable to Pass a Tenure Review Anywhere Takes a Look at HR 3200"
Gotta keep the REAL professor happy
How about a thread "Lieutenant General Takes a Look at the War on Terrorism" about an article that's actually written by a 2nd Lieutenant?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 1,621
QuoteQuoteI concede it is a right declared in the DOI and not the constitution. I misspoke again. But (I honestly don't know) how does that make it different in US law?
As for public services you make a good point (and a much more accurate statement than your first, of doctors would have to work for free.)
As for legal defense being required by the constitution, that is also paid for by tax payers. My original question was not meant to be a legal question, but a moral one.
I'm not sure if you saw the edit to my last response, but the DoI really is not law. It was just the letter putting King George III on notice that the colonies were free from British rule. The beginning of the beginning, so to speak.
However, trying to make law guaranteeing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is impossible. The Constitution modifies the "inalienable rights" a bit by stating that the government may not deprive a citizen of life, liberty, or property without due process. See my last response for why I think the Constitution's wording makes much more sense.
My statement about the doctors working for free was hyperbole, for sure. Let me rephrase. If health care became a "right" the doctor could not charge what he thinks his services are worth. Much like public defenders don't make what the private defense attorneys do (correct me if I'm wrong, lawrocket).
If it's a strictly moral question, I never liked the thought of money/property/time being forcibly taken from one person and given to another by the government. Naturally there are exceptions, but morals are tricky things. :-)
The US is signatory to the UN Charter, which places an obligation to follow the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on the US, according to Article VI of the US Constitution.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Ion01 1
We "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". This means that the government does not give and take rights but that the government protects those rights given to us by our creator. Also, if its not listed in the decloration of independence, constitution, or bill or rights how could you consider it a right. Education is not a right! Healthcare is not a right! The police are established by the government to protect our rights. When someone tries to infringe on an individuals rights then the police step in. Unfortunately they do much more than that now becuase the government has over step it bounds and did a long time ago. Rights can only be protected by the government, not provided. Education and healthcare are provided by the government and was not listed as a right and was not given to us by a creator therefore the government should have no involvement. The tenth amendment makes that very clear and most state constitutions do as well.
rlucus 0
QuoteWe "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". This means that the government does not give and take rights but that the government protects those rights given to us by our creator. Also, if its not listed in the decloration of independence, constitution, or bill or rights how could you consider it a right. Education is not a right! Healthcare is not a right! The police are established by the government to protect our rights. When someone tries to infringe on an individuals rights then the police step in. Unfortunately they do much more than that now becuase the government has over step it bounds and did a long time ago. Rights can only be protected by the government, not provided. Education and healthcare are provided by the government and was not listed as a right and was not given to us by a creator therefore the government should have no involvement. The tenth amendment makes that very clear and most state constitutions do as well.
We are endowed with certain rights correct... it doesn't say that we can't decide to have more rights. The constitution provides multiple rights that aren't unalienable.
I don't see how the Tenth Amendment applies at all?
Andy9o8 0
QuoteWe "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". This means that the government does not give and take rights but that the government protects those rights given to us by our creator. Also, if its not listed in the decloration of independence, constitution, or bill or rights how could you consider it a right. Education is not a right! Healthcare is not a right! The police are established by the government to protect our rights. When someone tries to infringe on an individuals rights then the police step in. Unfortunately they do much more than that now becuase the government has over step it bounds and did a long time ago. Rights can only be protected by the government, not provided. Education and healthcare are provided by the government and was not listed as a right and was not given to us by a creator therefore the government should have no involvement. The tenth amendment makes that very clear and most state constitutions do as well.
Let me make a friendly, technical (not substantive) critique of the argument style of this post. Your argument needs to be re-worked, because you're making mutually-exclusive assertions.
You say:
A. We "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". This means that the government does not give and take rights but that the government protects those rights given to us by our creator. ...
...Rights can only be protected by the government, not provided.
But you also say:
B. Also, if its not listed in the decloration of independence, constitution, or bill or rights how could you consider it a right. ...
...Education and healthcare are provided by the government and was not listed as a right and was not given to us by a creator therefore the government should have no involvement.
If rights are innate and exist in nature independent of government and laws, then the fact that certain principles are not spelled-out as rights in a government's written laws or constitution does not mean that those principles cannot exist as rights. So, you see, logically, Group A and Group B are mutually inconsistent and thus are mutually exclusive.
billvon 2,384
>We "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights".
>This means that the government does not give and take rights but that
>the government protects those rights given to us by our creator.
OK so we have rights that no government gives us.
>Also, if its not listed in the decloration of independence, constitution,
>or bill or rights how could you consider it a right.
Didn't you just say that "their Creator," and not the Declaration of Independence or Constitution, gives them rights? Which one is it?
If people have a large set of inalienable rights, they may well include education, and who are we to remove a God-given right?
If people get their rights from the Constitution, well, it says that we will provide for the general welfare right there in black and white. And education falls squarely under things that improve the general welfare of the US. (Although it is definitely fair to discuss how to accomplish that, and a private schooling option may be a valid option if implemented well.)
>This means that the government does not give and take rights but that
>the government protects those rights given to us by our creator.
OK so we have rights that no government gives us.
>Also, if its not listed in the decloration of independence, constitution,
>or bill or rights how could you consider it a right.
Didn't you just say that "their Creator," and not the Declaration of Independence or Constitution, gives them rights? Which one is it?
If people have a large set of inalienable rights, they may well include education, and who are we to remove a God-given right?
If people get their rights from the Constitution, well, it says that we will provide for the general welfare right there in black and white. And education falls squarely under things that improve the general welfare of the US. (Although it is definitely fair to discuss how to accomplish that, and a private schooling option may be a valid option if implemented well.)
QuoteThat "nearly anyone" of your seems to exclude a very large number of people, as I pointed out. Your definition of "nearly" would be appropriate for "three is nearly more than four".
So you missed the first part where I stated that anyone who can read and have basic comprehension can comment.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
QuoteI am one of the Americans who feels that, as a matter of public policy, it should be that way in the US, also.
Well, jeez, Andy. You just had to go ahead and make your thoughts subjective. You will never do well.
I think you should have written, "HEALTHCARE IS A RIGHT THAT IS GUARANTEED AND ONLY UNEDUCATED, UNSOPHISTICATED BACKWARD-THINKING REACTIONARY FASCIST BIBLE-THUMPING GUN NUT FLESH EATERS WOULD DISAGREE."
But, no, you had to go ahead and put it in a way that cannot be argued because you stated it as a personal choice. That's all.
Damn you.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
kallend 1,621
QuoteQuoteThat "nearly anyone" of your seems to exclude a very large number of people, as I pointed out. Your definition of "nearly" would be appropriate for "three is nearly more than four".
So you missed the first part where I stated that anyone who can read and have basic comprehension can comment.
No, I have no issue with your first part.
I'm pointing out the INCONSISTENCY between your first part and your second part.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 1,621
QuoteQuote
I don't stalk you - I respond to your posts because out of all the rediculousness out there on this forum - yours is the most ascenine.
It's really rather annoying.
Rather like your spelling.
My actual post is copied again below. Feel free to edit again though . . .
It is interesting that out of all that is written, it is spelling that you can find issue with. though, isn't it?
QuoteI don't stalk you - I respond to your posts because out of all the rediculousness out there on this forum - yours is the most ascenine.
Your opine your thoughts in a way that makes it seem that you are blinded so much by the leftist view and unable to admit that there are valid points and concerns from the right that you make yourself seen as no less than blind to reality it self, the whole while giving off the impression that, in your self image, you are better than everyone else.
It's really rather annoying.
