kbordson 8
Recommended Posts
jcd11235 0
QuoteThere is room for interpretation with everything.
More accurately, there is a place for interpretation (w/r/t the law), and that place is within the judicial branch. Feel free to show where the courts have determined that international treaties which are not in contradiction with the Constitution or state law are not the supreme law of the land.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
jcd11235 0
QuoteWhat basic writing error?
I identified the error to which I referred.
QuoteAlthough I did not specifically state in that post which document I meant, …
That's the one. I can't read your mind.
QuoteI was pointing out the two separate covenants.
Perhaps you could provide a credible source regarding those "two separate covenants." Sorry, but wordlingo.com and absoluteastronomy.com hardly seem credible w/r/t to this topic.
QuoteYes, it requires some assumption.... but so does using the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) as an argument for health care - because you are assuming that we agreed to ALL covenants of that nonbinding agreement, and thus that should guarantee all residents of the U.S to "free" or "universal" or "whatever term is thrown" health care.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a constitutive document of the United Nations Charter. As signatories of the United Nations, a legally binding treaty, the United States is legally bound to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
You'll find that the two covenants, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, are separate from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
kbordson 8
QuoteQuoteYes, it requires some assumption.... but so does using the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) as an argument for health care - because you are assuming that we agreed to ALL covenants of that nonbinding agreement, and thus that should guarantee all residents of the U.S to "free" or "universal" or "whatever term is thrown" health care.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a constitutive document of the United Nations Charter. As signatories of the United Nations, a legally binding treaty, the United States is legally bound to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
You'll find that the two covenants, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, are separate from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Actually, you seem right on that... and looking at JUST the UDHR, this is the ONLY mention of health or medical care
QuoteArticle 25.
* (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
* (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Lets look at where we, as a country, NOT fulfilling that commitment?
food - government assistance for those that qualify whether it is food stamps, or HUGE blocks of cheese. But you can't just walk into Micky D's and demand your rights to a Big Mac
clothing - HERE... we lack. The government does NOT provide basic clothing to those in need, but there are lots of charities that cover this need.
housing - we have Section 8 assistance if you qualify. But, you are limited to where that housing is... you don't get a Mansion in Beverly Hills.
medical care - Medicaid and Medicare. Yes, you have to qualify, but it is a provided government system But this is limited...you don't get Zofran if you're nauseated and throwing up... nope. Just phenergan. And even without ANY coverage, you have the right due to EMTALA to not be denied emergency services due to lack of ability to pay.
necessary social services - not exactly sure what this entails... Police, Fire, news?
and the right to security in the event of unemployment - covered under unemployment benefits - mostly a state program. Not federal - but the Department of Labor does offer Unemployment Insurance
sickness, disability - this is covered with Medicaid and Medicare
widowhood - this is NOT covered
old age - Medicare and Social Security
or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. - Not sure what this includes... but I don't think we cover it.
So... if you really want to be honest about the US breaching that "treaty", then you should be arguing for the rights to clothing and the rights to widow/widowers. There you would have a better argument.
jcd11235 0
Quotemedical care - Medicaid and Medicare. Yes, you have to qualify, but it is a provided government system But this is limited...you don't get Zofran if you're nauseated and throwing up... nope. Just phenergan. And even without ANY coverage, you have the right due to EMTALA to not be denied emergency services due to lack of ability to pay.
There are many people in the US that do not qualify for government heathcare, nor can they afford coverage at current prices. (Even if they qualified but aren't signed up, signing them up would result in funding shortages, leaving the problem to remain.) That needs to be remedied. Congress has the power to remedy that, with or without the UDHR under Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
kbordson 8
QuoteQuotemedical care - Medicaid and Medicare. Yes, you have to qualify, but it is a provided government system But this is limited...you don't get Zofran if you're nauseated and throwing up... nope. Just phenergan. And even without ANY coverage, you have the right due to EMTALA to not be denied emergency services due to lack of ability to pay.
There are many people in the US that do not qualify for government heathcare, nor can they afford coverage at current prices. (Even if they qualified but aren't signed up, signing them up would result in funding shortages, leaving the problem to remain.) That needs to be remedied. Congress has the power to remedy that, with or without the UDHR under Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution.
So now it seems that you're backpedaling from using the UDHR as support and instead going with "I beleive that there needs to be MORE medical coverage." So to do that, why not work to change the qualifications for existing programs instead of scraping it all and trying to pass a 1000+ page document that no one is allowed to read?
- on a side question on "rights" -
Miranda Warning: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights?"
Why is that clause "if you cannot afford an attorney" in there... I don't think it needs to be. Having never been in that position, I don't know for sure if it is a "those that qualify" situation. I think that anyone... if they didn't WANT to pay for an attorney, can still get a public defender... EVEN IF you're a millionaire. Might not be considered the "smartest" decision... but I think they can still ask for public defense, can't they?
jcd11235 0
QuoteSo now it seems that you're backpedaling from using the UDHR as support and instead going with "I beleive that there needs to be MORE medical coverage."
Not at all. I'm merely pointing out that the examples you used are not, in reality, indicative of our responsibilities, and that Congress would not be acting in a manner contradictory to the Constitution to remedy that situation (i.e. meeting the prerequisite for an international treaty to be the supreme law of the land). I'm sorry if my wording wasn't clear on that point.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
kbordson 8
QuoteQuoteSo now it seems that you're backpedaling from using the UDHR as support and instead going with "I beleive that there needs to be MORE medical coverage."
Not at all. I'm merely pointing out that the examples you used are not, in reality, indicative of our responsibilities, and that Congress would not be acting in a manner contradictory to the Constitution to remedy that situation (i.e. meeting the prerequisite for an international treaty to be the supreme law of the land). I'm sorry if my wording wasn't clear on that point.
But I believe that we HAVE met the requirements of that treaty with respect to health and medical care.
We are providing, within a specified scope, the basic rights (with the exception of clothing and better coverage for widows/widowers) as defined by the UDHR.
Now... if you think that as a country with a National Income (I was going to use GDP, but lets keep it to just what the Government plays with as collected under authority of Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution) of "x" - that we, as a nation, should prioritize health care over military.... that's an different discussion. But it is being provided... just not, in your opinion, enough.
(and for the record - I am not arguing against that. Rather on the how to correct it)
jcd11235 0
QuoteBut I believe that we HAVE met the requirements of that treaty with respect to health and medical care.
I disagree. The steps you listed that we have taken are not sufficient to meet the requirements (i.e. Article 25 of the UDHR uses the word the word everyone).
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
kbordson 8
QuoteQuoteBut I believe that we HAVE met the requirements of that treaty with respect to health and medical care.
I disagree. The steps you listed that we have taken are not sufficient to meet the requirements (i.e. Article 25 of the UDHR uses the word the word everyone).
So then we, as a nation, should provide FOOD to everyone. And CLOTHING to everyone. And HOUSING to everyone. And MEDICAL CARE to everyone. And NECESSARY SOCIAL SERVICES to everyone.
And so should EVERY country that signed that document.
If you're saying that, then I think you jumped the shark.
-edit to add the definition: You had a great argument (show) going but went over and now... it's going down.
jcd11235 0
QuoteSo then we, as a nation, should provide FOOD to everyone. And CLOTHING to everyone. And HOUSING to everyone. And MEDICAL CARE to everyone. And NECESSARY SOCIAL SERVICES to everyone.
And so should EVERY country that signed that document.
If you're saying that, then I think you jumped the shark.
Everyone should have access to those things, and, according to the UDHR, has a right to have access to those things. That does not imply that the government should provide all of those things to everyone. It does imply that the government has a responsibility to step in when people are unable to provide those things for themselves. In many cases, the government does this, but far too many people fall through the cracks.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
kbordson 8
QuoteEveryone should have access to those things, and, according to the UDHR, has a right to have access to those things.
agree. and there is the access to health care- look at EMTALA or public health clinics/ county hospitals. But not everyone has access to the health care they WANT. Likewise, not everyone has access to the food that they WANT, nor the housing they WANT, nor the clothing they WANT. Access is available in this country (except for the provided clothing topic) ... but if you WANT more....
QuoteThat does not imply that the government should provide all of those things to everyone.
agree
QuoteIt does imply that the government has a responsibility to step in when people are unable to provide those things for themselves.
agree. And it HAS
QuoteIn many cases, the government does this, but far too many people fall through the cracks.
agreed to a limited extend. BUT... here you SHOULD state "In my opinion." And I think, in MY opinion, that it would be better to caulk up the cracks... rather than tear up the sidewalk.
jcd11235 0
QuoteAccess is available in this country (except for the provided clothing topic)
For many/most, it is. It is not available to everyone.
Quoteagree. And it HAS
Not for everyone that does not otherwise have access, they haven't.
QuoteI think, in MY opinion, that it would be better to caulk up the cracks... rather than tear up the sidewalk.
It was be smarter from a fiscal perspective to replace the sidewalk if the cost is cheaper than fixing the old one.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
rushmc 18
This is a video of the Honorable Senator Reid so dont let the site scare you off
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/10/15/harry_reid_suggests_health_care_to_cost_2_trillion.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/10/15/harry_reid_suggests_health_care_to_cost_2_trillion.html
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
QuoteSeriously, a 1Mbps connection is now a right in Finland?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10374831-2.html?tag=newsEditorsPicksArea.0
That's a nice human right which will probably never pass in U.S., because a bunch of people here believes that embryo is also human. And it would be damn hard to provide the embryos with Internet access.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
QuoteQuoteSeriously, a 1Mbps connection is now a right in Finland?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10374831-2.html?tag=newsEditorsPicksArea.0
That's a nice human right which will probably never pass in U.S., because a bunch of people here believes that embryo is also human. And it would be damn hard to provide the embryos with Internet access.
Not at all. All you need is an injectable nano-iPhone and a wireless connection.
Quote
Not at all. All you need is an injectable nano-iPhone and a wireless connection.
So how a zygote (also a human according to abortion nazis) would use an iPhone? :) It cannot, so the right is not fulfilled.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
What basic writing error?
I was replying to your post #21, where you states "Have that many people really not read the Constitution closely enough to know that it explicitly recognizes international treaties to be "the supreme Law of the Land," provided they did not contradict the Constitution or state law?" And my answer was "BUT by my reading, there was a division in the rights granted by that document."
Although I did not specifically state in that post which document I meant, IF you look at post #20 (right above your insult... scroll up... it's easy... ) I was pointing out the two separate covenants.
Yes, it requires some assumption.... but so does using the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) as an argument for health care - because you are assuming that we agreed to ALL covenants of that nonbinding agreement, and thus that should guarantee all residents of the U.S to "free" or "universal" or "whatever term is thrown" health care.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites