ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[saxitoxin]

Repeal passed by the House 245-189! (Giffords being the only member not present.)

Oh the irony.

A symbolic, sham vote.
Yay for partisan pettiness!
/roll

Partisan pettiness? lol

Why don't we just feed the starving people of the world by mandating they buy food?

And while we're at it, we can solve the homelessness by mandating they find a place to live! Damn, I'm so enlightened.

I have a better idea.

Stop providing health insurance to government employees - from our elected officials to our civil servants - on all levels.

And why stop there? As a society that objects to "mandating" health care, we should demand that the military stop providing medical care to any and all service members.
They understand the risk, why should they expect us to take care of them?

Oh I am sure that got your attention now, enlightened one.

In fact, insurance - all insurance - is not mandated by the US Constitution so clearly it must be illegal.

Ban it all - and mandate that people take responsibility for all their actions and the actions they have no control over! /roll

Sorry, your logic is extreme.

I do not know what you have against your fellow Americans, but I believe we are in this together.

reductio ad absurdum

I can only imagine Hapsmo, likewise, disagrees with your assertions that all pet owners should be required to purchase veterinary insurance, that all males above the age of 14 should be required to wear a condom 24 hours/day in case opportunity arises, and that no one should be permitted to go outside without first taking an 8-hour falling meteorite awareness and safety certification course.

Sorry, your logic is extreme. I do not know what you have against your fellow Americans, but I believe they are in this together.

[Orwell]

I have a better idea.

Stop providing health insurance to government employees - from our elected officials to our civil servants - on all levels.

And why stop there? As a society that objects to "mandating" health care, we should demand that the military stop providing medical care to any and all service members.
They understand the risk, why should they expect us to take care of them?

Thanks for a perfect example of partisan pettiness.

No, my example shows why your logic is extreme.

[Night Strike]

No, my example shows why your logic is extreme.

Where in the Constitution does it give YOU the right to force another person to give up their time or property to provide for YOU? Every single right, except for one, granted by the Constitution does not require any other person to give up ANYTHING in order for you to exercise your rights. The only right the Constitution allows anybody to take from another person is the right to a trial by jury. If no other right allows you to take from your fellow citizens, then you do NOT have the right to force them to provide you with things such as health care or health insurance. You forcing another person to provide you with something infringes on their rights.

[Orwell]

No, my example shows why your logic is extreme.

Where in the Constitution does it give YOU the right to force another person to give up their time or property to provide for YOU? Every single right, except for one, granted by the Constitution does not require any other person to give up ANYTHING in order for you to exercise your rights. The only right the Constitution allows anybody to take from another person is the right to a trial by jury. If no other right allows you to take from your fellow citizens, then you do NOT have the right to force them to provide you with things such as health care or health insurance. You forcing another person to provide you with something infringes on their rights.

By your logic, anything government provides to it's people infringes on their rights. Roads, education, a military.
It's an absurd argument. The framers intended to protect natural rights and liberties.

In the modern world, it is a natural right to provide basic health care.

While the Constitutional argument provides a good excuse to avoid the modern issues of the health care debate, it ignores reality.
For example, the 14th Amendment is clear about naturalization - but that doesn't stop the same people arguing against health care to attempt to deny immigrants their constitutional rights. The Constitution gives plenty of room to government to provide care for it's citizens.

[thegreekdog]

Tobinov - I have some questions:

(1) Can you enumerate some rights that are new in the modern world?
(2) Can you enumerate some rights generally? Are these rights enumerated in a document (i.e. the US Constitution) or are they merely undocumented, yet understood, rights.
(3) Can you define "basic health care?" This phrase confuses me.
(4) When you say it's someone's right to have basic health care, do you mean that it's their right to attempt to secure basic health care for themselves, or do you mean it's their right for the government to provide basic health care to its citizens? For example, there is a right to bear arms, but the government doesn't provide each citizen with firearms. As another example, it's a right to free speech, but the government does not provide each of us with a platform upon which to speak.

[Orwell]

(1) Can you enumerate some rights that are new in the modern world?

They are not new rights, but modern views of inalienable human rights - equal rights based on race, sexuality, gender are good examples that at the time of the framing of the constitution were unimaginable.

(2) Can you enumerate some rights generally? Are these rights enumerated in a document (i.e. the US Constitution) or are they merely undocumented, yet understood, rights.