I realize how frustrating you must find it that there are posters here who refer to the ACTUAL BILL and provide links to it, rather than sheepishly accepting the right wing propaganda version.
I realize how frustrating it must be for you that there are posters here who link to factcheck.org and snopes to debunk the right wing propaganda version that you prefer.
I realize how frustrating it must be for you that some people ARE concerned with accuracy in language and the use of words.
But you always have the option of ignoring my posts and your frustration will decrease.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
turtlespeed 212
Quote
But you always have the option of ignoring my posts and your frustration will decrease.
Well, the comedic value outweighs the annoyance most times. I hardly ever forego a good laugh when warranted.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
1969912 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteHaha, man you're something. I went ahead and changed the thread title so as not to crowd your pedestal with peasants. Now, how about addressing Lewis' points?
Should have titled it:
"Visiting Duke Associate Professor Who's Been Unable to Pass a Tenure Review Anywhere Takes a Look at HR 3200"
Gotta keep the REAL professor happy
On what factual basis can it be accurately asserted that he's been unable to pass a tenure review anywhere?
Ask Kallend
"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG
Quote
Just to save you all some time, I went on Duke's website to verify his identity. His credentials check out, and he analyzes the text directly off the bill. It's not a pretty picture he paints.
Did you actually go through the list? Let's do it again.
Quote
WILL THE PLAN RATION MEDICAL CARE?
Medical care is always rationed. It could be rationed by accessibility, quality or price. You cannot have all three. Currently it is rationed by price; the real question is whether it is going to be rationed by accessibility or by quality. This wasn't explained.
Quote
Will the plan punish Americans who try to opt out?
Out out of what? Government healthcare or having health insurance? As the one who actually went through the bill, I know that the referenced section is related to the people who can afford to pay for healthcare, but decided not to have any coverage - neither governmental, nor private. They will be punished, and this is a good thing.
Quote
what constitutes “acceptable” coverage?
1.
2. By setting a minimum 70% actuarial value of benefits, the bill makes health plans in which individuals pay for routine services, but carry insurance only for catastrophic events, (such as Health Savings Accounts) illegal.
His first objection is that "The bill defines acceptable coverage and leaves no room for choice in this regard.". The bill defines _minumal_ acceptable coverage, and looking through the list I can't understand what exactly a sane individual would exclude. Hospitalization? Prescription drugs? Mental health? I do not see it requiring to cover boobjobs, or bullshit like urine drinking and herb sniffing.
Second objection is that "By setting a minimum 70% actuarial value of benefits, the bill makes health plans in which individuals pay for routine services, but carry insurance only for catastrophic events, (such as Health Savings Accounts) illegal". The problem is, what to do with those who elected such plan to save money, but have no money to actually pay for a non-catastrophic events? One of the goals of the bill is to avoid "emergency room with no pay" scenario. It's bad that those of us who maintain their budget and could plan and save for unexpected will suffer - but, at the end, there are only few of us. So this requirement is understandable.
Quote
Will the PLAN destroy private health insurance?
2. Small businesses—with say 8-10 employees—will either have to provide insurance to federal standards, or pay an 8% payroll tax.
Which is a good thing. Actually, not only small businesses.
Quote
2... Any competitive business that tries to stay with a private plan will face a payroll disadvantage against competitors who go with the government “option.”
3. The pressure for business owners to terminate the private plans will be enormous.
This is not true. The business which provides crappy insurance gets some savings. If it does not pass savings to employees, then the best employees will choose the business with better insurance, putting the former one into disadvantage. If the business passes those savings to employees, then there is no payroll disadvantage. At least in IT large employers usually have lower salary, but better benefits (including health), and it attracts people. They will not reduce themselves to crappy insurance.
Quote
4. With employers ending plans, millions of Americans will lose their private coverage, and fewer companies will offer it.
5. The Commissioner (meaning, always, the bureaucrats) will determine whether a particular network of physicians, hospitals and insurance is acceptable.
