The Observation Deck

hahah name the time and the place.

Let me check with the warden

Jim, you're still glossing over the issue. You ASSUME that supply will remain at the necessary level to provide care, but whether it does or not, you cannot promise that good as a RIGHT since it cannot be guaranteed.

You can offer everyone the right to bear arms because you need no arms available to fulfill the right.

You can offer the right to free speech because it requires no active action by anyone to uphold it.

Even your right to a speedy trial requires no action because the guarantee isn't about the trial so much as your right to freedom from unjust imprisonment and persecution. So if they don't get you to trial in a dilligent fashion, you walk. Right fulfilled.

Rights are rights even when nothing happens. Goods and services can only be provided assuming someone is willing to provide them.

This isn't an argument about whether or not the government SHOULD help people with their healthcare needs. This is all about declaring it a "RIGHT", which would make it MANDITORY for government to do so.

My premise is: I don't believe that anyone can have a "RIGHT" to a good or service.

you can have a WANT, and you might have a NEED, but to use the word "RIGHT" as Dennis Kucinich does, makes false promises to entitlements that he, nor anyone, could ever truly guarantee.

I may not be as "political saavy" as many here, but my premise would be....

It really doesn't matter, whether it can be defined as a right or not...we need a change or we will be spinning our wheels under the same horrible health system for generations to come. If government doesn't take control regardless of being a right or not, who will?

I assume others out there in the US are like myself and are not completely worried about total success or failure with reform... we just know something different needs to be attempted and now is the time.

Also, I am not sure what power grab has to do with anything. I assume most everything in the government (for any political affiliation) has some relation to people making a power grab. Might as well try to fix something while it occurs.

J Hrlec wrote:I may not be as "political saavy" as many here, but my premise would be....

It really doesn't matter, whether it can be defined as a right or not...we need a change or we will be spinning our wheels under the same horrible health system for generations to come. If government doesn't take control regardless of being a right or not, who will?

This will sound strange, but if the government got rid of some regulation (maybe like letting companies sell across state lines) there would be increased competition which would lower the price of insurance. Increase supply coupled with the same demand will lower costs. This is very basic economics.
Look at that, government has LESS control and it helps to fix our system.
But, alas, this provision is not in this health/education bill.

J Hrlec wrote:I assume others out there in the US are like myself and are not completely worried about total success or failure with reform... we just know something different needs to be attempted and now is the time.

Sounds like you favor change for the sake of change?
You know what would fix our system? Killing everyone that's retired. Let's put the people with pre-existing conditions out of their misery too. We won't have to take care of these people who are just a drain on our society. That would be different, right?
Note: THIS IS SARCASM.

J Hrlec wrote:Also, I am not sure what power grab has to do with anything. I assume most everything in the government (for any political affiliation) has some relation to people making a power grab. Might as well try to fix something while it occurs.

Its not going to be a fix, well wait, if John Holdren, the science Czar gets his way, we'll have sterilants(sp?) in the drinking water to control our population, I guess that would fix all of us, wouldn't it?

Look, do you want to have any control over what you do? Do you care one iota about your freedoms? Actually, you know what, if you don't want your freedoms, that's fine, but don't drag those of us that DO care down with you.

Brett - I'm not uncomfortable with the truth and you have a lot of nerve insinuating that, you cast aspersions dude.

Roy Pitchford wrote:

J Hrlec wrote:I may not be as "political saavy" as many here, but my premise would be....
It really doesn't matter to me whether it can be defined as a right or not. We need a change or we will be spinning our wheels under the same horrible health system for generations to come. If government doesn't take control regardless of being a right or not, who will?

This will sound strange, but if the government got rid of some regulation (maybe like letting companies sell across state lines) there would be increased competition which would lower the price of insurance. Increase supply coupled with the same demand will lower costs. This is very basic economics. Look at that, government has LESS control and it helps to fix our system. But, alas, this provision is not in this health/education bill.

