RE: I found It! I found it!! Where healthcare is a "Right" in the US... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: I found It! I found it!! Where healthcare is a "Right" in the US... (5/18/2009 10:19:42 AM)

quote:


We are going around in circles here. If panda has something more to say I might answer him but as far as you and I - on this thread - are concerned: were done.


I started to, but I just deleted the reply halfway through. There's no point. I'm sorry, Marc - I know you're sincere, but your arguments are so elaborately convoluted and contradictory, they just make no sense. There's nothing to argue against. I like you, and I don't want to keep banging away at you for no purpose.



DomKen -> RE: I found It! I found it!! Where healthcare is a "Right" in the US... (5/18/2009 11:31:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

I mean exactly what I said. I disagree with the SCOTUS ruling in the DC gun case but I don't argue that the DC law was constutional or the SCOTUS interpretation is unconstitutional.

You keep claiming things are unconstitutional even though we have mountains of precedent making clear that those things are constitutional. You may not like it, I may not as well in some cases, but to claim those things are unconstitutional is a misuse of the term.


And if I disagree with these mountains of precedent?  What then?  So I should just shut up and go away then?  Or change my opinion to match yours?  If everyone did that those in power sure would be delighted, wouldn't they?  I've stated my case (more than once).  You've shown me nothing that makes me want to alter my views on the matter.  Why is that so difficult for you to accept?

We are going around in circles here.  If panda has something more to say I might answer him but as far as you and I - on this thread - are concerned:  were done.  You can have the last word if your really want it (unless, of course, I change my mind[:)]).

Peace and prosperity to you and yours.

You can disagree with those mountains of precedent but claiming something is unconstutional when it is quite clear that no Supreme Court ruling has ever implied that your interpretation of the 10th is is correct appears to be you using a buzzword in the hope that no one will challenge you on it. Your retreat to false outrage, deceptive edits and intentional misunderstanding when confronted with the plain fact that you are in error shows fairly conclusively that you know you got caught and have no useful response.

In summary you and I both know and admit that a voluntary single payer plan administered by the federal government is exceedingly unlikely to be ruled unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds. You don't like this fact and prefer an ultra strict interpretation that would require dozens of new amendments.



Marc2b -> RE: I found It! I found it!! Where healthcare is a "Right" in the US... (5/18/2009 12:19:12 PM)

quote:

I started to, but I just deleted the reply halfway through. There's no point. I'm sorry, Marc - I know you're sincere, but your arguments are so elaborately convoluted and contradictory, they just make no sense. There's nothing to argue against. I like you, and I don't want to keep banging away at you for no purpose.


You still haven’t pointed out to me what is convoluted and contradictory about my position.  In fact, I think my position is really quite simple and consistent.  It is the “mountains of precedent” that DomKen is so enraptured with that seem to me to be convoluted and contradictory.  It all amounts to excuse making for violating the Constitution and to make matters worse citing precedent where the 10th Amendment was violated (in my opinion) before is simply saying, “well, we violated the Constitution before so it’s okay to do so again.”  To make matters worse, I was then told that I have to use his definition of “Constitutional” but since different people have different ideas of what is and is not Constitutional, and since I have a right to free speech, I see no reason to yield to someone else’s definition.  That seems to irk you and him greatly.  Well there’s nothing I can do about that.     



Marc2b -> RE: I found It! I found it!! Where healthcare is a "Right" in the US... (5/18/2009 12:40:16 PM)

Okay.  I changed my mind.

quote:

You can disagree with those mountains of precedent but claiming something is unconstutional when it is quite clear that no Supreme Court ruling has ever implied that your interpretation of the 10th is is correct appears to be you using a buzzword in the hope that no one will challenge you on it.


If I didn’t want anybody to challenge me on it – why then am I here?


quote:

Your retreat to false outrage,


There has been no outrage, real or false, merely exasperation that you cannot grasp a simple concept.  If you see outrage in my recent posts then that is your misinterpretation.

quote:

deceptive edits and intentional misunderstanding when confronted with the plain fact that you are in error shows fairly conclusively that you know you got caught and have no useful response.


What deceptive edits and intentional misunderstanding?  Prove it.  Exactly what have I been caught in?  The fact that you have presented no arguments that sway me to your opinion?  Likewise, the fact that you see my responses as not being useful is your interpretation.   

quote:

In summary you and I both know and admit that a voluntary single payer plan administered by the federal government is exceedingly unlikely to be ruled unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds.


True, but that still does not make it right (in my opinion – I wouldn’t want you to get all bent out of shape over those mountains of precedent).

quote:

You don't like this fact


True.

quote:

and prefer an ultra strict interpretation

No.  I prefer an honest interpretation.  One that limits the Federal Government’s powers and makes it difficult for the Federal Government to expand it’s powers.

quote:

that would require dozens of new amendments.


Why would it require dozens?  As far as I can see it would require only one.  Not that I would support any such amendment as I usually come down against the expansion of power.



