Effect of Presidential debates?

[Cheesehead Craig]

Speaking of the Constitution, this popped into my head:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_TXJRZ4CFc

I loved Schoolhouse Rock as a kid. I even got the tape of them to show my own kids.

[mraynrand]

I'm happy with protecting borders and police. That's specified in or constitution. Education and Health care were not. I understand your position that you want health care to be a right. I too, want to ensure that health care is available to all, but I don't think it's a right. Why do people deserve it? Do people deserve an ice cream cone every week, too? Do people deserve perfectly well-balanced nutritional meals? Were these things in our constitution. What to you is the difference between a 'responsibility' and 'right?'

Careful with that argument mraynrand, abolishing slavery and woman's sufferage weren't part of the Constitution at one point. Simply because it's not specifically in there doesn't mean it's not something worth having.

You're absolutely correct. I'm not arguing against something being desirable to have - I'm arguing whether it is a 'right.' Slavery and womens' rights are not particularly illuminating in this case, because we simply extended rights to people who should have had them all along. Those rights don't require 8-14 years of education after high school to provide. They are 'self-evident.'

Well, that phrase is from the Declaration of Independence, but I'll give it to you.

But what about the phrase "promote the general welfare" in the preamble, would not health care fall under that?

That's a phrase people love to refer to. It says promote, not provide and it says 'general' as well. And I'll go back to my central point - there are all sorts of things we as a people can decide to vote in and spend taxpayer monies on that 'promote' the general welfare, some are more appropriate for the government, like infrastructure as in roads etc. But that still doesn't make certain things 'rights.' It's not a trivial point. That attitude determines whether people will tend towards self-reliance or towards dependency on government.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

One could make the argument that if we are indeed living in a Christian society in America, that it would be our Christian duty to help the less fortunate. If the poor cannot afford health care, we should then strive to assist them in obtaining it.

I agree. But without the Government taking over. Notice the names of most of the hospitals in your city. Who started them?

When Ty comes in later to shit on this forum, he is going to point out how all medical care for the common man came from government programs. That's just the facts.

Yeah, it is so troubling when the facts interfere with your reality.

Gov't has always been involved with healthcare.

[Patler]

Gov't has always been involved with healthcare.

So THAT'S where the problems came from!!

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Gov't has always been involved with healthcare.

So THAT'S where the problems came from!!

I was responding from a historical perspective. The first dedicated hospitals were funded by kings in the far east..and Ashok of India built 20 or so (though there is some that question whether they were hospitals or just rest places for travellers). In the New World the first hospitals were again gov't funded. Cortes i believe built the first for his soldiers, natives, etc.

The problem really came when it became a business..when you had healthcare plans, when doctors went from having 2 jobs to being specialists, to when the AMA became very powerful and forced out anyone who wanted a choice of who to see or if hospitals could even hire people who weren't AMA approved, when the gov't went into the business of giving money to research over care (this was concious choice), etc.

I had a very long post about this to Roark...which when confronted by the truth..he stopped arguing the point.

Gov't will always be involved. The question is implementation.

Those who are quick to blame gov't, ask themselves..is gov't getting the support it needs? Are all members of the gov't helping. Quite clearly the conservatives have been at war with gov't for the past 30 years. They want it to fail so as to prove their point. I take Norquist at his word. They aren't giving their all and best to see that it succeeds.

[mraynrand]

One could make the argument that if we are indeed living in a Christian society in America, that it would be our Christian duty to help the less fortunate. If the poor cannot afford health care, we should then strive to assist them in obtaining it.

I agree. But without the Government taking over. Notice the names of most of the hospitals in your city. Who started them?

When Ty comes in later to shit on this forum, he is going to point out how all medical care for the common man came from government programs. That's just the facts.

Yeah, it is so troubling when the facts interfere with your reality.

Gov't has always been involved with healthcare.

You're even more obedient than my labrador.

[mraynrand]

Quite clearly the conservatives have been at war with gov't for the past 30 years. They want it to fail so as to prove their point. I take Norquist at his word. They aren't giving their all and best to see that it succeeds.

lame

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Quite clearly the conservatives have been at war with gov't for the past 30 years. They want it to fail so as to prove their point. I take Norquist at his word. They aren't giving their all and best to see that it succeeds.

lame

Like your response.

[HowardRoark]

One could make the argument that if we are indeed living in a Christian society in America, that it would be our Christian duty to help the less fortunate. If the poor cannot afford health care, we should then strive to assist them in obtaining it.

I agree. But without the Government taking over. Notice the names of most of the hospitals in your city. Who started them?

When Ty comes in later to shit on this forum, he is going to point out how all medical care for the common man came from government programs. That's just the facts.

Yeah, it is so troubling when the facts interfere with your reality.

