WombatControl: Biological Ali: Just like with the right to an attorney. I'm glad we could settle that.

Again, you don't have the right to an attorney unless you are subject to custodial interrogation - and then only if you qualify.

It's like saying that because you can get subsidized housing, everyone has a right to housing for free. No, you don't. You have a government-sponsored benefit, that's all. A benefit that could be taken away too - as much as Miranda is couched in the rhetoric of rights, the Supreme Court could overrule it tomorrow if they wanted.

Philip Francis Queeg: So we have no right to representative government?

Which is not a right that commands the labor of another. You don't have the right to force someone to serve in Congress.

We have no right to trial by jury? No, you don't have a general right to a trial by jury. Only in certain cases does that right attach.

Note something else about both of those: they are not positive rights. They're both rights enforceable against the government. The government cannot pass laws without your consent. The government can't prosecute you of a crime without certain legal protections.

The Constitution is based upon negative liberties, not positive rights. Read the Constitution and tell us all where the Constitution grants you any rights whatsoever - it doesn't. It recognizes that you already have rights which the government is not allowed to infringe.

Are Judges and Congressman slaves? Are they truly no different than this guy?

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 295x340]

Your analogy is stupid - both judges and Congresscritters are volunteers who are paid for their labor. Did you think that argument through at all?

You don't pay volunteers. Volunteers work for free. That's why they're called 'volunteers'.

Still haven't heard a single coherent argument about why this bill takes away freedom/is bad or why it is worse than our current system. Just oogaboogaObama!

skullkrusher: I give up. Who said that?

Just a Republican getting through the 5 stages of grief, how you holding up?

WombatControl: You don't have the right to force someone to serve in Congress.

Ding Ding Ding! Now you get it.

Guess what? You have no right to force someone to be a doctor either. Doctors too are volunteers who are paid for their labor. No one is being rounded up and forced into med school against their will.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Does anyone know the difference between a court appointed attorney and a doctor when talking about your "right" to their labor? ANYONE? Bueller?

One is an attorney and the other is a doctor.

They're similar in most other ways.
They both went to school for a long time.
They are both (over)paid for services rendered.

And people like you are furious that poor people (particularly poor minorities) can have access to their services instead of being farked over like God intended.

Dead or in jail, poor people are better where you don't have to be reminded of their existence.

Infernalist: We, as Americans, have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

These things are not kept in jars and doled out to Americans every so often.

These things are provided via the labor of others. Soldiers, policemen, firemen, politicians. And now, doctors.

If you don't like the fact that your labor is required for the functioning of our nation, then by all means, go be something else. Or relocate to a far more fitting country. I hear Somalia is in desperate need of good doctors who don't mind leaving people to die if they lack cash.

And this is exactly the opposite of what the American system is about.

You have no affirmative right to fire protection. Your town can say "fark you, we're not paying for firefighters again" and your only recourse is to move.

We have an all-volunteer army, and for good reason. You have no individual right to give orders to a soldier and tell them to protect you, unless you are their superior officer, and then you have to follow the orders of your Commander in Chief.

You have no affirmative right to police protection - that is a service that is provided for you and you pay for through taxes.

Your right to political representation is only enforceable against the government. You can't dragoon someone into service as a politician. That analogy is mind-farkingly stupid.

If you want a place that lets people command the labor of others, I hear the kimchi rations in Pyongyang were increased a few grams this summer.

NateGrey: skullkrusher: I give up. Who said that?

Just a Republican getting through the 5 stages of grief, how you holding up?

you're adorable

Lol, this threat seems to be a lot more of lefties trying to get the Repubs to be butthurt than actual Repubs being butthurt, but still very amusing.

sarek_smile: You libs claim that the Republican plan is to just let people die. But, in reality those who cannot afford health insurance do receive treatment for immediately life threatening conditions. Under the ACA, some of these people will now have to pay a tax, and they will still not have health insurance. Yet, they will still get treated for life threatening conditions, as they did before. At least they will be paying into the system.

