Page 3 of 3 [ 44 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

27 Mar 2010, 4:51 pm

ikorack wrote:
There is no right to a long life or for that matter a quality life, There is no infringement on the right to life.


That is a facile response. Your logic sets out a right to life that is meaningless. If you have no right to a long life or any particular quality of life, then the State is free to deprive you of that right from the moment that you are a life in being. Herod's decree can be accompanied by the statement, "well, the boys had a few good months--they're not entitled to anything more."

While the State cannot stop nature from taking its course, the State can ensure that the individual has access to intervene where that is possible and practical.


_________________
--James


ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

27 Mar 2010, 5:15 pm

visagrunt wrote:
ikorack wrote:
There is no right to a long life or for that matter a quality life, There is no infringement on the right to life.


That is a facile response. Your logic sets out a right to life that is meaningless. If you have no right to a long life or any particular quality of life, then the State is free to deprive you of that right from the moment that you are a life in being. Herod's decree can be accompanied by the statement, "well, the boys had a few good months--they're not entitled to anything more."

While the State cannot stop nature from taking its course, the State can ensure that the individual has access to intervene where that is possible and practical.


Facile it is not, Killing someone is taking there life and robbing them of there right to live and is not the same as refusing or not supplying assistance. However there is a limit to the amount of help the American government is supposed to give someone. Congress is overstepping there authority with this bill, They are not supposed to go against the will of the people which they are plainly doing with this bill. There is very little public support for this bill from Americans.

Additionally Meaning being a very general term is not given a definition in the constitution and therefore congress can not supply such a thing.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

27 Mar 2010, 7:52 pm

Visagrunt wrote:

Quote:
In a country where you have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, I suggest to you that barriers to access to health care can be seen as an infringement of the right to life, at least at some level.



Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as stated in the Declaration of Independence is an acknowledged right of man but that does in no way imply that the government is charged with providing the means for them in the form of services to be rendered.
What it does mean is that a person by being a person is free to live free and pursue their own happiness.
As I stated before interpreting rights as entitlements to services opens a Pandora’s Box that won’t end with healthcare alone.

Quote:
a nation, I wonder whether you can afford the consequences of failure on this issue. What are the costs to you of failing to extend medically necessary care to all of your citizens?


As a nation we can’t afford to do what those yahoos in Washington want in the form of healthcare either. Where do you think money comes from, anyway?
As it stands now if something happens that you really NEED medical assistance in an emergency you won’t be denied services and the already overburdened taxpayers pick up the tab. It’s called Medicaid and that in itself is bad enough.

Once again, the reason healthcare is so expensive is because of greed and we’re still going to have greed no matter what kind of legislation get shoved down our throats.

You need to accept the fact that government isn’t there to wipe our noses



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

28 Mar 2010, 12:25 am

ikorack wrote:
Facile it is not, Killing someone is taking there life and robbing them of there right to live and is not the same as refusing or not supplying assistance. However there is a limit to the amount of help the American government is supposed to give someone. Congress is overstepping there authority with this bill, They are not supposed to go against the will of the people which they are plainly doing with this bill. There is very little public support for this bill from Americans.

Additionally Meaning being a very general term is not given a definition in the constitution and therefore congress can not supply such a thing.


Legally, failing to provide the necessities of life is no different than taking active action to kill. There are circumstances in which either or both of those actions are legitimated, but they are, nonetheless, legally equivalent actions on the part of an individual, absent exculpation. Do we therefore hold the State to a lesser standard?

The question of whether or not Congress is overstepping its authority can only be answered in two fora--before the Courts, or before the electorate. You are qualified to participate in only one of those fora, and only to the extent that you have a vote within your district. We will see in November whether your ideology is shared by your peers.


_________________
--James


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

28 Mar 2010, 1:03 am

Raptor wrote:
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as stated in the Declaration of Independence is an acknowledged right of man but that does in no way imply that the government is charged with providing the means for them in the form of services to be rendered.

What it does mean is that a person by being a person is free to live free and pursue their own happiness.

As I stated before interpreting rights as entitlements to services opens a Pandora’s Box that won’t end with healthcare alone.


An interesting ideological question. But fundamentally the difference of opinion between those who see a role for the State and those who do not. You are passionate--but you do not persuade.

Quote:
As a nation we can’t afford to do what those yahoos in Washington want in the form of healthcare either. Where do you think money comes from, anyway?
As it stands now if something happens that you really NEED medical assistance in an emergency you won’t be denied services and the already overburdened taxpayers pick up the tab. It’s called Medicaid and that in itself is bad enough.

Once again, the reason healthcare is so expensive is because of greed and we’re still going to have greed no matter what kind of legislation get shoved down our throats.

You need to accept the fact that government isn’t there to wipe our noses


Actually, you can, most assuredly afford it. This represents, perhaps, $3000 per US citizen, over the course of some 10 years. That works out to less than $1 per person, per day. Once you allow for redistribution of expense based on means, you still don't have to tap business income. And in the expectation of economic productivity gains through improved health care results, the dollar costs may well be offset, at least to some extent.

Finally, constraints on insurers capacity to generate premium revenue is going to, perforce, exercise constraints on the capacity of the system to charge. The marketplace will adjust to reflect the revised purchasing power.


_________________
--James


ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

28 Mar 2010, 1:07 am

visagrunt wrote:
ikorack wrote:
Facile it is not, Killing someone is taking there life and robbing them of there right to live and is not the same as refusing or not supplying assistance. However there is a limit to the amount of help the American government is supposed to give someone. Congress is overstepping there authority with this bill, They are not supposed to go against the will of the people which they are plainly doing with this bill. There is very little public support for this bill from Americans.

