Teh Politics Forum Rumors and lies and Teh Iraqi Info Minister and much much more...

Democrats: Health care is a right

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jul 20, 2009 | 05:31 PM
  #166  
saqwarrior's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,808
From: San Jose, CA
Car Info: 2015 WRX
Originally Posted by Jabberwocky
Actually it does:

Article One Section 1 which grants congress the power to make new laws. And then Article V which gives congress the right to amend the constitution itself.

Now show me the part in the Constitution that protects an individual's right to participate in private industries like narcotics, prostitution, and child trafficking.
I like how you mix victimless crimes in with child trafficking. Talk about an appeal to emotion.

As far as narcotics are concerned, in the early 20th century, Congress tried to make certain narcotics illegal (opium and marijuana), but couldn't because the Constitution doesn't allow for it. So they used a loophole: the creation of a list of "controlled substances," and making it so that only the federal government can grant permission to use items on the controlled substances list. In short, your example is flawed.

Prostitution isn't illegal on a federal level (see: Nevada), and thusly the constitution has nothing to do with it. Another bad example.

Your demand is fallacious; the Bill of Rights is not a list of the rights that we are limited to, it is a list of the rights that are sacrosanct and must not be interfered with by government. EDIT: Because I'm sure you'll argue this point:

Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Last edited by saqwarrior; Jul 20, 2009 at 05:39 PM.
Old Jul 20, 2009 | 05:33 PM
  #167  
saqwarrior's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,808
From: San Jose, CA
Car Info: 2015 WRX
Originally Posted by Superglue WRX
I see. Sounds like a thin line between total equality and having someone claim a leadership/authoritative position. Sounds more like an goal than something achievable on a large scale. Eventually someone will have the desire and means to gain control.
An astute observation.

"I am an anarchist not because I believe anarchism is the final goal, but because there is no such thing as a final goal." -- Rudolf Rocker

Old Jul 20, 2009 | 05:40 PM
  #168  
FW Motorsports's Avatar
Thread Starter
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Originally Posted by sigma pi
we didnt go to the moon
**** you!

Originally Posted by Jabberwocky
Actually it does:

Article One Section 1 which grants congress the power to make new laws. And then Article V which gives congress the right to amend the constitution itself.

Now show me the part in the Constitution that protects an individual's right to participate in private industries like narcotics, prostitution, and child trafficking.
There is no protection in commiting felonies...unless you're a politician.

Article One, Section One:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
This power is limited to those powers granted by the Constitution to Congress.

Powers of Congress:
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
NO WHERE in the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution allow for gov't mandated health care.

Now, if you want health care to be a right, then follow the rules and amend the Constitution.
Old Jul 20, 2009 | 05:43 PM
  #169  
FW Motorsports's Avatar
Thread Starter
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Article Five of the Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
This says that 2/3 of Congress can propose a Constitutional Amendment, but it requires that 3/4 of the States ratify the proposed amendment before the amedment can become law.
Old Jul 20, 2009 | 06:03 PM
  #170  
Jabberwocky's Avatar
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 282
From: Oakland
Car Info: Car
Originally Posted by saqwarrior
I hinted at that with the rest of my post that you apparently ignored
No, you simply vaguely cited "history" with no specific examples. My original point was that the US government works in the best interest of the people. Your point is that the government is out to screw people over. I don’t understand why you think that the government has to screw people over in order to solidify its power - the logic isn’t very sound. Citing history again, the most powerful presidents and public officials are usually the ones who are most popular with the people. For example, FDR was powerful because he was popular; he was popular because people felt that he was doing what’s good for them. Public officials inevitably face public judgment many times over if they want to rise to power.
Old Jul 20, 2009 | 06:13 PM
  #171  
Jabberwocky's Avatar
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 282
From: Oakland
Car Info: Car
Originally Posted by Paul@dbtuned
This power is limited to those powers granted by the Constitution to Congress.
You conveniently avoided Section 1 article 1. It's the first thing in the constitution. It gives congress full legislative power. Legislative powers is the right to make laws, about virtually anything so long as it doesn't contradict other documents. Section V lets congress change the freaking constitution if they wanted to.

Again, I still don't see anything that prevents the government from regulating or prohibiting private industry if it choose to do so.

Furthermore, the proof is in the pudding. The narcotics industry is prohibited and Utilities are regulated.

Last edited by Jabberwocky; Jul 20, 2009 at 06:17 PM.
Old Jul 20, 2009 | 06:22 PM
  #172  
FW Motorsports's Avatar
Thread Starter
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Originally Posted by Jabberwocky
You conveniently avoided Section 1 article 1. It's the first thing in the constitution. It gives congress full legislative power. Section V lets change the freaking constitution if they wanted to.

Again, I still don't see anything that prevents the government from regulating or prohibiting private industry if it choose to do so.

Furthermore, the proof is in the pudding. The narcotics industry is prohibited and Utilities are regulated.
Maybe I suck at reading comprehension, but here's what I'm reading:

Which means that Congress' power is limited to those powers explicitly granted and which I listed above.

Narcotics are not prohibited, just heavily regulated/controlled.
Old Jul 20, 2009 | 06:23 PM
  #173  
saqwarrior's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,808
From: San Jose, CA
Car Info: 2015 WRX
Originally Posted by Jabberwocky
No, you simply vaguely cited "history" with no specific examples. My original point was that the US government works in the best interest of the people. Your point is that the government is out to screw people over. I don’t understand why you think that the government has to screw people over in order to solidify its power - the logic isn’t very sound. Citing history again, the most powerful presidents and public officials are usually the ones who are most popular with the people. For example, FDR was powerful because he was popular; he was popular because people felt that he was doing what’s good for them. Public officials inevitably face public judgment many times over if they want to rise to power.
Vague history examples? Do I really need to name off the empires throughout history that eventually were interested only in maintaining power and did so at any cost? I get the feeling you're being purposely obtuse so that you can defend your position.

And really? That's my point? Where did I make that point?

Last edited by saqwarrior; Jul 20, 2009 at 06:26 PM.
Old Jul 20, 2009 | 06:26 PM
  #174  
Jabberwocky's Avatar
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 282
From: Oakland
Car Info: Car
Originally Posted by Paul@dbtuned
What is good reason?
I remember why now. It's always the same handful people generating like 80% of the post. Reminds me of of the old folks at the senior home who argue, sometimes passionately, about how the world should be. Blissful to the fact that the world doesn't really give a damn about their opinion.

...
Old Jul 20, 2009 | 06:28 PM
  #175  
saqwarrior's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,808
From: San Jose, CA
Car Info: 2015 WRX
Maybe the reason you don't get anything from the discourse is because you don't respect anyone's opinion but your own.
Old Jul 20, 2009 | 06:30 PM
  #176  
FW Motorsports's Avatar
Thread Starter
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Originally Posted by Jabberwocky
No, you simply vaguely cited "history" with no specific examples. My original point was that the US government works in the best interest of the people. Your point is that the government is out to screw people over. I don’t understand why you think that the government has to screw people over in order to solidify its power - the logic isn’t very sound. Citing history again, the most powerful presidents and public officials are usually the ones who are most popular with the people. For example, FDR was powerful because he was popular; he was popular because people felt that he was doing what’s good for them. Public officials inevitably face public judgment many times over if they want to rise to power.
States Hit Hardest by Recession Get Least Stimulus Money

data tracking how the stimulus money is being given out across the 50 states and the District of Columbia, and it has found a perverse pattern: the states hardest hit by the recession received the least money. States with higher bankruptcy, foreclosure and unemployment rates got less money. And higher income states received more.
Old Jul 20, 2009 | 06:35 PM
  #177  
FW Motorsports's Avatar
Thread Starter
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Originally Posted by Jabberwocky
I remember why now. It's always the same handful people generating like 80% of the post. Reminds me of of the old folks at the senior home who argue, sometimes passionately, about how the world should be. Blissful to the fact that the world doesn't really give a damn about their opinion.

...

Yes, I argue passionately about how things should be...I like being left the **** alone when it comes to gov't intervention in people's lives.

You appear to relish the idea of more gov't control w/o being able to cite any gov't scheme that meets at least two of the following critia:

1. Costs less than private sector.
2. Higher quality of product/service.
3. Is available to all that want it.
Old Jul 21, 2009 | 12:33 PM
  #178  
Turbo Rob's Avatar
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,428
From: Bay Area/CPP
Car Info: 2005 WRX - Stage 2 and EQ Tuned!
Honestly, we need to fix the health care system by preventing companies that manufacture foods from using chemicals, antibiotics, lards, more chemicals etc. THat could help a lot. Why do you think people didn't need a health care system when the Constitution was written? They ate fresh foods instead of McD's and they're bodies loved them for that.

The pharmaceutical industry flourishes because of our unhealthiness.

I don't think anyone can debate that if Americans ate better they would save money on healthcare.
Old Jul 21, 2009 | 01:48 PM
  #179  
FW Motorsports's Avatar
Thread Starter
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Originally Posted by Turbo Rob
Honestly, we need to fix the health care system by preventing companies that manufacture foods from using chemicals, antibiotics, lards, more chemicals etc. THat could help a lot. Why do you think people didn't need a health care system when the Constitution was written? They ate fresh foods instead of McD's and they're bodies loved them for that.

The pharmaceutical industry flourishes because of our unhealthiness.

I don't think anyone can debate that if Americans ate better they would save money on healthcare.
Now you're getting somewhere.

But your solution still includes legislation, gov't involvment, restriction of personal freedoms.
Old Jul 21, 2009 | 04:03 PM
  #180  
saqwarrior's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,808
From: San Jose, CA
Car Info: 2015 WRX
Originally Posted by Turbo Rob
Honestly, we need to fix the health care system by preventing companies that manufacture foods from using chemicals, antibiotics, lards, more chemicals etc. THat could help a lot. Why do you think people didn't need a health care system when the Constitution was written? They ate fresh foods instead of McD's and they're bodies loved them for that.

The pharmaceutical industry flourishes because of our unhealthiness.

I don't think anyone can debate that if Americans ate better they would save money on healthcare.
Originally Posted by Paul@dbtuned
Now you're getting somewhere.

But your solution still includes legislation, gov't involvment, restriction of personal freedoms.
I think a better solution for our current system is: include nutritional education in grades K-12. Not just as a one-off class, either -- make it a required major course every few years.



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:00 AM.


Top

© 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands



When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.