I make the same distinction as Thomas Paine or the framers themselves - there are inherent, inalienable human rights that no government can bestow or deny and there are the given rights - privileges that come the responsibilities inherent in citizenship/social contract.

(3) Can you define "basic health care?" This phrase confuses me.

Immediate and preventative actions to maintain and preserve one's life and well-being.

(4) When you say it's someone's right to have basic health care, do you mean that it's their right to attempt to secure basic health care for themselves, or do you mean it's their right for the government to provide basic health care to its citizens? For example, there is a right to bear arms, but the government doesn't provide each citizen with firearms. As another example, it's a right to free speech, but the government does not provide each of us with a platform upon which to speak.

I think you are conflating different types of rights - the right to bear arms is given right to possess a weapon, and the right to free speech, religion, public assembly, are rights inherent in humans living in a free and open society - in other words, rights government cannot deny because it did not give them.

I view the right of self-preservation as an inherent right - and as part of the citizenship/social contract, government as representative of ALL interests, maintains a society that provides and protects. For me, this is why government should provide basic health care and I consider the mandate argument to be distraction.

I hope this answers your questions.

[thegreekdog]

They are not new rights, but modern views of inalienable human rights - equal rights based on race, sexuality, gender are good examples that at the time of the framing of the constitution were unimaginable.

I don't disagree. However, typically when there are modern views on inalienable human rights, there is some addition to the US Constitution, whether through amendment (typical of the 19th and early 20th century) or through Supreme Court jurisprudence (typical of the later 20th century) or through legislative fiat (meaning, of course, that at least the representatives of the citizenry agree that such a right exists). So while I agree that equal rights based on race, sexualily and gender were not imaginable to the framers of the Constitution, these rights are either included in the Constitution by amendment or jurisprudence or are supported by a majority of the elected representatives of the United States. Health care for all citizens has not been included in the Constitution by amendment or jurisprudence and is not supported by the majority of the elected representatives of the United States. Therefore, I would not call it an inalienable right.

I make the same distinction as Thomas Paine or the framers themselves - there are inherent, inalienable human rights that no government can bestow or deny and there are the given rights - privileges that come the responsibilities inherent in citizenship/social contract.

Again, I agree that there are certain rights that come with the social contract between the citizens and their government. I also agree that these rights change. What I don't agree with is the characterization of health care (or health insurance) as being typical of these rights. Further, as I'll discuss further below, health care is not like any other human right. In order for the government to bestow health care on its citizens, it must take something away from other citizens. As far as I can tell, there is no other "inalienable right" that works in this manner.

Immediate and preventative actions to maintain and preserve one's life and well-being.

We are in disagreement about the definition of basic health care. In my mind, basic health care involves being able to be treated when faced with personal injury or disease. To take that a step further, all people in the United States have access to at least my definition of basic health care. Perhaps your definition should be matched with something other than basic health care.

As to the last question, you didn't really answer it. I posed two alternative scenarios and, as you correctly posted, one is a right that the government cannot deny to its citizens, and which we already have - namely, the freedom to engage in contracts with others for the provision of health care. The other alternative is the one, I believe, you are in support of - namely, the right for people to expect the government to provide them with health care.

So, I make the following comparisons:

- The "right to own a gun" as compared to the "right to be provided with a gun"
- The "right to free speech" as compared to the "right to be provided with a pulpit"
- The "right to engage in contracts with others for the provision of healthcare" as compared the "right to be provided with healthcare"

In other words, I do not think that the government provision of healthcare is a "right." I think the supporters of government-provided health care would like it to be framed as a "right" because it makes a better soundbite. I would say the right to be provided with healthcare is comparable to the right to be provided with police protection. As far as I know, police protection is not a right guaranteed by any Constitution and in as much as its part of the social contract, the citizens of the United States have determined that police protection is of sufficient importance to give up tax dollars in order to have such police protection (in other words, it's almost a contracted "right" rather than one that is "inalienable"). Therefore, I do not agree that healthcare is an inalienable right.

With all that being said, I'm still not sure whether I support government-provided health insurance (or health care) or not. As I've indicated in this thread (or somewhere else), I would like to see this. The only example in the United States is Medicare, and that has been widely panned on both sides of the aisle... but, I don't want to get into a discussion of Medicare.

