Sorry, but you have no 'right' to health care.

[ccbatson]

Modern? Aristotle from 2500 years ago is modern by you? What do you consider old fashioned? Cavemen?

[Lorax]

Rights are mutable, just as Rb mentioned. At one point our founding fathers agreed by omission in the constitution that ownership of human beings was a property right.

Why does the constitution have amendments? It's an organic, fluid body that was designed to change with the times. Basic core principles remain intact, but what wasn't addressed in the original draft exists in amendments, which were by themselves part of the original draft.

So all this carping about health care not being a right by modern standards is nothing but bellyaching.

Science has given us the means by which to hinder disease, and vaccinate against common aliments, which are being used less frerquently due to costs.

What the wealthy individuals who despise socialized health care fail to realize, is that the diseases of the uninsured and untreated will get them eventually too.

We need what other industrialized nations have, and have failed to provide our citizens, and that is a cradle to grave health care system. We can pay for it with taxes that are currently collected, but we need to realize first we don't need thousands of new weapons systems, wasteful government contracts, and propping up illegal wars for the benefit of the wealthy corporatists.

When we get beyone this, then we will have more than enough in currently collected taxes to more than pay for universal health care.

Problem is, we have corporatists running the government, so this needs to change first.

[rb336]

Modern? Aristotle from 2500 years ago is modern by you? What do you consider old fashioned? Cavemen?

like YOU have ever read aristotle

"the ruling class should be the owners of property, for they are citizens, and the citizens of a state should be in good circumstances; whereas mechanics or any other class which is not a producer of virtue have no share in the state... The husbandmen will of necessity be slaves or barbarian Perioeci"

not a damn thing in there holds true of civilized people today

[Lorax]

Aristotle was quite the little fascist, wasn't he?

[Rideron]

Actually, neither the Consitution nor the Bill of Rights grant us any rights whatsoever.

As the Charter documents themselves note and recognize, we already have our rights, and they are endowed on us by our Creator, not by any 'Government' of men.

Governments are established by men only to secure those rights which we all already have.

[Lorax]

Which means we need to disband the current pair of political parties as the constitutions suggests, and elect representatives who believe in true representative democracy.

[Rideron]

Which means we need to disband the current pair of political parties as the constitutions suggests, and elect representatives who believe in true representative democracy.

I agree with you, so long as it remains a representative republic, not a representative democracy.

[turkeycall]

Rideron Quote: "I agree with you, so long as it remains a representative republic, not a representative democracy."

Having a representative republic would be a little redundant, don't you think?

The United States has a republican form of government: Representitives speaking for the people.

Those representitives are elected by a majority vote of the people. Therefore we have a representative democracy.

Sorry, Rideron, I don't think there's much you can do about that.

[oladub]

Rideron Quote: "I agree with you, so long as it remains a representative republic, not a representative democracy."

Having a representative republic would be a little redundant, don't you think?

The United States has a republican form of government: Representitives speaking for the people.

Those representitives are elected by a majority vote of the people. Therefore we have a representative democracy.

Sorry, Rideron, I don't think there's much you can do about that.

Technically, we are a constitutional Republic with a good many democratic proceedures or functions. The difference between a constitutional republic and a democracy is that a constitution protects the rights of minorities from 51% majorities. The First Amendment is a case in point. -

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

No matter what the majority of voters want, their elected representatives are not allowed to make any law abridging the freedom of speech for instance. In a true democracy or even a 'representative democracy', this would not be the case. Maybe we can comprimise with the new term "constitutional democratic republic".

[elganned]

Actually, neither the Consitution nor the Bill of Rights grant us any rights whatsoever.

As the Charter documents themselves note and recognize, we already have our rights, and they are endowed on us by our Creator, not by any 'Government' of men.

Governments are established by men only to secure those rights which we all already have.

There is no Creator. Whatever rights we have have been bestowed upon us by majority agreement that we should all have them.

[Blarf]

We might as well have a right to food as well. Technically you need food more than health care to survive.

