DescentBB

Top Gun wrote:

dissent wrote:Health care is not one of these rights...

It is only when our more basic needs have been met, needs like food, shelter, and health, that we're free to deal with more abstract concepts like those.

So are you ready for government to provide free shelter and food for everyone as well as free healthcare? You know if you can work insisting the government wipes your ass for you too then you can pretty much sit on your government couch and watch your government TV eating your government food in your government house all day and never even have to get up!

We are the world's wealthiest country, the country with the most influence on the global scale. And yet, until these reforms took place, we were the only country on that tier that could not guarantee its people a reasonable level of medical coverage if they could not afford it.

We do provide what was once considered more than reasonable level of free health care for those who can't afford it! It isn't just that picking oranges in America is easier that brings so many people storming our borders to do that work...it's all the other free stuff that goes along with living here that makes the trip worth while to them!

No it is politics not a substandard quality of care that has suddenly rendered the free care we taxpayers already graciously fund insufficient. People like you just swallow the Kool-Aid that you have a right to force others to pay for your preventive care as well as your emergency care. The sad thing is the party that has you believing it isn't even the least bit interested in improving the care they are after the votes and the power to keep you and all like you on the government tit so you won't dare vote for anyone who would suggest you should get emergency care and basic help but pay for your own damn acupuncture and massage therapy and breast pump stations in every workplace!

Top Gun wrote:My bottom line? Treating something like medical care as a for-profit business is a gross mistake in the first place, and has led our health industry to the sad state it finds itself in today.

Well your bottom line is quite short sighted. Capitalism has been the mother of invention in medicine! How many people ever traveled to Soviet Russia or Communist China for any kind of treatment?!? The capitalist system has created many of the worlds greatest medical advances and made them available to the world. In fact quite often leaders from countries with the kind of healthcare systems you want to turn ours into come here to be treated instead of putting themselves in the hands of their own free system! Ever wonder why that is? Of course not because you turn your brain off right after you have that thought that things should be free since we're so wealthy here in america The reason were so wealthy is because we are capitalists! If we were like the other places we'd be trying to find someplace else to get quality care like they do when they come to us!

Top Gun wrote:if our government truly exists to serve the American people, then greatly expanding insurance coverage to millions who couldn't previously afford it seems like a fine way of upholding that pledge.

I agree with the sentiment behind that thought but the sad truth that you refuse to consider is if our government truly exists to serve the American people then we would have had that kind of bill passed instead of the bull★■◆● political powerplay and vote buying pork bill that was passed!

As it stands right now you are not fighting for health care reform you are fighting for a bunch of bull★■◆● that someone called reform and you gladly jump on their bandwagon because you are programmed to choose left or right and then hang on blindly against all logic and reason!

We don't need government asswipes to come take over in the name of helping us so they can actually just help themselves we just need some simple regulation and tweaks to existing systems to make accessibility and price reasonable. Those needs are well understood by the the demagogues who have elected to play you like a fool instead.
They are not reforming healthcare they are re-forming their power base at all of our expense and with your foolish help.

Top Gun wrote:See, that's where we'd have to differ. ....

.... It is only when our more basic needs have been met, needs like food, shelter, and health, that we're free to deal with more abstract concepts like those. ....

...We are the world's wealthiest country, ....

...My bottom line? Treating something like medical care as a for-profit business is a gross mistake in the first place, and has led our health industry to the sad state it finds itself in today. ....

.... If our government truly exists to serve the American people, ...

You seem to be under the impression that government exists to provide for our basic needs. Why do you think this?

Declaration of Independence signers wrote:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ...

http://www.usconstitution.net/constquick.html
The preamble to the Constitution says that it seeks to "promote the general Welfare". This does not mean that government is supposed to manage the specific welfare of each individual citizen.

What does "wealthiest country" mean? The United States doesn't "have wealth". It has access to the wealth of individual members (and groups of members) of the United States and takes this wealth unto itself via taxation. The people provide the wealth that the United States has. This is not a minor distinction. Too many people consider the Federal budget to be a honeypot for their own pet projects.

