Is food a right, can I have the taxpayers pay for a 5000 calorie diet of caviar, filet mignon and champagne. I s housing a right, can I have a 5000 sq ft home on 10 wooded acres on the coast of Maine provided by the taxpayers. Is transportation a right, I have had my eye on a nice Aston Martin DB9. Is education a right, I would love to return to school, preferably Harvard, and continue my studies at taxpayer expense. What are basic rights? Is speech limited to basic speech? Worship to basic worship? Conscience to basic conscience? Press to basic press?
sort by best latest
I would only argue that "Rights" have little to do with the Founders and everything to do with Nature.Doctors are fleeing their profession, why? Because they know where the country is heading.
The founders argued the same thing. Rights were "endowed by their creator". Which would be god given. Dr's are fleeing because the economics of medicine have been slowly eroded since the mid 60's. Price discovery is near totally gone.
The Declaration and Constitution are both marvels of Natural Law Theory and yes God and for Jefferson, Nature. http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2012/06/hide-health-in... Paying cash is often cheaper.
Watch for the court case decision next week, Halbig vrs. Sebelius, it could make Obamacare subsidies illegal and throw the ACA into the death spiral http://www.newsmax.com/PrintTemplate.aspx/?nodeid=... The Obama admin. isn't incompetent, is it.
That is just the First of several challenges to the Constitutionality of the original bill, vote and process. Obama has lost quite a few cases with the Supremes, let's hope this is one more.
It's amazing how many times his Adm has lost unanimously with SCOTUS in the last couple of years. When he is getting shot down by the likes of Kagen...he is really over reaching.
Obama most famously said at a March 30, 2007, fundraiser "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution." Liar. What's that tell you about the quality of education at U of Chicago?
When we start trying to determine what the founders intended, we are getting into speculation. Everyone has a different understanding. Conditions have changed since the day of the founders. Remember the 2/3s compromise? Times and conditions = changes
See that is how you liberals thing - nobody is trying to determine what the founders intended. It is quite clear and they themselves determined it - the only reason you say that is because liberals try to rewrite history by re-"determining" it.
I got in my carght and remembered that liability insurance in mandatory in my state. I have to carry uninsured motorist ins. for those who do not buy it. I have to get a state inspection. They check emissions because all have a right to clean air
But you don't have to buy a car. Most of Manhattan buys no such insurance. Regulating commerce is different than forcing commerce. Which is why SCOTUS only ruled obamacare to be legal on the grounds that the penalty is actually a tax.
It is rare that I say this, but your articulation here is one of the best I have ever heard or read. Madison would be proud and I thank you.
Landmark, you missed the point or you avoided it. This whole discussion has gone on too long. The Affordable Health Care Act is law and it will be for awhile and probably a long time as the flaws, which do exist, are corrected.
Larry, you missed the point entirely. The point is there is no FEDERAL law which requires auto coverage. Reread the 10th amendment and you'll get the point. Obamacare is law...with various key provisions being declared unlawful, as expected.
I never said the inspection require was a federal law. It is a state law. Finally, the shortage of Drs. covers a lot of territory. One factor is that Phy. Assts. and Nurse Practitioners are taking care of less serious health issues.
Yes State law. The Fed gov't has no authority to mandate auto coverage. The framers clearly wanted these types of issues left to the states as the 10th amd indicates. 60% of Dr's surveyed would NOT encourage their kids to go into medicine.
I discouraged my son from entering Medical School because of Obamacare and the rest of the Federal Racket. He is pursuing a PhD in Chemistry.
Not uncommon. Two my brother in-laws are Dr's and would never want their kids to become Dr's. When you add up the total benefits package a NYC Bus Driver makes more than the average general internist in private practice.
I think there a lot of parents who would encourage their children to study professions different from their parents. Also, a lot of layers, stock brokers, accountants, teachers and doctors wish they were doing something else. Should we ban flood ins?