[Rideron]

There is no Creator. Whatever rights we have have been bestowed upon us by majority agreement that we should all have them.

The problem with that idea as your 'source of rights' is that if you are given rights only by virtue of majority agreement of other men;

Then all your 'rights' can similarly be taken away by a group of men.

But if you are endowed by a Creator with inalienable rights,

No mere group of men by their 'majority agreement' can take away your rights.

The most they would be able to do, is agree to deny you your inherent rights.

Let me ask you, is it your view that people held in slavery in the United States until 1865 were having their inherent right to liberty wrongfully denied them? Or is it your view that slavery was ok until 1865, when we just changed our minds?

And if by 'majority agreement' could we now just, change our minds again back again the other way?

[smudge pot]

Great thread, Rideron, I like your attitude: put it out there, and let the swarm begin. Here's my concern: some of you, I won't mention any names, seem to want the government to suckle you, to change your diapers. Frankly, I'm disappointed. Do you really want a bunch of slimy, vote-buying, sh*t-heel politicians to be your mommy? Buck-up, little campers.

[elganned]

And if by 'majority agreement' could we now just, change our minds again back again the other way?

Why, yes. It's called an Amendment. We've passed a number of them, and repealed a few, too. That would qualify as "changing our minds", wouldn't you say?

Had the Constitution not been ratified by all the states, you might now have no rights at all, or whatever rights were contained in whatever document replaced the Articles of Confederation, if any. You can claim that they are inalienable, and were bestowed by your Creator, but rights are in fact nonexistent if not manifested.

And as regards slavery, we did not in fact agree as a country that slaves were human until the Civil War. If they weren't human, then ipso facto they had no human rights; it wasn't really until the 14th Amendment was finally passed that we came to a national consensus that they warrented rights. There are some who continue to deny their humanity to this day.

So whatever is claimed, rights only exist when they are acknowledged to exist; until such time they are completely theoretical.

[oladub]

Woodmans is a chain of employee owned grocery stores in Wisconsin. Woodmans has cheap prices, good variety, and is somehow a little funky perhaps because it is employee owned. It even markets Faygo, Vernors, and Jones soda across Wisconsin.. It has a reputation as providing well for its employees. I came across the following article.

Woodman's drops mental health coverage, blames federal mandate

Woodman’s Food Market, the giant grocery retailer, is dropping mental health benefits from its health insurance plan because it claims it cannot afford to comply with a new federal law that will require mental health coverage to be equal to benefits for other illnesses.
The federal mental health parity law, passed in 2008, takes effect this January. The law does not require companies to offer mental health benefits, but if their health plans do offer mental health coverage, it must be as generous as coverage for other diseases. Critics of the bill, including many businesses, had warned that it would backfire by forcing companies to drop what limited mental health benefits they do offer.

This is a good example of how the nanny state with all its well meaning rules and regulations actually reduces our options. This might also be an example of how government has relentlessly driven up the price of health care to the point that so many are demanding that government do something about the high costs.

Rideron Good post! You nailed it.

[Rideron]

In response to Elganned:

Under your view that our rights are not immutable, inherent, unalienable, or endowed by a Creator , you admit that blacks could again be enslaved by the mere 'majority agreement' of other men. In particular you stated:..

"Why, yes. It's called an Amendment. We've passed a number of them, and repealed a few, too. That would qualify as "changing our minds", wouldn't you say?"

Well, I wouldn't say that, and I think you're saying it because you may not fully understand the Constitution or it's Amendments.

Nothing in those documents gives us any rights to begin with. According to those documents themselves, we are born with all our rights. By their own terms, the Constitution and it's amendments do not 'create' any rights. Those documents merely enumerate them.

Then you go on to say:

"If the Constitution not been ratified by all the states, you might now have no rights at all, or whatever rights were contained in whatever document replaced the Articles of Confederation, if any. You can claim that they are inalienable, and were bestowed by your Creator, but rights are in fact nonexistent if not manifested."

Again you don't seem to understand the text of the Constitution. Our rights were manifested long before any Consitution. They were manifested [[and continue to be manifested) for each individual merely by the fact of their birth.

The Constitution notes that we already had all the rights enumerated in the Consitution, before the Consitution was even written, or even contemplated.

Then you say:

"As regard slavery, we did not in fact agree as a country that slaves were human until the Civil War. If they weren't human, then ipso facto they had no human rights; it wasn't really until the 14th Amendment was finally passed that we came to a national consensus that they warrented rights. There are some who continue to deny their humanity to this day."

Again, some very basic misunderstanding here on your part. The key to your misapprehension is in your final sentence. There was a Civil war fought over the fact that some denied the humanity of blacks, while others insisted on it. The argument over that very issue was so intense that it lead to 4 years of war.

And again, go back and read the 14th Amendment. It does NOT confer any rights on Blacks, it only recognizes that they had them all along. It enumerates this point, and bars any act by a state seeking to abridge or violate those rights.

Then you finish with this:

"So whatever is claimed, rights only exist when they are acknowledged to exist; until such time they are completely theoretical."

Well, you have your concepts backwards here.

"Acknowledgment" is never a necessary prerequisite to existance of anything, BUT the existance of something [[an idea, a thought, an object) is ALWAYS a prerequiste to its recognition.

Therefore under your logic, to refuse to acknowledge ones rights, is recognition that they have rights.

Everyone has inherent, unalienable rights. The only difference among people is whether or not they are fortunate enough to live under a government that recognizes that it derives it's authority to govern from the consent or the people or not. Some government's believe they confer the rights the people 'have'. I admit this is a view many people believe, but again the problem with it is that if you believe your rights 'come from' government', then it's always possible that the government can 'take away' your rights.

But, don't worry. No one can really 'take away' your rights. They can only refuse to recognize that you have them.

If you have a chance, read the charter documents of the United States. In those you will see that the basis upon which the United States Government is founded is a unanimous recognition that men are all created with inalienable rights, and that they are conferred upon men not by any 'government', but by the fact of their creation.

[elganned]

Whatever.

Every social order believes that it's structure and beliefs are sanctioned by God and therefore the only "true" way to do things. The Constitution is no different.

[Rideron]

Whatever.

Every social order believes that it's structure and beliefs are sanctioned by God and therefore the only "true" way to do things. The Constitution is no different.

I'm sure thats a great comfort to the blacks [[or anybody else)your point of view would send to another round of enslavement upon the necessary 'majority vote'.

[elganned]

While you're perusing the "founding documents", look over some other interesting historical papers, namely the articles of secession passed by the Confederate states. Almost unanimously they reference their constitutional rights in their property as the reason they left--or attempted to leave--the Union [[the right to property being one of those "rights" with which we were endowed by our "Creator", don't forget). In short, the northern states were refusing to pursue and return runaway slaves.

And the Union didn't go to war to free the slaves, they went to war to prevent the South from leaving the Union. The whole idea of fighting for the slaves was anathama to many in the North; the draft riots of 1863 in New York City is but one example of the resistance to the concept. The emancipation proclamation was a war measure aimed at hurting the South economically and keeping England and France out of the war--witness that it explicitly freed the slaves in the secessionist territories, but didn't free them in Missouri, Kentucky, or Maryland, all of which were slave states which did not secede.

In sum, we imposed our interpretation of "inalienable rights" and what was legitimately to be considered property on the Southern states by force of arms.

I am not arguing that either the war or its result was wrong, just that not everyone considers or considered the Creators endowments to be the same. So don't get preachy with me.

I can, indeed, envision some future time when a majority of the population decides that something is or is not in fact an "inalienable right", which the rest of the population adamantly opposes, and proceeds to impose that interpretation on the minority by force.

The Constitution is what we decide it is, and the rights therein are what we decide they are, and the Creator has nothing to do with it.

[oladub]

The Constitution is what we decide it is [[ elganned said, in a rather scornful tone) and the rights therein are what we decide they are, and the Creator has nothing to do with it.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' -Through the Looking Glass -- Chapter VI: Humpty Dumpty

Ah, then that explains the constitutionality of Bush's Wall Street bailout as endorsed by former constitutional scholar and Senator Obama.

