Conquer Club

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Symmetry wrote:I've got to be honest- arguments about the US constitution kind of bore me. I can understand why some Americans are really fervent about it, and I think in general it's a good basis for law, but it has changed with circumstances in the past. Sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly. Solely basing law on a literal interpretation of it seems pretty wrong to me.

But anyway, an area that I do know well is the public health system in the UK. Unsurprisingly, doctors have not been forced to give up their rights in order to provide medical care to other people without expecting anything in return (in this case, payment).

I'm sorry they bore you, but the Constitution should always be the basis of what the federal government can or cannot do. The federal government is not allowed to force universal health care on its citizens, so if you want that system of health care, you must amend the Constitution. It's quite simple yet frequently ignored in this era of ever-expanding government powers.

The federal government is allowed to do what is necessary for the health and safety of the people, which can include healthcare. Its actually a right that has been affirmed in the courts, in the context of everything from imposing quarantines to mandatory vaccinations.

However, given that the courts are not bought and sold by the right wing, that view is likely to change, but don't mistake that for any return to what the original forefathers intended.

THE GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE! I was wondering why it took so long for that to be brought up. Jeez Louise. You guys need to get your liberal talking points organized better.

thegreekdog wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Woodruff wrote:All your friend Steve does is spend money for 100 hours per week? Because that's all investing is. I'm not talking about accounting procedures. And I'm not talking about things not being important or even more important than "labor". But financing something is not contributing labor to that something. It is providing other things, like risk reduction.

He works with his clients in order to properly (hopefully) invest their money in various instruments. He is paid hansomely for his work, although he works a lot of hours.

Then HE WORKS. The act of investment (the transfer of funds) is not work. It just isn't. It is other good things, but it is not work. This really isn't a difficult concept.

Okay, the actual transfer of the funds is not work. He doesn't do that. Computers do that. Well, maybe he pushes a button on the computer, I honestly don't know. Maybe his clients push buttons on their computers (or write letters or whatever).

Maybe I'm not understanding your point. Are you saying the investors themselves aren't working? Because I might agree with that (I haven't decided how I want to argue about it yet). If you're saying investment bankers don't work, I have to continue to vehemently disagree with you. Because, really, attorneys, accountants, McDonald's employees, etc. aren't working either.

The point began because BBS insisted that financing a business (alone) was work.

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Symmetry wrote:I've got to be honest- arguments about the US constitution kind of bore me. I can understand why some Americans are really fervent about it, and I think in general it's a good basis for law, but it has changed with circumstances in the past. Sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly. Solely basing law on a literal interpretation of it seems pretty wrong to me.

But anyway, an area that I do know well is the public health system in the UK. Unsurprisingly, doctors have not been forced to give up their rights in order to provide medical care to other people without expecting anything in return (in this case, payment).

I'm sorry they bore you, but the Constitution should always be the basis of what the federal government can or cannot do. The federal government is not allowed to force universal health care on its citizens, so if you want that system of health care, you must amend the Constitution. It's quite simple yet frequently ignored in this era of ever-expanding government powers.

The federal government is allowed to do what is necessary for the health and safety of the people, which can include healthcare. Its actually a right that has been affirmed in the courts, in the context of everything from imposing quarantines to mandatory vaccinations.

However, given that the courts are not bought and sold by the right wing, that view is likely to change, but don't mistake that for any return to what the original forefathers intended.

THE GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE! I was wondering why it took so long for that to be brought up. Jeez Louise. You guys need to get your liberal talking points organized better.

Unfortunately, it refers to the "general" welfare, not the "specific" welfare of each individual person. Quarantines and vaccines (which people can opt out of the 2nd) are in place to protect the welfare of everybody else (you know, their rights that the government is supposed to be protecting) rather than providing for the specific wellness of individual people.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Woodruff wrote:All your friend Steve does is spend money for 100 hours per week? Because that's all investing is. I'm not talking about accounting procedures. And I'm not talking about things not being important or even more important than "labor". But financing something is not contributing labor to that something. It is providing other things, like risk reduction.

