She is right.

Dinki: She is right.

She is. Too bad she's still Hillary Clinton.

How in the hairy blue f*ck can you distort the Constitution enough to believe that there is a right to health care in there?

Okay, that (Hillary equating healthcare to a constitutional right) is just insane. "Rights" are a limitation of the state's powers over the individual, first and foremost, and ultimately a limitation on coercive power. "Rights" are not a mandate for the government to force other individuals to provide you with goods or services. Twisting the very notion of rights like that to justify political ambitions is patently dangerous because not only does it expand the power of the state, but it also weakens the importants of true rights such as free speech and the right to be secure in one's home. When we start defining everything as a "right" then there are no lines that the government cannot cross.

And one last thing - This morning, I was watching the Today show while eating breakfast and Hillary was being interviewed and said she wanted the campaign to be about "what the government can do to provide for people and families." Though it was before my time, I do recall a prominent Democrat who not so long ago challenged Americans to "ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." Amazing what can change in one generation.

Nabb1: Okay, that (Hillary equating healthcare to a constitutional right) is just insane. "Rights" are a limitation of the state's powers over the individual, first and foremost, and ultimately a limitation on coercive power. "Rights" are not a mandate for the government to force other individuals to provide you with goods or services. Twisting the very notion of rights like that to justify political ambitions is patently dangerous because not only does it expand the power of the state, but it also weakens the importants of true rights such as free speech and the right to be secure in one's home. When we start defining everything as a "right" then there are no lines that the government cannot cross.

OK, so its poorly worded, and trying to find constitutional grounds for universal health us very much reaching, but it doesn't change the fact that people are being priced out of an essential service.

GrooveMonkeyZero: OK, so its poorly worded, and trying to find constitutional grounds for universal health us very much reaching, but it doesn't change the fact that people are being priced out of an essential service.

No, it's not "poorly worded." She went to Yale Law School and practiced law for years at a top law firm. Above all, lawyers know the importance of words and don't play fast and loose with them when it counts. And speaking of "rights" and the Constitution goes right to the heart of that. She knows exactly what she is saying when she argues that something is a constitional right, and knows the implications of that far more than most of the population.

GrooveMonkeyZero: OK, so its poorly worded, and trying to find constitutional grounds for universal health us very much reaching, but it doesn't change the fact that people are being priced out of an essential service.

A $5000 deductible health insurance plan for a family of 4 is less than a typical car payment. This would work for 90% of us. Unfortunately, people don't want insurance, they want a health payment plan that "covers everything". You can get that but it will cost $600/family. Or, you can get a high deductible plan and negotiate out of pocket rates for regular health care services. My brother and his wife went this way with their new baby. Cost of immunizations out of pocket were $5 each and the cost of the actual visit was less than a trip to the mechanic. Regular health care doesn't have to be expensive but for some reason people want it to be.

Nabb1

Well said...on both counts.

If you're dead from a heart attack because you can't even afford preventative care you sure as hell can no longer exercise your right of free speech, and you are no certainly longer secure in your own home.

/just sayin'

Society benefits from having a healthy pool of workers. Companies lose money due to absenteeism of sick people. Providing an affordable means of basic level health insurance is good business. This fact is overlooked by focusing entirely on today's profit margin. With the aging of our work force, health care is going to become even more important.

Having the government actually run health care is a bad idea, at best they should have some clout in the insurance and pricing end. HMO's are leeches on the system, IMHO and that's probably where any intervention should be.

Also the drug companies need to lower prices here in the US and raise them elsewhere in the world. Either that or they should have to pay for any government sponsored R&D they use.

HansensDisease: If you're dead from a heart attack because you can't even afford preventative care you sure as hell can no longer exercise your right of free speech, and you are no certainly longer secure in your own home.

oh ffs. So are you saying that heart attacks are unconstitutional now? Because you're just as dead if you *can* afford health care.

HansensDisease: If you're dead from a heart attack because you can't even afford preventative care you sure as hell can no longer exercise your right of free speech, and you are no certainly longer secure in your own home.

That doesn't make preventative care - a service provided by someone, and goods if you buy medication - a "right." (If anything, if you expect the rest of the country to pay for your medical care, you have a moral obligation to live as healthy as possible as to minimize the costs to your fellow citizens, else you are a selfish. But, I'm sure we won't have to worry about people not living up to their obligations in that regard.) The rest of your post may be policy justifications, but that still does not make it a "right."

HansensDisease: Society benefits from having a healthy pool of workers.

Society benefits from a LOT of things. However, that doesn't mean that people are entitled to them.

The Constitution provides me with lots of rights. The thing is, I don't excercise them all. Her idea to mandate health care scares me. Just because the government will allow me to have a gun doesn't mean I have to own one. And I want that choice when it comes to my medical affairs.

The Jedi Sith Hillary waves hand...

"You will forget that Bill and I ran under the issue of universal healthcare and I spearheaded the issue and we did precisely dick in eight years."

Wow, Hillary has some kind of power. I though it took, I don't know, a vote of the people or approval of a bunch of states, to change the Constitution. Silly me.

Since no one has gone there yet...

