Jump to content






Photo

Health Care Bill Passed


  • Please log in to reply
188 replies to this topic

#121 (Cheesesteak)

(Cheesesteak)
  • Visitors

Posted 26 March 2010 - 06:28 PM

No - go back and read the post. It's says "health care insurance is considered to be a basic human right so everyone now has been mandated to purchase health care insurance."

I'm quite familiar with the UNDHR - and while Art. 25 might say everyone is entitled to "medical case and social services," the UNDHR doesn't mandate everyone purchase health insurance. Plus - the UNDHR is, frankly, a meaningless piece of paper. Take the UNDHR into a Doctor's office and tell them you demand the health care as contemplated by the UNDHR. lmaosmiley.gif

I'm not confusing the two because the only rights you have are those set forth in the Constitution. Other than those limiting government power - you've got none in this Country.

Like I said - if the person who posted that is really a student of political science - and of the Constitution - he/she would challenge the thought that health care is a "right."




#122 Chris

Chris

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,857 posts
  • Location:Folsom CA

Posted 26 March 2010 - 06:37 PM

QUOTE (Cheesesteak @ Mar 26 2010, 07:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Like I said - if the person who posted that is really a student of political science - and of the Constitution - he/she would challenge the thought that health care is a "right."

Hey Cheesehead, I mean Cheesesteak....! Sounds like you actually know history and your Constitution....! Looks like you have read some books not on the reading list for high school graduation...! Anyway, I agree, all these folks protesting that health care is a right (with me paying for them) but in the same breath they want to take away my guns just rubs me the wrong way....! The 2A is very clear in it's intent but there's nothing there about health care last time I looked..... Chris

1A - 2A = -1A


#123 bordercolliefan

bordercolliefan

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,596 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Natoma Station

Posted 26 March 2010 - 07:32 PM

QUOTE (Cheesesteak @ Mar 26 2010, 07:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'm not confusing the two because the only rights you have are those set forth in the Constitution. Other than those limiting government power - you've got none in this Country.


Sorry, not true.

For example, the field I work in is elder abuse. Every resident of a nursing home is given a piece of paper entitled, "Patient's Bill of Rights," which are codified in California's Health & Safety Code. They include such things as the right to be informed of one's medical condition, the right to wear one's own clothing, the right to receive care to prevent bedsores and incontinence, etc. The patient has a statutory right to sue for each and every violation of these rights.

I'm sure there are many more examples of rights that arise other than from a constitution.

#124 ducky

ducky

    untitled

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,115 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 26 March 2010 - 08:00 PM

QUOTE (bordercolliefan @ Mar 26 2010, 08:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Sorry, not true.

For example, the field I work in is elder abuse. Every resident of a nursing home is given a piece of paper entitled, "Patient's Bill of Rights," which are codified in California's Health & Safety Code. They include such things as the right to be informed of one's medical condition, the right to wear one's own clothing, the right to receive care to prevent bedsores and incontinence, etc. The patient has a statutory right to sue for each and every violation of these rights.

I'm sure there are many more examples of rights that arise other than from a constitution.


I'm not a lawyer and don't play one on TV, but aren't those rights only bestowed upon you AFTER you are admitted and become a patient? Unless every citizen of the United States is now considered a patient 24/7, that really wouldn't apply, would it?

#125 bordercolliefan

bordercolliefan

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,596 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Natoma Station

Posted 26 March 2010 - 08:16 PM

QUOTE (ducky @ Mar 26 2010, 09:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'm not a lawyer and don't play one on TV, but aren't those rights only bestowed upon you AFTER you are admitted and become a patient? Unless every citizen of the United States is now considered a patient 24/7, that really wouldn't apply, would it?


I'm sorry, I don't understand your point.

Cheesesteak claimed that rights can only arise from the Constitution.

I said no, lots of laws create rights. Rights don't have to be enshrined in a constitution.

You seem to be saying, some rights only apply to certain people. That is certainly true, but what is the relevance?

#126 bordercolliefan

bordercolliefan

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,596 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Natoma Station

Posted 26 March 2010 - 08:25 PM

QUOTE (Cheesesteak @ Mar 26 2010, 07:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Other than those limiting government power - you've got none in this Country.


I also disagree with this statement.