He works with his clients in order to properly (hopefully) invest their money in various instruments. He is paid hansomely for his work, although he works a lot of hours.

Then HE WORKS. The act of investment (the transfer of funds) is not work. It just isn't. It is other good things, but it is not work. This really isn't a difficult concept.

Okay, the actual transfer of the funds is not work. He doesn't do that. Computers do that. Well, maybe he pushes a button on the computer, I honestly don't know. Maybe his clients push buttons on their computers (or write letters or whatever).

Maybe I'm not understanding your point. Are you saying the investors themselves aren't working? Because I might agree with that (I haven't decided how I want to argue about it yet). If you're saying investment bankers don't work, I have to continue to vehemently disagree with you. Because, really, attorneys, accountants, McDonald's employees, etc. aren't working either.

The point began because BBS insisted that financing a business (alone) was work.

Okay, well, then I agree with you and Woodruff. Taking money, putting it in an envelope and attaching a stamp is not work.

thegreekdog wrote: Okay, well, then I agree with you and Woodruff. Taking money, putting it in an envelope and attaching a stamp is not work.

Also, it came up in the context of what philosophers have considered and not considered work.

... and usary.

Night Strike wrote: Unfortunately, it refers to the "general" welfare, not the "specific" welfare of each individual person. Quarantines and vaccines (which people can opt out of the 2nd) are in place to protect the welfare of everybody else (you know, their rights that the government is supposed to be protecting) rather than providing for the specific wellness of individual people.

Nope, gotcha!

People who do not have access to healthcare walk around being sick spreading illness AND are not productive members of society, often outright threats (particularly when it comes to mental health issues).

So, yes, it is a matter of general public concern.

thegreekdog wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Woodruff wrote:All your friend Steve does is spend money for 100 hours per week? Because that's all investing is. I'm not talking about accounting procedures. And I'm not talking about things not being important or even more important than "labor". But financing something is not contributing labor to that something. It is providing other things, like risk reduction.

He works with his clients in order to properly (hopefully) invest their money in various instruments. He is paid hansomely for his work, although he works a lot of hours.

Then HE WORKS. The act of investment (the transfer of funds) is not work. It just isn't. It is other good things, but it is not work. This really isn't a difficult concept.

Okay, the actual transfer of the funds is not work. He doesn't do that. Computers do that. Well, maybe he pushes a button on the computer, I honestly don't know. Maybe his clients push buttons on their computers (or write letters or whatever).

Maybe I'm not understanding your point. Are you saying the investors themselves aren't working? Because I might agree with that (I haven't decided how I want to argue about it yet). If you're saying investment bankers don't work, I have to continue to vehemently disagree with you. Because, really, attorneys, accountants, McDonald's employees, etc. aren't working either.

I believe we have a miscommunication. If you look up to where BigBallin is discussing the issue, he is making the statement that investing in a company is "labor". Which it is not.

thegreekdog wrote: THE GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE! I was wondering why it took so long for that to be brought up. Jeez Louise. You guys need to get your liberal talking points organized better.

Probably because only you and Nightstrike were attempting to claim the constitution as the ultimate authority on this.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote: THE GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE! I was wondering why it took so long for that to be brought up. Jeez Louise. You guys need to get your liberal talking points organized better.

Probably because only you and Nightstrike were attempting to claim the constitution as the ultimate authority on this.

I would make that argument also, actually...the Constitution MUST be the ultimate authority. When it's not, we get shit like The Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping.

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote: THE GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE! I was wondering why it took so long for that to be brought up. Jeez Louise. You guys need to get your liberal talking points organized better.

Probably because only you and Nightstrike were attempting to claim the constitution as the ultimate authority on this.

I would make that argument also, actually...the Constitution MUST be the ultimate authority. When it's not, we get shit like The Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping.

It is the authority for the US, but human rights are not vested by the constitution of the US.
(and that does not just apply to those who believe in God, etc.)

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote: THE GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE! I was wondering why it took so long for that to be brought up. Jeez Louise. You guys need to get your liberal talking points organized better.

Probably because only you and Nightstrike were attempting to claim the constitution as the ultimate authority on this.

I would make that argument also, actually...the Constitution MUST be the ultimate authority. When it's not, we get shit like The Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping.

It is the authority for the US, but human rights are not vested by the constitution of the US.

Ok, sure...I agree with you from a philosophical standpoint. And yet, our LAWS MUST follow the Constitution. It IS the ultimate authority for our system of laws.

If something in the Constitution needs to be changed, then I'm all for it...using the appropriate Amendment process. As someone mentioned earlier (Night Strike, I think), as things currently appear to stand, an Amendment for universal healthcare as a right would fail as enough states are already in suit against the current incarnation of it to show that to be true.

Phatscotty wrote:

natty_dread wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:They do? That's news to me. Explain to me how Canada, the UK, and Germany, as examples, treat healthcare as a right. Is it because they have nationalized healthcare? That doesn't make healthcare a right.

In my country, healthcare is considered a basic right, everyone has the right to receive medical treatment, regardless of their ability to pay for it.

My country has yet to face doom & destruction because of it. Go figure.

Interesting how long ago it would have been doomed (or if it was even possible in the first place) if you did not border the USA.....

Phatscotty, I know the state of education in your country is bad, but I didn't realize it was that bad... do they even teach geography over there anymore?

For the record, my country does not nor has ever bordered USA.

natty_dread wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

natty_dread wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:They do? That's news to me. Explain to me how Canada, the UK, and Germany, as examples, treat healthcare as a right. Is it because they have nationalized healthcare? That doesn't make healthcare a right.

In my country, healthcare is considered a basic right, everyone has the right to receive medical treatment, regardless of their ability to pay for it.

My country has yet to face doom & destruction because of it. Go figure.

Interesting how long ago it would have been doomed (or if it was even possible in the first place) if you did not border the USA.....

Phatscotty, I know the state of education in your country is bad, but I didn't realize it was that bad... do they even teach geography over there anymore?

For the record, my country does not nor has ever bordered USA.

Does the Atlantic Ocean count for a border?

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote: THE GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE! I was wondering why it took so long for that to be brought up. Jeez Louise. You guys need to get your liberal talking points organized better.

Probably because only you and Nightstrike were attempting to claim the constitution as the ultimate authority on this.

I would make that argument also, actually...the Constitution MUST be the ultimate authority. When it's not, we get shit like The Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping.

It is the authority for the US, but human rights are not vested by the constitution of the US.

Ok, sure...I agree with you from a philosophical standpoint. And yet, our LAWS MUST follow the Constitution. It IS the ultimate authority for our system of laws.

True, but that is sort of where things got off track. greekdog insisted that rights were things from the constitution of the US. I said, no.

Woodruff wrote:If something in the Constitution needs to be changed, then I'm all for it...using the appropriate Amendment process. As someone mentioned earlier (Night Strike, I think), as things currently appear to stand, an Amendment for universal healthcare as a right would fail as enough states are already in suit against the current incarnation of it to show that to be true.

I am not sure that the number of states is real justification for saying that it is against the constitution. Also, while we must, of course, honor the law of the land, that the Supreme court once ruled blacks don't have the same right as whites did not mean it really was OK. I put this in a similar category.

Also, despite the rhetoric, I don't truly believe the objections are really on constitutional grounds. I think the real objection is that a lot of people have bought into both the whole "socialized medicine is automatically bad" bit and a lot of intense pressure from the insurance lobbyists. I also think a lot of big corporations are against this because they feel it will increase their costs, which may or may not be true, but has little to do with either what is noral or constitutional.

Woodruff wrote: Does the Atlantic Ocean count for a border?

Technically, Finland is not on the Atlantic, either. (but then, I learned Geography mostly in the US, too).

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:If something in the Constitution needs to be changed, then I'm all for it...using the appropriate Amendment process. As someone mentioned earlier (Night Strike, I think), as things currently appear to stand, an Amendment for universal healthcare as a right would fail as enough states are already in suit against the current incarnation of it to show that to be true.