I'm sure she'll make the trains run on time too.

Which article of the Constitution does that fall under?

EatHam: oh ffs. So are you saying that heart attacks are unconstitutional now?

No. Nice strawman, though.

Nabb1: That doesn't make preventative care - a service provided by someone, and goods if you buy medication - a "right." (If anything,

If you're dead you have no rights. You haven't and won't address that.

mmm... pancake: Society benefits from a LOT of things. However, that doesn't mean that people are entitled to them.

Like being able to be a millionare? Bwahahaha. Just kidding.

I honestly fail to see why this is such a bad thing.

Okay, let her win. But in order to counter her radical ideas on the Constitution we must clone Scalia and replace the other judges with his clones.

HansensDisease: If you're dead you have no rights. You haven't and won't address that.

It's not worth addressing because it is a nonsensical argument.

Except sick people can be discriminated against," she said, recouting Kagen's argument, which he plans to try and turn into legislation.

Bang up proof reading.

\would have gone with myself, subby. You know, for post-ironical purposes.

Canadian Canuck: I honestly fail to see why this is such a bad thing.

Let's start with the idea that the Constitution is a living breathing document that's meaning changes each second. Okay, in that case, the issue of the day can always be read into it, right?

"Pursuit of happiness" probably can be read to cover my porn addiction and the fact that the Make a Wish Foundation won't get me a hooker to have sex with just because I'm not dying. They are discriminating against me!!!!

Canadian Canuck: I honestly fail to see why this is such a bad thing.

Here in the States we have a well-defined document called the Constitution that explicitly defines the powers of the Federal government. Universal health care is not one of those explicitly defined powers. That type of thing is left up to the states via the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. That's why this is a bad thing.

There's also a little known provision in the Constitution that says if you look John McCain in the eye for more than 7 seconds, you legally become his property. Your only options after that are either a lifetime of servitude or regaining your freedom by beating him in an armwrestling match (best 2 of 3.) McCain has been bested only one time, in 1776 by a tenacious Thomas Jefferson, who had previously made the mistake of eyeing McCain down at a meeting of the second Continental Congress. As a sign of respect, McCain let Jefferson take credit for drafting the Declaration of Independence, which was titled The Go F*ck Yourself Manifesto under McCain's stewardship. Jefferson promptly cleaned up the language in the document, which consisted solely of a picture of fist holding a lit stick of dynamite over the phrase, "Ass, gas or grass - no one rides for free."

Canadian Canuck: I honestly fail to see why this is such a bad thing.

Yeah...I can't see any difference between limiting the federal governments power concerning freedom of speech and forcing universal healthcare on people at the expense of garnishing wages.

I mean, practically the same thing people!

HansensDisease: If you're dead you have no rights. You haven't and won't address that.

That's because it is stupid and makes no sense in the discussion.

Doctor Funkenstein: There's also a little known provision in the Constitution that says if you look John McCain in the eye for more than 7 seconds, you legally become his property. Your only options after that are either a lifetime of servitude or regaining your freedom by beating him in an armwrestling match (best 2 of 3.) McCain has been bested only one time, in 1776 by a tenacious Thomas Jefferson, who had previously made the mistake of eyeing McCain down at a meeting of the second Continental Congress. As a sign of respect, McCain let Jefferson take credit for drafting the Declaration of Independence, which was titled The Go F*ck Yourself Manifesto under McCain's stewardship. Jefferson promptly cleaned up the language in the document, which consisted solely of a picture of fist holding a lit stick of dynamite over the phrase, "Ass, gas or grass - no one rides for free."

bulldg4life:

Go DAWGS!

Nabb1: It's not worth addressing because it is a nonsensical argument.

My prediction proves correct!

The constitution doesn't guarantee you the right to make gunpowder but it's a necessary antecedent for bearing arms. The founding fathers never thought someone would be so stupid as to question fundamentals like that. Too bad there were wrong in your case.

I_C_Weener:

Okay.

mmm... pancake: Canadian Canuck: I honestly fail to see why this is such a bad thing.

Here in the States we have a well-defined document called the Constitution that explicitly defines the powers of the Federal government. Universal health care is not one of those explicitly defined powers. That type of thing is left up to the states via the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. That's why this is a bad thing.

Interesting. Didn't know about that one. But I'm not American political scholar nor do I live in the States so I don't need to know all your laws.

HansensDisease: The constitution doesn't guarantee you the right to make gunpowder but it's a necessary antecedent for bearing arms. The founding fathers never thought someone would be so stupid as to question fundamentals like that. Too bad there were wrong in your case.

You fail at Constitutional law

Huh, Steve Kagen was my allergist about 25 years ago, he had a crappy office in Appleton back then.

Don't we have a constitutional right not to be killed by terrorists, too, now? I guess it's all just words, and only deeds matter.

bulldg4life: Yeah...I can't see any difference between limiting the federal governments power concerning freedom of speech and forcing universal healthcare on people at the expense of garnishing wages.

I mean, practically the same thing people!


How is this a violation of freedom of speech? What I'm trying to say is that Canada does have universal healthcare, and while it does have its many flaws, it still is a good thing for society.

HansensDisease: The constitution doesn't guarantee you the right to make gunpowder but it's a necessary antecedent for bearing arms.

What definition of "right" are you using?

bulldg4life: That's because it is stupid and makes no sense in the discussion.

see my above reply.

I can't help your inability to understand the fact that all rights have fundamental requirements that must be met prior to someone having any possibility of exercising that.

bulldg4life: You fail at Constitutional law

You fail at chains of intellectual reasoning. Again, see above.

EatHam: How in the hairy blue f*ck can you distort the Constitution enough to believe that there is a right to health care in there?

The same way people can distort it to think that it should define marriage as "between a man and a woman", or that it should keep people from burning a piece of cloth that has stars and stripe son it.

I don't like Hillary (or agree with her on this one) but at least she's trying to help people.

health care is a need, not a right, Much like shelter and food.

Canadian Canuck: How is this a violation of freedom of speech? What I'm trying to say is that Canada does have universal healthcare, and while it does have its many flaws, it still is a good thing for society.

Universal healthcare is a good thing for society because everybody having healthcare would be wonderful.

It's not a violation of free speech (I'm guessing you are focusing on a different part of my post based on you not being familiar with it). you got the jist of the discussion from pancake

Canadian Canuck: How is this a violation of freedom of speech? What I'm trying to say is that Canada does have universal healthcare, and while it does have its many flaws, it still is a good thing for society.

We already have universal health care. Go to the doctor, get care, pay. If you want to insure against catastrophic health issues get a $5,000 deductible policy that covers everything over $5,000. Like all of our other necessities, we can get health care without the Government providing it for us. In fact, the more they get involved the more expensive it has become.

Ok, Chet, let's go back to your first wonderful awesome post in this thread:

HansensDisease: If you're dead from a heart attack because you can't even afford preventative care you sure as hell can no longer exercise your right of free speech, and you are no certainly longer secure in your own home.

/just sayin'

Please explain where you got the link from heart attack to preventative care to can't exercise free speech to health care is a right defined in the constitution.

HansensDisease: Nabb1: It's not worth addressing because it is a nonsensical argument.

My prediction proves correct!

The constitution doesn't guarantee you the right to make gunpowder but it's a necessary antecedent for bearing arms. The founding fathers never thought someone would be so stupid as to question fundamentals like that. Too bad there were wrong in your case.

That is absolutely the worst reasoning I have every heard for justifying that. No one with a shred of legal education would make an argument as insipid and mind-numbingly droll as what you threw out and demanded a reply to. It's not worth addressing, especially to you, because no amount of logical arguments will satisfy you.

mmm... pancake: What definition of "right" are you using?

Does the constitution mention gunpowder? No it doesn't. By your "logic" it is not therefore a constitutional right.

The constitution doesn't mention working for a living either, but it would be absurd to say you don't have that right.

Having a right to work or carry a gun doesn't mean the government has to provide you with either. I've never said it had to provide you health care either. You may be assuming that's where I'm coming from, but that's not correct.

Hillary rewrites the Constitution

And the Shrub just ignores it, what's your point?



/It's just a G*D* piece of paper

bulldg4life: Please explain where you got the link from heart attack to preventative care to can't exercise free speech to health care is a right defined in the constitution

Did I say anything about health care being in the constitution? Gunpowder isn't in there either. Neither is being able to have a job at all.

Nabb1: It's not worth addressing, especially to you, because no amount of logical arguments will satisfy you.

You have yet to make one. All you've done is weasel around the issue.

HansensDisease: Did I say anything about health care being in the constitution? Gunpowder isn't in there either. Neither is being able to have a job at all.

No, you didn't. You made some retarded link between being dead and not being able to exercise free speech and then you went on to policy justification. Then you've spent the last half-dozen posts not justifying anything but just responding to people that called you on the BS.

Health care is NOT a right.

If you are disabled, or mentally handicapped, then health-care that is government subsidized is appropriate.

However, if you are capable of holding a minimum-wage job, then you and your employer should pay for health-care, not the government.

I_C_Weener: "Pursuit of happiness"

They didn't bother to put that in the Constitution either! Oh no!

bulldg4life: You made some retarded link between being dead and not being able to exercise free speech

So you're saying you can exercise free speech when you're dead?

And you call me retarded?

HansensDisease: Nabb1: It's not worth addressing, especially to you, because no amount of logical arguments will satisfy you.

You have yet to make one. All you've done is weasel around the issue.

This:

If you're dead from a heart attack because you can't even afford preventative care you sure as hell can no longer exercise your right of free speech, and you are no certainly longer secure in your own home.

is ridiculous. Yes, if you are dead, you are no longer exercising free speech. Death happens in many forms. Death is not unconstitutional. In fact, your death creates a tax liability. Yes, being a live is a necessary requisite to exercising a constitutional right, but that does not mean you have a right for the government to jump in and keep it from happening except by the actions of others, like murder. Healthcare is a service provided by others. The government may regulate it to make sure it is provided as safely as possible, but it is not a birthright and it is certainly not a constitutional right.