I have the right not to be discriminated against by my employer on the grounds of my gender. That is not a limitation on government power; it is a limitation on the power of my employer. And it bestows on me a direct right to bring a civil action and collect damages.

#127 ducky

ducky

    untitled

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,115 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 26 March 2010 - 08:32 PM

QUOTE (bordercolliefan @ Mar 26 2010, 09:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'm sorry, I don't understand your point.

Cheesesteak claimed that rights can only arise from the Constitution.

I said no, lots of laws create rights. Rights don't have to be enshrined in a constitution.

You seem to be saying, some rights only apply to certain people. That is certainly true, but what is the relevance?


I guess I was saying the same. I don't understand the relevance of your example saying we have a right to have someone else pay for our healthcare. Until I become a patient, those kind of rights you listed don't kick in. In the meantime, I'd like to just take care of myself. I don't want the government to do it for me.

#128 (Cheesesteak)

(Cheesesteak)
  • Visitors

Posted 27 March 2010 - 06:39 AM

QUOTE (bordercolliefan @ Mar 26 2010, 09:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I also disagree with this statement.

I have the right not to be discriminated against by my employer on the grounds of my gender. That is not a limitation on government power; it is a limitation on the power of my employer. And it bestows on me a direct right to bring a civil action and collect damages.


That is your right to equal protection under the law - a right guaranteed by the constitution and made applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. It's a limitation placed on business - rights "taken away" that businesses used to have. Many moons ago - businesses had the right to not hire you because of your age, gender, skin color - and any other reason. Look - the "rights" that you have are those that the government can not take away.

Your "Patient's Bill of Rights" is a nice piece of paper that can be erased by majority vote. Any time the government makes things available - it can take them away too. Those aren't truly "rights" that you have. True "rights" are not subject to the will of the majority.

It's clear to me that we're talking past each other . . .

#129 swmr545

swmr545

    Living Legend

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,997 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 29 March 2010 - 01:27 AM

QUOTE (Cheesesteak @ Mar 27 2010, 07:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
True "rights" are not subject to the will of the majority.


Everything is subject to the majority. All we need is 2/3 of either Congress or state legislatures to propose a new amendment and 3/4 to ratify it. However, it is up to judicial review to make sure that the will of the majority is constitutional or not.
"We must recognize that this short life can neither be ennobled or enriched by hatred or revenge."

RFK

#130 swmr545

swmr545

    Living Legend

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,997 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 29 March 2010 - 01:33 AM

QUOTE (Bill Z @ Mar 26 2010, 08:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
This isn't as simple as you make it sound.


Hence the use of "hope" so much in my post. Congress has placed a lot of faith in "hoping" this HCB will do what it's meant to do.
"We must recognize that this short life can neither be ennobled or enriched by hatred or revenge."

RFK

#131 swmr545

swmr545

    Living Legend

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,997 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 29 March 2010 - 02:47 AM

QUOTE (Cheesesteak @ Mar 26 2010, 07:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No - go back and read the post. It's says "health care insurance is considered to be a basic human right so everyone now has been mandated to purchase health care insurance."

I'm quite familiar with the UNDHR - and while Art. 25 might say everyone is entitled to "medical case and social services," the UNDHR doesn't mandate everyone purchase health insurance. Plus - the UNDHR is, frankly, a meaningless piece of paper. Take the UNDHR into a Doctor's office and tell them you demand the health care as contemplated by the UNDHR. lmaosmiley.gif

I'm not confusing the two because the only rights you have are those set forth in the Constitution. Other than those limiting government power - you've got none in this Country.

Like I said - if the person who posted that is really a student of political science - and of the Constitution - he/she would challenge the thought that health care is a "right."


While access to health care may not be enshrined in the Constitution, Congress has (for better or for worse) pretty much made it so by mandating that no1 be denied coverage based on gender, age, and previous/future health conditions. To further ensure that everyone has access, they have mandated that everyone buy health care (or pay a fine if you refuse).

I do not agree with the individual mandate, I believe we should all have the freedom of choice. However, we now have the right to access health care free from discrimination.