But, how is this saving the lives of people that the Republicans would otherwise have allowed to die ?

A few years ago, I was on Medicaid and suffered a catastrophic illness. My liver and kidneys were shutting down, and I had pneumonia and blood poisoning. According to my doctor, that set of concurrent symptoms generally has a 30% mortality rate. It was refreshing to be able to get treated without getting a multi-tens-of-thousands-dollar bill. Under the expanded Medicaid provision, those who might skip the ER out of fear of crushing bills will now be able to have life-saving coverage in the event of an emergency.

erveek: And people like you are furious that poor people (particularly poor minorities) can have access to their services instead of being farked over like God intended.

That's cute that you seem to think you know what I believe.

skullkrusher: NateGrey: skullkrusher: I give up. Who said that?

Just a Republican getting through the 5 stages of grief, how you holding up?

you're adorable

Thanks, but I will have to turn down your wide stance, I dont swing Republican, NTTAWT.

But I support your lifestyle! Vote Republican!

derpdeederp: Lol, this threat seems to be a lot more of lefties trying to get the Repubs to be butthurt than actual Repubs being butthurt, but still very amusing.

Why would a "lefty" be upset? Supreme Court case goes in their favor...and its bad news....for Lefties!

Forever

NateGrey: skullkrusher: NateGrey: skullkrusher: I give up. Who said that?

Just a Republican getting through the 5 stages of grief, how you holding up?

you're adorable

Thanks, but I will have to turn down your wide stance, I dont swing Republican, NTTAWT.

But I support your lifestyle! Vote Republican!

derpdeederp: Lol, this threat seems to be a lot more of lefties trying to get the Repubs to be butthurt than actual Repubs being butthurt, but still very amusing.

Why would a "lefty" be upset? Supreme Court case goes in their favor...and its bad news....for Lefties!

Forever

ok, by 'adorable' I guess I meant 'tedious and not amusing'

Sgt Stubby: pippi longstocking: Yes, healthcare is a basic necessity/human right. I don't know what kind of Neanderthal thinks it is not.


That's a lie.

If I'm a doctor, a nurse or a dentist, you don't have the 'right' to command my labor anymore than I have the right to take your automobile because I don't have one. You don't have the right to other peoples' property or labor. Sorry, kiddo.


Which would be relevant to this discussion if health care providers were required to take insurance.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: qorkfiend: The_Six_Fingered_Man: qorkfiend: Biological Ali: So no, you don't have a general right to legal representation.

What's all that "right to an attorney" nonsense in the Miranda rights?

Oops. Too quick on the quote button there.

The OP's not showing up to be quoted from.

Here's the full quote:

"You don't have the right to an attorney. You only have the right to an attorney if you are arrested by the police and put into a custodial interrogation under the Miranda case.

You don't have the right to get a will for free, you don't have the right to command a lawyer to incorporate your business, etc. So no, you don't have a general right to legal representation. Your analogy doesn't change his point."

Aye, thanks.

NateGrey: derpdeederp: Lol, this threat seems to be a lot more of lefties trying to get the Repubs to be butthurt than actual Repubs being butthurt, but still very amusing.

Why would a "lefty" be upset? Supreme Court case goes in their favor...and its bad news....for Lefties!

Forever

Lol, what, I meant the Repubs arent as butt hurt as the lefties want them to be so theyre trying to push the butt hurt levels up by misrepresenting what the righties are saying. just like your response to me.

/Maybe you got what I was saying and were playing along, lol, some times its hard to tell.
//There is definitely a lot of spin on both sides, Im just waiting for the train wreck of the elections later this year.

derpdeederp: NateGrey: derpdeederp: Lol, this threat seems to be a lot more of lefties trying to get the Repubs to be butthurt than actual Repubs being butthurt, but still very amusing.

