I delight to inform you that you do not have a right to healthcare

This is cute, but it does nothing to address how the first two things are acceptable, but the latter is (as claimed) unconstitutional.

Also, your last line:

"Show me the case that says that every store in America needs to sell guns in order to uphold the 2nd amendment."

Show me the part of government-run health care that states every institution becomes a health provider. Quite the opposite, in fact, in that it will be consolidated.

talk about greed wrote:

The only people who want socialized medicine

are those who are happy to stick their neighbors with the bill for what they themselves owe.

That is such a ridiculous staement. This is not a discussion about "socialized medicine" (Nice way to encite the masses). It is about providing care to those who for one reason or another can not obtain it and need help medically. There are many (million) of us who pay are own way and are still very willing to assist others who are not so fortunate. It is the mark of a civilized society, which apparently some of those on this board are opposed to, still living in an age where only the fittest survive.

clever, never wrote:

I've heard that argument time and time again, which is why I'm addressing it from the other side. A gun manufacturer won't sell you a weapon if you are a criminal.

What if you're not a criminal, but they still won't sell you a gun?

What if you can't afford a gun? Where can I get my government issue firearm?

A newspaper is itself a form of free speech, which does give them that right to pick and choose who they quote. Starting and distributing your own newsletter (or website) is the other option and not nearly as expensive as health insurance.

NICE justification. "Well, starting and distributing your own newspaper isn't that expensive, so it's ok." Can you show me where the maximum acceptable cost section is in the constitution? If not providing health care is unconstitutional, then not publishing my speech is unconstitutional. The constitution doesn't care if something is cheap or expensive. It is or it isn't.

Also, can someone point me to the section of the constitution that says "right to life"?

The Declaration, of course, states right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but that's not the law of the land. Of course, if we want to use that, the pursuit of happiness opens up all kinds of goodies.

BAH! wrote:

NICE justification. "Well, starting and distributing your own newspaper isn't that expensive, so it's ok." Can you show me where the maximum acceptable cost section is in the constitution? If not providing health care is unconstitutional, then not publishing my speech is unconstitutional. The constitution doesn't care if something is cheap or expensive. It is or it isn't.

It all boils down to my original point (i.e. there is no point arguing semantics). If you are rich enough (which, judging by your ability to present a coherent argument, you won't be) after you get out of school, if you DON'T claim to have compassion, if you aren't religious, and if you are certain you will never fall upon hard times... then your political stance is fully justified and rational. At the same time it would also make sense for you to evade taxes, rob little old ladies, and do anything else you can get away with. It's a dog eat dog world after all.

Superiority Complex wrote:

It all boils down to my original point (i.e. there is no point arguing semantics). If you are rich enough (which, judging by your ability to present a coherent argument, you won't be) after you get out of school, if you DON'T claim to have compassion, if you aren't religious, and if you are certain you will never fall upon hard times... then your political stance is fully justified and rational. At the same time it would also make sense for you to evade taxes, rob little old ladies, and do anything else you can get away with. It's a dog eat dog world after all.

You're an idiot for associating certain belief with "robbing little old ladies" and "doing anything else you can get away with." It's stupid shithead red herrings and tangents like this that keep us from getting anywhere, ever.

It's a simple question, really.

If the right to life (again, please point me to that in the constitution) means the government needs to provide health care, then it must also provide that which is required for:

-Right to free speech

-Right to assemble

-Right to bear arms

etc.

You can't have this pick-and-choose shit. Either the government needs to give us all of this stuff, or it doesn't need to give any.

Superiority Complex wrote:

On another note... do you think a 5 year old child with leukemia (with parents who couldn't afford health insurance) would be a thief and a parasite for wanting someone else to care for him?

Yes.

Guess what- its an old document that has the framework of our country's legal system. It's not all encompassing. Medical care was essentially non-existant at that time (barbers did the necessary amputations), so to look to the constitution for guidance on medical care is pure silliness.

You're actually making your own point- yes, the right to life is not in the constitution. Most people with any brains realize that that does not mean there is no right to life. It's only you Ron Paul-loving cretins who think that the constitution rules every facet of life. Grow up. Use your brain to think, not memorize RP's talking points.