Additionally Meaning being a very general term is not given a definition in the constitution and therefore congress can not supply such a thing.


Legally, failing to provide the necessities of life is no different than taking active action to kill. There are circumstances in which either or both of those actions are legitimated, but they are, nonetheless, legally equivalent actions on the part of an individual, absent exculpation. Do we therefore hold the State to a lesser standard?

The question of whether or not Congress is overstepping its authority can only be answered in two fora--before the Courts, or before the electorate. You are qualified to participate in only one of those fora, and only to the extent that you have a vote within your district. We will see in November whether your ideology is shared by your peers.


The parts in bold are completely incorrect.

Inaction and homicide are not legal equals, In various American states it is not even illegal to watch a crime being committed and not report it. The only time it is a crime to not supply someone with the necessities to live is the parent child relationship. Fortunately the American government is not held to a duty of care of that level.

As for the second paragraph yes if the courts don't get to this bill first then the elections will take care of it. As to what positions i am qualified to serve in you are not in a position to know something like that.



Last edited by ikorack on 28 Mar 2010, 1:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

28 Mar 2010, 1:12 am

visagrunt wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as stated in the Declaration of Independence is an acknowledged right of man but that does in no way imply that the government is charged with providing the means for them in the form of services to be rendered.

What it does mean is that a person by being a person is free to live free and pursue their own happiness.

As I stated before interpreting rights as entitlements to services opens a Pandora’s Box that won’t end with healthcare alone.


An interesting ideological question. But fundamentally the difference of opinion between those who see a role for the State and those who do not. You are passionate--but you do not persuade.



Actually I believe he may be pointing out that those rights are found in the declaration of independence but not the constitution, Which would mean that although they are rights they are not a responsibility of the government. It would be appreciated if Raptor would correct me if i have misunderstood.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

28 Mar 2010, 9:04 am

visagrunt wrote:

Quote:
Actually, you can, most assuredly afford it. This represents, perhaps, $3000 per US citizen, over the course of some 10 years. That works out to less than $1 per person, per day. Once you allow for redistribution of expense based on means, you still don't have to tap business income. And in the expectation of economic productivity gains through improved health care results, the dollar costs may well be offset, at least to some extent.

Finally, constraints on insurers capacity to generate premium revenue is going to, perforce, exercise constraints on the capacity of the system to charge. The marketplace will adjust to reflect the revised purchasing power.



I don’t know where you got those figures from but I’m still skeptical of the affordability even if they are correct. It still adds up and then has to be added on top of all the other social spending.


Quote:
Legally, failing to provide the necessities of life is no different than taking active action to kill. There are circumstances in which either or both of those actions are legitimated, but they are, nonetheless, legally equivalent actions on the part of an individual, absent exculpation. Do we therefore hold the State to a lesser standard?



I don’t have a clue where you got the notion for that first sentence from. It directly implies that the government is obligated to be a constant nanny to our needs.
That’s waaaay out there in left field and far exceeds the legal boundaries and practical capabilities of government.

Quote:
The question of whether or not Congress is overstepping its authority can only be answered in two fora--before the Courts, or before the electorate. You are qualified to participate in only one of those fora, and only to the extent that you have a vote within your district. We will see in November whether your ideology is shared by your peers.


Yeah, it looks like there’s going to be some people replaced in congress this fall. Or who knows, now that they’re in the swing of ignoring the desires of the voter’s maybe they’ll just anoint themselves lords and do away with the electoral process. Then they only have to report to his majesty King Obama.
Besides, what do we unwashed masses know of such lofty principals as the role of government and individual liberties?
:roll:

I think I’ve made my position on this clear enough.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

28 Mar 2010, 10:35 am

[quote="Raptor"


I don’t know where you got those figures from but I’m still skeptical of the affordability even if they are correct. It still adds up and then has to be added on top of all the other social spending.


[/quote]

In the U.S. our incomes are taxed 40 percent when all levels of government are reckoned and various license and permit fees are factored in. Of what is collected 60 percent goes to pay for social "services" and interested on the debt. The rest goes to things like police forces and armed forces to protect us physically.

The result is that the typical United Statesean paying taxes works for the government for Jan 1 to the middle of May. The rest of the time is his, more or less and I suppose we should be grateful for that portion the government does not steal from us outright.

ruveyn



t0
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 726
Location: The 4 Corners of the 4th Dimension

29 Mar 2010, 7:28 pm

ruveyn wrote:
The rest of the time is his, more or less and I suppose we should be grateful for that portion the government does not steal from us outright.


If you truly feel this way, I don't see why you stay. Surely you could move elsewhere and avoid having so much "stolen" from you by your country of residence.



DenvrDave
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2009
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 790
Location: Where seldom is heard a discouraging word

29 Mar 2010, 7:56 pm

ruveyn wrote:
I suppose we should be grateful for that portion the government does not steal from us outright.


Don't hold your breath :wink:



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

29 Mar 2010, 10:30 pm

t0 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
The rest of the time is his, more or less and I suppose we should be grateful for that portion the government does not steal from us outright.


If you truly feel this way, I don't see why you stay. Surely you could move elsewhere and avoid having so much "stolen" from you by your country of residence.


Taxes are higher elsewhere (in the industrial countries) with the exception of Switzerland. Unfortunately I do not have enough assets to be accepted for Swiss citizenship or extended visa as a resident alien. By and large taxation is higher in the quasi-socialists countries of Europe.

Also freedom of speech and expression is somewhat limited in Europe. One can be prosecuted for making "politically incorrect" statements about ethnicity and race. In the U.S., whatever else is wrong, speech and publication are quite free.

ruveyn