What I do not support, however, is the current healthcare plan as it exists. I find it to simply be a deal between the Democrats in the legislature and the health insurance companies.

[Night Strike]

By your logic, anything government provides to it's people infringes on their rights. Roads, education, a military.

Those aren't rights enumerated by the Constitution. In fact, out of those three items, only the creation of a military is stated in the Constitution to be a proper role of the federal government. Any state can enact policies such as health care, but it's not the proper role of the federal government to do so. Furthermore, health care is never mentioned as a right in the Constitution because it infringes on the rights of others, so proponents of that viewpoint put it forward purely for political points without a Constitutional basis.

[saxitoxin]

(3) Can you define "basic health care?" This phrase confuses me.

Immediate and preventative actions to maintain and preserve one's life and well-being.

You're 24 years late to that party. This was guaranteed in the Emergency Medical Treatment Act of 1986 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/1395dd.html) and ancillary legislation.

So, that's resolved then.

Now what shall we talk about in this thread? I vote we discuss V the television series. Now that we know the Visitors just want to sex-up humans should we be siding with them and against that meddling Catholic priest who wants to stop them? Typical.

[mpjh]

No, basic health care includes preventative care

[HapSmo19]

...and killing babies.

[saxitoxin]

No, basic health care includes preventative care

I bet the Broncos also wish they could move the goal posts each time the other team had the ball. Then they'd never lose! Yay!

[thegreekdog]

No, basic health care includes preventative care

I think we have different definitions of preventative care. My definition of preventative care is "prevent the patient from dying." And we already have that.

[Orwell]

Well, I fundamentally view things differently - and to the detractors, I clarified my opinion. I am not asking for your approval or your cynical rationale for maintaining the status quo. You won't change your opinion and I won't change mine.

@Saxitoxin: no, it's not resolved then unless gross oversimplification of the issue is the goal of proving or disproving the necessity to reform and provide health care in the United States.

...
So, I make the following comparisons:

- The "right to own a gun" as compared to the "right to be provided with a gun"
- The "right to free speech" as compared to the "right to be provided with a pulpit"
- The "right to engage in contracts with others for the provision of healthcare" as compared the "right to be provided with healthcare"

...

And I think you are setting up a false comparisons between given rights, inherent rights, and the rights and responsibilities of a social contract - while fundamentally ignoring the necessity of outlining such varied rights.

[thegreekdog]

Well, I fundamentally view things differently - and to the detractors, I clarified my opinion. I am not asking for your approval or your cynical rationale for maintaining the status quo. You won't change your opinion and I won't change mine.

...
So, I make the following comparisons:

- The "right to own a gun" as compared to the "right to be provided with a gun"
- The "right to free speech" as compared to the "right to be provided with a pulpit"
- The "right to engage in contracts with others for the provision of healthcare" as compared the "right to be provided with healthcare"

...

And I think you are setting up a false comparisons between given rights, inherent rights, and the rights and responsibilities of a social contract - while fundamentally ignoring the necessity of outlining such varied rights.

I guess you do not want to debate.

A couple of points of clarification:

(1) If you are posting in these forums, I assume you want to either discuss/debate or get approval. I acknowledge that cynical rationale being what it is, that's not something you'd want.
(2) I will change my opinion. I have changed my opinions based on posts and information in these very forums. In fact, I used to be stridently opposed to government-provided universal healthcare. I am now willing to see what happens.
(3) I'm not setting up false comparisons. All of the comparisons above are valid. The first is an inherent right (or perhaps a given one, depending on stance on things such as gun control), the second is not a right at all. If there's anything you can glean from this discussion, please take that as the one thing.

If you'd like to continue the debate...

I believe you think that basic healthcare (as you define it) is an inalienable right (or, to use the term you've indicated above, an "inherent" right). I've always operated under the assumption that inalienable rights were those that were "granted from God" (or nature, depending upon one's belief in God and/or nature)... life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and all that. Now, if you tie in healthcare to the "life" part of that phrase, you could make the argument that healthcare is part of the inalienable right of life, but then we'd get into a discussion of whether we're talking about basic healthcare as I define it, or whether we're talking about basic healthcare as you define it.

In sum, I think our differences do not stem from a disagreement about the role of government in healthcare (although, certainly, I have my opinions on that). I think our differences here stem from your determination that healthcare is a basic right and something that is inalienable or inherent and I think it's more akin to police protection. And, like you said, I do think I'm right in that regard.