Why would a "lefty" be upset? Supreme Court case goes in their favor...and its bad news....for Lefties!

Forever

Lol, what, I meant the Repubs arent as butt hurt as the lefties want them to be so theyre trying to push the butt hurt levels up by misrepresenting what the righties are saying. just like your response to me.

/Maybe you got what I was saying and were playing along, lol, some times its hard to tell.
//There is definitely a lot of spin on both sides, Im just waiting for the train wreck of the elections later this year.

Of course they're foaming-at-the-mouth furious. Have you heard the talking heads? Limbaugh? The Tea Party heads? They're insane right now.

In case you thought a lot of people thought Obamacare was a great way to soak the rich and stick it to corporations, think again.

Philip Francis Queeg: WombatControl: You don't have the right to force someone to serve in Congress.

Ding Ding Ding! Now you get it.

Guess what? You have no right to force someone to be a doctor either. Doctors too are volunteers who are paid for their labor. No one is being rounded up and forced into med school against their will.

So then there's no right to healthcare. Because if you have a "right" to something, you can't be denied from getting it. So doctors have to treat you, no questions asked. It's your "right." And if no one is stupid enough to go to med school so they can endure a life of poverty after 10 years of grueling work, then the government has to force people to do it, because your rights are inalienable. You cannot, under any circumstances, be denied your basic "right" to healthcare. So any action that restricts your ability to get it is a violation of your rights.

Obviously, that doesn't work. You don't have a "right" to healthcare any more than you have a right to food, shelter, or sex. Needs and rights are totally different things. You don't need to have freedom of speech to live - but you have the innate right to it. You don't need representative government to live - but the only legitimate governments are those that are based upon the consent of the governed. You need food to live, but that's not a right you can demand from another. You need shelter to live, but you don't have the innate right to force someone to build you a home.

Children and liberal (pardon the repetition) have trouble understanding this very crucial distinction.

derpdeederp: Lol, what, I meant the Repubs arent as butt hurt as the lefties want them to be so theyre trying to push the butt hurt levels up by misrepresenting what the righties are saying. just like your response to me.

/Maybe you got what I was saying and were playing along, lol, some times its hard to tell.
//There is definitely a lot of spin on both sides, Im just waiting for the train wreck of the elections later this year.

Fark Cons arent an accurate representation of the Repub party.

I am currently listening to Limbaugh after hearing Beck this morning. Also currently reading FreeRepublic and plan on watching Fox News tonight. If you think righties arent butthurt then you arent paying attention.

NateGrey: derpdeederp: Lol, what, I meant the Repubs arent as butt hurt as the lefties want them to be so theyre trying to push the butt hurt levels up by misrepresenting what the righties are saying. just like your response to me.

/Maybe you got what I was saying and were playing along, lol, some times its hard to tell.
//There is definitely a lot of spin on both sides, Im just waiting for the train wreck of the elections later this year.

Fark Cons arent an accurate representation of the Repub party.

I am currently listening to Limbaugh after hearing Beck this morning. Also currently reading FreeRepublic and plan on watching Fox News tonight. If you think righties arent butthurt then you arent paying attention.

Here you go buddy, start reading:

More Grist for the "John Roberts Is Gay" Mill

Ever since President Bush announced his selection of Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., as his Supreme Court nominee, speculation over whether Judge Roberts might be gay has run rampant throughout the blogosphere. See, e.g., Althouse, Law Dork, and Wonkette. UTR readers have also flooded A3G's inbox with emails citing the following "evidence" that Judge Roberts is gay:

1. Despite being handsome, brilliant, rich, and nice - in other words, prime marriage material - Judge Roberts didn't get married until the relatively late age of 41.

2. With all due respect to the perfectly attractive Mrs. Jane Sullivan Roberts, some UTR readers - not A3G - have commented that the #5 Superhottie of the Federal Judiciary could have "married someone hotter." According to a UTR correspondent who used to work at Hogan & Hartson, Judge Roberts's former law firm, "many of the older [Hogan] attys are married to good-looking 20-somethings after having dumped their first wives."

