Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Wow. Just wow.
Topic Started: Aug 2 2010, 06:08 AM (282 Views)
Luke's Dad
Member Avatar
Emperor Pengin
Listen to all of it, but pay particular attention at 2:58
The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Okay well first of all, as to this woman's question of constitutionality, look at what she says in the beginning.
Quote:
 

Such a right is actually beyond the power of the federal government to confer. And this is because this necessarily infringes the inalienable rights of other people. And the reason I say this is because in order to get health care services, fire stations those services stations have to be rendered by somebody else, using their time, their engergy, their knowledge and their labor. And this means that if any of us want health care fire stations and we have a "right" to it, then we necessarily have the right to compel others to provide those services or to pay for them for us.


This argument has been and will always be weaksauce. I'm not necessarily for the health care bill, I'm just saying, there are plenty of services the government provides for some of us, that the rest of us pay for. It's called public libraries, fire stations, social services and roads. Going solely by this woman's argument (I realize there's more to it than that, which is why I think this is a weak approach), health care is exactly the same.

Second, I'm not at all put off by what this (what do you know, Democrat, I never would have guessed from the Breitbart link) is saying because how is that not the truth?
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Luke's Dad
Member Avatar
Emperor Pengin
I'm not agreeing with her slavery question, either... In this case it's not the question that's important, but the answer.

Plus, the problem with your analogy is that the Fed Government does not have anything to do with Firefighters, except occasionally helping with a little funding. Firefighters are handled through local government.

As far as the second part, Congress and the Federal Government is most certainly limited in their powers by The Constitution. That was the whole point of the document.
Edited by Luke's Dad, Aug 2 2010, 06:49 AM.
The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop

I believe her point was that the feds don't have the right to do these things, the state and local governments and individuals do.

Your list of services backs this up. There are of course exceptions.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Luke's Dad
Member Avatar
Emperor Pengin
In addition, not even local governments give us the "right" to Fire Fighters. They provide it as a service to the community.
The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Luke's Dad
Aug 2 2010, 06:43 AM
I'm not agreeing with her slavery question, either... In this case it's not the question that's important, but the answer.
Yeah but it's pretty easy to make this a partisan issue which it clearly isn't. They all at least think like this if not claim to out loud.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
It's all just hot air. People get so worked up over this stuff.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Copper
Aug 2 2010, 06:49 AM
I believe her point was that the feds don't have the right to do these things, the state and local governments and individuals do.

Your list of services backs this up. There are of course exceptions.
That might be your point but it sure wasn't hers.

She was talking about health care provided by the government infringing upon the rights of its citizens. She mentions the federal government in the beginning but swapping that out with the state or local government wouldn't change that.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

The problem I see is that people misuse the word "right" far too often. Health care certainly is NOT a right, neither are many services the government provides and/or pays for.

Once we clarify the "rights vs services" issue, I think that'll help the dialog.

But yes, LD...the congressman's answer was ridiculous. And scary.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
Aqua Letifer
Aug 2 2010, 07:05 AM
Copper
Aug 2 2010, 06:49 AM
I believe her point was that the feds don't have the right to do these things, the state and local governments and individuals do.

Your list of services backs this up. There are of course exceptions.
That might be your point but it sure wasn't hers.

She was talking about health care provided by the government infringing upon the rights of its citizens. She mentions the federal government in the beginning but swapping that out with the state or local government wouldn't change that.

I changes it significantly for me.

Local governments, for the most part, have to live within a budget.

There is no way any of them with this constraint could even dream about unlimited free healthcare forever.

There is a very big difference.

This is a metter of dollars and cents. I can't imagine anyone who doesn't want unlimited free healthcare forever. The question is how to pay for it.

The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Copper
Aug 2 2010, 07:37 AM
I changes it significantly for me.

Local governments, for the most part, have to live within a budget.

There is no way any of them with this constraint could even dream about unlimited free healthcare forever.

There is a very big difference.

This is a metter of dollars and cents. I can't imagine anyone who doesn't want unlimited free healthcare forever. The question is how to pay for it.

Well that's a separate issue from hers, which was my point.

With her argument, that it infringes upon every citizen's rights to require them to provide for services received by some, it wouldn't make a difference whether we were talking about local, state or federal government. And I was saying this is a weak argument, because we already provide a handful of services to others in this manner.

Your concerns are important but they're just separate from what she was saying.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Let the lawsuits begin: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100802/pl_nm/us_usa_healthcare_virginia

A judge on Monday refused to dismiss the state of Virginia's challenge to President Barack Obama's landmark healthcare law, a setback that will force his administration to mount a lengthy legal defense of the overhaul effort.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson refused to dismiss the state's lawsuit which argues the law's requirement that its residents have health insurance was unconstitutional, allowing the challenge to go forward.

The new law is a major cornerstone of President Barack Obama's domestic agenda and administration officials have vigorously defended it as constitutional and necessary to stem huge increases in costs for health care.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

LD...it gets BETTER (or worse)

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply