Is health care a right?

[wist43]

The Constitution is an anti-socialist document... can't state it much clearer than that.

Read the Federalist Papers, you might learn something.

[Fosco33]

Funny that JSO had an article about physician shortages in WI right after I posted that here last week...

Let's just open up hc to everyone in the world

[MJZiggy]

Insurance, dear, insurance.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The Constitution is an anti-socialist document... can't state it much clearer than that.

Read the Federalist Papers, you might learn something.

OK, perhaps this is a fair reading, at least arguably so. Certainly the founders never envisioned anything like social security, or FDIC insurance for bank accounts, or medicare. But the government has evolved, and the changes in government have passed constitutional muster with all the Supreme Courts since the country's founding.

Do you propose to roll-back 225 years of political evolution?

You are very resentful of the notion that the government should fund health insurance for all, called it stealing. But this argument could be made for EVERY and ALL government expenditures. What about the $10B spent every week on the IRaq War against the wishes of so many voters?

I think health care is a worthwhile priority for government spending. Its an area where the free market does not and can not serve our citizens well. It is fine if you disagree with this priority, but don't even bother suggesting that it is morally wrong for the government to spend money.

[mraynrand]

The people can vote it in - that doesn't mean it doesn't go beyond enumerated powers. Defense spending is enumerated and yes, we do vote for the guy that primarily decides what conflicts are in our national security interest to engage in. All those other programs you mention don't pass constitutional muster, but as you suggest, the genie is out of the bottle. Emanations of penumbras can account for all sorts of unconstitutional bullshit.

[Harlan Huckleby]

IF the constitution were not allowed to evolve in meaning, we would be trapped by the mindset of the 1780's.

I suppose you think changes have to come strictly through amendment rather than court interpretation.

[HowardRoark]

IF the constitution were not allowed to evolve in meaning, we would be trapped by the mindset of the 1780's.

Which parts of the Constitution do you believe are specific the the midset of the 1780s?

[mraynrand]

IF the constitution were not allowed to evolve in meaning, we would be trapped by the mindset of the 1780's.

I suppose you think changes have to come strictly through amendment rather than court interpretation.

The constitutional mindset of 1789 was pretty fucking awesome. Yes, it would be pretty damn great if changes came through amendment and OF COURSE through legislation at the state level. Remember Federalism? Thinking in national terms, each state is like a testing ground for ideas.

Harlan, the point that you seem to gloss over, even though it's been pointed out multiple times is that the founders understood that Government is intrinsically BAD - it is corruptable, it becomes corrupt, it IS corrupt. It's a bipartisan thing. LOOK at the government in Washington. THEY SUCK. THEY FUCK US OVER ON ALMOST EVERYTHING. I reject the modern interpretation that government is great, we just need to clean it up. It cannot be cleaned up. You can't stop it, you can only hope to contain it. And it looks like it's at epidemic breakout stage. Separation of powers was intended to cripple the government so that it wouldn't become the despotic oligarchy that it is rapidly morphing into.

[Harlan Huckleby]

IF the constitution were not allowed to evolve in meaning, we would be trapped by the mindset of the 1780's.

Which parts of the Constitution do you believe are specific the the midset of the 1780s?

how about the 3/5ths clause, that declared a black to be 3/5 of a full citizen.

I just throw this obvious one out there to show how differently people were wired 200 years ago.

[Harlan Huckleby]

the founders understood that Government is intrinsically BAD - it is corruptable, it becomes corrupt, it IS corrupt.

the founders just got done escaping the tyranical grips of King George. ITs understandable that their mindset would be very leery of government.

ITs true that over time we've become more trusting of government.

Your view that government is inherently evil is not shared by a majority of Americans. Government has a mixed record.

Honestly, I think philisophical arguments about whether government is inherently good or evil are pointless. Its like saying a running game is inherently good or evil. Obviously it is needed in correct moderation, and that is the debate.

[mraynrand]

Your view that government is inherently evil is not shared by a majority of Americans. Government has a mixed record.

Honestly, I think philisophical arguments about whether government is inherently good or evil are pointless. .

Evil? i said corrupt. All governments are corrupted. Yes, there is a mixed record. Government does some good, but it is corrupt. I would say the 9% approval rating for Congress suggests more may think that government is inherently corrupt.

The reason to continue the philosophical debate is to convince people that less government is better. I think it can be done, but people want their handouts, even if they see shitty government in action.

[Kiwon]

IF the constitution were not allowed to evolve in meaning, we would be trapped by the mindset of the 1780's.

I suppose you think changes have to come strictly through amendment rather than court interpretation.

No and yes.

[HowardRoark]

IF the constitution were not allowed to evolve in meaning, we would be trapped by the mindset of the 1780's.

Which parts of the Constitution do you believe are specific the the midset of the 1780s?

how about the 3/5ths clause, that declared a black to be 3/5 of a full citizen.

I just throw this obvious one out there to show how differently people were wired 200 years ago.

Do you know why they were 3/5 of a full citizen? Without this, there is a good chance slavery would have lasted a lot longer.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Do you know why they were 3/5 of a full citizen? Without this, there is a good chance slavery would have lasted a lot longer.

I think it was some sort of compromise, that allowed the southern colonies to move from Articles of Confederation to a tigher union under the constitution. I don't know why you say that this compromise helped end slavery quicker, but I bet you're gonna tell me.

My example is not a good one for your question, I know you were looking for more fundamental notions. The federalists clearly thought of the states as autonomous regions. We've evolved towards a stronger central gov, much to the chagrin of you 1780's guys, but it did allow, for just one example, civil rights for blacks in the 1960's. And an interstate highway system.

Or, you could even look as early of Marbury vrs. Madison, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison, where the notion of judicial review by the Supreme Court was put in place. That is a concept that the original founders didn't think of, and has served the country well.

I was thinking of our Continentel Soldiers - Partial, Wist, MrAynRand, Cy and perhaps yourself - who think the 1780's "rocked", as Ayn said. The book "A Confederacy of Dunces" is about a guy who thinks that political thought and social life peaked at about 1350, and everything since has been a big mistake. Ignatius T. Reilly would fit in nicely with your club.

[sheepshead]

so you want these people in charge of health care?

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=6502412