WombatControl: Philip Francis Queeg: WombatControl: You don't have the right to force someone to serve in Congress.

Ding Ding Ding! Now you get it.

Guess what? You have no right to force someone to be a doctor either. Doctors too are volunteers who are paid for their labor. No one is being rounded up and forced into med school against their will.

So then there's no right to healthcare. Because if you have a "right" to something, you can't be denied from getting it. So doctors have to treat you, no questions asked. It's your "right." And if no one is stupid enough to go to med school so they can endure a life of poverty after 10 years of grueling work, then the government has to force people to do it, because your rights are inalienable. You cannot, under any circumstances, be denied your basic "right" to healthcare. So any action that restricts your ability to get it is a violation of your rights.

Obviously, that doesn't work. You don't have a "right" to healthcare any more than you have a right to food, shelter, or sex. Needs and rights are totally different things. You don't need to have freedom of speech to live - but you have the innate right to it. You don't need representative government to live - but the only legitimate governments are those that are based upon the consent of the governed. You need food to live, but that's not a right you can demand from another. You need shelter to live, but you don't have the innate right to force someone to build you a home.

Children and liberal (pardon the repetition) have trouble understanding this very crucial distinction.

So then you have no rights at all. None. Not a single one.

Every right depends to some extent on the labor of others for it's maintenance and protection.

Gee. Perhaps your personal definition a "right" is somewhat flawed.

NateGrey: Fark Cons arent an accurate representation of the Repub party.

I am currently listening to Limbaugh after hearing Beck this morning. Also currently reading FreeRepublic and plan on watching Fox News tonight. If you think righties arent butthurt then you arent paying attention.

Infernalist: Of course they're foaming-at-the-mouth furious. Have you heard the talking heads? Limbaugh? The Tea Party heads? They're insane right now.

Ahh, I dont watch any of those. I was mostly going off observations of Facebook and Fark.

WombatControl: If you don't like the fact that your labor is required for the functioning of our nation, then by all means, go be something else...
And this is exactly the opposite of what the American system is about.

Historical reality: it would like a word with you. Contrary to popular belief on the right, James Madison was not America's only Founding Father...

"[Government must] create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property. And also, the sum of ten pounds per annum, during life, to every person now living, of the age of fifty years, and to all others as they shall arrive at that age."
~~UnAmerican Communist Fascist Thomas Paine

"All property, indeed, except the savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his subsistence, seems to me to be the creature of public convention. Hence the public has the right of regulating descents, and all other conveyances of property, and even of limiting the quantity and the uses of it.

"All the property that is necessary to a man, for the conservation of the individual and the propagation of the species, is his natural right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all property superfluous to such purposes is the property of the public, who, by their laws have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it whenever the welfare of the public shall demand such disposition.

He that does not like civil society on these terms, let him retire and live among savages. He can have no right to the benefits of society, who will not pay his club towards the support of it."
~~UnAmerican Communist Fascist Benjamin Franklin

"[T]he power to raise money is plenary and indefinite, and the objects to which it may be appropriated, are no less comprehensive than the payment of the public debts, and the providing for the common defence and general welfare... It is, therefore, of necessity, left to the discretion of the National Legislature to pronounce upon the objects which concern the general welfare, and for which, under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. "
~~Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures, submitted to Congress in 1792 on behalf of UnAmerican Communist Fascist George Washington

Philip Francis Queeg: So then you have no rights at all. None. Not a single one.

Every right depends to some extent on the labor of others for it's maintenance and protection.


Whose labor, besides mine own, is required for my right to free speech? Freedom of religion? Self-incrimination?

WombatControl: So then there's no right to healthcare. Because if you have a "right" to something, you can't be denied from getting it. So doctors have to treat you, no questions asked.

Nobody's labor need be forced to create a right to health care. We can do what George Washington's man, Alexander Hamilton, suggested instead: impose a tax, and appropriate money to pay doctors.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Philip Francis Queeg: So then you have no rights at all. None. Not a single one.

Every right depends to some extent on the labor of others for it's maintenance and protection.


Whose labor, besides mine own, is required for my right to free speech? Freedom of religion? Self-incrimination?

The labor of the courts who enforce and protect those rights. The labor of the Police and military who protect those institutions from outside interference.

Philip Francis Queeg: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Philip Francis Queeg: So then you have no rights at all. None. Not a single one.

Every right depends to some extent on the labor of others for it's maintenance and protection.


Whose labor, besides mine own, is required for my right to free speech? Freedom of religion? Self-incrimination?

The labor of the courts who enforce and protect those rights. The labor of the Police and military who protect those institutions from outside interference.

Then we can agree. We have no rights. Only what the government sees fit to permit us to do. Agreed?

bugontherug: WombatControl: So then there's no right to healthcare. Because if you have a "right" to something, you can't be denied from getting it. So doctors have to treat you, no questions asked.

Nobody's labor need be forced to create a right to health care. We can do what George Washington's man, Alexander Hamilton, suggested instead: impose a tax, and appropriate money to pay doctors.

We could, but thats not what we did.

pippi longstocking: I don't get it, how come having an ever increasing in cost (disproportionate to other goods and services) system where one pays an insurer (which amazingly is synonymous with health care...crazy) an outrageous amount of money in profits to just write checks and so they can essentially dedicate themselves to signing death sentences when they decide not to pay in the name of "efficiency" and you still have to pay large sums before they'll cover a dime is better than the government collecting a tax (less than you would pay privately) to cover everything for everyone?

Someone explain what I'm missing. What do insurers do that you stupid Americans think they are worth literally dying for?

Employ people.

derpdeederp: bugontherug: WombatControl: So then there's no right to healthcare. Because if you have a "right" to something, you can't be denied from getting it. So doctors have to treat you, no questions asked.

Nobody's labor need be forced to create a right to health care. We can do what George Washington's man, Alexander Hamilton, suggested instead: impose a tax, and appropriate money to pay doctors.

We could, but thats not what we did.

Well, you're ignoring about 50% of Obamacare, which did exactly that. Commonly known as the Medicare expansion.

Not to mention that the $4 billion estimated annual revenues from the individual mandate penalty will go to defray health care costs too.

bugontherug: Commonly known as the Medicare expansion.

Pardon me, Medicaid expansion.

Philip Francis Queeg: So then you have no rights at all. None. Not a single one.

Every right depends to some extent on the labor of others for it's maintenance and protection.

Gee. Perhaps your personal definition a "right" is somewhat flawed.

It's not my "personal definition" of a right, it is the definition of a right.

This is why people in this country need better civics education - because it's no wonder we're losing our moorings in this country when we don't teach the critical underpinnings of our whole society.

You have plenty of innate human rights. You have the right to freedom of speech. You have the right freedom of worship. You have the right to freedom of association. You have the right to hold and dispose of property. You have the right to benefit from your own labor. You have the right to petition your government for the redress of grievances.

All these rights have nothing to do with government either - if tomorrow the entire government collapsed you would still have those rights. Our Constitution doesn't confer any rights on you - it merely says that the government cannot abridge the right you already have.

That's why the Constitution works as well as it does - unlike, say, the Constitution of North Korea which is filled with grants of rights - rights which are recognized as being conferred by the government rather than as innate human rights.

Philip Francis Queeg: WombatControl: Philip Francis Queeg: WombatControl: You don't have the right to force someone to serve in Congress.

Ding Ding Ding! Now you get it.

Guess what? You have no right to force someone to be a doctor either. Doctors too are volunteers who are paid for their labor. No one is being rounded up and forced into med school against their will.

So then there's no right to healthcare. Because if you have a "right" to something, you can't be denied from getting it. So doctors have to treat you, no questions asked. It's your "right." And if no one is stupid enough to go to med school so they can endure a life of poverty after 10 years of grueling work, then the government has to force people to do it, because your rights are inalienable. You cannot, under any circumstances, be denied your basic "right" to healthcare. So any action that restricts your ability to get it is a violation of your rights.

Obviously, that doesn't work. You don't have a "right" to healthcare any more than you have a right to food, shelter, or sex. Needs and rights are totally different things. You don't need to have freedom of speech to live - but you have the innate right to it. You don't need representative government to live - but the only legitimate governments are those that are based upon the consent of the governed. You need food to live, but that's not a right you can demand from another. You need shelter to live, but you don't have the innate right to force someone to build you a home.

Children and liberal (pardon the repetition) have trouble understanding this very crucial distinction.

So then you have no rights at all. None. Not a single one.

Every right depends to some extent on the labor of others for it's maintenance and protection.

Gee. Perhaps your personal definition a "right" is somewhat flawed.

You're talking to a guy who writes really long posts to mask the fact that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

He also has a hilarious anecdote of someone having to pay $10,000 for a permit to put in a shower,

WombatControl: You have plenty of innate human rights. You have the right to freedom of speech. You have the right freedom of worship. You have the right to freedom of association. You have the right to hold and dispose of property. You have the right to benefit from your own labor. You have the right to petition your government for the redress of grievances.

You forgot the right to privacy. Oh, that's right, Robert Bork says we don't have it.

WombatControl: Our Constitution doesn't confer any rights on you

it does. Right to representation or trial by a jury are positive rights that do not exist outside of government.

bugontherug: Not to mention that the $4 billion estimated annual revenues from the individual mandate penalty will go to defray health care costs too.

[Citation Needed]

Ways and Means has the Individual Mandate as generating $17B over 10 years, or $1.7B per year.

What was the point of getting into this semantic argument about whether or not health care is a right?

WombatControl: It's not my "personal definition" of a right, it is the definition of a right.

This is why people in this country need better civics education - because it's no wonder we're losing our moorings in this country when we don't teach the critical underpinnings of our whole society.

Let me help you with that civics education. Black's Law Dictionary would like a word with you:

right, n... 2. Something that is due to a person by just claim, legal guarantee, or moral principle.

Now, let's apply that definition to, say... Social Security benefits. Provided you meet the eligibility requirements, you are due your benefits by "legal guarantee." Therefore, provided you meet the eligibility requirements, you have a "right" to your Social Security benefits. If the government denies them to you wrongly, you can even go to court and sue for them. Nobody's labor has ever been forced to provide Social Security benefits.

Same principle could just as easily apply to health care. We've stopped just short of creating a full on right to health care, but we now have near universal insurance coverage, which is almost the same. And certainly, if you meet the eligibility requirements for Medicare, Medicaid, or subsidies to pay for insurance, you are "due" those by legal guarantee. Hence, you have a "right" to them.

HeartlineTwist: What was the point of getting into this semantic argument about whether or not health care is a right?

Because if Conservatives can convince themselves that it isn't a right then they can also convince themselves that they aren't complete assholes for depriving certain people of it.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: bugontherug: Not to mention that the $4 billion estimated annual revenues from the individual mandate penalty will go to defray health care costs too.

[Citation Needed]

Ways and Means has the Individual Mandate as generating $17B over 10 years, or $1.7B per year.

Pardon me, misremembered "$4 billion by 2017." But the principle is the same. That money will be used to finance health care.

I have to go, but may bbl.

Lando Lincoln: HeartlineTwist: What was the point of getting into this semantic argument about whether or not health care is a right?

Every other industrialized nation on this planet sees healthcare as a right.

Why are we so goddamn dumb?

Oh, I think health care is a substantive human right, but I was curious what exactly the point of arguing that it shouldn't be was. I should have been more clear.

bugontherug:

I just love when people pull out that Franklin quotation. Because if you take it seriously, then you really are a Communist. Because it says that the right of private property doesn't, and shouldn't exist, except for those items that society deems "necessary." If you want to live that way, fine, there are plenty of countries that think such a philosophy is perfectly acceptable - but they're all very shiatty places to live.

Note that neither Franklin's idea nor Paine's was ever adopted in the founding of this country. And Paine's idea wasn't as much a grant of an affirmative right as it was a recognition that government intrudes on the sovereignty of the people.

And that Hamilton quotation also misses the point - Hamlton wasn't arguing that the government can tax and spend however the hell it wants - for one, the Constitution specifically denies that, and second Hamilton's use of the term "general welfare" meant something different then than it does now. (It didn't mean that Congress had plenary power to spend money on anything that it wanted, it meant that Congress had the plenary power to spend money however it wanted under the limited and enumerated powers it had under the Constitution).

This is why one should be careful about using historical quotations, especially ones that are taken out of context.

bugontherug: The_Six_Fingered_Man: bugontherug: Not to mention that the $4 billion estimated annual revenues from the individual mandate penalty will go to defray health care costs too.

[Citation Needed]

Ways and Means has the Individual Mandate as generating $17B over 10 years, or $1.7B per year.

Pardon me, misremembered "$4 billion by 2017." But the principle is the same. That money will be used to finance health care.

I know you ran off, but I asked the same question upthread.

If the mandate works as intended, there would be no monies to collect, hence a drop in funding for the other PPACA provisions.

It seems that the government is relying on people to break the law in order to fund the law.

Pincy:
You forgot the right to privacy. Oh, that's right, Robert Bork says we don't have it.


In my experience most conservatives, if pressed, will enthusiastically support an implied right to privacy that comes with other rights.

bugontherug: Now, let's apply that definition to, say... Social Security benefits. Provided you meet the eligibility requirements, you are due your benefits by "legal guarantee." Therefore, provided you meet the eligibility requirements, you have a "right" to your Social Security benefits. If the government denies them to you wrongly, you can even go to court and sue for them. Nobody's labor has ever been forced to provide Social Security benefits.

Same principle could just as easily apply to health care. We've stopped just short of creating a full on right to health care, but we now have near universal insurance coverage, which is almost the same. And certainly, if you meet the eligibility requirements for Medicare, Medicaid, or subsidies to pay for insurance, you are "due" those by legal guarantee. Hence, you have a "right" to them.

Actually, no, that's wrong as a matter of law. You have no right to Social Security. Congress can take it away from you at any time so long as they have a rational basis for it - that particular issue was settled by the Supreme Court 60 years ago.

Same with Medicare or Medicaid. Tomorrow Congress could defund all of those programs, and so long as they had some rational basis for it, that would be perfectly legal.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: bugontherug: The_Six_Fingered_Man: bugontherug: Not to mention that the $4 billion estimated annual revenues from the individual mandate penalty will go to defray health care costs too.

[Citation Needed]

Ways and Means has the Individual Mandate as generating $17B over 10 years, or $1.7B per year.

Pardon me, misremembered "$4 billion by 2017." But the principle is the same. That money will be used to finance health care.

I know you ran off, but I asked the same question upthread.

If the mandate works as intended, there would be no monies to collect, hence a drop in funding for the other PPACA provisions.

It seems that the government is relying on people to break the law in order to fund the law.

The shared responsibility payment is meant to defray the costs of treating uninsured people. If there are no uninsured people, there won't be any costs to defray. The law also has funding from other sources.

fracto73: Pincy:
You forgot the right to privacy. Oh, that's right, Robert Bork says we don't have it.


In my experience most conservatives, if pressed, will enthusiastically support an implied right to privacy that comes with other rights.

So even they are willing to "interpret" the Constitution to find implied rights, when it suits their needs I guess?