There are many reasons for the current state of affairs in the American health care system. Laying this at the feet of "for profit" health care is a large oversimplification.

Again, if you mean by "serve the people" that government is supposed to provide services for the individual citizens, then I think you have it wrong. I think "serve the people" means to diligently exercise the legitimate powers of government that have been granted by "consent of the governed".

Again, go back to the American Exceptionalism thread and at least read the Liberal Delusions about Freedom link in my post from yesterday.

I can’t believe there are people who believe we only have 27 rights.

Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


If you don’t have the right to healthcare, can I prevent you from getting it?

Spidey wrote:If you don’t have the right to healthcare, can I prevent you from getting it?

In that you shouldn't be forced to pay for my healthcare.

Let me phrase your question another way. Is there a right to clothing?

Well, yes and no. No one has the right to stop you from buying clothes, or to take your clothes away. In that sense, you have a "right to clothes". Actually, you can get into legal trouble for not having clothes!

I would also hope that everyone would have enough clothing. And I give some of my own hard earned cash to private charities that help provide clothing for people in need.

But I would object strongly to the government taking this "right to clothing" to mean that the government should take over all clothing stores and provide clothing for the people.

There is a big difference between "you have the right to have..." and "The government should provide"

You guys really need to understand the difference between freedoms and entitlements, both defined as “rights”.

The founding fathers never intended “rights” to mean entitlements.

Example:

You have the “right” to bear arms…correct? Where does it say that somebody has to provide them for you?

You have the “freedom” to bear arms.

You have the “freedom” to have healthcare, nobody has to provide it for you, nobody can prevent you from getting it.

The reason it’s not enumerated is simple…they never in a million years thought they had to protect something so basic. Food & water aren’t listed there either.

.

Bet51987 wrote:

Spidey wrote:[healthcare]...nobody can prevent you from getting it.

Look up "pre-existing" condition.

Bee

Bee that doesn't make sense. An insurance company might not want to pay for something that under your contract with them is excluded from the agreement however that doesn't mean they prevented the person from getting health care! They simply refused to pay for that which the company and the insured both agreed in advance would not be covered.

In the case where the insurer refuses to pay and there really was no pre-existing condition we could have used some legislation to address that because insurers are notorious for refusing claims for all sorts of bogus 'reasons' but to say we need the current legislation falsely marketed as "health care reform" to deal with that situation is wrong. The example Kiliran gave illustrates it perfectly:

No one has the right to stop you from buying clothes, or to take your clothes away. In that sense, you have a "right to clothes"
....
But I would object strongly to the government taking this "right to clothing" to mean that the government should take over all clothing stores and provide clothing for the people.

Spidey wrote:The founding fathers never intended “rights” to mean entitlements.

Yes, very well put!

Bee, you are confusing health care with health insurance.

Now go back to ignoring me.

Kilarin wrote:

Spidey wrote:The founding fathers never intended “rights” to mean entitlements.

Yes, very well put!

Yes, or as sometimes put, "negative" rights versus "positive" rights. Negative rights are restrictions on what the government can do to you, whereas positive rights are things that the government is entitled to provide for you.

But I would argue that there are some "entitlements" or "positive" rights that even the most libertarian folk on this board accept, such as the right to vote or the right to protection from foreign invasion. To use your language, you are entitled to these things.

Cuda wrote:dont see a right to healthcare there. besides to make healthcare a "right" it would require the infringement on other peoples rights.

We already have positive rights that do this. In a trivial case, with the right to vote, if the government couldn't find poll workers, it would be obligated to somehow force people to do this. But the much grander case is the government's obligation to protect us from foreign invasion and its employment of conscription.

In fact, I think that even some of the negative rights conflict, but I won't personally argue for this here.

