I Am The Way!

[bucfan64 309]

http://newagepatriot.homestead.com/

[bluefieldRocks 14]

Awesome story.

[NewHampshireRed 94]

http://newagepatriot.homestead.com/

 

My only concern with the Health Care reform is how can the nation afford it right now, not tommorrow. But to say it's not a right to have healthcare is ignorant. So Buchfan your telling me if your child,friend,mother,neighbor, whatever was 55, poor health, and a loooooonnnnggg list of "Pre-Exsisting" Illness then you would rather them sufer from no healthcare or have healthcare? I mean it's ppl's attitude like the gentleman who wrote this article that gives "us" Americans the arogant A-hole reputation... As a nation we could care less of our fellow American, it's always about what better fits "ME" than my friend or family member. Sure I don't agree with the Health Care bill the way it is, but its a start. I think it was rushed way too fast and has many flaws, but if its a way for my sickly mother to finally have health insurance with out paying a fee that is more than her house payment then I can live with it. Because I undersand and am Compassionate enough to know that there is many more ppl out there just like my mother or worse.

 

 

Think about the healthcare as it was, give it 2-5 years and employer's couldn't even afford to provide it for it's employee's... Then we would be having a discussion about how outragous our premiums are....

[mrb 26]

I'm with you on this one Mapper. Good post!!!

[Guest JJBrickface]

So Mapper,

 

EVERYONE deserves health care???

 

You know there are several people out there who don't work that already collect a nice little check. So lets just go ahead and give them even more free stuff for not contributing to anything.

 

Now do you see what is wrong with this?

 

And like the article says, the bill is a violation of our constitution.

[bucfan64 309]

Mapper,

 

I am the dude that wrote the article, and I am sympathetic to your mothers cause as well as that of others. You are missing the point of the article.

 

When someone says that health care is a "right," they are saying more than something that just sounds good.

 

There are two ideologies at work here, that of the founding fathers and that of the modern progressives ie Socialist.

 

The founding fathers believed that our rights came from GOD, John Locke said that as human beings we had certain INALIENABLE rights, and he listed those as LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY. Jefferson went on to call them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

If it is God that gives us our rights, then only God can take rights, only God can grant rights. This is the fundamental principle that our country was established upon. This idea takes away the former idea that ruled the world for centuries which suggested that our rights came from kings or government.

 

When someone now says that health care is a human right, they are actually saying that all humans have a right to health care not because of their humanity but rather because government deems it so.

 

If government can give you rights, government becomes the supreme authority, usurping the authority of God. This is the mindset that is necessary for socialism ie (communism and fascism) to exist. This is how STATE WORSHIP or STATISM begins.

 

This may not even be the intention of our leaders but after 40 years or so of this type of thinking, God is slowly removed from society and Government becomes the ultimate authority and caregiver. This leads to reduced INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY and what is commonly called COLLECTIVISM.

 

I am not against people getting the help that they need, I WANT reform as much as anyone else, but not if it means Collective Health Care. History tells me that this is not the desirable path, THIS IS WHY I oppose the health care reform. Not because I am greedy and don't want those less fortunate to have care.

 

I hope this explains my position somewhat, and the reason that this Law so disturbs me, I guess you could say that I am watching this with an eye on history and I don't like where this has led in the past.

 

I will add this, I do not necessarily think that our current leadership wants Fascism or Communism, I do think they want Socialism. My concern is that once these plans are further implemented that they will create a system that would ENABLE a "WOULD BE TYRANT OR TYRANTS," in our future. Who is to say that someone will not take advantage of the structure.

 

I know that is a big WHAT IF, but it is a possibility.........

regards,

Edited March 23, 2010 by bucfan64

[Hacker 82]

Just to stir the pot, don't you have to be healthy to enjoy the rights Jefferson outlined in the Declaration. It seems from my school days it was considered the basic function of government to protect the health safety and welfare of its citizens. Haven't through our history these views and protections been expanded to address inequities in society. It seems to me that if I remember correctly those rights were only available to white, male, landowners.

[Guest JJBrickface]

Just to stir the pot, don't you have to be healthy to enjoy the rights Jefferson outlined in the Declaration. It seems from my school days it was considered the basic function of government to protect the health safety and welfare of its citizens. Haven't through our history these views and protections been expanded to address inequities in society. It seems to me that if I remember correctly those rights were only available to white, male, landowners.

 

I will go ahead and you the very same questions I asked mapper.

 

Is it ok?

[Hacker 82]

Was the 15th amendment ok? Was Sufferage ok? Was Brown v. Bd. of Education ok? Were the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 ok? Was Medicare ok? Just saying.

 

I feel like this country is stronger than many of the naysayers on the Left and Right want us to believe. They foment controversy and discord for their own purpose. Yellow Journalism is no different today than it has ever been. They seek to polarize us and only look at their points of view.

 

I was raised to read all sides of an argument and reason out my own opinions. I don't need FOX or MSNBC or Drudge or Beck or Olberman or Rush or any other demagogue to spoon feed me my opinion.

 

As for my opinion on the Health Care bill, that is mine. As I am not running for office I will keep that to myself. It won't change your opinion or that of anyone else. Though I do enjoy stirring from time to time.

Edited March 23, 2010 by Hacker

[Deleted Account 5,203]

My only concern with the Health Care reform is how can the nation afford it right now, not tommorrow. But to say it's not a right to have healthcare is ignorant. So Buchfan your telling me if your child,friend,mother,neighbor, whatever was 55, poor health, and a loooooonnnnggg list of "Pre-Exsisting" Illness then you would rather them sufer from no healthcare or have healthcare? I mean it's ppl's attitude like the gentleman who wrote this article that gives "us" Americans the arogant A-hole reputation... As a nation we could care less of our fellow American, it's always about what better fits "ME" than my friend or family member. Sure I don't agree with the Health Care bill the way it is, but its a start. I think it was rushed way too fast and has many flaws, but if its a way for my sickly mother to finally have health insurance with out paying a fee that is more than her house payment then I can live with it. Because I undersand and am Compassionate enough to know that there is many more ppl out there just like my mother or worse.

 

 

Think about the healthcare as it was, give it 2-5 years and employer's couldn't even afford to provide it for it's employee's... Then we would be having a discussion about how outragous our premiums are....

 

Three things:

 

1. It's VERY easy to sit in the Ivory Tower and claim how nice and good it would be for everyone to have health care. It's a beautiful idea in theory, but it's completely impracticable. It takes money to make this system viable, and it's money that we don't have! We're swimming in TRILLIONS of dollars in debt. $1,000,000,000,000+. And we want to spend another $875B to get this system off the ground, while backloading the benefits? It's beyond impractical, it's sheer idiocy.

 

2. FAR too many people are conflating the "healthcare is a fundamental right" paradigm with the "we need to eliminate the pre-existing conditions" paradigm. You even did it here. Congress could have EASILY provided incentives to healthcare companies to reduce, or even eliminate completely, the "pre-existing conditions" policy, and not had to have spent $875B in doing so. The little good that this bill does (eliminating pre-existing conditions, allowing children to remain on parent policies through graduate school) is outweighed by the monumental detriment (higher insurance premiums for those at risk, irreparable harm to insurance companies, longer wait times, $875B in debt, I could go on...).

 

3. Now, let's turn to "healthcare is a fundamental right". Fundamental rights, for purposes of the federal government, are found in the United States Constitution. Those are, for all intents and purposes:

 

Right to keep and bear arms

Right to freedom of movement within the country

Right to property

Right to marry the person of any race

Right to procreate irrespective of marital status or other classifications

Right to freedom of association

Right to freedom of speech/religion/assembly/press/petitioning the government

Right to equal protection under the law

Right to substantive and procedural due process

Right to freedom of thought

Right to vote in general election

Right to freedom of contract by parties with proportional bargaining power

Right to privacy

Right to direct a child's upbringing

Right against quartering troops

Right against unlawful search and seizure

Right against self-incrimination

Right to have a trial by jury

Right to face accusers

Right to reasonable bail/punishment.

 

Please tell me where health care is among these rights. I don't see it. The Founding Fathers, nor any other body until this time, has seen fit to include health care in these rights. And frankly, it shouldn't be. Because it's a damn slippery slope. Do people have fundamental rights to shelter? To water? To food? To drive a nice car? To live in a nice home? No, and they shouldn't. But if one accepts that health care is a right, one MUST accept these others I have listed, else their argument will fail at the drop of a hat. If we include those rights, as we must logically, this country would cease to exist. We would be fiscally bankrupt.

 

Again, nice lofty goal. COMPLETELY unattainable. And I've not even addressed why it's unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause and Fifth Amendment substantive due process. But I can, if you want...

[Deleted Account 5,203]

Was the 15th amendment ok? Was Sufferage ok? Was Brown v. Bd. of Education ok? Were the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 ok? Was Medicare ok? Just saying.

 

I feel like this country is stronger than many of the naysayers on the Left and Right want us to believe. They foment controversy and discord for their own purpose. Yellow Journalism is no different today than it has ever been. They seek to polarize us and only look at their points of view.

 

I was raised to read all sides of an argument and reason out my own opinions. I don't need FOX or MSNBC or Drudge or Beck or Olberman or Rush or any other demagogue to spoon feed me my opinion.

 

As for my opinion on the Health Care bill, that is mine. As I am not running for office I will keep that to myself. It won't change your opinion or that of anyone else. Though I do enjoy stirring from time to time.

 

Your first four examples were addressing prima facie denial of fundamental rights to others. Your fifth isn't, and it is also the next-to-most-recent, thanks to FDR. That's the big disconnect here: lack of medical care isn't a DENIAL of right by the government, it's a failure to EARN. It's a privilege, as are nice homes, driver's licenses, hunting licenses, etc.

[Hacker 82]

Ok Counselor, cite me the legal precedents that you will use when you have the opportunity to argue this in Mock Court. It strikes me that this would be a great lesson in every Constitutional Law class through out the land. (Save Regents, no one to argue the opposition.)

 

I would love to hear those arguments.

 

I suspect that the bona fides of those who actually argue this in the Federal Courts will far outstrip ours. Which is more the better.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

Ok Counselor, cite me the legal precedents that you will use when you have the opportunity to argue this in Mock Court. It strikes me that this would be a great lesson in every Constitutional Law class through out the land. (Save Regents, no one to argue the opposition.)

 

I would love to hear those arguments.

 

I suspect that the bona fides of those who actually argue this in the Federal Courts will far outstrip ours. Which is more the better.

 

Uh, let's take a good long look at the United States Constitution, primarily Amendments I-X and XIII-XV. There you'll find many of the enumerated rights that pertain to individual liberties. Prince v. Massachusetts has for the parenthood/procreation rights and how the government may reasonably restrict them. Brown v. Board of Education is implicitly affirming the right to association and the right to associate, along with rejecting Plessy v. Ferguson and "separate but equal". The only thing that Roe v. Wade got right was the right to procreate. Lawrence v. Texas affirms the right to have sexual relations with any consenting adult in a non-incestuous relationship. D.C. v. Heller strongly affirms Amendment II. If we're looking at the reason that this stupid act violates the commerce clause, I'm relying on post-1991 Lochner v. New York line of reasoning.

 

Any more snarky responses while we're at it? Feel free to look them up and educate yourself. I'm still waiting for someone to cite the Amendment or Supreme Court Case that mandates health care as a fundamental right. And until you do, and until the Court does, my position is the one de facto that carries the most weight. Sorry, but it does.

[Guest JJBrickface]

Good post Observer!

 

I'm also waiting for someone to tell me that they are ok paying healthcare for a lazy bum who sits on their butt and collected a check.

 

Lol for some reason these guys who are FOR the bill are dodging these questions like they are heat seaking missiles.

[blueinbama 259]

The American people will speak loudly come November. I believe, and I sincerely hope the political landscape will change drastically. The only way to prevent something like this from happening again is by vote. The Democrats have done what they promised on this issue. They have brought about change. Change many of us don't like.

[sandman 13]

Just to stir the pot, don't you have to be healthy to enjoy the rights Jefferson outlined in the Declaration. It seems from my school days it was considered the basic function of government to protect the health safety and welfare of its citizens. Haven't through our history these views and protections been expanded to address inequities in society. It seems to me that if I remember correctly those rights were only available to white, male, landowners.

 

 

 

The basic function of the government is to "protect, preserve and defend the Constitution."

[bucfan64 309]

three things:

 

1. It's very easy to sit in the ivory tower and claim how nice and good it would be for everyone to have health care. It's a beautiful idea in theory, but it's completely impracticable. It takes money to make this system viable, and it's money that we don't have! We're swimming in trillions of dollars in debt. $1,000,000,000,000+. And we want to spend another $875b to get this system off the ground, while backloading the benefits? It's beyond impractical, it's sheer idiocy.

 

2. Far too many people are conflating the "healthcare is a fundamental right" paradigm with the "we need to eliminate the pre-existing conditions" paradigm. You even did it here. Congress could have easily provided incentives to healthcare companies to reduce, or even eliminate completely, the "pre-existing conditions" policy, and not had to have spent $875b in doing so. The little good that this bill does (eliminating pre-existing conditions, allowing children to remain on parent policies through graduate school) is outweighed by the monumental detriment (higher insurance premiums for those at risk, irreparable harm to insurance companies, longer wait times, $875b in debt, i could go on...).

 

3. Now, let's turn to "healthcare is a fundamental right". Fundamental rights, for purposes of the federal government, are found in the united states constitution. Those are, for all intents and purposes:

 

Right to keep and bear arms

right to freedom of movement within the country

right to property

right to marry the person of any race

right to procreate irrespective of marital status or other classifications

right to freedom of association

right to freedom of speech/religion/assembly/press/petitioning the government

right to equal protection under the law

right to substantive and procedural due process

right to freedom of thought

right to vote in general election

right to freedom of contract by parties with proportional bargaining power

right to privacy

right to direct a child's upbringing

right against quartering troops

right against unlawful search and seizure

right against self-incrimination

right to have a trial by jury

right to face accusers

right to reasonable bail/punishment.

 

Please tell me where health care is among these rights. I don't see it. The founding fathers, nor any other body until this time, has seen fit to include health care in these rights. And frankly, it shouldn't be. Because it's a damn slippery slope. Do people have fundamental rights to shelter? To water? To food? To drive a nice car? To live in a nice home? No, and they shouldn't. But if one accepts that health care is a right, one must accept these others i have listed, else their argument will fail at the drop of a hat. If we include those rights, as we must logically, this country would cease to exist. We would be fiscally bankrupt.

 

Again, nice lofty goal. Completely unattainable. And i've not even addressed why it's unconstitutional under the commerce clause and fifth amendment substantive due process. But i can, if you want...

 

awesome!

[bucfan64 309]

Uh, let's take a good long look at the United States Constitution, primarily Amendments I-X and XIII-XV. There you'll find many of the enumerated rights that pertain to individual liberties. Prince v. Massachusetts has for the parenthood/procreation rights and how the government may reasonably restrict them. Brown v. Board of Education is implicitly affirming the right to association and the right to associate, along with rejecting Plessy v. Ferguson and "separate but equal". The only thing that Roe v. Wade got right was the right to procreate. Lawrence v. Texas affirms the right to have sexual relations with any consenting adult in a non-incestuous relationship. D.C. v. Heller strongly affirms Amendment II. If we're looking at the reason that this stupid act violates the commerce clause, I'm relying on post-1991 Lochner v. New York line of reasoning.

 

Any more snarky responses while we're at it? Feel free to look them up and educate yourself. I'm still waiting for someone to cite the Amendment or Supreme Court Case that mandates health care as a fundamental right. And until you do, and until the Court does, my position is the one de facto that carries the most weight. Sorry, but it does.

 

We may not always agree but you my friend, are DEAD ON with this post!

[curly 10]

unfortunately, reguardless of which side of the debate you are on this 2700+ page bill does very little to address the parts of health care in need of reform. the actual reforms in this bill probably could have been written on less than 100 pages. the other 2600 pages amount to little more than bribes, payoffs and largest governmental power grab in our nations history.does the fact that the IRS will now be charged with inforceing the mandate that each of us have insurance or pay the penalty alarm anyone besides me? with this bill they have 17000 new agents to do just that. all of your personal financial and tax information will be shared with the dept of health to make sure your paying what you should for your treatment. the congress could have addressed torte reform, prexisting conditions, escalating insurance premiums, insured a safety net for the uninsureable etc.they could done this with unilateral bypartisan support. history will tell how good this bill is, as for me im afraid we are marching towards an irrelevant european stlye society and will beholden to the likes of china, russia, or india for our subserviant existance.

[frontierman95 10]

I would say after the jab the President took at the Supreme Court during the State of the Union his chances of winning this case is slim. I would hope those guys are objectionable and use only the Constitution for their guide, but how can they ignore his remark WHEN this case hits the high court?

[NewHampshireRed 94]

There was no such need for health care to be included for a RIGHT then. There where a very limited amount of hospitals (mostly just home Doctors) then. It did not cost $20,000 to spend 3 days in a hospital(because the same type of ppl who benefited from making X amount of money from taking every dime of money ppl had for a doctor visit are the same type who wants everything for themselves today because they are privileged to have health care). I think you should be drug tested to receive free health care and social security, so no I don't believe the blood sucking animals out there should benefit from us (that's why I said I think so changes needed to be made, but it's a start).... The majority of the people of this thread are careless of individuals, its always about myself... Have fun judging others who are less fortunate, there are ,millions of hard working Americans who have no health care so keep on denying them. It's great to know how loving our fellow Americans really are.

[blueinbama 259]

The majority of the people of this thread are careless of individuals, its always about myself...

How does that make anyone careless? Are you trying to say selfish?

 

You still don't get it, do you Mapper? The main grievance is not the fact that health care needs reform, it's the fact that Obama and his posse have railroaded it through the Congress in spite of its cost and in spite of the objections of the majority of the people in the United States. It's the fact that Obama, Pelosi and Reid & Co. politics are underhanded and slimy. It's the manner in which the deed was done, not so much the deed itself. We don't even know everything that is in the bill, because they refused to make it public until it was passed. But that's typical liberalism...buy now, let future generations, possibly your own children pay the price.

Edited March 23, 2010 by blueinbama

[Deleted Account 5,203]

How does that make anyone careless? Are you trying to say selfish?

 

You still don't get it, do you Mapper? The main grievance is not the fact that health care needs reform, it's the fact that Obama and his posse have railroaded it through the Congress in spite of its cost and in spite of the objections of the majority of the people in the United States. It's the fact that Obama, Pelosi and Reid & Co. politics are underhanded and slimy. It's the manner in which the deed was done, not so much the deed itself. We don't even know everything that is in the bill, because they refused to make it public until it was passed. But that's typical liberalism...buy now, let future generations, possibly your own children pay the price.

 

CHA-CHING, WINNER!!!

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[curly 10]

it is estimated that roughly 30 million people had no insurance. of those 30 million about 50% could have gotten insurance but CHOOSE not to. the other 279 billion of us had insurance. so this bill takes the freedom of choice away , spends a trillion dollars ,and expects us to trust our government to administer,manage and maintain 1 sixth of our national economy when they cant even deliver the mail on time and in budget . get real

[bucfan64 309]

There was no such need for health care to be included for a RIGHT then. There where a very limited amount of hospitals (mostly just home Doctors) then. It did not cost $20,000 to spend 3 days in a hospital(because the same type of ppl who benefited from making X amount of money from taking every dime of money ppl had for a doctor visit are the same type who wants everything for themselves today because they are privileged to have health care). I think you should be drug tested to receive free health care and social security, so no I don't believe the blood sucking animals out there should benefit from us (that's why I said I think so changes needed to be made, but it's a start).... The majority of the people of this thread are careless of individuals, its always about myself... Have fun judging others who are less fortunate, there are ,millions of hard working Americans who have no health care so keep on denying them. It's great to know how loving our fellow Americans really are.

 

I would be more than happy to donate to a charity that provides health care for individuals. But the government thinks it can take my money and make better decisions with it, now that is real compassion.............uh, er, THEFT!