Gov't has always been involved with healthcare.

Never said they weren't Ty......just pointing out that religious people have indeed been helping the poor.

[HowardRoark]

Those who are quick to blame gov't, ask themselves..is gov't getting the support it needs? Are all members of the gov't helping. Quite clearly the conservatives have been at war with gov't for the past 30 years. They want it to fail so as to prove their point. I take Norquist at his word. They aren't giving their all and best to see that it succeeds.

And this says it all. We don't believe the Government is something that should fail or succeed. We think that the people should be allowed to fail or succeed. You make it sound as if the U.S. Government was somekind of start up company started in the 60s that we are trying to make work.

Let's all "give it are all" for the government to work. Sorry.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Those who are quick to blame gov't, ask themselves..is gov't getting the support it needs? Are all members of the gov't helping. Quite clearly the conservatives have been at war with gov't for the past 30 years. They want it to fail so as to prove their point. I take Norquist at his word. They aren't giving their all and best to see that it succeeds.

And this says it all. We don't believe the Government is something that should fail or succeed. We think that the people should be allowed to fail or succeed. You make it sound as if the U.S. Government was somekind of start up company started in the 60s that we are trying to make work.

Let's all "give it are all" for the government to work. Sorry.

The type of gov't that you rail against was new..it was started post WW2. If you don't understand that, then you need a basic history lesson. You think all those tract homes in DC were always there? You think the idea of bringing in the best and the brightest to work for gov't was always there? Not a chance. And, ever since then, conservs have been screaming about it..ever since the weathly got pushed out.

[hoosier]

When Obama said health care was a right I wish McCain said that everyone felt home ownership is a right and look at the mess we are in right now. There were a few times McCain could've had better answers.

Yeah, some people just don't deserve to have health care.

No one deserves to have 'health care' just as no one deserves to have anything that is provided by someone else. Health Care is a huge concern that involves doctors and nurses becoming skilled at their profession and many scientists and engineers in different fields providing medicines and devices necessary to actually provide health care. IF no one bothered to learn to become a physician or scientist or engineer, what health care would there be? What would you do? Put a gun to the heads of intelligent Americans and force them to go to medical school for your 'right?'

Hoosier, explain to me how you or anyone else deserve health care.

If that is really your position--"no one deserves to have anything that is provded by someone else"--then you've just declared yourself to be opposed to any modern idea of government based on the principle of right. Even the purest of libertarians believe in right to the extent that they want government to protect borders, police the streets and deliver the mail. My position is that health care ought to be a fundamental right in our society, just like education, security, liberty and free expression. What's so confusing about that?

I'm happy with protecting borders and police. That's specified in or constitution. Education and Health care were not. I understand your position that you want health care to be a right. I too, want to ensure that health care is available to all, but I don't think it's a right. Why do people deserve it? Do people deserve an ice cream cone every week, too? Do people deserve perfectly well-balanced nutritional meals? Were these things in our constitution. What to you is the difference between a 'responsibility' and 'right?'

No, a right to health care is not specified in the US Constitution. And I think you make a good point in reminding us that if something is NOT specified in the Constitution then, politically speaking, it's pretty meaningless. Health care reform will only gain staying power and political weight if it becomes an amendment.

We can argue back and forth about rights and responsibilities, with Retail Guy chiming in occasionally to keep us from forgetting about the freeloaders and the welfare cheats. I look at it this way: we have a choice between two imperfect solutions: either we enact something like universal, guaranteed access to affordable, comprehensive health care (I'm leaving the meaning of comprehensive open-ended) and in the process we open the door to providing services to people who don't want to (rather than cannot) work for them; or we decide that access to that level of health care is contingent on several factors (one's willingness to work, one's good fortune in finding a job with health care benefits, etc.), and in the process we leave uncovered a certain percentage of people who would be willing to work for the services. They are both imperfect, both bad, but in my view one is less bad than the other: the one that prioritizes health and helping others over "what's mine is mine."

[mraynrand]

The type of gov't that you rail against was new..it was started post WW2. If you don't understand that, then you need a basic history lesson. You think all those tract homes in DC were always there? You think the idea of bringing in the best and the brightest to work for gov't was always there? Not a chance. And, ever since then, conservs have been screaming about it..ever since the weathly got pushed out.

The best and the brightest are in government?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The type of gov't that you rail against was new..it was started post WW2. If you don't understand that, then you need a basic history lesson. You think all those tract homes in DC were always there? You think the idea of bringing in the best and the brightest to work for gov't was always there? Not a chance. And, ever since then, conservs have been screaming about it..ever since the weathly got pushed out.

The best and the brightest are in government?

Certainly not in the executive branch.

[MJZiggy]

The effect of the Presidential debates? Seems to me they just start fights...