But I don't think that whether rights "conflict" says anything about how "fundamental" they are. In fact, I would consider it some sort of exceptional oddity of the universe (or at least how humans experience it) if all of our rights somehow didn't conflict. It would be a case of surprising elegance, the type of thing that would drive even me to devoutly practice religion.

So Jeff, what category does the right to bear arms fall under…Negative or positive? And, how did you arive at your conclusion?

The government can’t force people to be poll workers, that would be a direct violation of the 9th and 13th amendments. In that case the government whould have to forgo its obligation.

Conscription is most likely un-constitional, the government may have obligations, but it can’t break the law to accomplish them.

There is no federal \"right to vote\"...there may be laws that say you can't stop certain people from entering a polling place based on income, race, etc. but there is no universal right to vote in the constitution.
I doubt there is any 'right to be protected from invasion' either.

.

Will Robinson wrote:There is no federal "right to vote"...there may be laws that say you can't stop certain people from entering a polling place based on income, race, etc. but there is no universal right to vote in the constitution.

To further this point, back during the founding days you had to be a property owner to vote and women could not vote. Perhaps we should go back to our roots and re-institute the original voting parameters.

Bet51987 wrote:

Spidey wrote:Bee, you are confusing health care with health insurance.

Now go back to ignoring me.

I'm not confusing anything. You said "nobody can prevent you from getting healthcare" but insurance companies are directly tied to health care and they can prevent you from receiving it.

You've done nothing to me personally to cause me to ignore you.

Bee

SO your saying that if I go to the Hospital and offer to pay for my healthcare myself. that the Insurance company can force the hospital to deny treating me???

Spidey wrote:So Jeff, what category does the right to bear arms fall under…Negative or positive? And, how did you arive at your conclusion?

Negative... this right doesn't obligate the government to do anything for you. It's a right to government *non*-intervention. Is this an honest question, or something that's supposed to lead me into a trap? I guess I'll wait and find out.

Spidey wrote:Conscription is most likely un-constitional, the government may have obligations, but it can’t break the law to accomplish them.

This is a controversial issue I'll admit. But that is certainly not the opinion of the Supreme Court, and I don't think most people would agree either, conservative or liberal, in fact conservatives more so. I don't really want to debate this though, but I think that it's enough to say that the idea of a right obligating the government to do something for you, even when contradicting other rights, isn't an unprecedented idea for most people.

Will Robinson wrote:There is no federal "right to vote"...there may be laws that say you can't stop certain people from entering a polling place based on income, race, etc. but there is no universal right to vote in the constitution.

I'm not talking so much about rights enumerated in the Constitution. Otherwise, obviously healthcare isn't a right. I'm more so talking about rights that may be floating around out there unenumerated.

If you believe in a "right to vote," then it's not enough to just say that the government cannot stop you from entering a place of polling. The right to vote is also a right that your vote be counted. And that is an obligation of the government to do something for you, to count your vote. And it's not unreasonable to extend this to the government being obligated to establish convenient places for polling, and so on.

Jeff250 wrote:...
I'm not talking so much about rights enumerated in the Constitution. Otherwise, obviously healthcare isn't a right. I'm more so talking about rights that may be floating around out there unenumerated.

If you believe in a "right to vote," then it's not enough to just say that the government cannot stop you from entering a place of polling. The right to vote is also a right that your vote be counted. And that is an obligation of the government to do something for you, to count your vote. And it's not unreasonable to extend this to the government being obligated to establish convenient places for polling, and so on.

Ahh, from that perspective I'd agree there is a reasonable expectation that if there is an election in America that a registered voters vote should be counted and a further reasonable expectation that the government would protect that cast vote.
I don't think there has been, for very long at all, a reasonable expectation that tax payer revenue would be used to finance a full spectrum of health care for every person who manages to enter our border let alone every legal citizen. Those expectations are new and not held by the majority of the citizens so to have the current administration declare it a mandate for federal law is a bit troubling to say the least.

