Food and water my be a right, but there's a big difference between someone who is actually starving, or malnourished coming up to me and asking me for a meal, and YOU trying to get a free meal and you can perfectly pay for it yourself.

If you can't see the difference, I am SO very sorry for you.

>> ^imstellar28:

What does starving or thirsty have to do with it? Are you suggesting only really sick people have a right to healthcare? I'm telling you right now I'm hungry and thirsty. If food and water are a right how are you not obligated to provide it to me? Adding the qualifiers "starving or thirsty" and "begging" are just ways in which your mind is dealing with the incongruity of your beliefs. If you want to be logical your statement should be:
"If a person came up to you asking for food/or water would you deny it?"
As an example, does the fact that someone has a lot of money or no money make a difference in whether it is okay to steal? If you can, please name any other "human right" in which a qualifier other than "human" applies.
>> ^EMPIRE:
>> ^imstellar28:
So... dinner and drinks on you?
>> ^EMPIRE:
"(...)you have a right to water, you have a right to food" .... huuuuhh... YEAH you do, you fucking stupid dip shit.

If a starving or thirsty person came up to you on the street begging for food and/or water would you deny it? I certainly wouldn't.

You sir, are an idiot. Congratulations.

OF COURSE it's a human right. We're talking about life and death. Not luxuries and confort.



if you're sick, and have no money or very little, in a country where health care would not be provided for free, and in some cases (like the US) most procedures are charged at unbelievable prices, YOU DIE.

Of course, you seem to be completely oblivious to that fact, as you seem to think that health is somehow a luxury and you should pay for it.




>> ^imstellar28:

If you think we are morally obligated to provide healthcare to people, fine, that's your opinion. Anyone can have whatever set of morals they please. If you think the government should pay for such things - hey, that's your vote to cast. But why is there the need to pretend this is a "human right" when everyone in this thread knows damn well it isn't. There is no logical or philosophical leg to stand on when making that argument. Rights are restrictions placed on social interactions between humans (no stealing, no slavery, no murder, etc.) not a guarantee for material goods or services.
If you think everyone in society should have a car, 3 meals a day, and a personal doctor feel free to start a cult or religion and get a bunch of followers who agree with you. If you are really motivated, start a business and save up enough money to feed all your neighbors and provide them with houses and healthcare -- but keep the "divine justification" for your opinions out of a philosophical argument because not only is it complete rubbish, it's intellectually dishonest.
Citing "human rights" as justification for your political opinions is as vacuous an argument as pulling out the bible and quoting scripture.

The struggle to have the government be the "right" size is a conversation that will go on for as long as we have a viable country. There is no right answer.

However.

I do taxes. Let me tell you something...

Married filing joint. Dividend income from US corporations of $80,000. You know how much tax this couple pays?

$200. I swear to God.

If that same couple had wage income? Then they would pay $8,400 in income taxes, plus as additional $6,100 in payroll taxes.

I did a return for a married couple who had taxable income of $70,000, after standard deduction and exemptions of $16,000, who paid $3,000 in tax. In other words, income of $89,000 paying $3,000 in tax. Had a big capital gain, all of which was taxes at ZERO TAX RATE. Zero. ZERO.

Don't talk to me about the debt. DO NOT TALK TO ME ABOUT THE DEBT without talking about putting tax rates back.

It is a crime what has gone on in this country for the capital-heavy people. Wages and pensions get taxed full bore, but capital?

Drives me crazy.

In reply to this comment by maestro156:
The debt is only a symptom of a much larger problem, oversized government.

Though even if we returned the taxes to where they were a year ago, we've long since outgrown those tax rates. It simply wouldn't help. The only realistic way to get out of debt is to stop spending so much. If we even _froze_ our spending for 10 years, we'd grow our way out of debt. (And yes before you ask, that includes shrinking our military pretty heavily as well)


In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
Put the taxes back to where they were ten years ago, if the debt is such a worry.

Stop using the debt as a reason, please.

In reply to this comment by maestro156:
T

we would have the most important of these in place, while keeping the size and scope of our government limited in a way that would have avoided our current indebtedness.

Put the taxes back to where they were ten years ago, if the debt is such a worry.

Stop using the debt as a reason, please.

In reply to this comment by maestro156:
T

we would have the most important of these in place, while keeping the size and scope of our government limited in a way that would have avoided our current indebtedness.

You mean like regulation of interstate commerce?

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"

The Preamble also states the intent of the document is to fashion a government which will "promote the general Welfare". It's pretty reasonable to interpret things like Medicare and Medicaid as measures that would do so.

Regulation of interstate commerce and the Elastic Clause are vague for a reason. The founding fathers knew that they could not write a Constitution that would cover every single thing the federal gov't should be allowed to do. Amendments and these vague passages were intended to provide some flexibility. Most of the founding fathers were not intending for a federal government to be paralyzed. They wanted a limited government, but they were also correcting the mistakes made in the Articles of Confederation, which limited federal power far too much.

