I think your interpretation of the Constitution is laughable. Furthermore, your explanation of the purpose of the Bill of Rights only serves to make you sound ignorant. The purpose of the Bill of Rights has absolutely nothing to do with individual freedoms. The Bill of Rights was a political maneuver to ensure the Constitution would be ratified. Individual freedoms were (and are) guaranteed by the Constitution not by specifying what rights we have, but instead by giving the government very specific and limited powers. The Bill of Rights is moot, and honestly, has absolutely nothing to do with government healthcare.The founders wrote the Bill of Rights as not a bestowment of rights from the government to the people; instead, the statement serves to solidify the basic rights we each inherit simply because we are born human. These are basic and fundamental rights that we were written as a promise from the government to the people- that they will strive to protect and insure that each individual's rights will not be impeded.
With that in mind, I can't fathom how our society does not support a universal health care system. Of course, I understand that private individuals don't wish to subsidize this program with higher taxes and corporations don't feel that they should either but do you think our society would be enriched if such a program was instituted?
As we enter 2008 and I observe the presidential race heating up, I am finding that I will be persuaded by the candidate which has the best and most comprehensive plan for universal health care; however, some of these individuals wish to support UHC by eliminating funding in other areas, i.e. the military.
So, I'm asking you learned men and women what your opinions are on this issue as I am still trying to make up my mind.
I think your interpretation of the Constitution is laughable. Furthermore, your explanation of the purpose of the Bill of Rights only serves to make you sound ignorant. The purpose of the Bill of Rights has absolutely nothing to do with individual freedoms. The Bill of Rights was a political maneuver to ensure the Constitution would be ratified. Individual freedoms were (and are) guaranteed by the Constitution not by specifying what rights we have, but instead by giving the government very specific and limited powers. The Bill of Rights is moot, and honestly, has absolutely nothing to do with government healthcare.
Of course there will, because most readers don't know the history behind the first 10 amendments. Think about it. If the rights, as outlined in the Bill of Rights, were so important, then why not make them part of the original text of the Constitution? Furthermore, for example, why is there nothing to be said of the "right" to privacy in the Constitution? Seems pretty important to me.Of course, for every reader of the Bill of Rights there will be a different interpretation.
Don't confuse the Bill of Rights (or the Constitution) with the Declaration of Independence. That being said, the Constitution is not about defining our rights. It's about defining, specifically, the powers of the government.QuagimreMcGuire said:Saying that, I disagree with your statement about the Bill of Rights having absolutely nothing to do with individual freedoms. It has everything to do with basic human rights which are inalienable; no one can bestow them upon you because you are born with them. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to illustrate that the founding government was cognizant that no man can bestow such freedoms; they come directly from God. This mentality was in contrast with the previous belief system of the British monarchy which possessed the arrogance of placing limits upon these rights.
Most women only rate one sonogram during a pregnancy. The check-ups you describe usually involve measuring with a tape and a brief fetal heart monitor check. I've been through this too with the wife, 3 times.
You're talking about a choice again. If someone chooses to pay for cable tv rather than go get an annual physical that could lead to early detection, that's his/her choice. I'm also not sure that making a service "free" (at the expense of everyone) available would compel someone to go to the doctor. I think it likely that many would still not seek preventative care, and only go after symptoms popped up.
This discussion is really about personal priorities. Needs vs. perceived needs which are really wants.
My point is, Medicare/Medicaid already cost this country more than defense. That doesn't include social security.
From the CBO, what do you think nationalizing health care will cost?
Steve: The Bill of Rights certainly does have meaning. The Constitution has the elastic clause, which basically has been interpreted that Congress can enact any law so long as the Constitution specifically says that it can't. The Bill of Rights is a list of 10 things that Congress cannot do.
"The Congress shall have power …To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution."
WikiAWESOME!!! said:In Massachusetts, the Constitution ran into serious, organized opposition. Only after two leading Antifederalists, Adams and Hancock, negotiated a far-reaching compromise did the convention vote for ratification on February 6, 1788 (187–168). Antifederalists had demanded that the Constitution be amended before they would consider it or that amendments be a condition of ratification; Federalists had retorted that it had to be accepted or rejected as it was. Under the Massachusetts compromise, the delegates recommended amendments to be considered by the new Congress, should the Constitution go into effect. The Massachusetts compromise determined the fate of the Constitution, as it permitted delegates with doubts to vote for it in the hope that it would be amended.[8]
Moreover, my gf just got a job that is not entry level. Pays about 2x what she was making before, but she still has to go through a 3 month probationary period before they insure her. Oh, and she's at a hospital no less.
Fact of the matter is that many, if not most, jobs will not insure you immediately after hiring you.
Harrier: It has nothing to do with demand. The demand is there, but people cannot afford it. I think the downslide is going to start with insurance companies. As businesses keep cutting benefits, and people stop being able to afford it, insurance will stop being profitable. Insurance relies on pooling the money of many people together for the few who need it. When the cost of premiums approach the cost of care without getting insurance, people will stop buying it. They're going to start to go bankrupt because there's no way in hell that the execs are going to take a paycut. They'll invest in the next upcoming thing. The people who want healthcare, the same ones who can't afford it right now, won't be able to afford it when insurance goes under. And thus you have a lot of highly trained professionals with people who can't afford their product...That's just my prediction. Healthcare costs are skyrocketing at way too high of a rate these days for this system to survive for long.
Oh, and I meant highest in life expectancy. That's what I get for writing a post when I'm about to run out the door =/.
Steve: The Bill of Rights certainly does have meaning. The Constitution has the elastic clause, which basically has been interpreted that Congress can enact any law so long as the Constitution specifically says that it can't. The Bill of Rights is a list of 10 things that Congress cannot do.
The "Right to Privacy" doesn't exist in the Constitution. It's a loose interpretation of the 4th and 9th Amendments, the latter which basically says that the rights of the people outlined in the Constitution are not exhaustive
But what happens when that vaccine is not taken and sickens the person and others? What about the person who does not have their broken leg examined for arterial damage, for a bad break?
I dont' think you quite grasp the expense of even normal health care. Everything from vaccines to MRI's, mammography machines and the latest meds cost a lot of money, and a lot of that is to provde everyday care
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hozer
I forgot my liberal gibberish translation book at Starbuck's. Seriously, you should run for office. In Sweden.
Maybe this comment was a kneejerk response. I would hazard a guess that you've become comfortable labeling anyone with an opinion different than your's as a liberal because my comments speak of identifying societal values which have deteriorated over the generations. A conservative is a person who wishes to preserve the traditional values; it would seem that I am espousing a conservative viewpoint there, sir.
No, this comment wasn't a knee jerk reaction. When "progressives" start throwing phrases around like "societal values" and insist they "need to be addressed" it is done in an attempt to belittle those who disagree. You're starting from an assumed position that these issues are somehow society's responsibility, which they are not, and simply because you say they are does not make it true. Case in point, you claiming to be espousing a "conservative viewpoint".
You're not. There is no way you can logically twist this argument (for UHC) into one of a conservative viewpoint. So your assertion has as much weight as my claim that the sky is bright green.
There is no "societal issue" here. No, really, this is not a societal issue, its a personal issue. As was suggested, if your state wants UHC, pass an amendment. Health care is not a right, it should not be expected. If your neighbor is a doctor and you break you leg he might set it because he likes you but otherwise, you'll have to pay. Welcome to the real world.
Do you know Hozer? If not, then you should keep your snotty opinion about what he is and is not comfortable with to yourself. He doesn't label you a liberal because your opinion is different than his, he labels you a liberal because you are running your suck about a topic that clearly comes from a liberal viewpoint. Its logic, not dislike. Aside from that you have described yourself as a liberal in past posts. So he has displayed nothing of his personal feelings towards you in his post. Please stop playing the victim here.
This topic might was well be locked because no one is going to convince anyone of anything. You have a belief in a type of America that doesn't exist. You believe America should be responsible for all Americans. Most of us here believe that Americans (note the slight difference) should be responsile for....THEMSELVES! You have an idea of America that is not in the character of this nation, but of many nations over the seas.
You believe the sweat of our labour should be taken from us and given to those who need. "From each according to his labor to each according to his need". Sound familiar?
You can couch it in whatever self-righteous phrases you want (societal issues that need to be addressed) but it means the same thing. Take from those who have, who work for it, who risk and give it to those who didn't.
No one has the right to my money. I made it, I earned it, you didn't, get your greedy hands off. I'll tell you what, you set up your doomed experiment and I'll opt out. I wont pay even more taxes for UHC and I wont use it. How does that sound? While we're at it, I'd like to opt out of Social Security as well, since I'm never going to see all my money and I'm 100% positive I can invest it better than the government. There is another stellar program run by the government for the good of all. Is there a trend in these entitlement programs that only I can see?
If so, we're doomed.
Red Anjin