Possibly. Why hasn't this happened in the last 10 years and how does that help those who cannot qualify for insurance or afford it even if it was cheaper?

J Hrlec wrote:I assume others out there in the US are like myself and are not completely worried about total success with reform... we just know something different needs to be attempted...

Sounds like you favor change for the sake of change?
You know what would fix our system? Killing everyone that's retired. Let's put the people with pre-existing conditions out of their misery too. We won't have to take care of these people who are just a drain on our society. That would be different, right?
Note: THIS IS SARCASM.

I agree it can sound like I like change in general but for the topic at hand (health care), I would say I am in favor of some change instead of just debating this year after year after year.

J Hrlec wrote:Also, I am not sure what power grab has to do with anything. I assume most everything in the government (for any political affiliation) has some relation to people making a power grab. Might as well try to fix something while it occurs.

Its not going to be a fix, well wait, if John Holdren, the science Czar gets his way, we'll have sterilants(sp?) in the drinking water to control our population, I guess that would fix all of us, wouldn't it?

Hahah...I don't think I need to respond to this one (although a lot can be said about population control)

Look, do you want to have any control over what you do? Do you care one iota about your freedoms? Actually, you know what, if you don't want your freedoms, that's fine, but don't drag those of us that DO care down with you.

Yes, I actually like my "freedom" and already seem to have control over what I want to do, or at least those things that actually matter to me. Believe it or not this isn't about ME, or dragging ME down, I have no major issue with my insurance at this time (it could always be better). I think this is a good thing for all those who are affected negatively. If I have to pay extra $ to help those who need insurance for assistance I would. If I can help reduce costs down the road, I will try. To each their own. I think it is rather eccentric to start thinking because of this bill was passed that all of a sudden our freedoms are gone or we are now a communist state, etc, etc. I understand we are all different, and have different opinions...I don't think what I say above is THE reason to support this bill, just my reasons.

OFF TOPIC: What's with this posting box, anyone else have this issue? Every time I am writing a longer response it keeps autoscrolling to the top and making me lose my typing position.

Bret Callentine wrote:You can offer everyone the right to bear arms because you need no arms available to fulfill the right.
...
My premise is: I don't believe that anyone can have a "RIGHT" to a good or service.

How would I have the right to bear arms if there weren't arms? Isn't that also a good that would need to exist for me to have a right to it?? If no one made guns (or whatever other weapons you include in that) anymore, wouldn't that be violating my right to bear arms?

Heather Ramsey wrote:How would I have the right to bear arms if there weren't arms? Isn't that also a good that would need to exist for me to have a right to it?? If no one made guns (or whatever other weapons you include in that) anymore, wouldn't that be violating my right to bear arms?

You're interpreting the right to be an obligation to provide when it's only a responsibility to enable.

using that logic, if we use the current healthcare bill as a model, then the government should mandate that everyone own a gun because your RIGHT to bear arms must be fulfilled. And if you cannot purchase one on your own, then I guess you should get one from the military.

As any Political Scientist, Constitutional scholar, or 7th grade Social Studies student can tell you, the Bill of Rights makes it well known that there are many rights of the people NOT enumerated on the pages of the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers left those to our imagination and interpretation....

...but I would believe it safe to say that there's a WIDE latitude concerning Americans and rights.

In other words, if it's not specifically written down as a no-no, chances are pretty good that you have SOME kind of rights concerning just about any issue out there...

HOW MUCH THOUGH?

THAT'S the question, is it not?

That's why we have courts to sort these things out, and even THEY change their mind from time to time...

Other societies, like the French, have codified law (That's code-based, as in the Code Napoleon)

Our laws, on the other hand, are generally based on precedent, and are nearly ALWAYS balanced against our rights...as they are interpreted by the courts.

We live in an exciting, dynamic (that is, changing) country.

One day, we seem to go one way, another day, the other way.

Unlike my banjo...

Better get back to it...