I am not sure that the number of states is real justification for saying that it is against the constitution.

I never said it was. What I DID say is that it IS real justification to believe that an Amendment to that purpose would fail.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Also, while we must, of course, honor the law of the land, that the Supreme court once ruled blacks don't have the same right as whites did not mean it really was OK. I put this in a similar category.

Sure, but that is only your opinion. Unless and until the Constitution is changed, it IS the law of the land. That's why the Amendment process exists.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Also, despite the rhetoric, I don't truly believe the objections are really on constitutional grounds. I think the real objection is that a lot of people have bought into both the whole "socialized medicine is automatically bad" bit and a lot of intense pressure from the insurance lobbyists. I also think a lot of big corporations are against this because they feel it will increase their costs, which may or may not be true, but has little to do with either what is noral or constitutional.

I tend to agree, but I find it irrelevant because the Constitutional argument is pretty sound.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote: Does the Atlantic Ocean count for a border?

Technically, Finland is not on the Atlantic, either. (but then, I learned Geography mostly in the US, too).

Baltic sea is not considered a part of Atlantic. But then again, technically all seas are really one and the same, so...

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:If something in the Constitution needs to be changed, then I'm all for it...using the appropriate Amendment process. As someone mentioned earlier (Night Strike, I think), as things currently appear to stand, an Amendment for universal healthcare as a right would fail as enough states are already in suit against the current incarnation of it to show that to be true.

I am not sure that the number of states is real justification for saying that it is against the constitution. Also, while we must, of course, honor the law of the land, that the Supreme court once ruled blacks don't have the same right as whites did not mean it really was OK. I put this in a similar category.

I'm saying that the Constitution does not currently allow for the federal government to provide universal health care. In order for the federal government to provide it, the Constitution must be amended. Amending the Constitution requires 3/4 of the states to ratify the amendment. Because more than 50% of the states are currently suing the federal government over universal healthcare, it is therefore unreasonable to believe that the Constitution will be amended to allow the federal government to provide universal health care. Therefore, the federal government can not Constitutionally engage in universal health care.

And those are regardless of what other counties or multi-national organizations deem are rights, which of course ignores the original argument that something cannot be a right if it forces someone else to take a positive action without willful participation.

Night Strike wrote:I'm saying that the Constitution does not currently allow for the federal government to provide universal health care.

I understand. I disagree. Neither of us are Supreme Court justices, so our opinions really don't matter. I suspect your side will win, but sill consider it to be the wrong opinion.

Night Strike wrote:And those are regardless of what other counties or multi-national organizations deem are rights,

Human Rights and civil or consitutional rights are not the same... at all.

Night Strike wrote:which of course ignores the original argument that something cannot be a right if it forces someone else to take a positive action without willful participation.

Not the original argument, but I define rights a bit differently anyway.
Something necessary to live is a right, as are things necessary to have what most people call a decent live, including the right to pursue happiness, speak freely and to worship whom one pleases.

Which brings me to my original, first statement to greekdog, which referred actually to the declaration of independence, though people thought I meant something else.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:I'm saying that the Constitution does not currently allow for the federal government to provide universal health care.

I understand. I disagree. Neither of us are Supreme Court justices, so our opinions really don't matter. I suspect your side will win, but sill consider it to be the wrong opinion.

Our country does not rely on 9 people to determine what is Constitutional or not. Every public official takes an oath to uphold the Constitution as well as members of the military. Every person in this country has the ability to interpret the Constitution, which is why in the past presidents have blatantly ignored Supreme Court rulings as they disagreed with the Court's ruling. And yet that wasn't seen as offensive by the public! The Constitution needs to be read and understood by every citizen, not just 9 justices. Otherwise, we will have no knowledge of whether or not our rights are being infringed upon.

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:I'm saying that the Constitution does not currently allow for the federal government to provide universal health care.

I understand. I disagree. Neither of us are Supreme Court justices, so our opinions really don't matter. I suspect your side will win, but sill consider it to be the wrong opinion.