Having said that, yesterday I sent in my federal taxes (a day early even) and today I recieved my 2nd quarter health insurance premium. The healthcare premium for one quarter is 4 times my tax burden! And it, like my government, only covers me in the case of a catastrophe otherwise I'm on my own.
So I don't know which way to wave my pistol today....

.

No Jeff, I’m not trying to trap you, but the second part of the question is more important…that being how do you come to your conclusion, and how it’s different from the other rights, deemed to be “positive”.

But I will be honest with you, I’m thinking that “Positive” and “Negative” rights sound like a clever, but not so clever play on words to make some freedoms sound like entitlements.

Bet51987 wrote:You said "nobody can prevent you from getting healthcare" but insurance companies are directly tied to health care and they can prevent you from receiving it.

Bet51987 wrote:If you want to pay for your health care they have no problem with it.
Bee

so which is it??? can you still get healthcare or do the insurance companies prevent you from receiving it???

what you can afford is irrelevant. you still have access to medical care. YOU CANNOT BE DENIED. also people buy things all the time that they cannot afford, people buy cars and choose not to have auto insurance because "they cannot afford it". maybe they shouldn't buy a car, or even that expensive a car,

Insurance is a commodity <sp> something to be bought and sold it is not a right. yes they refuse services to people. but what aboout the restaurants that have signs that say "we reserve the right to refuse service"??? should we pass legislation preventing them from do such?
In my own line of work I have refused to service some customers. how am I any different than an Insurance business

Because people don't depend on what you do to stay alive?

I would be willing to bet that businesses that feed people, keep more people alive than insurance companies.

Spidey wrote:I would be willing to bet that businesses that feed people, keep more people alive than insurance companies.

...isn't that what any sort of reform effort is theoretically trying to change in the first place? The insurance system as it stands is fundamentally flawed, and something has to give to make it less so. I can perfectly respect the viewpoint that the bill that wound up passing wasn't the best way to do so, but if you were to say that nothing should have been changed, then I would strongly disagree with that.

Top Gun wrote:Because people don't depend on what you do to stay alive?

REALLY and your sure about that?

CUDA wrote:

Top Gun wrote:Because people don't depend on what you do to stay alive?

REALLY and your sure about that?

I'd be happy to be proven wrong if you'll illuminate me.

Top Gun wrote:

Spidey wrote:I would be willing to bet that businesses that feed people, keep more people alive than insurance companies.

...isn't that what any sort of reform effort is theoretically trying to change in the first place? The insurance system as it stands is fundamentally flawed, and something has to give to make it less so. I can perfectly respect the viewpoint that the bill that wound up passing wasn't the best way to do so, but if you were to say that nothing should have been changed, then I would strongly disagree with that.

I can’t really speak as to what the reform was supposed to be in theory, all I can relate to is…as a older person with a pre existing condition, and no insurance, I don’t see anything that benefits me.

And before you reply, you need to know…I have been dealing with this issue first hand for a long time…and I know what’s in the bill. (because, I have a very personal stake in it)

.

Top Gun wrote:....I can perfectly respect the viewpoint that the bill that wound up passing wasn't the best way to do so, but if you were to say that nothing should have been changed, then I would strongly disagree with that.

where's your desire to avoid 'all or nothing' scenarios now?
No one suggested nothing be done but to imply the current bill is about health care/insurance reform is like saying the phone book is a book of maps. Sure there are some pages with maps in the book but come on!
How many thousands of pages are in the bill and how many do you think have the interest of the citizens as a priority? If we accept the bill and the way it has been shoved down our throats as the best we could get then we are asking to be screwed like this by every congress and every president regardless of which party is in charge.

Spidey wrote:No Jeff, I’m not trying to trap you, but the second part of the question is more important…that being how do you come to your conclusion, and how it’s different from the other rights, deemed to be “positive”.

But I will be honest with you, I’m thinking that “Positive” and “Negative” rights sound like a clever, but not so clever play on words to make some freedoms sound like entitlements.