[Orwell]

I guess you do not want to debate.

No, I am not interested in "debate" with those who shout down honest discussion with their politically convenient gotcha games.

(1) If you are posting in these forums, I assume you want to either discuss/debate or get approval. I acknowledge that cynical rationale being what it is, that's not something you'd want.

I am all for a good debate - that is a subjective request, sure

(2) I will change my opinion. I have changed my opinions based on posts and information in these very forums. In fact, I used to be stridently opposed to government-provided universal healthcare. I am now willing to see what happens.

I am happy to read this - and you are clearly a voice of reason in the echo-chamber.

(3) I'm not setting up false comparisons. All of the comparisons above are valid. The first is an inherent right (or perhaps a given one, depending on stance on things such as gun control), the second is not a right at all. If there's anything you can glean from this discussion, please take that as the one thing.

Well, I disagree with the comparisons - I consider them false by their nature - different rights, different provisions.

I believe you think that basic healthcare (as you define it) is an inalienable right (or, to use the term you've indicated above, an "inherent" right). I've always operated under the assumption that inalienable rights were those that were "granted from God" (or nature, depending upon one's belief in God and/or nature)... life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and all that. Now, if you tie in healthcare to the "life" part of that phrase, you could make the argument that healthcare is part of the inalienable right of life, but then we'd get into a discussion of whether we're talking about basic healthcare as I define it, or whether we're talking about basic healthcare as you define it.

In sum, I think our differences do not stem from a disagreement about the role of government in healthcare (although, certainly, I have my opinions on that). I think our differences here stem from your determination that healthcare is a basic right and something that is inalienable or inherent and I think it's more akin to police protection. And, like you said, I do think I'm right in that regard.

Yes, this is exactly our disagreement.

[thegreekdog]

No, I am not interested in "debate" with those who shout down honest discussion with their politically convenient gotcha games.

I understand and I couldn't agree more. That being said, consider whether you are one of those people vis-a-vis your last post.

Well, I disagree with the comparisons - I consider them false by their nature - different rights, different provisions.

Okay. I've been trying to think of other rights that are comparable to healthcare. In other words a right that fits the following descriptions: (1) something where the government takes from someone to give to someone else and (2) something that is not an inalienable right.

Yes, this is exactly our disagreement.

So, my request is that you explain to me how healthcare is an inalienable right. Because I do not believe you have done this. Simply put, you believe it to be an inalienable right (and by inalienable right I mean something that is granted by God/nature) and I have not heard why it is that.

[Phatscotty]

He really said that? (inalienable)

This should be good.

[saxitoxin]

You won't change your opinion and I won't change mine.

Then there's no point in discussion and whoever has the most guns will win. I'm going to guess that won't be you.

@Saxitoxin: no, it's not resolved then unless gross oversimplification of the issue is the goal of proving or disproving the necessity to reform and provide health care in the United States.

You're making it overly complex.

You said you believe people should have "immediate and preventative actions to maintain and preserve one's life and well-being."

I noted that's been the status quo since the inclusion of EMTALA in the consolidated omnibus reconciliation act of 1986.

It sounds like you were surprised to learn that, based on which I can assume you're not very knowledgeable on this topic. And that's okay. But, a more civil method of interaction would be to politely accept edification when it is given rather than fall-back to uber-masculine chest-thumping like baboons in mating season.

[Orwell]

No, I am not interested in "debate" with those who shout down honest discussion with their politically convenient gotcha games.

I understand and I couldn't agree more. That being said, consider whether you are one of those people vis-a-vis your last post.

I reject the suggestion. Understand that brevity is sometimes necessary when surrounded by the knee-jerks - as the reaction to my post illustrated.

Well, I disagree with the comparisons - I consider them false by their nature - different rights, different provisions.

Okay. I've been trying to think of other rights that are comparable to healthcare. In other words a right that fits the following descriptions: (1) something where the government takes from someone to give to someone else and (2) something that is not an inalienable right.

Health care is not zero-sum. I understand that many here who are hung up on the "mandate" - but just as one can be taxed in order to provide a basic education (also an unalienable right, imo), or a military, I see health care as no different.

Yes, this is exactly our disagreement.