So, in your opinion, those programs are unconstitutional because you're a strict constructionist kind of person. That's okay. This is why we have people with diverse opinions. In the end though, usually the right calls are made. You know, like every one of those programs I mentioned that haven't been deemed unconstitutional, some of which have been around for over 100 years.

>> ^maestro156:

You'll note that the constitution only grants the power to make laws "necessary and proper" to execute the Powers already listed in the constitution.
Therefore, most of those programs you mentioned are simply unconstitutional, regardless of their value.

I agree with you. I was just trying to point out that making the "slavery comparison" was like evoking Hitler in an argument. And yes, I do think the discussion is worth having. It's the only way to move past it, rather than rehashing the same old things over and over.

>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^braindonut:
The argument that I heard being made (that I don't necessarily agree with) is that making services a "right" means that somewhere, somehow, someone is paying for it, who may not necessarily want to have to bear that responsibility. If he had made that argument, it might have been a discussion worth having. Instead he went to crazy town and missed his chance.

I know you don't necessarily agree with the viewpoint, but I still don't see how it could have been a discussion worth having. How could you possibly sustain a modern society if people don't have to pay for things that they don't feel are their responsibility?
I hear elderly people in the U.S. sometimes complaining that they don't want to pay for education since they don't have any kids or grandkids in school anymore. Other people complain about their taxes subsidizing freeways since they don't own a car (apparently believing that food just magically arrives at the grocery store rather than being trucked in on a semi). Hell, I complain about how much we waste on "the war on terror"--a war which I was against from the start and wanted absolutely no responsibility for.
But can you imagine a world where people could just opt out of paying for things that they didn't feel they were responsible for? It would be sheer chaos--budgeting would be a nightmare because you'd never know how much money was coming in from year to year. Freeloaders would opt out of paying for anything. And doing your taxes would take the entire year as you had to decide how to mete out what you owe.
Basically, as far as I can tell his argument was not against universal health care, but against taxes. And the slavery quip was just downright silly--if you follow that logic then all lawyers are slaves because the sixth amendment guarantees the right of everyone who is accused of a crime to an attorney (can't take credit for making that observation... read it on Gawker).

The point he was arguing against was an argument based on theoretical principles and rights not law. His reply for that matter was an equally exaggerated notion of that principle, the idea that public provision of health care is equivalent to slavery when this is far from the truth. Publicly funded or subsidized health implies nothing of the sort, it would merely imply that some institutions would willingly enter into a contract to provide a service payed for by tax dollars for the provision of a service. Nobody would ever force you to work as a doctor or work in a medical institution a party to this.

He then went on to unironically discuss the emergency service provision. Yes that is law but by the same token as he is implying publicly paid for or subsidized health care is slavery, he should apply the same principles here. If he really believes this law is equivalent to slavery then pray tell me what he is doing waxing lyrically about some hypothetical and not fighting against the indenturement of his constituents?
>> ^imstellar28:

RedSky, do you draw any distinction between what a person should do, and what a person is legally obligated to do?
>> ^RedSky:
How is the hypocrisy not immediately evident?
In the same speech he refers to mandatory health care as slavery and yet seems to have no qualms with either the Hippocratic oath as a principle and emergency room health care as a principle which implies the same thing.

Stealing is the absence of an action, which is why it is a valid human right. I'm not stealing anything from you (of my own free will) so what other action do you wish me to perform? Healthcare, or food or water for that matter, is not the absence of an action but rather material goods. If you wish to claim such things are a right (a noble goal) then you would have to ensure that you can provide those things to the 7 billion inhabitants of this planet. I wish someone could do such things but it's clearly not possible -- hence why material goods or services can never be a "human right."

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
You really should try to walk through why you think this is somehow a trap for people who think healthcare is a right.

I feel like I've been stolen from because my government taxes me. Send me a trillion dollars to raise an army to overthrow them.

Don't bother with the Paypal, I won't accept your fraudulent fiat currency. Gold bars are the only form of payment I'll accept.

C'mon, cough it up, this is a matter of human rights, and you have an obligation to me that extends beyond any form of government practical ideas about how to best guarantee those rights.


In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
We aren't talking about taxes we are talking about human rights. If it is human right you have an obligation to me that extends beyond any form of government, yes?

So, do you want my PayPal address?
>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^imstellar28:
Also, I'm feeling a little under the weather today. Can you guys go ahead and send $100 my way so I can pick up some medicine at the store?

Yes, as long as what we're really talking about is me paying my taxes, and that gets used to pay for your (and my) medical bills.

You'll note that the constitution only grants the power to make laws "necessary and proper" to execute the Powers already listed in the constitution.

Therefore, most of those programs you mentioned are simply unconstitutional, regardless of their value.

I know that it is unrealistic of me to expect that the constitution will be followed when it has been ignored for the last century, but I can continue to hope.

>> ^heropsycho:

"The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Don't need to amend the Constitution. How do you think Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Meat Inspection Act, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pure Food and Drug Act, Clean Air Act, and other extremely valuable pieces of federal legislation are constitutional?

RedSky, do you draw any distinction between what a person should do, and what a person is legally obligated to do?
>> ^RedSky:

How is the hypocrisy not immediately evident?
In the same speech he refers to mandatory health care as slavery and yet seems to have no qualms with either the Hippocratic oath as a principle and emergency room health care as a principle which implies the same thing.

What does starving or thirsty have to do with it? Are you suggesting only really sick people have a right to healthcare? I'm telling you right now I'm hungry and thirsty. If food and water are a right how are you not obligated to provide it to me? Adding the qualifiers "starving or thirsty" and "begging" are just ways in which your mind is dealing with the incongruity of your beliefs. If you want to be logical your statement should be:

"If a person came up to you asking for food/or water would you deny it?"

As an example, does the fact that someone has a lot of money or no money make a difference in whether it is okay to steal? If you can, please name any other "human right" in which a qualifier other than "human" applies.

>> ^EMPIRE:

>> ^imstellar28:
So... dinner and drinks on you?
>> ^EMPIRE:
"(...)you have a right to water, you have a right to food" .... huuuuhh... YEAH you do, you fucking stupid dip shit.

If a starving or thirsty person came up to you on the street begging for food and/or water would you deny it? I certainly wouldn't.

You really should try to walk through why you think this is somehow a trap for people who think healthcare is a right.

I feel like I've been stolen from because my government taxes me. Send me a trillion dollars to raise an army to overthrow them.

Don't bother with the Paypal, I won't accept your fraudulent fiat currency. Gold bars are the only form of payment I'll accept.

C'mon, cough it up, this is a matter of human rights, and you have an obligation to me that extends beyond any form of government practical ideas about how to best guarantee those rights.


In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
We aren't talking about taxes we are talking about human rights. If it is human right you have an obligation to me that extends beyond any form of government, yes?

So, do you want my PayPal address?
>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^imstellar28:
Also, I'm feeling a little under the weather today. Can you guys go ahead and send $100 my way so I can pick up some medicine at the store?

Yes, as long as what we're really talking about is me paying my taxes, and that gets used to pay for your (and my) medical bills.

"The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Don't need to amend the Constitution. How do you think Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Meat Inspection Act, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pure Food and Drug Act, Clean Air Act, and other extremely valuable pieces of federal legislation are constitutional?

>> ^maestro156:

>> ^srd:
So to reduce Pauls standpoint to its essence: if it isn't explicit in the constitution, then it's evil. Human decency and common sense can go love off.
Hey, you want to provide goods and services to everyone for sake of "human decency and common sense", then fine. Amend the constitution, and have at it.
But unless you can obtain a 2/3 majority vote in Congress, and ratification by 3/4 of the states, you're bound by the constitution to find other _voluntary_ means of providing those goods and services.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Free economic exchange is absolutely essential to true liberty.
If you don't control the means to sustain yourself, how could you ever be free?
Imagine it's 1887 and a federal agent strolls up to your farmer right after it's been determined that pasteurization is "Better".
"What do you mean I can't sell raw cow's milk anymore? I have lots of customers and none of them have ever complained. I can't afford to pasteurization hundreds of gallons of milk."
Now think of the thousands of other similar scenarios where you're not allowed to make an income because someone else says you shouldn't.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Free markets have nothing to do with free people.


Perhaps I'm alone on this, but I feel that there is some reasonable middle ground between "all regulation is wonderful" and "all regulation is horrible".

Same for taxes.

like the scenario where i'm a bajigagiallionaire oil company and i want to make money by cutting corners in ensuring the safety of my rigs... and the big asshole regulations say i can't because it might kill people and destroy an ecosystem???? THAT'S A THREAT TO MY FUCKING LIBERTY!

regulations can be a good thing when the regulating body doesn't work for multinationals.

we're all fucked. >> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Free economic exchange is absolutely essential to true liberty.
If you don't control the means to sustain yourself, how could you ever be free?
Imagine it's 1887 and a federal agent strolls up to your farmer right after it's been determined that pasteurization is "Better".
"What do you mean I can't sell raw cow's milk anymore? I have lots of customers and none of them have ever complained. I can't afford to pasteurization hundreds of gallons of milk."
Now think of the thousands of other similar scenarios where you're not allowed to make an income because someone else says you shouldn't.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Free markets have nothing to do with free people.