(copied my April 11 post in the American Exceptionalism thread; I see how to link to a thread, but how do you link to a post in a thread??) -

dissent wrote:resurrecting my thread for some updated reference information.

occasioned by reading the following post by Ed Morrissey on leftist protesters at the SRLC.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/10/n ... lc-fringe/
See Ed's essay here on "Rights and Wrongs"


http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liber ... -negative/
some backgrounder info on the idea of "negative liberty" v. "positive liberty"

Because the concept of negative freedom concentrates on the external sphere in which individuals interact, it seems to provide a better guarantee against the dangers of paternalism and authoritarianism perceived by Berlin. To promote negative freedom is to promote the existence of a sphere of action within which the individual is sovereign, and within which she can pursue her own projects subject only to the constraint that she respect the spheres of others. Humboldt and Mill, both defenders of the negative concept of freedom, compared the development of an individual to that of a plant: individuals, like plants, must be allowed to grow, in the sense of developing their own faculties to the full and according to their own inner logic. Personal growth is something that cannot be imposed from without, but must come from within the individual.

hence the idea of the American founding, the "American experiment", where the idea is to limit government and allow the individual to operate with freedom within that environment, as opposed to the idea of having government intrude and "define" the freedoms of the individual.



http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/
more backgrounder info on negative and positive liberty, and on the transition of "liberalism" from the classical to the New Liberalism.

dissent wrote:(copied my April 11 post in the American Exceptionalism thread; I see how to link to a thread, but how do you link to a post in a thread??)

I don't think this older version of phpBB had that feature, for whatever strange reason. It's a real pain.

Bet51987 wrote:

CUDA wrote:.. you still have access to medical care. YOU CANNOT BE DENIED.

I will give you that. You're correct that no hospital will refuse treating you so technically you and Spidey are correct. However, the hospital will bill that person and collect from any assets that person has.

Bee

thats not entirely correct

CBS wrote:Don't hospitals expect the uninsured not to pay and just write off their bills, anyhow?

Hospitals get certain accounting and public-relations benefits even when they don't collect from the uninsured. For-profit hospitals get a tax write-off on uncollected debts. Non-profit hospitals (85 percent of U.S. hospitals are non-profit) cite their uncollected debts in fund-raising efforts and to the government in arguing for higher Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement payments.

.

of course it says uncollected debt, why wouldn't the Hospital try to collect the debt first before writing it off?

I find it ironic that people are trashing the insurance companies and their costs, we complain about the rising cost of our healthcare. but the hospital system in the US last year posted a $20 billion profit, just a bit down from the $43 billion profits on 2007.
thats right up there with the oil company profits. it seems to me like maybe hospitals could afford to write off a couple hundred million of those \"bad debts\" with those kinds of margins.

I'd like to point out that a little over 3 weeks ago The_Traveler posted this message in the evening, and actually died later that very same night.
As announced by his son using his account here.

His last message was enough that no-one thought it needed a response. He did have the last say.
Note what i have bolded in his last message in the thread:

The_Traveler wrote:And he says he isn't a liberal. I have seen the out come of a depression have you? I was born during it and we made it through and country would have survived another one. Fear is letting you be enslaved. What fools the younger generations has become. Beside if they would have enforced the laws in the first place we wouldn't have ended up in the mess we were in. I also see what you are trying to doing young one I will not be a party to your games. You may put all the words you would like into my mouth it's been done before by smarter people than you. It doesn't change the fact your are enslaving yourself I don't have much longer on this plane so keep up with the enslavement of yourself. I'll have none of it.

There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Twilight Zone.

LOL.

guys he died.
why are you loling

I was actually laughing at what Heretic posted so don't try and turn it into something it wasn't. Since you mentioned it though

With a smile and a laugh he passed suddenly during the night.

Seems the man had some to be happy about so right at this moment I'm gonna laugh with him too.

You’re not allowed to laugh when something funny is posted…it makes you into “one of them”.