Do you always swear when you get flustered? I did that when I was a kid too. And were we REALLY going to get anywhere with you in the first place? You don't mind survival of the fittest when you can couch it in your own pseudo-academic terms, but you don't like it when it is laid bare? If you can deny health care coverage to a 5 year old with leukemia then I (for one) would not trust you in the company of a vulnerable little old lady.

Your gun argument is completely off-base. There are obvious issues with guns that aren't there with health care because, well, it's not the 18th century anymore. The right should remain, but gun culture is different. Health for a large population cannot be sustained by private insurance companies, and hasn't for a while, so we should adapt to changing times with that issue, as well, but in the opposite direction.

As for the paper, you misunderstood my point. I didn't mean starting a NEWSPAPER (caps for the official tone you associate with it) but practicing your free speech privately. It takes little to no money to do this, especially over the internet, as we are both doing right now.

talk about greed wrote:

Superiority Complex wrote:

On another note... do you think a 5 year old child with leukemia (with parents who couldn't afford health insurance) would be a thief and a parasite for wanting someone else to care for him?

Yes.

Name, address, and photo please. I'd like to make sure everyone you know realizes you feel this way. Let's have it carved into your tombstone too, eh?

scottdye wrote:

... providing care to those who for one reason or another can not obtain it and need help ... is the mark of a civilized society, which apparently some of those on this board are opposed to, still living in an age where only the fittest survive.

FTW

No one is expecting an MRI for any paper cuts. However, 45,000 people die every year due to the lack of health care, 15 times the number who were killed in the 9/11 attacks for which we have been at war since 2003 and spent $3 trillion. Health care is provided as a public good in every other civilized country in the world, usually at a much lower cost and at a much higher quality level. A powerful insurance lobby has managed to bribe our politicians sufficiently so that that kind of thing wont happen here. The rest of the world is laughing at us. Its time to wake up to the game however given the recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, I doubt anything substantive will happen.

The constitution is not god wrote:

Guess what- its an old document that has the framework of our country's legal system. It's not all encompassing. Medical care was essentially non-existant at that time (barbers did the necessary amputations), so to look to the constitution for guidance on medical care is pure silliness.

You're actually making your own point- yes, the right to life is not in the constitution. Most people with any brains realize that that does not mean there is no right to life. It's only you Ron Paul-loving cretins who think that the constitution rules every facet of life. Grow up. Use your brain to think, not memorize RP's talking points.

I disagree with Ron Paul about the US Constitution. It is a badly flawed document. In principle, the correct form of government is a strict constitutional republic, but our constitution is so flawed that there is still a lot of room for corruption under it.

scottdye wrote:

... providing care to those who for one reason or another can not obtain it and need help ... is the mark of a civilized society, which apparently some of those on this board are opposed to, still living in an age where only the fittest survive.

[/quote]

Civilization is an establishment in which men are legally protected from physical force. The degree to which the initiation of force is prohibited is the degree to which a society is civilized. Forceful expropriation of wealth to pay for healthcare is the antithesis of civilization.

The constitution is not god wrote:

Guess what- its an old document that has the framework of our country's legal system. It's not all encompassing. Medical care was essentially non-existant at that time (barbers did the necessary amputations), so to look to the constitution for guidance on medical care is pure silliness.

You're actually making your own point- yes, the right to life is not in the constitution. Most people with any brains realize that that does not mean there is no right to life. It's only you Ron Paul-loving cretins who think that the constitution rules every facet of life. Grow up. Use your brain to think, not memorize RP's talking points.

Like it or not, it is the basis for every law in this country. If you don't like it, change it. There is a process for amendments.

the sayer of so wrote:

Civilization is an establishment in which men are legally protected from physical force. The degree to which the initiation of force is prohibited is the degree to which a society is civilized. Forceful expropriation of wealth to pay for healthcare is the antithesis of civilization.

Dr. Donothing... you are trying WAY too hard to sound like an intelligent and educated thinker. You lost all credibility when you decided that the Oxford dictionary definition of "altruism" was wrong, and you have only gone downhill from then.

"Civilization is an establishment in which men are legally protected protected from physical force"???

What kind of rubbish is that? What physical force are we being protected from? And, how is the "forceful expropriation" (do you really type this with a straight face??) of taxes to pay for health care less civilized than the forceful expropriation of wealth to pay for bombing other countries, building roads, or paying a police force?

Don't worry... I am not expecting an answer.