You do not need to have a "right" enshrined in the/a Constitution to make it a "right"; there are many examples throughout our nation's history that proves this; here are a couple:

1) While marriage is being debated on right vs. privilage; couples have the right to marry someone of an opposite race

2) In CA, our state constitution does not provide for non-discrimination protections for LGBTQ students; yet as a gay student, I have the right (set forth by judicial rulings and state law) to go to a public school free from harassment and discrimination.
----------------------

Here are a few rhetorical questions for y'all:

If you had a drug that would make a person immune from every disease for 30 years in a single dose, would you distribute it for free? or would you only give it to the people that had the money to pay? Would you want access to the pill if you were a person that had no money?

Do we, as a society, have a moral obligation to ensure that everyone has access to the same resources in life (water, food, medicine, shelter, clothing)?

In a capitalist society, should morals ever take priority over profit?
------------------

As a former Catholic, some of the lessons I was taught still guide my decisions and beliefs to this day. As such, I believe that if we have the resources/services to help make sick people healthy, keep disease from spreading, and promote the general well-being of our society, then we need to do what we can to make sure people have access to those resources/services.
"We must recognize that this short life can neither be ennobled or enriched by hatred or revenge."

RFK

#132 rightwingknot

rightwingknot

    All Star

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 327 posts
  • Location:Lexington Hills

Posted 29 March 2010 - 06:49 AM

I think some are confusing 'rights' with 'fundamental rights.' Governments can confer rights to individuals, but those rights are not fundamental unless deemed so by the Constitution as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The legal definition of a fundamental right is: "A basic or foundational right, derived from natural law; a right deemed by the Supreme Court to receive the highest level of Constitutional protection against government interference."

Most of the discussion is the right to 'access' to health care, not interference with it. The real question is does the national government have the power to regulate what has traditionally been a state regulated system. I point you to the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Of all the examples of how governments regulate our lives, 99% of them are at the state level.

I think this will be successfully challenged in the courts.
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money [to spend]."

- Margaret Thatcher

#133 SmartMoney

SmartMoney

    All Star

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 315 posts

Posted 29 March 2010 - 07:59 AM

Let me get this straight. We're going to be gifted with a health care plan
written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it,
passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it,
to be signed by a president who also hasn't read it and who smokes,
with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes,
to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese,
and financed by a country that's broke.

What the hell could possibly go wrong?? wacko.gif

Thanks, Dems...You "geniuses"...




I speak truth. Don't ignore reality, folks.

#134 (MaxineR)

(MaxineR)
  • Visitors

Posted 29 March 2010 - 11:40 PM

QUOTE (SmartMoney @ Mar 29 2010, 08:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Let me get this straight. We're going to be gifted with a health care plan
written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it,
passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it,
to be signed by a president who also hasn't read it and who smokes,
with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes,
to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese,
and financed by a country that's broke.

What the hell could possibly go wrong?? wacko.gif

Thanks, Dems...You "geniuses"...



That's about the long and short of it......sick, real, real sick! World gone insane!

#135 Bill Z

Bill Z

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,795 posts
  • Location:Briggs Ranch

Posted 30 March 2010 - 07:16 AM

Here are a few rhetorical questions/answers in response.
QUOTE (swmr545 @ Mar 29 2010, 03:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
----------------------

Here are a few rhetorical questions for y'all:

If you had a drug that would make a person immune from every disease for 30 years in a single dose, would you distribute it for free? Should carpenters be required to build homes for free to house everyone? that pill cost money to create, it didn't magically appear. or would you only give it to the people that had the money to pay? I would sell it to those that could afford it. Would you want access to the pill if you were a person that had no money? Would a person with no money want a 3000 sq ft home for free and a Ferrari for free in the garage if it was offered to him?

Do we, as a society, have a moral obligation to ensure that everyone has access to the same resources in life (water, food, medicine, shelter, clothing)? Access to acquire is way different than giving away for nothing in return. Declaration of independence and our state constitution grant us the right to pursue happiness, but it makes no guarantee that you will achieve happiness. That's up to you to acquire it.

In a capitalist society, should morals ever take priority over profit? Profit is morally correct, where did you get the notion it isn't. Is it not morally correct for me to make profit on my labor so I can provide shelter, food, and clothing for my family? How is it morally correct for the fruits of my labor to be taken away from me and given away to another?


I would rather be Backpacking





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users