6. With private insurance starved, many people enrolled in the government “option” will have no place else to go.
Those points are groundless, as stated above.
Quote
Does the plan TAX successful Americans more THAN OTHERS?
Yes it does. This is where it might get stuck. It gets dangerously close to the point when using tax evasion schemes starts making sense to a lot of people. There is already a lot of good reasons NOT to have an IT company set up in USA (software patents, litigations), and adding more of them will only make things worse.
Quote
6. Does THE PLAN ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO set FEES FOR SERVICES?
Of course it does. What would a reasonable person expect? To have everything for free, from tatoo removal to boobjobs?
Quote
7. Will THE PLAN increase the power of government officials to SCRUTINIZE our private affairs?
It will just transfer power from insurance companies to the government. So it's not like we are losing something. Is it good? No. But we already lost it.
Quote
8. Does the plan automatically enroll Americans in the GOVERNMENT plan?
1. Do nothing and you are in.
This is perfect! Don't want it? Then get your lazy ass up, and do something!
Quote
2. Employers are responsible for automatically enrolling people who still work.
This will only affects employees which do not have coverage.
Quote
9. Does THE PLAN exempt federal OFFICIALS from COURT REVIEW?
This, in my opinion, is very clever troll attempt which assumes the people do not know the difference between administrative court review, and challenging the law by the courts. The plan denies the first one - which actually may be good thing, depending on how current reviews are implemented. This, however, is not "Parts of the plan are set above the review of the courts.".
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
Andy9o8 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteHaha, man you're something. I went ahead and changed the thread title so as not to crowd your pedestal with peasants. Now, how about addressing Lewis' points?
Should have titled it:
"Visiting Duke Associate Professor Who's Been Unable to Pass a Tenure Review Anywhere Takes a Look at HR 3200"
Gotta keep the REAL professor happy
On what factual basis can it be accurately asserted that he's been unable to pass a tenure review anywhere?
Ask Kallend
Sigh. OK, here's a hint. See Post #28 of this thread; then click the link. Then read.
kallend 1,621
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteHaha, man you're something. I went ahead and changed the thread title so as not to crowd your pedestal with peasants. Now, how about addressing Lewis' points?
Should have titled it:
"Visiting Duke Associate Professor Who's Been Unable to Pass a Tenure Review Anywhere Takes a Look at HR 3200"
Gotta keep the REAL professor happy
On what factual basis can it be accurately asserted that he's been unable to pass a tenure review anywhere?
Ask Kallend
See post #10 of this thread and work on your reading comprehension.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
mnealtx 0
QuoteWell that depends on which version of rights you are following. Public Safety is a constitutional right falling under the right to life.
Education is human right as recognized by the UN in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Article 26...
None the less, forget the word "right"
edit to add: When I mentioned public safety it also applies to property rights, while true police are a service designed to protect those rights... interesting distinction though?
Public safety is a right? Sweet...when do I get my personal policeman, fireman and paramedic to make sure I don't get robbed, burned or die of a heart attack?
If someone has to provide it to you, it is a service, not a right.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I'm not sure if you saw the edit to my last response, but the DoI really is not law. It was just the letter putting King George III on notice that the colonies were free from British rule. The beginning of the beginning, so to speak.
However, trying to make law guaranteeing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is impossible. The Constitution modifies the "inalienable rights" a bit by stating that the government may not deprive a citizen of life, liberty, or property without due process. See my last response for why I think the Constitution's wording makes much more sense.
My statement about the doctors working for free was hyperbole, for sure. Let me rephrase. If health care became a "right" the doctor could not charge what he thinks his services are worth. Much like public defenders don't make what the private defense attorneys do (correct me if I'm wrong, lawrocket).
If it's a strictly moral question, I never liked the thought of money/property/time being forcibly taken from one person and given to another by the government. Naturally there are exceptions, but morals are tricky things. :-)
-Calvin
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites