Healthcare Is "Not a Right" and Obama's Plan Will Cost Way Beyond $1T, Ron Paul Says

[Ranting_Wacko]

Source: Yahoo Finance

As you my have guessed, the independent minded Paul, is no fan of government involvement in healthcare. In this accompanying video exclusive, taped at the Capitol Hill Rotunda in Washington D.C., Paul, who is also an M.D., opens up to Aaron Task about his concerns regarding the government taking a larger role in the medical game.

As far as the Texas Congressman is concerned, healthcare is not a right. "I don't have a right to medical care," he emphatically states. In his view, the constitution only guarantees citizens "life, liberty and (the right to) keep the fruits of my labor."

Don't be mistaken, he's very clear to point out, he is in favor of all citizens receiving medical care. "I want everybody to have maximum care at the best price. And that's why I want the government out of it completely."

Well, agree with him or not, even he admits some form of a bill will probably pass. Reports indicate, if the Democrats find support in both Houses that bill could arrive on President Obama's desk by October.

Read more: http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/281590/Healthcare-Is-%22Not-a-Right%22-and-Obama%27s-Plan-Will-Cost-Way-Beyond-1T-Ron-Paul-Says?tickers=^dji,^GSPC,pph,jnj,mrk,pfe,unh

---

Uh.. Dr. Paul? Some would argue that "health care" falls under the "life" part of that equation. You can't enjoy life if you're dead. You can't fight for liberty if you're ill. And you can't labor, much less keep the fruits of that labor if you are injured or sick. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

And am I the only one who finds it amusing/confusing that a man who prides himself on being a strict follower of the words of the Founding Fathers misquoted The Declaration of Independence? ("life, liberty... and the right to keep the fruits of my labor"?

[KingFlorez]

1. It's appalling people like him are in office

He needs to be locked in mental ward, not in Congress.

[daysed]

40. It is more appalling

that you do not understand the proper principles of the Republic upon which he stands. Before you claim that Ron Paul is crazy, you should read the writings of the founders and those that influenced them. It is not crazy to fight for Liberty, nor is it unfounded to declare individual sovereignty. Govern mandate is not compatable with republicanism - not the group, but the word. In a republic the rights of the minority are defended against the majority. If I wish not to participate, who can make me without treading on my unalienable rights? i can understand the desire to provide care for one another, but it cannot be demanded and enforced and still be claimed to be Liberty.

"We gave you a Republic, if you can keep it" - Franklin

[LanternWaste]

60. Nice martyrdom you got going there, pal...

I see... disagree with Paul's position and recognize him for the extremist he is, and all of a sudden it's because one "does not understand the proper principals of the Republic..."

Nice martyrdom you got going there, pal...

[Jazzgirl]

81. And already gone.

:evilgrin:

[LanternWaste]

83. I noticed too late...

I noticed too late...

(Love the name BTW, and will now forever picture you in a blue beret, holding an alto sax, covering a Stan Kenton piece in a lonely Chicago dive in 1961 whenever I read one of your posts... :hi: )

[Cha]

214. Good..'cause I'm not in the mood for

a ron pauler whack job.

[No Elephants]

86. The only" writings of the Founders" that are the law of the land are those embodied in the

Consitution of the United States. You clearly have not read it. I have--and guess what You have no legal right to be excluded from a government health care plan. None. Not even a little.

BTW, you have no "inalienable rights" either. Only the Declaration of Independence--which you obviously have not read either--mentions those and the Declaration of Independence is not the law of the land.

[depakid]

103. Oh just wait- his son "Rand" Paul is running for senate in Kentucky!

[lapfog_1]

2. I think its time that Ron experience our emergency health system

upfront and very personal. Hopefully in the cardiac unit right next to Dick "assassination squad" Cheney.

And he can take all of the freaking asshole Libertarian freaks with him.

Sorry, I'm just tired of putting up with these people right now.

[tridim]

3. I totally agree..

Shove an autographed copy of Atlas Shrugged right up all their asses.

[unpossibles]

17. Know the difference bewteen "Lord of the Rings" and "Atlas Shrugged"?

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. "

I saw that recently and LOLd quite a bit.

[iverglas]

30. that's wonderful

I've already emailed it to my No.1.

On the intercity bus (in Ontario) the other day, the young woman opposite me was reading Atlas Shrugged. I wanted to abduct her and deprogram her. (Not that I'm a Tolkien fan remotely, but given a choice ...)

:toast:

[Earth Bound Misfit]

85. Lol I read that on DU not long ago.

Here's some more good ones:

Ayn is having a small vogue right now (very small, as the country is becoming far less happy with rightwing nutballs), because her magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged, an insane novel that makes The Lord of the Rings seem like a speedy short story, is celebrating its fiftieth anniversary just now. This means that the people who began reading it the day it came out, are nearly through it by now, those that haven't hanged themselves.

Rand's novels, to my mind, consist of finding a vaguely moral excuse for glorifying the worst of human behaviours. A good book to take camping, because it has lots of pages, and one always runs out of toilet paper...

[Frank Cannon]

147. Ha ha. That's terrific.

Thanks for my laugh of the day.

[Gray Ponytail]

171. Although I liked a lot of the message in Atlas Shrugged...

when it got to John Galt's unbelievably self righteous speech towards the end, I read about a third of the way into it and put the book down for several years.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

199. ...

:rofl:

I've tried a couple times to read it, just so I know why I disagree, but it seems I just can't hold out too long before......

[stuball111]

12. No apology needed

We are all tired of it, and maybe there ought to be some kind of psychological assessment given to aspiring politicians, you know, like the test you have to go through to work in a nuclear power plant, or to buy a firearm? And one of the questions should be: "are you prepared to serve ALL the population, not just the nuts who voted for you,and the corporations who donated money to your campaign?"

[Hugabear]

44. Take away his Congressional health insurance, and all his money as well

Let him see what the majority of us have to deal with.

[Delphinus]

124. Excellent idea.

They'd all wake up pretty quickly if they weren't so "cocooned" from reality.

[malletgirl02]

134. I agree

It pisses me off that he so against big government that still partakes in government health care. What makes it even more galling is that when he retires he will get a pension.

[Gray Ponytail]

172. Some are more "equal" than others. n/t

[MercutioATC]

4. "Right" or not, access to basic health care makes fiscal sense.

That said, a "right" is whatever we as a society determine.

I'm all for classifying access to basic health care a right.

[mvd]

5. I would highly disagree

Since life is a right, health care should be part of that right since it helps to keep you alive.

[imdjh]

13. It's a losing argument, because it's wrong. Healthcare is not a right.

The selling point is that it's a utility, a system so essential and large that the only efficient and productive way to operate it is in a regulated monopoly.

[mvd]

21. To me it is

And it would be easier to explain as a right.

[wroberts189]

61. imdjh I believe was being cynical ..sarcastic ..he/she forgot the /sarc tag

[imdjh]

67. No, I wasn't.

Discussions in which we have something of a common understanding is one thing, but in the political arena the words used must be the correct words. Healthcare is not a right. Compare it to your right to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, especially freedom of the press. You have a right to freedom of the press, if you own a press and some ink and some paper. That right does not include forcing other people to work in your print shop, to deliver your paper, or to read your paper. Now let's do healthcare. If I have a right to healthcare, then I have a right to force a doctor to treat me, a nurse to care for me, a lab technician to study my blood, etc... Clearly I have no right to force these people to do this.

I suppose that what is confusing the issue is the requirement that hospitals render emergency medicine to indigent people who present themselves at the ER. This is arguably splitting a hair, but it's not the same thing as your freedom of the press. The hospital is required to give ER care to the indigent who present themselves because the hospital is in some way publicly supported. Completely private hospitals, some of which don't even have ERs do not have to give this service. We coerce hospitals into giving emergency care to the indigent.

Now back to the freedom of the press. Do we coerce newspapers to publish? No. Do we compel them to give free newspapers to the indigent? No.

Now compare it to a power company. A power company cannot operate without trespass or easement on public and private lands. As a result of that, we regulate them. We coerce them into providing "lifeline" service to certain customers, or a variety of things we want them to do for the general good. Clearly, healthcare is closer to being a public utility than it is a right.

[wroberts189]

78. I stand corrected ..but I think we are all in a big war of semantics about rights.

But if someone is dying on the road I think it is quite within American Constitutional parameters for the government to be obligated to give them care ... and whether they are bleeding in the road or have prostrate cancer its all the same in my book.

[No Elephants]

92. A Constitutional right vs. a statutory right. Both are rights. The only difference is that

the Constitution is much harder to amend than a statute.

[imdjh]

148. Since there is no statutory right, then those who claim that healthcare is a right...

.... must be claiming that it is a natural or civil right. Since it isn't then at most they could claim that it ought to be.

[No Elephants]

179. Some statutory rights do exist, if you qualify-Medicaid and Medicare. For those

who do not qualify and do not have health insurance, Congress is working on a statute to help make health care more affordable, even as we post. So, I don't see a problem with the absence of a Constitutional right, at least not at this point.

I think people are also using a "right to health care" as though that is what is in the works. It isn't. We are not working on health care, as far as I know. We are working on helping more people afford health care.

Creating an ability in a man or woman to pay for insurance does not force anyone to treat him or her. So, no issue of coercion arises.

[imdjh]

197. the bottom line is that it's the best way to go

Someone astutely pointed out that heath insurance does not insure us against health care costs, it insures us against asset loss. As we saw early in the AIDS crisis, the medical care was out there, once you had been ruined, dispossessed, and were or were close to being in the street. Having a huge segment of society at serious risk on that scale is not a stable society. Paying for it the way we currently do causes instability in both economics and at a social level. People move in and out of various welfare programs, but few people (other than children) move out of Medicaid.

In essence, by restricting Medicaid to the indigent and Medicare to the elderly and disabled, the government is insuring against interest, something no sound insurance company would ever do.

[LeftishBrit]

200. According to the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights', Article 25, it is

Article 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.


One can argue about how binding this declaration is - most UN member countries don't subscribe to the half of it- but it nevertheless does treat necessary health care as a human right.


It's also covered under article 35 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (I realize America isn't under EU jurisdiction, but this is evidence that some people do class health care as a right):

Article 35
Health care
Everyone has the right of access to preventive health care and the right to benefit from medical treatment under the conditions stablished by national laws and practices. A high level of human
health protection shall be ensured in the definition and mplementation of all Union policies and activities.

[iverglas]

206. and something I like reminding our American cousins about ;)

It ain't their constitution, but it's something they should be proud of and remember more often.

http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/od4freed.html

Franklin Roosevelt's Annual Address to Congress - The "Four Freedoms"
January 6, 1941

In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of speech and expression--everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way--everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want--which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants-everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear--which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor--anywhere in the world.

That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.

Freedom from want, freedom from fear: the right to assistance, the right to security.



http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/eleanorrooseveltdeclarationhumanrights.htm

Eleanor Roosevelt
On the Adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
delivered 9 December 1948 in Paris, France

In giving our approval to the Declaration today it is of primary importance that we keep clearly in mind the basic character of the document. It is not a treaty; it is not an international agreement. It is not and does not purport to be a statement of law or of legal obligation. It is a Declaration of basic principles of human rights and freedoms, to be stamped with the approval of the General Assembly by formal vote of its members, and to serve as a common standard of achievement for all peoples of all nations.

We stand today at the threshold of a great event both in the life of the United Nations and in the life of mankind. This Universal Declaration of Human Rights may well become the international Magna Carta of all men everywhere. We hope its proclamation by the General Assembly will be an event comparable to the proclamation of the Declaration of the Rights of Man by the French people in 1789, the adoption of the Bill of Rights by the people of the United States, and the adoption of comparable declarations at different times in other countries.

http://www.unac.org/rights/question.html

Q: Who were the key contributors in the drafting of the Declaration?

A: Canada can take great pride in the fact that John Humphrey, a Canadian, played a fundamental role in the creation and adoption of this landmark document. Humphrey, a Professor of law at McGill University, was called upon to set up the Division for Human Rights in the UN Secretariat, a division he remained in charge of for the next twenty years. It was during his first few years with the UN that Humphrey prepared the first draft of the Declaration and guided it to its adoption by the General Assembly in 1948. The Nobel Laureate, Rene Cassin of France also played a significant role in the initial drafting process. Subsequent drafters include Eleanor Roosevelt of the USA, Dr. Charles Malik of Lebanon and Dr. P.C. Chang of China, demonstrating that the creation of the Universal Declaration was truly an international effort. These individuals sat on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Drafting Committee which was set up by the UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR).

(I'm sure there were Brits in there somewhere. ;) )


Sometimes it seems our cousins have stopped dreaming of what might be.

[Joe Bacon]

219. So a diabetic like me has no right to life?

I'm one of those who DOES need health care to stay alive. Are you telling me I have no right to life? I do believe that is called eugenics.

[dana_b]

225. evidently not

what the hell does "the right to life" mean then? Semantics or not, if this is RP's argument, then he should define what it means. We have the right to be alive at birth and then we're on our own? Healthcare if you can afford it otherwise too bad. That sounds like a conservative viewpoint.

[Joe Bacon]

226. Dana, I guess once we're out of the womb, it's YOYO time

YOYO= You're On Your Own.

Sure smacks of Social Darwinism with a generous slice of Ayn as in Mine Rand tossed in too!

[dana_b]

227. so true!!

I guess some people forgot (or never learned) that if we stick together and help each other out, we do better as a society. But, what do I know.

[anigbrowl]

77. That doesn't really mean much, though

I think you're saying it should be a right - this is a perfectly valid opinion. Personally I'm with imdjh and think there's such a strong utilitarian argument for healthcare that it's wiser and smarter to provide it than not.

Now if you assert that is a right, well you need to back that up with something more than your opinion. If you're basing it on the idea of the declaration of independence (life liberty pursuit of happiness etc.) then I think you're on a hiding to nothing, since one could equally employ that argument to claim a right to free food, housing, and an endless supply of bubble wrap (or whatever makes you happy...bubble wrap does it for me).

[No Elephants]

97. The Declaration of Independence does not bestow ANY legal rights on the American

people.

[anigbrowl]

107. I'm not suggesting that it does

Please read the full thread before commenting on random bits of it with no context.

[No Elephants]

111. Your post clearly indicates that you think the Declaration of Independence has some legal force,

just not the degree some others might think. However, it has no legal force at all.

Reading the entire thread does not change that aspect of your post.

[anigbrowl]

115. No it doesn't, and I don't think that.

I'm referring to an argument put forth by someone else further up the thread as to why that person healthcare should be considered a legal right. My post was to show that even if we assumed this as a legal starting point, his conclusion would not follow.

Run along, now.

[No Elephants]

116. I had read the post to which you were responding. And your post 77 speaks for itself

I quote:

"If you're basing it (your claim that health care is a right) on the idea of the declaration of independence (life liberty pursuit of happiness etc.) then I think you're on a hiding to nothing, since one could equally employ that argument to claim a right to free food, housing, and an endless supply of bubble wrap (or whatever makes you happy...bubble wrap does it for me)."

If you had known the Declaration of Independence bestowed no legal right of any kind on any American, you would have said so since that statement is much more definitive and conclusive than the lamer and inconclcusive argument that you attempted.

So now, you know, but you're too insecure and proud to thank me for the information, as I would you if the situation were reversed. Nonetheless, you're welcome.

[anigbrowl]

121. I cannot help you with your reading deficiency

However, I suggest you read post #5, where that same poster to whom I replied in #77 presented the idea that healthcare was implied by a 'right to life'. It was this concept which I was arguing was flawed. I guess the idea of a hypothetical or reductio ad absurdum is new to you.

I know quite well that the Declaration of Independence is not part of the constitution and has no legal force - indeed, you are not the first person on this thread to point it out. The only thing I have learned from you is that you have a wildly inflated ego.

[No Elephants]

126. I read the entire thread up to post 77 before I replied to post 77. That has nothing to do

with your handling of the language of the Declaration of Independence in your post 77. As to that, I am content to let your post 77 and my responses to you to this point speak for themselves while I read the few posts on the bottom of the thread that I have not read yet.

[mvd]

123. But that's where there's a vague picture

Yes I think there's a right to not starve, have shelter, etc in the Constitution. But you don't have to lump all of them, as education and police protection are provided without other important things related to quality of life.

[No Elephants]

131. There is no right to food or shelter in the Constitution. The Constitution empowers

Congress to enact laws (empowers, not obligates). Under that power, Congress has enacted certain laws like welfare, Social Security, Medicare, etc. You have a right to those, not under the Constitution, but under the laws of Congress. And, should Congress abolish or amend those laws, your rights under those laws would change or end.

[mvd]

165. True, the Declaration and Constitution are two different things

I'm just saying that you can find that certain rights are INHERENT in the Constitution.

[No Elephants]

181. Not the right to food shelter or health care, you can't. You can say they're

implied or inherent some place in there somehow, but saying it does not make it so.

Think about it. If we really had a Constitutional right to shelter, every homeless person in the country could go to court and sue the United States of America for a place to say or rent money. And every homeless person since 1789 would have had that same right.

[Gray Ponytail]

175. To me, unclogged roads are a right . I'm not holding my breath.

Can I have $20 to see the doctor please? I only use OPM to see the doctor.

[EFerrari]

49. Health care is not only a human right, it's a public health necessity.

The first duty of government is to keep the populace safe. That can't be done when millions of people have no access to health care.

[imdjh]

75. The first duty of government is not to keep the populace safe.

That's an absurd claim and completely beyond the capacity of the government of a free society.

The point of disagreement here is not simply one of terminology, it is one of philosophy. Using incorrect terms to make something seem beyond argument doesn't fool anyone and it turns a lot of people off.

Many people like to throw out a comparison to roads. They'll say something like, "He says we don't have a right to 'socialist' healthcare, but he has no problem driving down socialist highway systems." It's a bad comparison. If you have a right to roads, then you have a right to have a road that goes up to your house, do you not? Well you don't. Plenty of people have to pay for their own road to get to the county road. You don't have a right to be served by a superhighway or to have one built within a certain distance of your house.

Our leverage in this system is that we subsidize the universities, the education of the doctors and other medical personnel, the research, the invention, the pharmaceutical companies, and every aspect of this system. Our leverage is that the hospitals sit on untaxed land, are allowed to operate as non-profits even though plenty of people are making big bucks inside those walls. Our leverage is that we have ownership in the health care delivery system and that without public support the system will collapse. That's not a civil right- it's commerce.

[No Elephants]

98. I disagree and most nations of the world would disagree with you as well. Why does a country pay

reparations to victims of a foreign attack (as the US did to survivors of 911)? Why does it provide for vaccinations, if it possibly can afford to do so? Make sure flu vaccine is available? Inspect food? Require car manufacturers to install seat belts? Stop sick people and even sick animals from entering the country? Quanrantine? Put up street lights?

Why does the Constitution go on about armies and navies, dealing with piracy on the high seas, providing for the general welfare, providing for the national defense, etc?

We don't have an absolute right to be kept safe, but the government of every nation has a responsiblity to try to keep its citizens safe.

If we are all supposed to be fending for ourselves, we don't need government at all.

[EFerrari]

100. Yes, the first duty of government is to keep the populace safe.

Maybe you should read up on that absurd claim before you further commit yourself.

[FiveGoodMen]

53. Who decides what is a right and what isn't?

[imdjh]

76. All the civil rights have one thing in common- they do not enslave others.

And that is the test that calling health care a civil right fails. That doesn't mean that we can't compel the federal government to act in the collective interest of the people, but it's closer to providing for the common defense than anything in the Bill Of Rights.

[No Elephants]

104. Giving me a right to health care does not require enslaving anyone. And it's closer

to promoting the general welfare than it is to providing for the common defense.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

(Preamble to the Constitution of the United States.)

[dysfunctional press]

118. healthcare does not enslave anyone.

nice try, though.

[No Elephants]

102. In this country, the Constitution of the United States, chiefly, the Bill of Rights, as enacted

by Congress, signed by the President, adopted by the citizens and definitively interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States. And Congress plus the President (statutory rights). Sometimes, administrative bodies. And then state and local governments, which may give us rights in addition to those given by federal law, so long as state and local law does not conflict with federal law.

You may also have rights under private agreements and arrangements.

[FiveGoodMen]

110. I would remind you that our Declaration of Independence

which is not the Constitution nor a legally-binding document, enumerates other rights which it believes are not the prerogative of any government to give or take away.

Do you disagree with its philosophy?

(Because all of this goes to the question of what a 'right' actually is.)

[No Elephants]

140. Do you mean "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? " If not, to which

"rights" do you refer?

[No Elephants]

90. Health care is not a Constitutional right, at least, not yet. But making it

a statutory right is not only a possibity, it is the direction in which we are heading. It is not necessarily about a monopoly that is regulated. It is about the degree of profit that society will tolerate when a necessity of life is involved. Ideally, IMO, that would be no profit. Good wages for providers, yes. Large profits for hospitals and insurers, no.

[dysfunctional press]

117. whatever a society defines as a "right" is a "right" for that society.

if most people feel that healthcare is a 'right', then it is.

[No Elephants]

143. Most people in this country seem to believe that more affordable health

care should be a right, not that it is a right.

In theory, that should cause Congress and the Executive to enact a law that will create that right or get booted out of office, to be replaced by people who will enact it.

[dysfunctional press]

153. "...or get booted out of office, to be replaced by people who will enact it. "

that's the real trick, isn't it?

[No Elephants]

160. ....

[Psephos]

145. that's a good example of tyranny of the majority, which the Constitution protects us from

19th Century Southern society (which is shorthand for "a majority of voters") thought it good and proper for white citizens to own black slaves. Under your reasoning, that majority opinion becomes a right.

The US Constitution was designed to protect what the framers called a person's "natural" rights, those that pre-exist any country or its laws. It does not grant rights to individuals; it acknowledges that they already have them, by fact of being human, regardless of what a government or ruler have to say. The Constitution goes further: it *forbids* all rights and powers to the state, except for those it specifically enumerates.

Do you see how this differs from what you said, and why tyranny of the majority can be the most dreadful tyranny of them all?

I pray I never live in a country where what "society" (i.e., 50.1% or more of voters on a given day) defines as a right displaces the genuine rights and protections enshrined in the Constitution. The majority at various times has believed in witch drownings, red scares, and housing prices that would never decline.

[dysfunctional press]

152. when the constitution was written- owning slaves WAS a right.

as society evolved, that changed.

sorry.

[Psephos]

158. In 18th Century America, it was a grim reality, but not a Constitutional right

Please quote that section of the Constitution that enumerates the right to own slaves. I'm being specific here: where is slavery explicitly enumerated as a right in the Constitution?

It's not.

Here are some views of framers, to give a sense of prevailing opinion:

Oliver Ellsworth, a signer of the Constitution, wrote a few months after the Convention adjourned, "All good men wish the entire abolition of slavery, as soon as it can take place with safety to the public, and for the lasting good of the present wretched race of slaves."

John Jay, an author of The Federalist, wrote in 1786, "It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused."

Patrick Henry, the eminent Virginian, was outspoken on the issue despite his citizenship in a slave state. In 1773, he wrote, "I believe a time will come when an opportunity will be offered to abolish this lamentable evil. Everything we do is to improve it, if it happens in our day; if not, let us transmit to our descendants, together with our slaves, a pity for their unhappy lot and an abhorrence of slavery."

The framers were politicians enough to know that compromise in form of a "sunset" provision on a *states* issue would be necessary to draw slave states into the robustly Federal Union, after the laxity, and eventual collapse, of the Articles of Confederation of 1776. Language in Article 1, Section 9 regarding the "migration or importation of persons" as any of the several states "think proper to admit" states that Congress may not interfere until 1808 with the states' decisions about who they think proper to admit. Read that as you will. As you might learn in ConLaw 100, this was an implicit warning to states about to form the Union to get their houses in order before Congress became empowered to enjoin them.

In accordance with this compromise, Congress passed a law outlawing the slave trade that became effective on January 1, 1808, the first day possible.

Meanwhile, the 13th Amendment specifically and unequivocally banishes slavery and indentured servitude. The 13th Amendment does not take away a right previously enjoyed. No such right had ever been enumerated. The 13th Amendment instead recognizes the natural right to live free and not be subject to slavery.

Now, back to the central argument in my post. I'd appreciate discussing that instead of quibbles with examples.

[No Elephants]

164. No, owning slaves was not a Constitutional right. However, neither was the right to be free of

slavery. Neither was life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. And none of the rights conferred by the Constitution were "inalienable."

However, unless this is leading to something about a Constitutional right or "natural right" to Medicaid, it would not seem to have much to do with the OP.

[Psephos]

166. it's actually in response to the idea that whatever "society" currently favors turns into a "right"

look up-thread a few posts

Also, as I'm sure you know, the bit about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is from the Declaration of Independence, and not germane to a discussion about Constitutional language.

Conceptually, the Constitution does not confer rights anyway. Instead, it acknowledges that people possess a set of natural rights by fact of being alive. These "natural" rights pre-date any government or any diktat from a ruler or authority. The Constitution then proceeds to give government certain (circumscribed) permissible actions and duties, and then states explicitly that any permissions and duties not conferred by the Constitution are prohibited.

In other words, it is a negative document of limitations upon government, and a positive document recognizing those universal and natural rights a human possesses regardless of what government has to say.

I'll leave the discussion of a natural right (in the framer's sense) to health care for others. I can say, however, that if it were to added to the Constitution as an Amendment, I would treat it exactly as I treat the other rights enshrined there.

[No Elephants]

167. I am aware that the language Paul mangled is from the D of I. I have posted that a number of times

on this thread.

I suspected that all your posts about the Constitution were circling around a natural rights theory. We could have saved a lot of time and a lot of digression into things like slavery by hitting natural rights directly from the jump.

I know of no right that anyone has, except the rights that he or she (or an estate or other successors) can enforce. And the only rights that you can enforce are the rights that the law gives you. (And you rarely get to enforce even all of those, but that is another issue entirely.)

You may believe otherwise as a matter of faith, philosophy, opinion or whatever. And that's fine, as long as you don't harm anyone else in any way because of it.

[SOS]

203. Paul is mangling the 5th Amendment

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

It's a constitutional right only if charged with an infamous crime.

[Psephos]

215. I wasn't circling some theory, I was responding to someone else before you jumped in

More power to you and all, but your inversion of the thread sequence is kinda weird.

I'm not interested in "saving a lot of time and digression," especially when someone makes incorrect assumptions about my views. If I wanted to save time, I wouldn't post. If you want to save time, you shouldn't respond.

As for your idea that rights are a political construct - more power to you again, although I won't go anywhere near agreement. Just as the theorems of geometry follow from an irreducible set of axioms, a functioning civil society is based upon a core set of beliefs about the worth and rights of individuals, that by definition, cannot be "proven." This set of beliefs must be simple, fundamental, and universal, or it will not be axiomatic. I know what mine are - and now I have a better idea of what yours are.

I could enforce the rights I might have in your worldview pretty well with my Browning A5 shotgun...after all, the most basic, real, and enforceable law - predating silly political laws by a million years - is that I have the sharpened flint point of a spear pointed at the throat of someone trying to fuck with me. But I'd rather live in a civil society.

All things considered, harm to others is more likely to flow from your faith, philosophy, opinion, and whatever, than it is from mine. You are saying that power begets laws, and laws beget rights. In other words, the law of the jungle, with a few codicils to make lawyers happy. Have you read the debates, and the private writings, of the framers from the time of the Constitutional Convention? If so, then you know their overarching concern was exactly what you conceive of as the fount of rights: aggregated power. The Constitution is an elegant, if imperfect, attempt to disperse power exactly so that the interests of the powerful few would not dictate the rights of the many. So that each person's human rights would be preserved regardless of political attempts to subvert them. In other words, regardless of what those who think that only power begets rights would do.

I can't go there. If a particular right is not enforceable, as you say, in a given circumstance, that does not mean it no longer exists, either in that moment for that person, or for others in different circumstances. This is prima facie indefensible. The entire function of government is exactly to protect and enforce rights, and as a progressive, I believe those with the least ability to protect their own rights deserve a disproportionate share of defense.

Regards. Whether or not I agree with you on a given point does not reflect on whether or not I find the conversation worthwhile.

[No Elephants]

162. The Constitution limits the powers of the federal government (in theory, anyway).

It does not limit the reserved powers of the several states, but enshrines them. It does the same for the reserved powers of individuals. The proper interplay between those two sets of reserved powers is not specified.

In other words, limiting the powers of the federal government in the Constitution could be seen purely as a federalism, or states' rights issue, with the people left to duke it out with their respective states.

[No Elephants]

183. Prohibition?

[wroberts189]

59. ..and add that we now have the technology and institutions we did not have then.

Or it would have been spelled out in more specific terms.

[No Elephants]

105. Life is not a right.

[FiveGoodMen]

120. Our country was founded on the belief that it is.

The fact that the DoI has no legal weight in no way alters the fact that you have explicitly set yourself against the founders of this nation.

You left no room for doubt.

The DoI calls that right unalienable, meaning it can't be taken away.

What are you doing at this site?

[No Elephants]

137. LOLOL I set myself against the founders of this nation by saying the D of I

confers no legal rights? Where did you pull that from? I have not even set myself against Jefferson, whom I admire greatly (apart from his slave dealings and hypocrisy on that score). I have simply stated a fact.

"Inalienable" means that a right cannot be taken from you, true, but it also means that you cannot even give the right away, should you choose to do so.

If life were actually an inalienable right, neither abortion nor capital punishment would be possible, perhaps not even murder or suicide. Doubtful that putting troops in harms' way would be valid.

If liberty were actually an inalienable right, how did the author of the D of I think he could own slaves?

No, our country was not founded on the principle that life is a legal right, let alone an inalienable one.

What am I doing at this site? Who are you to ask? But, since you did ask, at this site, I am posting the law and other statements accurately, instead of making up stuff as I go along.

[dysfunctional press]

155. our founding docs were written by land-owning white males, FOR land-owning white males...

and in their opinion- all land-owning white males were created equal; and life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were among the inalienable rights of land-owning white males

[Psephos]

159. You're quite wrong on that

and if you actually read what those who participated in the Constitutional Convention said, people such as Washington, Jay, Franklin, Ellsworth, Madison, Henry, and many others, you'd know that slavery was a matter of deep moral concern and political impetus to them.

I suggest The Federalist Papers as a good place to start. It's exactly what you wouldn't expect: lively, vivid, insightful, and almost novel-like in the way you see the principals scheming, arguing, struggling, persevering...and getting it as close to right as it has ever been gotten.

Here it is for free:

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

Give No. 10 the first look. It's celebrated for Madison's arguments about how to guard against factionalism, i.e., the ability of groups of citizens with interests contrary to the rights of others or the interests of the whole community, to have their way. I think it speaks directly to your notion of rich white dudes trying to protect rich white dudes.

Here's a crib; the full text can be found in the link above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10

[No Elephants]

163. I am entitled to believe that

those who truly believed that slavery was an abomination would either never have owned slaves in the first instance, or would have set them free immediately upon coming to that view.

A good many of those who professed slavery to be an evil, however, remained content to profit from it, to have sex with their slaves, offer sex with slaves to their male guests, and otherwise do whatever they wanted.

Even if one who freed his slaves in his will was still selfish enough to want the benefits from them as long as he lived. So, the lip service of slave owners as to the evils of slavery does not impress me as much more than that, lip service.

The Constitutional Convention took place in 1787. Given life expectancies then, the Framers never expected to be alive in 1808, which is a lot like setting your slaves free in your will. "After me, the deluge." And, of course, ending the slave trade about three hundred years after it began here was hardly going to end slavery anyway. Nor were the Framers anticipating the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments.

However, we digress. The thread is not about slavery or, for that matter, the racism and misogyny of our Founders. They were beyond great in many ways. However, the Constitution was indeed written by white men for white men.

The colonies were run that way, the Constitution was written that way, and then America was run that way. And it still has not changed enough--and may never be able to change enough to do justice to Native Americans, African Americans and women. However, thank heaven, we are at least moving in a good general direction most of the time.

[dysfunctional press]

182. acrually, no- i'm not.

[Gray Ponytail]

173. Since when?

2008?
2000?
1990?
1960?
1930?
1850?
1776?

When exactly did it become a right?

We have a right to life. The Constitution does not say how long it will be. Further, The constitution only points out what rights are god-given and cannot be usurped from the government.

In other words, the government cannot kill you (other than capitol punishment) but it is not obligated to use OPM to keep you alive as long as possible. That is your responsibility.

Now PUT DOWN THAT CIGARETTE! :)

[No Elephants]

180. The Constitution does not give us a right to life. Being born alive gives us life, if only

for a second. That life can expire or be taken from us at any time. And if you have a right to life, why is capital punishment such an easy exception? That's no parenthetical. Dead is dead.

If the government can electrocute you, or the flu or your neighbor can kill you, you have no right to life.

And yes, the government can even kill you apart from capital punishment. A statute may or may not require the government to pay monetary damages to your survivors if it kills you wrongfully, but it most definitley can kill you. And your right to damages, if any, is certainly not a God given right.

Above all, the Constittution most definitely does not point out which rights are God-given.

[Avalux]

6. Also - he's a physician. They take an oath to help people.

Regardless of his politics, Paul should uphold that everyone has a right to medical care when they need it.

[BattyDem]

7. "Not a right" ... says a man with a tax-payer funded, gold-plated health care plan!

:eyes:

[RandomThoughts]

8. People that make alot of money do not earn it.

Why do people that work have to pay some of that work to share holders? Why can't they keep the fruits of their labor? I only point this out to point out his hypocrisy, I understand how the capitalist system is a goods distribution system, but believe it needs to be regulated.

Those that make billions get it given to them by an economic system. The Capitalist system has a flaw, it wants to move all the wealth to the fewest people possible, it wants to create monopolies through economy of scale, and it wants a huge suffering work force to make labor cheap. It also supports race to the bottom where the worse you treat the environment, people, and usage of raw materials, the more profitable you are. However many times it needs PR(a term that came from propaganda) to deceive and get people to believe in the system. So it also supports secrecy and deception through marketing.

If they earned it they would have to show how their work is 100,000 smarter or better then any other person.

So what most that make billions say is that they are blessed by Capitalism. And with those effects of Capitalism, what side, or what force, or what being, do you think directs what they call Adam Smith's invisible hand?

That is why Capitalism has to be restrained by caring people. Sometimes that is done through private sector, sometimes through government.

Ron Paul's desire to turn everything over to the corporations is him not looking at what corporations do. Would he support one corporation in complete monopoly for every sector? Without monopoly breaking laws, that is what we would have. And monopoly breaking laws are government regulation.

[truthisfreedom]

9. Well, Mr. Paul, you should be the first to give up your taxpayer-paid socialized healthcare then.

Just let it go, Mr Paul... you obviously don't need it.

[DinahMoeHum]

27. Yep, you first, Paul honey. . .

otherwise, up yours.

[stuball111]

10. Constitution

Well said, I posted one just like that, and it proves that health care IS a right.

So in that light this is TOTALLY contradictory! :
"I don't have a right to medical care," he emphatically states. In his view, the constitution only guarantees citizens "life, liberty and (the right to) keep the fruits of my labor."

And this doesn't make a lick of sense :"I want everybody to have maximum care at the best price. And that's why I want the government out of it completely."

So... if there is a plan that is CHEAPER and gives maximum and total care, then it is off the table just because it is run by the taxpayers government, the people who voted them in to manage their country, in other words Government= people?
Ron Paul is a nut. And why don't we just abolish government and let the private sector run the country... see how far they get.

[Ben78]

69. The problem is

But the problem is that everything that the federal government gets involved in, results in wasted tax dollars, incompetence, and corruption. Look at Katrina, the IRS, No Child Left Behind, the Pentagon and war profiteering. We can go on and on.

We need to look at how socialized medicine is working in Canada and England. When the government got involved in health care with Medicare is when the price of health care skyrocketed....that and lawsuits. At one time healthcare insurance was intended to pay for surgeries and other extreme procedures. Now we expect it to pay for every doctor's visit and lab test. Our federal government shares the blame in the high price of health care, along with big pharma, and malpractice suits.

[stuball111]

80. Socialized?

That is NOT the proper term. it is UNIVERSAL. Socialized means it is run by the state, financed by the state, and employs people under the state. Universal Health Care is funded by taxes and premiums, payed for by the user, but the Doctors are private, the nurses are Union, ( using the Canadian example) the hospitals are a mixture of government and privately owned, so there is a mixture of public and private. It works very well in Canada and Europe, as long as for-profit industries such as big Pharm and insurance companies stay the hell out. http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mythbusting-canadian-health-care-part-i this might help

[iverglas]

112. "Mythbusting Canadian Health Care"

That is a very well-written, easy to read, informative piece. (Even though she did spell "honour" wrong, heh heh.) Thanks for it! And g'day from this (our) side of the border.

[iverglas]

113. **universal** health insurance is working just fine in Canada, ta

And the reason it's had problems in the UK is precisely because of the two-tier system that Thatcher introduced and the horrific underfunding of the public tier that followed.

[stuball111]

156. And that's

What they are trying to do in Canada as well, fucking Thatcher... started it all,,,,

[LeftishBrit]

201. Too true

Still, our health care system, even weakened by Thatcherism, is much better than not having one.

[No Elephants]

184. Other posters pretty much covered it, but

we are already doing poorly here. We pay more for health care than people in many other countries, if not all other countries, yet we are not getting the best care in the world. That's waste.

[No Elephants]

119. The Constitution does not say what Paul says .

[stuball111]

157. Nobody with half a brain

says what Paul says...it says Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness right? But like some other guy said here, how do you have Life, and the Liberty to do what you want, and pursue happiness when you are deathly ill?

[No Elephants]

185. No, that is not what it says. Please see Reply ##'s 150 and 174.

BTW, it's hard to do anything at all when you are deathly ill. That does not mean the Constitution gives you a right to a cure, or even to get your medicial bills paid.

If you think the Constitution does that, no matter what I say, then go ahead sue the United States for failure to pay your medical expenses, as allegedly required by the Constitution. Warning: The judge will definitely dismiss your suit and then may well fine you for making a frivolous claim.

If you want help paying your bills, there will have to be a Constitutional amendment or a statute coming out of Congress. Unless, of course, you qualify for the Medicaid or Medicare benefits Congress has enacted in the past.

[Vinca]

11. I'm sorry, but Ron Paul is a whack job. If you were to carry his position

on government to the logical conclusion, he should not drive on our roads, use our government buildings, call the fire department when his house goes up in flames, etc., etc., etc. The libertarians seem to take what they want off the menu and then tell us everything else is bad.

[fascisthunter]

211. in fact, he shouldn't even be in government

[endarkenment]

14. I've heard there is an embarassing film clip of Paul in a hotel room

in a very compromising situation, but it is only a rumor as far as I know, as I haven't seen Bruno.

[Libertas1776]

16. Apparantly

from what I've read, he went to an interview that was supposed to be about "Austrian Economics," but ended up in a mock hotel room and was sideswiped by "Bruno" and his shenanigans. Of course, there was a time when I would have felt bad for him, but now I can't wait to see the scene for myself. As far as I am concerned, he got exactly what he deserved. Lousy libertarian.

[Ben78]

79. An interview on Austrian Economics

What happened was that Ron Paul was invited to talk about Austrian Economics. When he arrived, he found out that this wasn't the intent. Evidently, it was to make a clip for the movie. Apparently, Bruno, who was portraying a homosexual, and to the Congressman's surprise, Bruno dropped his pants and then tried to prevent him from leaving the room. Some found it hilarious. I haven't seen it, nor do I want to, but as someone who respects Ron Paul and his efforts to spread the ideas of following the Constitution for 30 years, of course I would find it wrong...for the deceit alone. Plus, at one time, dropping your pants to a perfect stranger for the purpose of sex was considered a sexual crime.

[No Elephants]

108. Sorry, but Ron Paul is not "spreading the Constitution." He clearly does

not know what it says, or much care. Either that, or does know and he is intentionally misleading. The language in the OP appears nowhere in the Constitution.

Sarah Palin claimed that the Constitution says marriage is between a man and a woman. It doesn't say that, either.

Before you conclude that someone is spreading the Constitution, you should at least know what it says, so you can see if they are spreading the Constitution or only spreading their own ignorance.

[Earth Bound Misfit]

96. Here you go...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXvYyDp01L0

:evilgrin:

[tekisui]

15. Says a man under CongressCare. What a tool.

Where are all the critics of public option who are uninsured or under insured???

Why are all of the critics beneficiaries of quality healthcare???

Where are all the critics that are willing to give up their care to prove how great things are without it?

[TheCML]

22. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Maybe its just me but access to affordable health care seems to fall into all three of those.

[sutz12]

18. So I guess you won't mind if we take yours away, then, Ronnie?

:evilgrin:

[Kweli4Real]

19. ... Said the guy ...

Whose healthcare is on the public dime ...:argh:

[MisterP]

20. that's libertarians for ya: everyone likes them when they attack war, torture, the War on Drugs

but they also consider as "statism" helmet laws, taxing the rich, food safety, environmental protection, programs that help the poor, and public schooling
it's almost like they're right on some issues and wrong on others

[RaleighNCDUer]

23. ...among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness...

AMONG these - that clearly states there are OTHER inalienable rights.

Health is one of them.

[mvd]

24. Good point

:hi:

[Abq_Sarah]

28. It's not a right if a stranger is required to give up something

In order to provide that right.

It's an entitlement at best.

[iverglas]

39. dictionaries are fun

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/entitlement
entitlement: "... The state of being entitled ..."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/entitle
entitle: "... To furnish with a right or claim to something ..."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/title
title: "... A legitimate or alleged right ..."


See how that works?


It's not a right if a stranger is required to give up something

You got some sort of authoritative source for that? It sure would settle a lot of stuff ...

[Abq_Sarah]

89. How it works

I need a kidney transplant and dialysis isn't cutting it. You, are a perfect tissue match and you have two good kidneys. Because I will die without the transplant, I have decided I have a right to one of your Kidneys. If I have a right to health and a right to life, my "right" overrides your desire to keep both of your kidneys. I'll go one step further and declare you're "greedy" if you refuse to surrender "my" Kidney.

Legally, rights have a specific meaning. For instance, we don't have a right to social security, even though we pay into it for life. Should the congress decide we can't afford the program, they can eliminate funding and your "right" to SS swirls down the drain.

[iverglas]

109. how's about this

You have a kid and I don't. Your kid goes to school, and my taxes pay for it.


Because I will die without the transplant, I have decided I have a right to one of your Kidneys. If I have a right to health and a right to life, my "right" overrides your desire to keep both of your kidneys.

Actually, no. My right to life trumps your desire for one of my kidneys.

The right to life really does include the right not to be cut open and have one's organs removed, doncha think?

Of course, where I'm at, the Constitution says I have a right to security of the person, so that about covers it. You might want to look into that one. I recommend it.


Neither public schools nor public health insurance -- nor public fire departments, nor public highways, nor public libraries, nor ... -- involves a violation of anyone's fundamental rights.


For instance, we don't have a right to social security, even though we pay into it for life. Should the congress decide we can't afford the program, they can eliminate funding and your "right" to SS swirls down the drain.

Yeah, but let your Congress decide that social security will be paid only to African-American male persons, and listen to you squeal, eh? I wonder whether part of the squeal would be "rights!!!"


Legally, rights have a specific meaning.

Indeed. You might want to look into that too.

There are different types of rights. How 'bout those equality rights, eh? What an interference in property rights ... I mean, liberty ... those things are.

It does no violence to the concept of rights to assert that individual members of a society are entitled to the assistance that the society is capable of providing to them.

The concept of rights really is a human invention, and as such is subject to human innovation.

[No Elephants]

122. Straw man. A right to health care does not equal a right to a kidney, or even

to dialysis. It certainly does not equal forcing someone to give up a kidney.

Besides, the whole discussion is off base. Congress is talking about insurance and other means to cover payments for health care. It is not talking about particular treatments.

BTW, you do have a right to Social Security, unless and until the law changes. Having a right does not mean that you will have it forever. In theory, if we amend the Constitution, you could lose the right of free speech. That does not mean, however, that you don't have the right to free speech today, or that you have not had it all along.

[Political Heretic]

32. That comes from the Declaration, not the Constitution - just pointing that out.

Not making that point as though it decreases the value of the phrase, its just accurate so...

[wroberts189]

57. You are correct ..but it was the basis of the Constitution.. as I know it.

[No Elephants]

125. No, it really wasn't. Obviously, if we did not declare our independence from

England, we would not have needed a Constitution. But, the Constitution reads very differently than the Declaration did.

[wroberts189]

128. You cannot declare the Declaration meaningless ..its the very soul of this country. nt

[No Elephants]

136. I never declared it meaningless. Again, why do you seek to put words in

my mouth, or at least in my posts? Saying that something confers no legal rights and has no legal force is not saying it is meaningless. "Give me liberty or give me death" was not meaningless, either. But Paine did not become entitled to liberty or to execution simply because he made that statement.

[Art_from_Ark]

139. "Give me Liberty or give me Death..."

Attributed to Patrick Henry, Richmond, Virginia, March 23, 1775

[No Elephants]

188. Absolutely. Thank you ..

[wroberts189]

144. I am just following your logic. I understand your point.

And its a good one and a hard argument to counter.

If you are a lawyer and you want to argue the law over the facts... you win. But whether or not a right to health care exists by today's legal standards is unsettled law regardless. Just because its not codified in the Constitution does not mean we do not have one and I am not talking natural law. The Constitution does not deny anyone rights... it simply protects a few basic rights in order to protect society from government abuse.

"We hold these facts to be self evident"

It is quite self-evident to me that the sick should be treated. I see it as a basic human right.

[No Elephants]

190. Ah, now we are on the same page. I think I have other posts on this thread that

indicate we should indeed get help with paying for insurance or paying for health care, or whatever the mechanics end up being. If I have not posted that elsewhere to other posters, consider it posted here.

We already have Medicaid and Medicare for some, but not for enough people. And people who do have medical insurance are ending in bankruptcy after a horrendous illness. That is not right, nor cost effective. And, if I know big business, the next step would be to lobby so that people cannot even get their medical bills discharged in bankrupty.

But, I think it important to distinguish between a right we already have, and a right that is still out of reach.

If we already have the right, we need not do anything but claim it. Just send the bill to Health and Human Services or whatever. However, if we need Congress and the President to act before we get the right, then we should be vigilant and vocal until we get what makes sense, not just wait passively for any bone they may end up throwing us.

This bill already has almost 200 amendments that the Republicans got into it, yet the Republicans are not going to vote for it anyway. "It's deja vu all over again."

On edit: I found at least one post where I said Congress should do this: Reply # 138,

[wroberts189]

212. Well noted thanks and sorry for not being clearer. nt

[No Elephants]

106. Thank you. About time someone posted that.

[wroberts189]

56. Sorry I must have read your mind and posted the almost exact same thing below. nt

[No Elephants]

114. That is rhetoric from the Declaration of Independence, which was drafted

by Jefferson. It was never enacted into law by anyone. It confers no rights at all, not even the right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. You may as well claim that something I posted gave you a legal right. You can of course make that claim, , but good luck convincing anyone to enforce that right. And if you cannot enforce it, it is not a legal right.

[wroberts189]

130. The Declaration of Independence is rhetoric?

Jefferson in all his glory was full of it??


That's your position? Its wasn't codified into law therefore meaningless?

[No Elephants]

132. Why are you twisting? Nothing is wrong with rhetoric. It can be hot air, but it also

be wonderful, inspiring, powerful. Give me liberty or give me death,: The Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg address, "Ask not what you can do for your country," Obama's race speech--all wonderful. But, no, rhetoric, lovely or not, does not confer legal rights or have any legal force.

[wroberts189]

133. because these days it means spin like liberal means weak. nt

[No Elephants]

186. Not really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric

[wroberts189]

213. It gets used in a derogatory sense all the time..

The Wiki article is incomplete, on tv news and in articles its used as a term for cleverly twisting speech to support your cause ... not the traditional meaning of cleverly crafted honest speech.

I see it used this way often on Fox.

I would never dare use it to compliment a speech. "That speech was nothing but political rhetoric to confuse you" "The rhetoric coming from the Democrats is amazing and flat out wrong." ...Fox news pundits love the word.



btw from your link.. I guess this goes back a bit.

Notes

1. ^ The definition of rhetoric is a controversial subject within the field and has given rise to philological battles over its meaning in Ancient Greece. See, for instance, Johnstone, Henry W. Jr. (1995). "On Schiappa versus Poulakos." Rhetoric Review. 14:2. (Spring), 438-440.

[bamacrat]

25. Because he can afford healthcare.

I pay way too much for me and my wifes healthcare. So much so that it swallows a large part of my paycheck each month. If the government can offer something cheaper that is of the same quality as private insurance why not. We have had corporate greed running this country for 30 years or more now. When is it ok to push for an agenda or support a bill that would actually help the large majority of American citizens, not just those with the most. If private healthcare was adequate and worked and was at a reasonable price there would be no need in government intervention. But 80% of bankruptcies in America are due to medical bills people cant pay. Fuck capitalism, fuck corporations fuck profits, we are humans we ought to be looking for whats best for the health or our citizens not what will make the most money with the least risk of having to pay out. Protecting companies and industries from the government by scream capitalism or socialism (depends on the time of day) hasnt worked its hurt everyone.

[No Elephants]

187. And IIRC, 4 out of 5 people who went bankrupt because of catastrophic illness(es) HAD INSURANCE.

So much for the "other people's money" remarks on this thread.

[daysed]

26. What is a "right"

As defined under the constitution for the united States of America, there are three unalienable rights; namely "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". This phrase comes, slightly changed, from the writings of John Locke who posited "life, liberty and property" as the unalienable rights of free men. “Reason, which is that Law,” Locke declared, “teaches all Mankind, who would but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions.” Declaring that all nationals pay for the funding of health care of another, including themselves is not the definition of a "right". Rights demand sovereignty, and what sovereignty is found when the government imposses plunder to fund a social program? Murder is indeed illegal and punishable because murder is harm on both health and life. However, we may feel an individual moral requirement to help others, but we are not required by any rule, legal or lawful, to provide care for one another. This is expressed in the "good Samitarian" story from the bible. Although two passed by the sick man and the third provided help, the first two were not punished under any law of this world. I am not proposing that we become careless for one another, but law cannot create a right. Rights are endowed by the creator, not the government. The only thing government can create is plunder - through taxation, license, and registration. No, health care is not a right since it requires that another surrender their right to self-government to attend to that care. No action or service can puncture the sovereignty of the individual and be properly considered a right; rather, that is a compulsion, and force from beyond self-regulation. We would all desire to see that those in need be supplied that need, but your health is not a right, nor defendable as a "right" when it is supported by taxing others.

[mvd]

29. Again, I would disagree with that argument

To me it's not a matter of "taxing others"; we all pay them. It's all about having affordable access. When an insurance company denies needed coverage, it's an infringement on life.

[daysed]

34. No, it is denial of service...

and you've no right to their service. You have a privledge to their service - you signed and pay for service against a contract correct?. By the very denial of service, unpaletable as it may be, it becomes apparent that privledge is not a "right" and therfore in essence, undefendable. There is a serious difference between Natural Law and Martial (or contract) Law. You cannot gain security by reducing Liberty, for Liberty is the generator of safety. No Liberty, no safety.

As for taxes, we all pay them becasue we are slaves to a overarching government, in some ways tyrannical, in others misguided nannyism. You should read "The Alpha Strategy" by John Pilger for a full explination of the destructive nature of government taxation. As well research "capitation" and ask why your income - the result of your direct labor and therefore your property; to which you claim rights, is taxed by the government. How can a government tread on your rights and still claim to be legitimate?

[iverglas]

41. not this John Pilger, I guess?

You should read "The Alpha Strategy" by John Pilger for a full explination of the destructive nature of government taxation.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Pilger

During the Daily Mirror's campaigning heyday Pilger became its star reporter, particularly on social issues. He was a war correspondent in Vietnam, Cambodia, Egypt, India, Bangladesh and Biafra. Later, TV documentaries and books cemented his reputation. An early film, Year Zero, was credited with bringing to world attention the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Later documentaries have exposed human rights abuses in the Israeli-occupied territories, in East Timor, in Iraq as a consequence of UN sanctions, and elsewhere.

In 1987 Pilger was involved with the left-wing tabloid News on Sunday which launched to great fanfare but went bankrupt eight weeks later. Named as editor-in-chief, he fell out with the editor and the paper's backers and walked out before the first issue.

Pilger has received human rights and journalism awards, as well as honorary doctorates. He has twice been named Britain's Journalist of the Year.

Somehow, I don't see you being a fan.


Always interesting to get a glimpse into the 18th century mind, perfectly preserved in our day. Will you be staying long?

[daysed]

45. Sorry, sorry...to many names in my head

John Pugsley. That should correct it.

[mvd]

42. Sorry, that's just not how I interpret it

[daysed]

46. Well, explain your interpretation...

I do not mind disagreement, but how can we communicate if you do not provide insight into your position?

[mvd]

47. Your interpretation is just wrong.

If you looked at DU, you would get an idea why that is so. Plenty of threads on government. For one thing, "denial of service" is just part of the current health care system; not a part of the scope of government.

on edit: we banned this member as he is a Libertarian and does not share Democratic values.

[iverglas]

48. uh, you meant

John Pugsley?

http://www.amazon.com/Alpha-Strategy-Ultimate-Financial-Self-Defense/dp/0936906049

Interesting slip ...


http://www.biorationalinstitute.com/shownews.php?nid=210

As well as continuing his research into the origins of individual and group behavior, John maintains a keen interest in the world of finance. In 1997, he participated in the founding of The Sovereign Society, an international organization of whose members actively work together to develop legal and moral ways in which to retain privacy, protect their wealth, and reach for individual liberty. He is currently Chairman of the Society, and contributes a monthly philosophical essay to their publication.

http://www.sovereignsociety.com/

"Feel the Freedom of Total Wealth"


Snork snork snork:

http://www.sovereignsociety.com/ABOUTUS/tabid/4245/Default.aspx

Erika Nolan - Executive Director

Erika Nolan began her career in the health care industry as a public relations and marketing executive for a US$3 billion, publicly traded company. She acted as the company spokesperson, directed all marketing strategies and oversaw the integration of new company acquisitions. Ms. Nolan directed a change leadership initiative for Integrated Health Services to improve overall company operations and increase U.S. market share.

In 1998, she was recruited to be the Executive Director for The Sovereign Society, an offshore, asset protection and international finance organization. She has brought with her an extensive knowledge of marketing and operational expertise, which has offered a high record of success. Ms. Nolan travels extensively throughout Europe, the Caribbean and Central America.

It's just all so predictable, isn't it?

[LanternWaste]

64. You can of course direct us towards a dynamic, expansive culture

"explination (sic) of the destructive nature of government taxation"...

You can of course direct us towards a dynamic, expansive culture with longevity which never taxed its population...?

[Political Heretic]

31. Guys, that phrase is from the DECLARATION, not the Constitution.

Common.

Not that it is any less valuable, but let's at least pretend like public education in America still has some redeeming value.

[wroberts189]

58. Fully understood... but as you said no less important. nt

[iverglas]

33. a right is what a society decides is a right

It's a simple as that. They really don't fall from the sky on stone tablets, y'know? And the people who wrote on those parchments of yours 200+ years ago really were just members of a society, not prophets or immortals.

Btw, that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" isn't actually "defined under the constitution for the united States of America", you know? It's in your Declaration of Independence. I find that a lot of my southern neighbours get confused on this point.

http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm

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.

Maybe they believed that -- that they were "endowed by their Creator" with rights. A lot of us think it's nonsense babble, these days.


... Oh, oops. I should have kept reading your post.

Rights are endowed by the creator, not the government.

Well, all I can say is: sez you. Being an agnostic atheist, I don't know about that creator stuff, but I don't believe it. Even if I did, it still wouldn't make a stitch of sense to say that it endowed me with rights. Eyes, ears and feet, yeah. Rights, that's just really dumb.


No, health care is not a right since it requires that another surrender their right to self-government to attend to that care.

That's some mighty fine jargon you got there. I think I recognize it.

[mvd]

37. Agreed; when conservatives use parts of the Declaration or..

the Constitution to justify their beliefs as far as government is concerned, all they are going on is a narrow interpretation that doesn't make sense.

[bat country]

38. the phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

is not defined in the Constitution of the United States of America. It's in the Declaration of Indepednence.

[daysed]

43. It is considered to be a founding document

along with the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. Do not read the Hobbit and then try to understand the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

[iverglas]

50. well, I consider it to be a nice bit of parchment

written on by a bunch of rich white guys a very long time ago. An interesting one, of course.

Howzat?

[wroberts189]

63. thx..nt

[No Elephants]

135. If you are trying to say that the Constitution was not designed to stand alone,

you are mistaken.

IMO, you have not read any of the documents that you cite. But whether you have or not, we could understand the Constitution without the Declaration of Independence (or the Articles of Confederation) and were intended to do so. The Constituion is a stand alone document.

[RaleighNCDUer]

191. Declaration of Independence is a mission statement.

The Constitution is an instruction book.

Both apply to the same product.

[lapfog_1]

62. Oh please just f*ck off and die.

The rights "are endowed by the creator"...

Care to show me where in the Bible (and you can use any bible you want) where it guarantees the right to free speech or to be armed.

And we can add rights to the Constitution any time we, the people, decide we can. And, apparently, some states can remove "inalienable right", e.g. California Prop H8, any damn time they can get a simple majority that shows up to vote to do it.

[Hissyspit]

127. Um, they changed the phrase.

[No Elephants]

129. The Constitution says nothing about inalienable rights. And yes, law can and does

create a right. You are conflating legal rights with the theory of natural rights. And, yes, taxation is legal, even if you call it "plunder."

[xchrom]

35. and a nut ball shall lead them. nt

[Javaman]

36. paul is an ass...

there are the fringe elements here on DU that think this guy is the answer to all our prayers.

the guys is a broken clock, right only twice a day.

and because he's libertarian aka a pot smoking repuke, he right about pot. it should be legal. Big duh. Any halfwit knows that.

and he's against the war. Again, any halfwit wants that.

so again, for you closeted paul supporters, why is this moron so fucking wonderful when he's against womans rights, national health care, doing away with SS and medicare and Medicaid and wants a flat tax?

paul is a media whore of the highest order, especially when he's paling around with racists...

The Ron Paul Campaign and its Neo-Nazi Supporters

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html

Neo-Nazi leader gives Ron Paul $500

http://lonestartimes.com/2007/10/25/rpb1/

[IndianaGreen]

51. The American people have the right to same health care Congress gets

but then, I am a Socialist that believes that health care is a fundamental human right.

[insidejoke]

52. But Liberty IS a Right

And the Constitution doesn't limit the bounds of liberty to "economic liberty".

And when so many Americans simply can't afford to get sick (or can't afford to get the care they need, or who struggle constantly just to get the care they need, or who end up socially/economically devastated by the cost of their care or...uh, you get the general idea) we suddenly see millions of people deprived of their liberties because the only choice those individuals are able to make is "whatever it takes to survive".

That's the problem with libertarians. They seem to think liberty begins and ends with "my access to my money", instead of beginning at each person's ability to live his/her life as he/she chooses. Universal health care isn't about government interference with our lives, but instead it's about empowering Americans by saying, "You live your life however you want. And if you need health care then you KEEP living your life however you want, because someone's got your back."

Then again, that only makes sense if you can see liberty as something that extends beyond your own pocketbook...

[alstephenson]

68. I agree.

And welcome to DU!:hi:

[No Elephants]

142. The Constitution gives us certain freedoms and rights, but not a right to

liberty in general. You may be thinking of the preamble to the Dedclaration of Independence.

[insidejoke]

161. No, I Mean

The guarantee of liberty under the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment (and arguably under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, also.)

[No Elephants]

195. No. For more on the 5th, please see Reply ##'s 150 and 174, especially 174..

Remember, too, in 1789, the Constitution put obligations on only the federal government. The SCOTUS did not make the states live by the Bill of Rights until after the 14 Amendment was adopted. So, for example, the states could enact laws limiting speech unless the state's Constitution said the state could not do that.

The 9 and 10th amendments say to the states and to individuals, in essence:

"Don't be afraid of the new federal government--even though no government like this kind has ever existed on the planet before. Rest assured, everything is going to be exactly as it on June 30, 1776, except that you are not subject to King George anymore.
And, the federal government will not get as mean or bossy or greedy to you as King George III was before the war.

The federal government will be doing only things like raising armies, entering into treaties with Native Americans and foreign powers, appointing ambassadors and federal judges and that other stuff the Constitution you are about to vote on says the federal government has the power to do.

State legislatures, state courts, crimes, fines, ordinances, wills, property tax, marriages, dowries, whatever. All that is up to you now, not King George or his Governors or the federal government. The federal government won't be interfering in any of that."



I don't think Amendments 9 or 10 bestow any rights, certainly not a right to help with paying for medical care.

The delicate balance of power with which the country began starting unraveling with the Civil War and also during the Depression and World War II (internment of Japanese Americans, for one).

But saying there is no constitutional right to health insurance is not saying that Congress has no power to give us one. It does. And, I believe it should.

Reply ##'s 138, 167, 181, 185 are also relevant.

[insidejoke]

207. But I Think You're Missing What I'm Saying

And most of that is my fault because I've been throwing out vague notions since I don't have the time to write (and I'm presuming you don't have the time to read) a full dissection of this issue.

First, the States' relevance to this is minimal. While it is true that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments reserve rights to the both the states and to the people, I'm pretty focused on the personal aspects of those fundamental rights. That said, the Supreme Court HAS recognized certain fundamental rights directly from these amendments, like the right to privacy for example (which, yeah the court in Roe DID say applied to the states under the Fourteenth Amendmend, but I think that's irrelevant here.)

My argument is that when the federal government acquiesces to (and has even passed legislation to support) the right of private parties (the insurance companies) to dominate a necessary industry like health care so completely that (as I said above) "so many Americans simply can't afford to get sick (or can't afford to get the care they need, or who struggle constantly just to get the care they need, or who end up socially/economically devastated by the cost of their care or...uh, you get the general idea)" then the federal government has effectively acted to deprive the liberty and fundamental rights of its citizens without due process of law as required under the Fifth Amendment.

Does that mean health care on its face is a fundamental right? No. But does that mean that fundamental rights and liberty are tied directly to the outcome of the issue at this point in history? I think that's a very clear "yes" (unless, as I said, you see fundamental rights and liberty as beginning and ending with economic liberty.)

[damntexdem]

54. Ron Paul is far right.

And he has no credibility on what is a citizen's right.

[wroberts189]

55. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

Inalienable rights ..?


I would think health care falls under the "life" part.


I could make a better case for it then the John Yoo and the gang.

[Uncle Joe]

65. The Preamble too and Ninth Amendment of The Constitution; for which Paul swore to uphold and defend

imply that health care should and can be a right.

The Preamble; "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense,promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The Ninth Amendment; "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Webster's Dictionary definition of "welfare" listed below.

The state of being or doing well; the condition of health, prosperity and happiness; well being.

[iverglas]

72. glad to see that

As a neighbour, I often point to that bit: promote the general welfare.

It pretty much puts paid to all the noise so often heard about the original intent being that the powers of government be defined only negatively, to keep it out of individuals' affairs.

I wonder how the loonytarians dance around that part.

Up here on the other side of the border, the original 1867 Constitution empowered Parliament to make laws for the "Peace, Order and Good Government of Canada". It seems to have worked out okay. ;)

[Uncle Joe]

74. I envy your health care system and the lack of stress associated with it.

Peace to you, iverglas.:hi:

[No Elephants]

138. We..people....in order to promote the general welfare...establish the Constitution.

That does not give a right to health care. Neither does anything else in the Constitution. The ninth amendment says you get to keep any rights that you had before 1789 that the rest of the Constitution did not take away from you. There is no Constitutional right to health care. If there were, everyone who died before now got "screwn" and his or her estate might have a lawsuit, right? But, that is not so.

HOWEVER, the Constitution gives Congress the power to enact laws to promote the general welfare. (Even that was debated and fought to the SCOTUS. Thank heaven, the SCOTUS said yes, Congress does have the power to enact laws to promote the general welfare.) So, Congress has the power to give you a statutory right to health care, just as it gave some a right to Medicare. And that is the direction in which Congress is headed, with one correction. So far, Congress is talking about helping with payments for health care, not health care itself. Technically, it's medical insurance reform to make health care more affordable. (I mention that only bc someone upthread went off in the wrong direction, about forcing people to give kidneys for transplants.)

[iverglas]

193. "That does not give a right to health care."

But no one said it did.

What was said was that the "promote the general welfare" component of that declaration does imply that health care should and can be a right.

Government does exist to promote the general welfare. Governments build roads, operate schools, provide fire and police services. All those things are measures to promote the general welfare. As you agree.

It really is sophistic to insist that "rights" be used to describe only a single concept.

I have a right to vote. (In Canada, that right is enshrined in the Constitution.) I wasn't born with that right; no gods endowed me with that right. It is my right as a qualifying member of a particular society. This is actually the distinction between "civil rights" (rights as a member of a particular society) and what are commonly referred to as fundamental / human rights (and tend to be recognized and protected in national constitutions, as well as in international instruments).

In Canada, we regard it as our right, as qualifying members of our society, to have access to health care, and we secure the exercise of that right by providing universal health insurance. (Obviously, there are other ways of doing it.) Our society is capable of providing this benefit to all its members, and we have decided that it is something that all members of our society will be guaranteed, within the limits of that capability.

This is something slightly more than "a statutory right to health care". It has become part of the consensus of the society. It is that consensus that produces civil rights.

(It is the consensus of humanity of a whole that fundamental/human rights are "inherent"; it becomes definitional at a certain point. By virtue of being a human being, one has human rights.)


So there really is no reason that access to health care can't be defined as a right in a given society. Access to education is generally regarded as a right these days -- a basic education is available free of charge, equally to everyone. The nature of a basic education changes as a society evolves and its resources expand. A century ago, it was elementary school. Now it's high school. It will eventually expand to include early childhood education and postsecondary education.

If the US were to take the Ron Paul route and privatize education, making it available only on a fee-paying basis, I think most of the public would be outraged, since the public does regard access to education as a right.

The Canadian public feels the same way about access to health care. It is the right of Canadians as members of Canadian society, just like the right to vote.

What these rights do is secure the exercise of human/fundamental rights. And that's the evolution that has occurred: the consensus that a society has an obligation to make efforts to secure the exercise of those rights, not just to refrain from interfering in that exercise.

In European civil law, this would be called an obligation de moyens rather than an obligation de résultats -- a duty to take measures rather than a duty to achieve a result. The idea that a society has a duty to take measures to secure its members' exercise of their human/fundamental rights is part of progress.

The ideas of your founders and framers represented progress in their day. But to stick to those ideas and those ideas alone forever would be regressive, and I doubt they would have approved.

[Ben78]

66. New visitor

Hi, I'm new here. Your post on Ron Paul and health care caught my eye. Do you welcome Ron Paul supporters here? Despite our differences, we do have many things in common. We value our freedoms under the Bill of Rights. We believe that Bush's Patriot Act under the guise of security, set back our rights like never before in our history and that we may never regain them again. And then there is FISA, the Real Id, and cyber security. As fellow Americans, we are opposed to undeclared, unconstitutional wars, based on lies. We oppose preemptive wars. There is much that we agree on. What say you?

[alstephenson]

70. I say that there is much we disagree on.

Read up-thread for many, many examples. Are you welcome? I'll let you sort that out...

[Ben78]

101. Freedom and Slavery

You can tell which comments wouldn't amount to much of a debate. I would just avoid those.

I think our main disagreement is on monetary issues of course. I myself am very concerned about the loss of our freedoms. I know last election, on Obama's website, he created a huge backlash with his supporters when he backtracked on FISA. Those supporters proved that many democrats are equally concerned about this issue. This is a case of leadership in BOTH parties being equally to blame in the erosion of our liberties. This is the issue that worries me the most. I believe all of us have to spread the message to the rest of the uninformed about just what the federal government is doing, in the name of security. I'm going back to my favorite site on freedom now. Thanks for the comment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHxvVuIxJ9A

[Uncle Joe]

71. I agree with most all of your comments but I do believe the American People are best served and

represented by having universal single payer health care.

Welcome to D.U.:hi:

[Ben78]

94. The economy is in crisis already.

But does it not concern you that in this state of an economic crisis, the cost of this health care will be astronomical? Let alone the reports of substandard and long delayed healthcare in Canada and England? BTW - Thank you for the friendly welcome.

[Uncle Joe]

204. I believe the long existing dysfunctional for profit

"health" insurance industry to be a major contributing factor to both our economic crisis and the exploding cost of health care.

I find the very idea of making a buck off the American People's illness and injury; when not contributing to the issue of health-care, to not only be immoral, but extremely inefficient and at a major cross purpose to the advancement of an enlightened, progressive and prosperous society. The whole concept is illogical.

We spend more money than any other nation on health care and yet the last time I heard we're ranked below those nations you mentioned along with a host of others.

I also believe any reports of people dissatisfied with "substandard or long delayed health-care" in Canada and England has been greatly magnified by our own for profit "health" insurance industry; and to a large extent our corporate media which make money selling their commercials.

[iverglas]

73. well I'm just a foreigner

- although no stranger to DU - but I have never believed that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, myself.

[anigbrowl]

84. I think you'll be disappointed

since your professed libertarianism is at odds with the notion of any kind of collective responsibility - something cherished as a basic principle here. Collectivist policy can be become onerous if taken too far, but then individualistic policy can become callous if there is no concept of collective responsibility.

your profile quotes Ayn Rand, and thus is not going to earn you many friends. I understand why you find Rand's ideas attractive, but I think they're rather naive and self-indulgent - and I say that as a supporter of free markets and capitalism in the general case.

[Ben78]

91. Collectivism

But what do you think of that particular quote? And you are correct. I definitely am not a collectivist, although I once was for most of my life. You know how it is when you hear or read something that creates a spark within you? That happened to me, and ever since then, I can't get enough about anything pertaining to freedom and how I now see Congress, under BOTH parties, all but destroying our country. Where I once saw taxes as just a necessary evil, I now see most of them, (almost 50% in total), as nothing but theft. I believe the federal government should only do the things that we as a people can not do for ourselves, such as national defense. Lucky for me I turned off the TV.

"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." Thomas Jefferson

Anyway, that's how I now see it. Thank you anigbrowl for the great comment.

[Odin2005]

95. Not to be mean, I'm a LEFT-Libertarian, and I think you RIGHT-Libertarians are corporate suckers.

Tyrannical corporate power is just as dangerous as tyrannical state power.

[Uncle Joe]

205. I agree, Odin, the American People have representation from the government,

they have none from corporations, particularly monopolies and trusts.

I also believe this is why the corporate media have promoted, magnified and towed the line so eagerly that all things government are bad and all things private are good.

To the corporate media; the American People are primarily viewed only as customers or consumers to be sold a product or down the river, on the other hand the major corporations purchasing corporate media commercials are seen in the preeminent position as being clients and there is a major difference in fiduciary responsibility or loyalty owed to a client versus a customer or consumer.

I also believe this is why you will rarely hear the corporate media refer to the American People as being citizens because that term signifies power via belonging, ownership and control via democratic processes of voting, particpating or protest.

[Odin2005]

209. Bingo! You got it!

I hate the over-use of the term consumer.

[subcomhd]

218. very well put n/t

[No Elephants]

141. I recommend you read the rules of the board. People who believe in the principles of the

Democratic Party and who want to see Democrats in office are welcome here. Members of the political right, religious or not, and people who want to see Ron Paul in office, not so much.

[Political Heretic]

151. Short answer (getting to the bottom line) is: proably not.

But hey give it a shot..

[No Elephants]

178. I'm sticking with the rules of the board.

[foginthemorn]

82. Maybe we will have to start over and write it into our Constitution like

Brazil did 20 years ago.

Long wait I know.

[brentspeak]

87. Paul is wrong that healthcare is not a right, but he might be correct on the program's cost

[Blue_Tires]

189. i don't think anyone thinks a UHC program would be cheap...

but i believe it is one of those things, that if properly run, pays for itself in the long run...

[On the Road]

88. I Understand that Originally the Wording Was Life, Liberty, and Property

but Jefferson changed it.

I actually don't disagree with either one of his points.

An individual has a right not to be prevented from buying health care. But an individual does not have a right to expect health to be paid for by someone else.

It probably will cost more than a trillion dollars over ten years -- those estimates are often low. Hopefully that will not lead Congress not to retreat from a public option, but push for a real single payer plan.

[No Elephants]

146. Not really. Please see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness

Even if Jefferson had put property in the D of I, then thought better of it and replaced it, that would not endow Paul with a right to his fruits or his veggies. He's making it up as he goes along, just like Sarah Palin and Dummya.

[Odin2005]

93. Randoid lunatic who swallows Austrian School swill daily.

[Arkana]

99. Go back to the blimp, Ron.

And remember--the medicine is there to help you.

[Boddingham]

149. Gee, let me think.

According to the Declaration Of Independence, we got our rights from the creator. According to the Constitution . . . oops . . . nothing there but powers ceded by the people to the federal government, the rest reserved to the people or the states.

And then what happened? :shrug:

[Gray Ponytail]

170. We have a right to "pursue" it. Like happiness.

You are absolutely right. The government does not "grant" health care any more than it grants Cadillacs. If you want a thing, you have to work for it. You don't just ask the government to provide it from Other People's Money.

OPM

[No Elephants]

176. Pursue what? And you have to work for health? Interesting. Working gets rid of birth defects?

Who are these Other People of whom you speak? Most of us pay taxes AND pay for health care, or work our buns off for an employer who pays for it.

[fascisthunter]

194. so then we the people decide, don't we

as for a creator, that nice, but until we can get this creator to just come out and tell us all, it's based upon belief.

Well, I and billions around the world think it is a right, and the right to health or access to healthcare should should not be dictated by wealth. Because when you do so, you place those who cannot afford it in danger based upon wealth not some meritocracy you may believe exists. People are born into wealth more so than earn it.

[No Elephants]

150. Horrifying and appalling that a man who ran for both Congress

and the Presidency either lies unashamedly about what the Constitution says, or has no clue what it says.

1. Contrary to Ron Paul's claim, the Constitution says nothing about rights to life, liberty and the fruits of one's labors.

2. Contrary to Ron Paul's claim, the Declaration of Independence says nothing about the fruits of anyone's labors.

(Crikey, even if he got all that wrong, someone should have checked before publishing it.)

3. The Declaration of Independence begins:


"IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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, — <snip>



4. The Declaration of Independence did not give anyone any legal rights.

5. The Constitution does give us legal rights, but not a right to health care, or more precisely, a right to help with paying for health care.

6. Federal and state laws, however, can give us a right to ways to help with paying for health care and have already created rights to Medicaid and Medicare for that purpose.

That would not, of course, be a right given us by our "Creator" or by the Declaration of Independence or by the Constitution. Rather, it would be a right given us by the federal government pursuant to its power under the Constitution to enact laws to "provide or the general welfare." That would be a legally enforceable right, albeit a right that the federal government could abolish or amend the right without a vote of the people (i.e., a statutory right, not a Constitutional right).

As far as cost, people are paying a lot for health care now, both their own health care and the health care of others. If done correctly, the reform should not cost more than it now costs. IMO, they are not doing it correctly--and that, IMO, is a more meaningful discussion that whether or not the Creator endowed us with an inalienable right to help with paying our medical bills.

[Boddingham]

154. You are definitely a constitutional scholar in the making!

;)

[No Elephants]

168. Thank you very much. A few on this thread seem to have a real interest in

the Constitution and federal law in general.

[No Elephants]

174. Okay, I think I see where Paul may have been coming from, but he did misrepresent--unless

the reporter misquoted.

According to the article in the OP, Paul said "the constitution only guarantees citizens 'life, liberty and (the right to) keep the fruits of my labor.'"

On one hand, the Constitution guarantees more things than only 3, for instance, a right to assistance of counsel if charged with a crime.

On the other hand, the Constitution does not guarantee those things at all.

The Constitution simply says government will not take any of those things without due process of law (which amounts to notice and an opportunity to be heard on the matter).

That does not amount to a guaranty that you will have life in the first place, or that you will not lose you life to illness or a hurricane or whatever. That's up to God, or fate, or Mother Nature, or whatever you want to say.

The Constitution does not amount guaranty that you will have liberty, either. You might accidentially lock yourself in the bathroom. The Constitution says only that government will not deprive you of liberty without notice an opportunity to be heard. After that, it's off to the slammer with ya!

And the Constitution certainly does not guarantee that you will keep the fruits of your labor. Heck, you can plant a field and othing might come up. Or the birds or your neighbor might chow down on your crop before you do. The only guaranty is that government will not take your crop without notice and an opportunity to be heard and "just" compensation.

And even the guarantees are not bullet proof. Government may misbehave. But, the Constitution gives you a legal right, so you can hold government accountable, though you may have to sue.

The exception, of course, is tax. For that, we're all just stuck.




_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified. Ratified 2/3/1913. Note History
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

[Gray Ponytail]

169. Technically, he is correct. n/t

[No Elephants]

177. About what?

[LynnTheDem]

192. It IS a right in Canada. And Britain. And even *gasp* Cuba.

But not in the by-gawd United States of America.

Ok.

Maybe We The People should kinda wake the fuck up.

[fascisthunter]

196. only rich apply... all the rest can go to hell

yuh... sounds like a country that only cares about wealth.... life? Not so much... especially if one can make money off of sick and dying people who can barely scrape by from one pay check to the next.

[LeftishBrit]

198. He's a monster - and the fact that he's a doctor makes it even worse!

[undeterred]

202. Ron Paul is not the president of anything

and he has the moral fibre of a donut.

[Xenotime]

208. Message to Ron Paul: Shut the Fuck up!

[Boddingham]

217. That is what my ex-wife used to tell me.

She never did address the actual issues. Hmmm.

[and-justice-for-all]

210. Healthcare Is "Not a Right"?? FUCK YOU RON PAUL...

It is a right you hack bastard!

Tell that shit to France and Germany, I am sure they would love to tell you otherwise.

I want Ron Paul to shut the fuck up.

[Boddingham]

216. There are enumerated rights that cost the government money, which comes from taxes.

“No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.” It costs money to convene a grand jury, pay police to investigate, pay district attorney or pay a prosecutor to present evidence.

“Be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Costs of trials and condemnation proceedings, including property appraisers.

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.” Costs of prosecutors. Gotta pay the judge, his secretary, bailiff, clerk, gotta have a court house, janitors, etc. Jury fees. Witness fees. Paying for an attorney for the accused. And we gotta have a snack bar in the courthouse!

So how does government, state or federal, differ in these rights and the right to health care?

[HughBeaumont]

220. Who let the Republitarians and Free-Market Water Carriers in here?

It's a HUMAN RIGHT, you fucking unempathetic shitbags. Shove your "invisible hand" and semantics up your asses. For-profit health insurance has been, is and always will be a colossal and consummate FAILURE. It's time to try a new way and FAST.

[avaistheone1]

221. Fuck Ron Paul.

He just showed his soul and it is rotten to the core.

You would think as man of medicine he would have more compassion, and understand the need and the terrible burden the cost of health insurance has come to be for most working families.

Fuck Ron Paul. He stinks BAD. Fuck him. To hell with Ron Paul.

[Blue_Tires]

222. using Paul's logic, clean air isn't a right, either

since the constitution says nothing about it...But even Paul can see the general benefit of clean air, right??

[Zavulon]

223. The one thing he's right about is

that the cost will be at least double the original estimate. His estimate of $1 trillion is probably low.

As for health care being a right, in certain circumstances I don't believe it should be. If someone destroys himself with drugs, alcohol and / or tobacco and then expects others to pay for his care, my reaction is to extend both of my middle fingers to that person.

[Deja Q]

224. Right to life, eh Mr Paul?

If you die because your life could have been saved...

Explain yourself, please, Mr. Paul...