'The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'

Exactly, The game of doing anything one one wants in office, at the electorate's expense, would be up were the Constitution more adhered to than interpreted.

[Rideron]

I can, indeed, envision some future time when a majority of the population decides that something is or is not in fact an "inalienable right", which the rest of the population adamantly opposes, and proceeds to impose that interpretation on the minority by force.

The Constitution is what we decide it is, and the rights therein are what we decide they are, and the Creator has nothing to do with it.

OK Elganned:

If and when your ass is ever hauled into a criminal court due to a law that you find offensive and violates YOUR rights, will you be happy to have a jury of 12 that have the same temporary, situational, fluid, ever-changing, 'majority rules' view of the transitory nature of YOUR rights that YOU do?..

Oh, wait a minute....

If the majority supports it, I guess you wouldn't think that law violates your rights at all...

Cuz' you don't have any rights other than what a majority says you do, do ya?

[elganned]

OK Elganned:

If and when your ass is ever hauled into a criminal court due to a law that you find offensive and violates YOUR rights, will you be happy to have a jury of 12 that have the same temporary, situational, fluid, ever-changing, 'majority rules' view of the transitory nature of YOUR rights that YOU do?..

And you don't think juries are already made up of such people? Or do you think that there's some uniform code that most adhere to but from which my view deviates? If so, why do you think there's all that sparring during jury selection? Trial lawyers, at least, understand that different people interpret the law, guilt, and innocence differently, even if you don't understand that.

Oh, wait a minute....

If the majority supports it, I guess you wouldn't think that law violates your rights at all...

Cuz' you don't have any rights other than what a majority says you do, do ya?

You misunderstand, or are being deliberately obtuse [[taking lessons from Cc?). A simple majority is not all that is needed; indeed, the Constitution was implemented specifically to guard against "the tyranny of the majority", among other things. But the fact remains that there is an ammendment process, which requires a certain super-majority in congress or a certain super-majority of the states to ratify, and so the rights enumerated in the Constitution to a very real degree ARE in fact subject to change by a majority. The process is long, involved, and difficult--for a reason--but is in place.

Your implication that a simple majority can throw their weight around with impugnity, and your further implication that that is what I meant and endorse, is specious. The fact however remains a fact that your rights under the Constitution can be changed by a majority of the people through the ammendment process.

[elganned]

Oladub, I say nothing in a scornful tone. I merely state the facts. You don't like to hear it, but it is what it is. Deal.

[rb336]

The problem with that idea as your 'source of rights' is that if you are given rights only by virtue of majority agreement of other men;

Then all your 'rights' can similarly be taken away by a group of men.

But if you are endowed by a Creator with inalienable rights,

No mere group of men by their 'majority agreement' can take away your rights.

The most they would be able to do, is agree to deny you your inherent rights.

Let me ask you, is it your view that people held in slavery in the United States until 1865 were having their inherent right to liberty wrongfully denied them? Or is it your view that slavery was ok until 1865, when we just changed our minds?

And if by 'majority agreement' could we now just, change our minds again back again the other way?

yes, we could. if a constitutional ammendment were passed, slavery could be re-legalized. But the course of history, and the soul of liberalism, has always been toward expanding rights to new areas.

If you do not think rights are mutable and a construct of society, I dare you to look to history.

If there is a "creator" - let's say, the biblical deity - clearly, from the writings in the bible, one of the inalianable rights would appear to be to own slaves, to kill your children for talking back...

[Rideron]

yes, we could. if a constitutional ammendment were passed, slavery could be re-legalized. But the course of history, and the soul of liberalism, has always been toward expanding rights to new areas.

If you do not think rights are mutable and a construct of society, I dare you to look to history.

If there is a "creator" - let's say, the biblical deity - clearly, from the writings in the bible, one of the inalianable rights would appear to be to own slaves, to kill your children for talking back...

Why do you automatically associate belief in the idea of a Creator with the Bible, or the Koran, or any other written work of man?