DomKen -> RE: I found It! I found it!! Where healthcare is a "Right" in the US... (5/18/2009 1:12:06 PM)

off the top of my head, powers not expressly given to the federal government that the fed does based on interpretations of the 10th beyond your ultra strict reading:
USAF
national park system
interstate and US highway systems
FEMA
NASA
NIH and all other federal research investment
EPA
PBS
FBI assistance of local law enforcement
FCC assignment and management of the broadcast spectrum
college loans and grants
subsidized lunch programs in public schools
the Federal Reserve acting as the central check clearing house.
job training programs
funding of infrastructure projects
etc.

And I know you'll claim you would happily do without all of it but thankfully you are not the sole decision maker in this regard.



Marc2b -> RE: I found It! I found it!! Where healthcare is a "Right" in the US... (5/18/2009 1:48:26 PM)

Happily?  I don't know about happily (in some cases certainly but not necessarily in all), but I still don't see how any of that justifies further violations of the Constitution.

You only focus on the results that you want and not the process in which we get there - but the process is important because it is in the process that the safegaurds of our liberty are to be found (at least in theory - those mountains of precedent of yours have put an end to that). 



DomKen -> RE: I found It! I found it!! Where healthcare is a "Right" in the US... (5/18/2009 2:35:35 PM)

No. You need to read the federalist papers and the early SCOTUS 10th amendment rulings. They make it abundantly clear that the intent of the 10th was to not be as restrictive as you claim.

For instance the interstate highway system provides for the common defence, as per Eisenhower's original design, and facilitates interstate trade which has long been viewed as part of regulating interstate trade.

College loans are beneficial to the general welfare and facilitate a whole host of federal responsibilities.

The insistence that only the literal words of the Constitution and not the intent behind them is simply not what the authors intended and is certainly not what they intended the 10th amendment to restrict.



Marc2b -> RE: I found It! I found it!! Where healthcare is a "Right" in the US... (5/18/2009 6:47:20 PM)

quote:

No. You need to read the federalist papers and the early SCOTUS 10th amendment rulings. They make it abundantly clear that the intent of the 10th was to not be as restrictive as you claim.

For instance the interstate highway system provides for the common defence, as per Eisenhower's original design, and facilitates interstate trade which has long been viewed as part of regulating interstate trade.

College loans are beneficial to the general welfare and facilitate a whole host of federal responsibilities.

The insistence that only the literal words of the Constitution and not the intent behind them is simply not what the authors intended and is certainly not what they intended the 10th amendment to restrict.



I have read the Federalist Papers.  I have a copy on my book shelf.  Granted it has been a while (I had to dust off the copy) but checking in I found this from Federalist number forty-five (emphasis mine):

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
 
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government.

The principle of the power of the Federal Government being limited is affirmed – so much so that many thought the Tenth Amendment wasn’t even necessary.

I still see no reason to regard any Supreme Court decisions weakening the Tenth Amendment as anything other than unwarranted usurpations of power by the Federal government.



Thunderbird56 -> RE: I found It! I found it!! Where healthcare is a "Right" in the US... (5/19/2009 10:19:19 AM)

It just baffles me. I can't understand it. Why anyone would willingly want to surrender their Freedom and exchange it for Socialism, regardless of any supposed benefit? Why do you people want it so badly? I understand that freedom can be a scary thing ... personal freedom means personal responsibility. Is that the reason?

I also understand, in the confines of this lifestyle, willingly entering into a M/s arrangement. That decision, however, is a conscious *choice* of both parties involved. I reject being *forced* to participate in the slavery of your desired Socialism. What's that you say? "We'll design the system so that you can have options on doctors and medicines". Perhaps you'd be so kind as to inform me how you're not going to force me to *pay* for *your* wonderful system? Perhaps you can tell me how I'm even going to be able find a doctor that will treat me 'outside the box' of mandated procedures your system proscribes?

I was seeing a cardiologist at $250 (his discounted rate by the way) for an office visit. He had me on drugs that cost me around $300 a month. I don't have insurance. One of the drugs was a statin, whose side effects have been known to kill people! I now take red yeast rice, which is a natural statin and saves me over $100 a month. I now see a GP that is educating me on diet that can get me off the other drugs. This GP takes NO 3rd party payments. No medicare, no medicade, no insurance ... his office visit costs me $39! He spends 20-30 minutes with me every time I see him ... the cardiologist? I would be lucky to get 3 minutes of his time.

The GP is also going to get me off Plavix ($180 month) and on nattokinese, a much cheaper "natural" product with fewer side effects. The GP also put me on a diuretic (water pill) that is safe, proven and effective. Sure, it's $20/ month, but the cardiologist didn't have me on it and it took 20 points off my blood preasure!

If you really want to understand the "mainstream" medical community, read "Confessions of a Medical Heritic". I forget the doctor's name that wrote it and I've spent too much time on this already, but it's about 25 years old and still usually available on epay, Amazon, etc.

"That which governs best, governs least"  T. Jefferson



DomKen -> RE: I found It! I found it!! Where healthcare is a "Right" in the US... (5/19/2009 3:42:26 PM)

And the woo hit parade goes on.



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 7 [8]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625