So, my request is that you explain to me how healthcare is an inalienable right. Because I do not believe you have done this. Simply put, you believe it to be an inalienable right (and by inalienable right I mean something that is granted by God/nature) and I have not heard why it is that.

Second Treatise of Civil Government. Chapter II, Of the State of Nature. Sec. 6:

The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's. Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.

No one argues that we all have a natural right to life and to the preservation of it.

It follows that maintaining health is an inherent right within the life given to us. And since we have the capability and the capacity to provide and maintain the health and well-being of all (do not confuse this with a guarantee of good health), who are equal in their unalienable rights as human beings, I think it logically follows that we, as a society, have an obligation to provide what we can.

This is the basis of my thinking.

[thegreekdog]

but just as one can be taxed in order to provide a basic education (also an unalienable right, imo), or a military, I see health care as no different.

I agree with that. However, education and the military are not inalienable rights (in my opinion). So, if we equate health care with education and the military and I agree with you that they are similar... I guess I'm still not getting where healthcare is an inalienable right (addressed more below).

No one argues that we all have a natural right to life and to the preservation of it.

AGREED!

It follows that maintaining health is an inherent right within the life given to us. And since we have the capability and the capacity to provide and maintain the health and well-being of all (do not confuse this with a guarantee of good health), who are equal in their unalienable rights as human beings, I think it logically follows that we, as a society, have an obligation to provide what we can.

I don't think maintaining good health follows from the inherent right to life. Perhaps that is where the wires are crossed. Even if we assume maintaining health follows from the inherent right to life, I would propose that everyone in the United States has access to free healthcare in the event their life is at risk. In any event, I also agree with your statement that society does have an obligation to provide what we can. I just think the vehicle to provide what we can should not be the federal government and it certainly should not be so that the federal government can provide subsidies to insurance companies. But, now we're digressing. I prefer to discuss whether health care is a right...

[Night Strike]

Health care is not zero-sum. I understand that many here who are hung up on the "mandate" - but just as one can be taxed in order to provide a basic education (also an unalienable right, imo), or a military, I see health care as no different.

Education is not a roll of the federal government so it is left to the states to provide if they so choose. That's why the federal department of education, NCLB, and federal control of student loans are all unconstitutional. No where in the Constitution does it say the federal government is to provide for the education of its citizens, so the power of regulating education is up to the states. In fact, there was NO federal involvement in education for the first 100-150 years of this country.........until the progressives realized they could use a system of education to raise kids to follow their beliefs instead of those of their parents and families.

No one argues that we all have a natural right to life and to the preservation of it.

It follows that maintaining health is an inherent right within the life given to us. And since we have the capability and the capacity to provide and maintain the health and well-being of all (do not confuse this with a guarantee of good health), who are equal in their unalienable rights as human beings, I think it logically follows that we, as a society, have an obligation to provide what we can.

This is the basis of my thinking.

There is HUGE difference between the preservation of life and the treatment of ailments. It has always been understood that in the realm of natural rights, the government's responsibility is to make laws that keep some people from killing other people and that the government could not go around and kill its citizens on a whim. Until progressives realized they could use health care to control personal lives and decisions, the right to life was never construed as forcing citizens to provide treatment to other citizens. The government has NO RIGHT to force a doctor to treat a patient or a business to provide insurance. That is tyranny.

[GreecePwns]

Can we at least get the thread title correct? This wasn't socialized healthcare in the slightest.

[saxitoxin]

Why is there no talk of V going on? We already resolved this debate 2 pages ago.

Tobinov was under the mistaken impression that people do not have access to "immediate and preventative actions to maintain and preserve one's life and well-being." He was corrected in that mistake, as they have since 1986 (in fact I think that specific verbiage is spelled-out in the 24 year-old legislation): viewtopic.php?f=8&t=93718&start=2310#p2969955

Tobinov simply experienced a knowledge gap. That's okay, it happens to the best of us. In any case, the knowledge gap has been bridged. His ideal state-of-affairs already exists, ergo, there is no need for him to advocate for amendment or revision.

Anywho, how about the reinforcement Visitor fleet? Do you think it will arrive to support Anna or is it loyal to Diana?

[saxitoxin]

Can we at least get the thread title correct? This wasn't socialized healthcare in the slightest.

GP has an excellent point, as always usual. Obamacare is corporate welfare, not socialized healthcare. Scott should amend the title to reflect that.