That is a good point as the Declaration of Independence is primarily for stating the justification for the Colonies to break off from England and not how to form a government but there is some overlap in regard to the nature of government and what sort of rights it grants. In this case the rights, life, liberty and pursuit of happiness aren't exactly rights recognized in the Constitution and citing the Declaration of Independence to say those rights are enumerated doesn't mean anything since the Constitution is the document that states the rights of the US.
I don't fear the government. I don't trust them though. Go right ahead and laugh at that, I suppose, but as it comes to business I can at least feel that I have some power as a consumer by hitting them in their pocket book and/or choosing another means. I never took economics. I was simply "spouting the crap" that most people know about the subject, which makes a hell of a lot of sense as it pertains to, you know, econ 101, but just not in this case, I guess, as you've already pointed out several times to us feeble-minded folk that it has been proven (PROVEN!!!!) to be wrong.. Sorry....I'm really trying not to be a smart ass here as you were (previously, at least) asking me fairly honest questions….But no, Sam, I don't know the answer. I applaud your understanding of this subject matter, I really do, so let me ask this: if this theory/paper is to be the be-all/end-all of American Health Care, why isn't it in play? Why is there even a debate on the subject of that which is already proven as fact? Why would I say something that isn't true? Our system used to work quite well and resulted in the best health care in the world. Now our system is all f***ed up and our overall quality of care is in jeopardy. I've mentioned the wait times that have occurred in other systems. Some people say it isn't the case and it's all a bunch of lies. All I have is my own personal experience with the subject which I've addressed already. Shall I ask why you don't care about the sick as it pertains to these wait times? Shall I make that presumption? It's a lot more inefficient to me to have to wait for needed care. At least our system as it is now doesn't allow for that. Again, I'm not satisfied with it. Again, insurance and pharmaceutical companies rule Washington because of their lobbying, which means they rule our politicians. And THAT is what frightens me.
Speaking of the Constitution... DeMint And Ensign Look To Right-Wing Think Tanks Rather Than Judges To Interpret The Constitution Sens. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and John Ensign (R-NV) announced yesterday that they would invoke an unusual Senate procedure — a “constitutional point of order” — to allow the Senate to rule by majority vote on whether the “Democrat health care takeover bill” is unconstitutional. Significantly, neither DeMint nor Ensign cite a single judge, justice or reputable constitutional scholar who believes that health reform is unconstitutional. Instead, they rely entirely on a study by the right-wing Heritage Foundation, a radical “tenther” organization which has endorsed the view that Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the federal minimum wage, and the federal ban on workplace discrimination and whites-only lunch counters are all unconstitutional. Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), rebuts DeMint and Ensign’s constitutional claim by citing numerous constitutional scholars — including right-wing law professor Jonathan Adler — who all agree that health reform is constitutional. Moreover, as ThinkProgress has previously explained, even ultra-conservative Justice Antonin Scalia disagrees with the tenther attack on health reform. http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/23/demint-tenther/
Water may not be a right, but ensuring the water you drink is safe certainly is a right. It's hard to imagine America being a successful nation without clean drinking water. It might not be a right, but it is essential to the functioning and welfare of the country. Is health care any different?
Good analogy. And neither are inalienable human rights. Valuable public services? Yes of course. But no scarce resources can be guaranteed as human rights. Are you saying that all poor nations are committing human rights atrocities because they can't afford clean water? Just because some of us do not think that health care is an inalienable human right does not mean that we don't think a public option is a good idea.
now you are hereby appointed Internet troll by the Comintern. Do your collective best for our collective good, comrade.
are you saying Marxism is dead? you capitalist pig........ I guess that punch-line was way over your proletarian head.
The Comintern is happy that you have accepted our assignment. Now in the interest of saving whatever internet resources our centralized economy of tires and cheap Chinese labor can provide us, we must cease communication. good day comrade.
How about the company that's polluting it? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/us/13water.html Do you know if the water you drink is safe?
Is safe drinking water a right or a valuable public service. It all depends. In poor countries, you might not have a right to a free trial. Does that mean it shouldn't be a right here? Your logic doesn't work. I would say drinking water is an issue of national security more than anything else. But it could be a right - the most basic in our constitution. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness all require clean air and clean water. The essence of life is water and air - no other two things matter more for you HEALTH. That's right, health. Because to be free and enjoy freedom - to pursue anything - you must be able bodied. To work and produce. I can understand conservatives not wanting to give free handouts to the lazy. But what about those who are sick? How are they to work and contribute to society if they are sick? What of children? By the way, I live in NYC - amazingly, our drinking water is some of the nations best. But if i had kids, I still regularly have it tested - you don't put anything more into your body than water. And bottle water has it's own problems.
Yes - if the country can afford it, then it is certainly an inalienable right. They could cut military spending as we no longer need such a massive military budget and fund health care for the entire country. DD
If I was in control this would be the first thing I would do. Let me go in a different direction regarding this debate. Some religious groups, scientologists among them, do not believe in modern healthcare and that God will take care of you when you are sick. Now there have been varying cases of neglect when their children die because their parents didn't take them to the doctor. Most of the time these cases are parent's right debates. But let's take it a step further. If you don't take your kid to the doctor when he has a fever of 103 and the child dies there are numerous people who will say you killed the child through neglect. Now let's say you couldn't afford the treatment and child died is it neglect? Some would probably say yes because the ER would still stabilize the child. Now let's say it was a more expensive procedure that your child needed say a transplant. You have no insurance and can't afford it and the child dies while another parent who does have insurance could have saved the life of their child. Is it neglect on the parent without insurance? Is the government at fault for not stepping in and saving the life of the first child? Where do you draw the line on medical neglect? I think we can all agree at the very first scenario is criminal not to take the child to the ER for his fever and let him die instead. But because his condition needs a more expensive operation suddenly it is no longer neglect? To look at another way is healthcare an inalienable right for children who have no control to get a job or procure their own insurance?
