TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The Right To Everything
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »

Also, the author of that article seems to confuse the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution to a rather alarming degree.

Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness is not a phrase that appears in the Constitution, but is a frequent one cited by conservatives arguing that we should stick to constitutional principles. It may be a minor point, but it's certainly worth remembering that the Declaration is not a legal document.

Furthermore, the Bill of Rights itself was an afterthought tacked on to the end of the Constitution as a mere compromise designed to get Massachusetts and other anti-Federalist states to actually ratify the damn thing. They were each bitterly fought - the "universal principles" you people cling to so dearly were really anything but. Then again, that would require a careful reading of history to know.

quote:

Originally posted by vinnie97 A pursuit that becomes increasingly difficult when big government becomes an obstacle to the ideal.

So how exactly is the big terrible government obstructing you from your pursuit of happiness?


Also you should be free of all the terrible oppression from the big bad us soon, if i watched the news correctly two of the people that are running for governor of texas are die hard seccesionists. And wont that be grand if by some freak incident they get elected.

And how can the author accuse the left of hyperbole when he's proffered such magnificent verbiage like:

"shred what remains of our Constitution by nationalizing the medical insurance industry, and eventually medicine itself."

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness is not a phrase that appears in the Constitution, but is a frequent one cited by conservatives arguing that we should stick to constitutional principles. It may be a minor point, but it's certainly worth remembering that the Declaration is not a legal document.

Such agreat thing as well that it wasnt a legal document, or else a percentage of the population might have been mighty pissed that they did not have the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

quote:

Originally posted by Moongoose Also you should be free of all the terrible oppression from the big bad us soon, if i watched the news correctly two of the people that are running for governor of texas are die hard seccesionists. And wont that be grand if by some freak incident they get elected.

It will be grand indeed - that's 34 fewer guaranteed electoral college votes for the Republicans every year!

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov And how can the author accuse the left of hyperbole when he's proffered such magnificent verbiage like: "shred what remains of our Constitution by nationalizing the medical insurance industry, and eventually medicine itself."

That's political thinking though rather than unbiased journalism, no point being a moderate in anything, you'll be ignored unless you've got some kind of super-sized, extremist version of your policy to whack people over the head with, generate fear and loathing to get noticed.
Then call it a:
"War against ________"

Fill in the blank with anything close to hand: War, Drugs, Terror, Fat Kids, Mexico, Trans-Fats
That the average newspaper flicking reader won't gloss over and go 'hey, they've declared war on ________, where's mah rifle!'

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith That's political thinking though rather than unbiased journalism, no point being a moderate in anything, you'll be ignored unless you've got some kind of super-sized, extremist version of your policy to whack people over the head with, generate fear and loathing to get noticed. Then call it a: "War against ________" Fill in the blank with anything close to hand: War, Drugs, Terror, Fat Kids, Mexico, Trans-Fats

I approve of the last one! Nothing worse than a fat transsexual

Or were you thinking of something else?

Here is a black and white version of American ideologies in a nutshell.

Conservatives are for economic liberties but not social liberties. Liberals are for social liberties but not economic liberties. Reality lies somewhere in the middle as liberals advocate a mixed economic system while conservatives advocate almost no state enterprise. Conservatives care whether the 10 commandments is posted on a government building but couldn't give two shits when two consenting adults who happen to be gay want the same rights as all married couples. Conservatives confuse me with their anti-government rhetoric but when they'r in power, they shut right the fuck up, even when their government expands into a gigantic national security state. So much for being anti-government.

That's my rant.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Here is a black and white version of American ideologies in a nutshell. Conservatives are for economic liberties but not social liberties. Liberals are for social liberties but not economic liberties. Reality lies somewhere in the middle as liberals advocate a mixed economic system while conservatives advocate almost no state enterprise. Conservatives care whether the 10 commandments is posted on a government building but couldn't give two shits when two consenting adults who happen to be gay want the same rights as all married couples. Conservatives confuse me with their anti-government rhetoric but when they'r in power, they shut right the fuck up, even when their government expands into a gigantic national security state. So much for being anti-government. That's my rant.