Read why they feel that way and what the gov't had done to their profession and you'll see why they don't want their kids to have a once prestigious title. And nobody is banning anything. You're free to buy whatever you want with your own money.
You are kidding Eric, right? The UN? Like how many countries actually adhere to this declaration? and where exactly is the phrase health care is a right? I can't find it.
Can something be a right if it requires from others that they surrender their property or their liberty? The confiscation of another's property is necessary to pay for your health care, do you have a right to claim their property?
Read my comment, tsadjatko and pick another battle. Yes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes Health care in Article 25 as I listed it. It does not require socialist medicine.
Sorry but you are wrong - that says everyone has a right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family... that is not a right to health care, it's a right to a standard of living so they can afford HC
Our Declaration of Independence proclaims that all people, not just Americans, are endowed with certain rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If life is a right, health care must be a right and a right not limited to a few.
Yeah, like you need healthcare to be given life? What that means is you have a right to live, not to healthcare. I suppose you think you have a right to free food and transportation to live?
Larry, something being a right and having something provided for by your government are two separate issues. Guns are a right - not to have them provided. Health is a right, not to have it provided.
Promoting the general welfare to be sounds like the government is going to provide basic needs which can and include health--via the FDA, Medicare, research grants, indigent funding and the list that has been in existence for years goes on.
Provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare. Not promote defense and provide welfare.Madison, the author of the Constitution address your mistaken idea http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/James.Mad... - THE END!
This is my only comment for the day. What is the difference between subsidized insurance and forcing people to go to charity hospitals and wait or to private hospitals, be treated and not pay the bill. We are all going to bear the cost.
There is a big difference. When you subsidize something through gov't...you get more abuse and less price discovery. Charities don't pay 50 times the cost for a product than they need to with no bid contracts, and give aid to people who don't need it
If a charitable organization operated like the Federal government, its officers would be in prison. But that is true of almost every Federal government program. Bernie Madoff is in jail for running his funds like the Social Security Administration.
There is no such thing as Free healthcare or Free anything anywhere in the world when it comes to products or services. No matter the service or product, there is a price somewhere in the supply chain.
If there is nothing free-- does that mean we should end Obamacare, Food Stamps, Medicaide, public schools, etc. We all pay for those things either through income tax or some tax of fee. Therefore how does Obamacare differ from gov't charity care?
Many of them yes...and others can simply be done in more effective ways. Public schools for example should be one national voucher system which provides parents choice. Otherwise we have legalized gov't subsidized segregation, with no accountability.
I covered school boards as a reporter. If you think enacting a health care plan is difficult, getting all public schools nationalized would be a near impossibility, Would a voucher allow a Louisiana student to attend a NY school and pay housing, etc.
And yet the Federal-or would it be more accurately called National, since federalism is dead - government already seeks to impose a centralized curriculum, funding and regulation. It imposes its will over EVERYTHING - Madison Quote on my Profile
Don't need to nationalize schools, just allow parents to direct their portion of their funding as they see fit. And a kid from the Bronx could cross the Saw Mill Pkwy and go to school in Westchester. Wife is a public school teacher.See it daily
I have taught in an urban public school and a Catholic school, both drawing their pupils from the same population. The difference was pronounced, in every possible way. Morale, morality, commitment, learning, discipline, effort and that was the staff
My wife is a pub school teacher and she insisted we send our kids to Catholic school. I'm glad I agreed.Parents should all be able to direct their share of school funding.Watch how fast poor performing schools turnaround when voucher $'s go elsewhere
So Larry was a reporter,that explains a lot. Not only has he been indoctrinated by the left wing media he is one of the indoctrinators.No wonder whatever facts you present to him he spouts the left wing talking points while attacking the messenger.
Nonsense, the wait for medical tests in both countries are far longer than here, regardless of one's ability to pay. If the product of healthcare is a right why not every other product? They may not have huge medical bills because their neighbors pay
Retief2000--We are in close agreement with your last comment. But be careful, you are almost making the argument that if all are to have a right to health care and any system will have to subsidize help for the poor and needy.
Unless of course you are going to the VA. That is a great example of how we can expect gov't administer care. It is still not free. Entitlements weigh heavily on deficits, which harms purchasing power and simultaneously destroys price discovery.
The VA is unique in that it was a good idea to provide special care for veterans, but poor planning on the ongoing cost and failing to realize that the number of veterans needing help would always be increasing.
When was the last time market forces were turned loose on American healthcare? 50 years ago or more? If you want clunky,inefficient,emotionally detached,bureaucrat centered health care- like the worst of the VA - than keep nationalizing it.
Good ideas and perpetually poor execution with terrible results is synonymous with gov't programs. That will never change. Everything gov't involves itself in distorts prices and causes market dislocations. College, housing, healthcare etc.
Government's inherent ability to rend and destroy is valuable when military assets are deployed, not so valuable with any others.
Yeah I hear all the time the only thing the government can do right is the military but truth be told even that can be run way more efficiently with less waste (and fraud) and more accountability.
In the final analysis, I would prefer the military concentrate on the easiest, most efficient, most aggressive way to end a war in victory - not accounting methods.
Political correctness doesn't permit wars to be ended swiftly anymore. That requires swift and blinding violence. Not sending the Army in to build schools and pave new roads in Afghanistan without the Taliban having ever surrendered.
Sun Tzu is still relevant. Breaking the will of one's enemies to fight is what ends wars, not aid packages. Germany and Japan were brutally defeated to the point of privation and suffering before the aid poured in.
tsadjatko: I was a reporter--small town newspaper, I cover city councils, school boards, crime, etc and other stuff. I belong to no political party. I voted Carter over Ford and Bush over Clinton.. I examine issues, not party or ideology.
Examining issues, not party or ideology does not lead to your "If healthcare is a right I don't want to be wrong" mentality.
I never said it did. I supported the Affordable Care Act because insurance companies were turning people like me, old and prior conditions. Medicare is too far away. Medicaid is not well accepted by most physicians.
Medicare won't be well accepted either soon. The rate of Dr's dropping out of Medicare tripled in 2013, my brother in-law did so a few years ago. And Dr's opting out of Medicare and private insurance are cutting costs in half, sometimes more.
Outstanding! How can something be a right that requires another be compelled to supply it or pay for it.Rights are intrinsic to human nature. How can something be a right the makes a doctor supply it and your neighbors pay for it.THANK YOU
Assume you our right. It is proper and appropriate to deny insurance coverage to a person because of his age and past medical history, which had nothing to do with his lifestyle, but just general health. I was one of those persons. What should I do?
How about pay the Dr out of your own pocket. Yes I know.. the cost it too much. Yet we fail to point out that the reason the cost has skyrocketed is because of the massive distortions in medicine created by national subsidies for 50 years.
This price distortions are also caused by insurance as the cost of care is born by a pool rather than reflecting the actual cost of one individual's care. The long ago GOP plan was for catastrophic insurance and out of pocket common care-like auto IN
That's exactly what it should look like, something similar to auto coverage. The current system of health coverage we use does not even meet the definition of insurance. Since the "Great Society" medical inflation has risen about 40% faster than CPI
Medicare/aid have fueled health care inflation. Another market has also experienced high inflation as a consequence of massive federal interference - Higher Education. Wait for ObamaED to wreck the greatest University system in the world.
Now someone just has to come up with the definition of catastrophic. I had a perforated colon once--almost died. Eight weeks later, the colostomy, which was working was reversed. Three years later scar tissue was restricting colon-Catastrophic?
Excellent point. You should. Each person should buy a policy based on the deductible that they feel is affordable. For some people that might be 10k a year. Others it might be 100k. That should be between you and the insurer of your choosing.
Landmark: Before perforated colon surgery I was hospitalized once--how could I predict how much coverage I would need. My son was in a car accident, passenger, traumatic brain jury, more than $100,000. Future, personal health needs-unpredictable.
By looking at your savings account and determining how liquid you are, and how much of a cash withdrawal would be "Catastrophic" based on your financial resources and lifestyle. For some people 100k...other it might be 10k.
The poor and the working poor, who do not have thousands in savings, but can become ill through no fault of his own cannot pay the bill. If he gets treatment, we all pay. Don't like Obamacare, give me a plan that covers all situations for all people.
A plan that covers all people is a free market and a compassionate medical community. We pay, they treat. Those who cannot pay still get treated. Those who pretend they cannot pay still get treated and then sued for nonpayment. See how that works.
retief2000 you are digressing and your arguments and not logical. The medical community--doctors and hospitals like to make money. There are more private hospitals than you think, they have internal demands. There is no perfect system.
No one denies that doctors like to make money. It is the interference of the government and insurance that have been driving inflation in health care. It is not the inability of someone to pay. Treating the poor predates insurance.
Larry the poor can choose a very low deductible. Under the current system, My neighbor with a 250k annual pension pays a few $'s for medicare copays and is subsidized by a 22 year old kid making 35k. It's a total market dislocation driving up prices.
Landmark, how about the young male teacher in private school, with wife and child. Annual income $40,000. Wife has MS. As an investment counselor you deal with people who have higher incomes. The options change at lower income levels.
And those people could be paying a lot less for the cost of care if they weren't subsidizing people who can easily pay for it. Medicare is one of the biggest transfers of wealth from the poor to the wealthy.Why is auto insurance much more affordable
Landmark, you avoided by question and that is your right. I get the impression you do not understand poor people, the working poor and those that made errors and lost everything, Where are they to turn.
I grew up dirt poor. I answered the question. The truly poor would be addressed by charity as we once did very effectively. The working poor would likely choose lower deductible VERY affordable care if market forces were permitted as they once were.
I listen to the tape. That is the biggest line of bull I have heard in a long time. An example for you. I was without insurance and could not buy it--denied for age and prior health . I had a $33,000 hospital stay. The hospital forgave the debt.
and what does that prove? only that the hospital will charge everybody else more for their services to pay for your freeloading...that's your right?
Did the hospital forgive the debt because they were compelled to do so by the government or because it was reasonable and prudent to do so?
It was a Catholic Hospital (Regional Medical Center actually) they did it because it was the Christian thing to do.\
Catholic Hospital who wages a war on women's reproductive rights & will eventually close its doors rather than bend to Obama's desire to compel them to perform abortions, that kind of Catholic Hospital?Pro-Life,Charitable,Private&about to go
The Catholic hospital that forgave my debt does not deliver children or perform abortions. There is a hospital in my city that treat women. I had been a patient at the hospital several times with mega bills. This was goodwill and Christian kindness.
So they send women to separate facilities?That sounds rather bigoted, the whole separate bet equal thing.Why aren't they treating women?Is that just another Catholic attack in their war on women's rights to health care?
Retire 2000--My city has three major hospitals. The Catholic Hospital is designated for heart and head injuries. Another privately owned hospital has a burn unit. The Woman's hospital handles women's issue. Less duplication. Do you oppose Medicaide?
I oppose the involvement of the Federal government in anything with which it is not specifically charged in the Constitution. So the answer is yes.
These are most certainly rights. The right to do stupid crap is firmly cemented in human nature. Your poor judgement is your right, forcing everyone to pay for your stupid choices is not.
I was joking honey :) I actually think some people do feel that way though!
There are THOSE who think and act THAT way. The word right has been misued and overused. Liberty, life, freedom of speech, and pursuit of happiness. Rights are to be judiciously and responsibly.
1 answer hidden due to negative feedback. Show
1 answer hidden due to negative feedback. Hide