Our country does not rely on 9 people to determine what is Constitutional or not. Every public official takes an oath to uphold the Constitution as well as members of the military. Every person in this country has the ability to interpret the Constitution, which is why in the past presidents have blatantly ignored Supreme Court rulings as they disagreed with the Court's ruling. And yet that wasn't seen as offensive by the public! The Constitution needs to be read and understood by every citizen, not just 9 justices. Otherwise, we will have no knowledge of whether or not our rights are being infringed upon.

The legal authority determining the extent and meaning of the constitution is an always will be the Supreme Court.

In California, at least, students are required to not just read, but take a test showing they understand the constitution in 8th grade.

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:I'm saying that the Constitution does not currently allow for the federal government to provide universal health care.

I understand. I disagree. Neither of us are Supreme Court justices, so our opinions really don't matter. I suspect your side will win, but sill consider it to be the wrong opinion.

Our country does not rely on 9 people to determine what is Constitutional or not. Every public official takes an oath to uphold the Constitution as well as members of the military. Every person in this country has the ability to interpret the Constitution, which is why in the past presidents have blatantly ignored Supreme Court rulings as they disagreed with the Court's ruling. And yet that wasn't seen as offensive by the public! The Constitution needs to be read and understood by every citizen, not just 9 justices. Otherwise, we will have no knowledge of whether or not our rights are being infringed upon.

That seems like a very strange position for a Constitutionalist to take.

Am I the only person left in the entire country who understands that it is already a law that hospitals cannot refuse to treat someone because they cannot pay? We already have "universal healthcare." When the patient is healthy enough that the hospital that treated him wont be held liable for anything, they dump them off. Usually they do this at some charity house but they also dump them on the streets. Then they pass the cost of the care of that patient onto the rest of us who have insurance. Many hospitals along the US/Mexico border offer fewer services than hospitals around the rest of the country because they cannot afford to treat so many people who don't have insurance. You're not saving a dime by fighting universal healthcare. You're paying more. This is 2nd grade level math people.
Furthermore, the insurance companies that we are all forced to use are by far more oppressive than the government-run plan. If I want any other insurance plan other than what my work provides, the cost is double. And I have to go to one of their approved doctors. I even have to get approval for some courses of treatment, and they don't cover the full cost of anything. That's not freedom. Should I be forced to work for a company that doesn't have insurance and get hurt, I will rack up personal bills that will force me into bankruptcy and make sure that your own insurance rates stay high. This is money that you could be spending on your wife or something.

PLAYER57832 wrote:In California, at least, students are required to not just read, but take a test showing they understand the constitution in 8th grade.

Here too. I was the only person in my class to pass the practice test. I thought it was simple stuff. I'll never forget that.

thegreekdog wrote:I'm sure there is a term for it (I'm not sure if that term is straw man), but you are all arguing different things. And by "all" I mean everyone except Symmetry and me.

Here's what I'm arguing - healthcare is not a right.

Here's what the rest of you are arguing - Universal healthcare is good/bad. Everyone/no one should get free healthcare.

I'm pointing out that calling healthcare a right gives it more credence than saying that healthcare is something you want. Because I think healthcare is not a right, I think it's a ridiculous proposition to use the word "right" in the context of describing access to healthcare. I've illustrated this difference in the context of education. So, if you want to discuss with Night Strike the benefits or detriments of universal healthcare, please continue. Alternatively, if you want to discuss whether healthcare is a right or not, please join me, Rand Paul and Symmetry.

I would argue that there are no rights whatsoever. The government can and does take away our "rights" all the time. The law of the jungle gives no such distinction between a "right" and "I'm bigger than you."
Human Rights, Civil Rights, and Constitutional Rights are all distinct things that only exist in our imaginations. Whoever has the power is free to interpret them as they see fit.

Correction: They were taking away our rights all the time, because people were complacent and content. Now, we are standing up for our rights and even going to take some of our freedoms back. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mf33LIEt-g

We are going to take a huge look at every program started in the last 10 years and cut most of them, starting with homeland security.