For once, we agree.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness is not a phrase that appears in the Constitution, but is a frequent one cited by conservatives arguing that we should stick to constitutional principles. It may be a minor point, but it's certainly worth remembering that the Declaration is not a legal document.

eh, I don't think it's fair to say something like "cited by conservatives." That's just a little disingenuous, IMO. Pursuit of happiness be damned. That said, anyone who knows some basic American history knows it's from the Declaration of Independence, an equally important document in the founding of this country.

From the Constitution:

quote:

It is commonly understood that the Bill of Rights was not originally intended to apply to the states, though except where amendments refer specifically to the Federal Government or a branch thereof (as in the First Amendment, under which some states in the early years of the nation officially established a religion), there is no such delineation in the text itself. Nevertheless, a general interpretation of inapplicability to the states remained until 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, which stated, in part, that: �No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

From the Declaration of Independence:

quote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to...

That all said, it's not difficult to see how any person might mix them up. What do you mean when you say that the Declaration is not a legal document?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka eh, I don't think it's fair to say something like "cited by conservatives." That's just a little disingenuous, IMO.

Point taken - a certain brand of libertarian would have been a better label to apply, were labels even ever appropriately used.

quote:

From the Constitution:

Yes, but you do well to include the year (1868) that language like that first appeared in the Constitution - it is a direct reference to the new illegality of slavery, and not something proffered by the Founding Fathers.

quote:

That all said, it's not difficult to see how any person might mix them up. What do you mean when you say that the Declaration is not a legal document?

Simply that the Declaration of Independence is a guiding principle and not a binding document - furthermore, it represents that work and ideas of a very few select people.

Healthcare is a right, and the people will have it, whether those privileged members of society so averse to change like it or not.

It is absolutely amazing to me that you can convince this country to get into a trillion dollar war for almost no reason in the span of a few months, yet universal healthcare is made out to be the end of our beloved nation as we know it, harbinger of socialism, facism, and the return of the nazis.

What the FUCK is wrong with people?

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis Healthcare is a right, and the people will have it, whether those privileged members of society so averse to change like it or not.

How can it be a right if your very access to it depends on the availability and willingness of somebody else to provide it? If there were no willing or available doctors your walking around waving your fingers around shouting about your rights is but a farce.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka How can it be a right if your very access to it depends on the availability and willingness of somebody else to provide it? If there were no willing or available doctors your walking around waving your fingers around shouting about your rights is but a farce.

When put that way, almost nothing at all is a right.

I mean healthcare is a right in that an enlightened, advanced society should be able to provide a reasonable level of care to all of its citizens beyond just letting an ambulance clean up the mess.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis When put that way, almost nothing at all is a right.

That's why our inalienable rights are so few. Your rights end when they impinge upon the rights of others. You have your life, your freedom and your ability to pursue the best that you can provide for yourself within your grasp. Beyond that, it becomes hazy.

quote:

I mean healthcare is a right in that an enlightened, advanced society should be able to provide a reasonable level of care to all of its citizens beyond just letting an ambulance clean up the mess.

So it really comes down to talking about entitlements. I mean if it was a clear right there really wouldn't be a debate. But as an entitlement issue it's no wonder our elected dolts can spend endless hours debating the merits and details of it. Wouldn't you agree?

I personally think the crux of the issue is coming down to cost and access. The prices we pay for basic health services are undoubtedly way too high, and probably not at least in large part due to the fact that those with insurance rarely ever see the full prices being charged so they don't give a rat's ass what it costs. On the other hand, insurance companies can deny coverage to anyone they choose and operating as profit-based entities, their incentives are misaligned with their core mission to cover healthcare costs--they want to maximize revenues and minimize expenses. I don't think we need radical change at the federal level to fix those problems, but I think they are problems that clearly need to be addressed because the longer we stay on the current path the worse the situation becomes.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis When put that way, almost nothing at all is a right. I mean healthcare is a right in that an enlightened, advanced society should be able to provide a reasonable level of care to all of its citizens beyond just letting an ambulance clean up the mess.

Blindly asserting something is a "right" in an oh-so-righteous tone doesn't make it so.. If I say everyone has a "right" to three meals a day, a home, transportation, shoes and clothing for themselves and their kids, and other necessities of life, those things aren't going to pop into existence like raindrops. They are not natural resources available in unlimited quantity for anyone to use at no cost.. Material goods need to be MADE by the time and energy of others..and if they really are "rights", then they must be provided whether those making the products are willing or not..whether they get paid or not..no terms can be debates or disagreed upon when they are providing things that "rightly" belong to others. In effect, we need to enslave part of society to ensure the "entitlements" of others are fulfilled. It's a nightmarish philosophy once you peel back the feel-good exterior.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Blindly asserting something is a "right" in an oh-so-righteous tone doesn't make it so.. If I say everyone has a "right" to three meals a day, a home, transportation, shoes and clothing for themselves and their kids, and other necessities of life, those things aren't going to pop into existence like raindrops. They are not natural resources available in unlimited quantity for anyone to use at no cost.. Material goods need to be MADE by the time and energy of others..and if they really are "rights", then they must be provided whether those making the products are willing or not..whether they get paid or not..no terms can be debates or disagreed upon when they are providing things that "rightly" belong to others. In effect, we need to enslave part of society to ensure the "entitlements" of others are fulfilled. It's a nightmarish philosophy once you peel back the feel-good exterior.

Do you realize the insured are already paying for the uninsured? Why are you against getting the uninsured insured and at least paying SOMETHING into the system? And why are you content to let for-profit corporations control healthcare in this country, especially given the fact that in every other western democracy, healthcare is regulated like a public utility in healthcare systems that work much better than our piece of shit private system?

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Blindly asserting something is a "right" in an oh-so-righteous tone doesn't make it so..

No, it doesn't.

It would take me too long to explain to you why we can, and should extend the right to healthcare to people in this country.

Figure it out. Or don't.

Also, think long and hard about who comes closest to being "enslaved" in this country.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Do you realize the insured are already paying for the uninsured? Why are you against getting the uninsured insured and at least paying SOMETHING into the system? And why are you content to let for-profit corporations control healthcare in this country, especially given the fact that in every other western democracy, healthcare is regulated like a public utility in healthcare systems that work much better than our piece of shit private system?

Our "piece of shit" private system works for 85% of the country who is currently insured krypt..and there is a reason the vast majority of new medications and treatments are developed here rather than the socialist hellholes overseas..because we don't rape our companies quite as hard as they do (yet). I'm all for helping the uninsured..but you do this by making it more affordable for them to buy insurance.. Cutting taxes dramatically on both them and the healthcare companies would be a good start. Tort reform would be another..and legalizing the purchase of out of state insurance plans would lead to a huge cost savings as well. There are plenty of ways besides socialism-lite to increase access to healthcare. More federal control is far from the best answer.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Do you realize the insured are already paying for the uninsured? Why are you against getting the uninsured insured and at least paying SOMETHING into the system? And why are you content to let for-profit corporations control healthcare in this country, especially given the fact that in every other western democracy, healthcare is regulated like a public utility in healthcare systems that work much better than our piece of shit private system?

That's amazing...our "piece of shit" private system is so much worse than all other western democracies. Is this what you read in some propaganda piece or made up/distorted statistic? It must be a fluke that Canadians near the border travel to the US to have routine procedures done here. I'll even give you another example of what the "public option" will provide you. A good friend of mine in the UK on it is at risk of paralysis due to nerve compression in his neck. Since July, he has been waiting for an appointment that might arrive in October/November. With private insurance, he himself admitted this 4-month wait could be lowered to a mere week.

Government bureaucracy is just as expensive, if not more so, than the system we have now...and it's way more inefficient as illustrated in that example above. Some reforms (kudos, Capitalizt) are needed but not the boondoggle that Pelosi and her cronies are trying to ram down our throats.

quote:

Originally posted by Moongoose So how exactly is the big terrible government obstructing you from your pursuit of happiness?

Easy. Excessive taxation and meddling in the lives of its citizenry.

quote:

Also you should be free of all the terrible oppression from the big bad us soon, if i watched the news correctly two of the people that are running for governor of texas are die hard seccesionists. And wont that be grand if by some freak incident they get elected.

You concern yourself with what's happening in Slovenia and I'll enjoy my time in one of the US states that is least affected by this recession (I'll let you guess which ones are suffering the most).

quote:

Originally posted by vinnie97 You concern yourself with what's happening in Slovenia and I'll enjoy my time in one of the US states that is least affected by this recession (I'll let you guess which ones are suffering the most).

Indeed, when I am on the losing side of a debate, I'd rather prohibit everyone smarter than myself from participating, too.

Amazingly, this is a pretty rational discussion:

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Our "piece of shit" private system works for 85% of the country who is currently insured krypt..

That's why according to a Harvard study, healthcare costs are the number one reason for bankruptcy, and a huge number of those people are insured. Yea, great healthcare system, with the world's highest inflation.

quote:

and there is a reason the vast majority of new medications and treatments are developed here rather than the socialist hellholes overseas..because we don't rape our companies quite as hard as they do (yet).

Now, you'r changing the subject. I'm not talking about drug companies, I'm talking about health insurance.

quote:

I'm all for helping the uninsured..but you do this by making it more affordable for them to buy insurance..

Private insurance companies don't give two shits about their policy holders. Their primary objective is to return profits to shareholders. You actually think they want to lower costs for their policy holders?

quote:

Cutting taxes dramatically on both them and the healthcare companies would be a good start.

That's like saying giving tax breaks to oil companies is going to lower our gas prices...lol

quote:

Tort reform would be another..and legalizing the purchase of out of state insurance plans would lead to a huge cost savings as well.

Those are insignificant reasons why our healthcare system is horrible, but things that I would include in any reform.

quote:

There are plenty of ways besides socialism-lite to increase access to healthcare. More federal control is far from the best answer.

Your misconception that all things public are bad is comical. I find it funny that you would rather have for-profit corporations, whose only loyalty is to shareholders, control health insurance. Only in America!

quote:

Originally posted by vinnie97 That's amazing...our "piece of shit" private system is so much worse than all other western democracies.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/200..._bankruptcy.php
http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

A recent Harvard study found that medical expenditure was a significant contributing factor in 60% of personal bankruptcies in the United States. "Unless you're Warren Buffett, your family is just one serious illness away from bankruptcy...for middle-class Americans, health insurance offers little protection...," said Dr. David Himmelstein of Harvard University, who helped compile the study.

The U.S. spends more on health care per capita than any other UN member nation. It also spends a greater fraction of its national budget on health care than Canada, Germany, France, or Japan who have PUBLIC INSURANCE.

quote:

Is this what you read in some propaganda piece or made up/distorted statistic?

If you want to be an asshole, I can gladly be one too.

quote:

It must be a fluke that Canadians near the border travel to the US to have routine procedures done here. I'll even give you another example of what the "public option" will provide you. A good friend of mine in the UK on it is at risk of paralysis due to nerve compression in his neck. Since July, he has been waiting for an appointment that might arrive in October/November. With private insurance, he himself admitted this 4-month wait could be lowered to a mere week.

They have a single payer system. That's not what the healthcare reform is advocating. Perhaps before you take a position on something, you should know what both sides are actually advocating?

Obama's health care plan called for the creation of a National Health Insurance Exchange that would include both private insurance plans and a Medicare-like government run option. Coverage would be guaranteed regardless of health status, and premiums would not vary based on health status either. It would have required parents to cover their children, but did not require adults to buy insurance.

My personal preference is cooperative insurance companies and a health insurance industry where profit is illegal. No denials because of pre-existing conditions, no difference in premium because of health stutus, etc.

quote:

Government bureaucracy is just as expensive, if not more so, than the system we have now...and it's way more inefficient as illustrated in that example above.

"The great advantage of universal, government-provided health insurance is lower costs. Canada's government-run insurance system has much less bureaucracy and much lower administrative costs than our largely private system. Medicare has much lower administrative costs than private insurance. The reason is that single-payer systems don't devote large resources to screening out high-risk clients or charging them higher fees. The savings from a single-payer system would probably exceed $200 billion a year, far more than the cost of covering all of those now uninsured."

Economist Paul Krugman
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/13/opinion/13krugman.html?_r=1

quote:

Some reforms (kudos, Capitalizt) are needed but not the boondoggle that Pelosi and her cronies are trying to ram down our throats.

Yea, what you guys want are patches that really fix nothing. I'v already decided the right wing don't give two shits about reforming healthcare, but stick to their laissez-faire capitalism mantra as if in a ideological trance.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.