Obama finally called them out

[patandchickens]

I don't care what people expect.

Fine, I am not going to argue about that -- please focus then on the second half of what I said, that POSSIBILITIES have changed radically since 200-300 years ago.

The *options*, and the *extent* of healthcare, are hugely different than what there was when the Declaration of Independance and the Constitution were written.

It seems to me at least worth CONSIDERING, genuinely, that this may be an example of something the founding fathers never said nuthin' about simply because the situation *did not occur to them*. They were operating within the limits of what was imaginable at the time. Antibiotics, surgery of all types, cancer treatment... did not really exist back then, or anyhow only the first very very faint occasional glimmerings of 'em. I mean, back in 1800, who'd'a thunk that so much COULD be fairly reliably curable?


Pat

 

[farmerlor]

I don't care what people expect.

Fine, I am not going to argue about that -- please focus then on the second half of what I said, that POSSIBILITIES have changed radically since 200-300 years ago.

The *options*, and the *extent* of healthcare, are hugely different than what there was when the Declaration of Independance and the Constitution were written.

It seems to me at least worth CONSIDERING, genuinely, that this may be an example of something the founding fathers never said nuthin' about simply because the situation *did not occur to them*. They were operating within the limits of what was imaginable at the time. Antibiotics, surgery of all types, cancer treatment... did not really exist back then, or anyhow only the first very very faint occasional glimmerings of 'em. I mean, back in 1800, who'd'a thunk that so much COULD be fairly reliably curable?


Pat

Or that you couldn't pay for it with a few chickens or some fresh milk?

 

[patandchickens]

Or that you couldn't pay for it with a few chickens or some fresh milk?

LOL -- you got me thinking -- wouldn't it be funny if we could pay TAXES with barter?

"Dear IRS, enclosed is my 2008 1040A; attached please find payment in the form of two bushels of garlic, three dozen quarts of the pickles that win a blue ribbon at the county fair most years, and the engine from a 1958 Case tractor which I don't know what it's worth exactly but I'm confident it will more than pay for the remainder of my taxes."

I'm not suggesting it, sadly, as it would be a logistical nightmare and considering the amount of fraud *now*, whooo-weeee.... but still. Wouldn't that be cool


Pat

 

[me&thegals]

Hey! Finally a place for all my extra potatoes before they start sprouting! Whoo, hoo!

No, this scenario of going bankrupt to get treated for health issues is not one that probably could have been foreseen.

 

[reinbeau]

No, think about it -- human health expectations, and what health care consists of and how it's provided, have changed MASSIVELY in the last 200 (really, 100) years.

Now where in my statement did I say anything at all about expectations? Nowhere. Do not insert words that I didn't say and didn't mean. I don't care what people expect. People expect quite a lot lately from society, but aren't as willing to put in the hard work they themselves should put in. No, Pat, human needs haven't changed one iota.

Human needs have changed drastically! We no longer deal with massive disease outbreaks due to filth and unclean water. We no longer often deal with vitamin-deficiency diseases. We don't often deal with diseases related to horrible dental care.

None of that means that anything changed with regards to human needs. I don't understand why no one is getting my point, I guess it's just going whoooosh.....

Instead, we deal with heart disease, smoking, alcoholism, obesity. Human health has changed dramatically. The need for care has changed dramatically.

Maybe I am misunderstanding your original statement, but everything has changed, including those 2 things.

Yes, you are misunderstanding it. I'm talking on a basic level. Humans need to breathe. They need to eat. They need to live in relatively clean surroundings. I am talking about the basic biological necessities for life, not what modern living has done to us. It's not about what we can do now, it's what is basically necessary. It hasn't changed. Expectations weren't in what I posted, and I objected to that thought being inserted into what I was saying. That's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

 

[patandchickens]

None of that means that anything changed with regards to human needs. I don't understand why no one is getting my point, I guess it's just going whoooosh.....

This has been said so many times I'm finally going to bite -- perhaps it is not a failure to understand your point, merely a failure to agree with it.

(edited to add: aw phooey. I wasn't going to get into this whole 'needs' thing, but, maybe just one go at it:

I'm talking on a basic level. Humans need to breathe. They need to eat. They need to live in relatively clean surroundings. I am talking about the basic biological necessities for life, not what modern living has done to us. It's not about what we can do now, it's what is basically necessary. It hasn't changed.

The Constitution does not as far as I know say anything about a basic right to breathe, eat, or be clean.

It is not about biological necessities as such.

It is about *socially-agreed social rights* whose biological basis (when there is one, which isn't true in all cases) exists only as filtered through our opinions of what constitutes acceptible.

What is the right to "live", to be "free"? "Pursuing happiness" as defined by WHOM? (Yeah, I know I'm not sticking strictly to the Constitution alone - so sue me)

It was originally felt that slavery was acceptible and women lacked the capacity/right to vote. Society changed, and those attitudes became unacceptible, and so things got adjusted so that freedom means "irrespective of race" and "slavery does not count as freedom", and the right to vote was given to EVERYONE of age, irrespective of color, gender etc.

Suppose there were some catastrophe and the air became impossible to breathe without some sort of artificial respirator device, that could be made cheaply enough that with some degree of gov't'l cutting and scrimping one *could* be provided to all who needed it. What does the Constitution, or for that matter the D of I, say about such things? Nothing whatsoever, because that was not on their radar of "situations that could arise".

That so many common-yet-serious-or-fatal medical problems could actually be fairly reliably CURED was just not imaginable back then.

And just as society changed its idea of what was an acceptible level of "full citizenship" (cf. race and gender) and it's been reflected in policy changes, ideas can change about other things too. Like what basic level of health is required before one can start pursuing happiness.

Pat

 

[reinbeau]

Of course you don't agree with it, Pat, just as I don't agree with your points, but I do get them. And please tell me in simple terms (since I am such a simple person) exactly what throughout the ages has changed so monumentally with regards to human needs. I have no problem helping/paying for needs, but wants, expectations and desires? Not so much.

 

[patandchickens]

exactly what throughout the ages has changed so monumentally with regards to human needs. I have no problem helping/paying for needs, but wants, expectations and desires? Not so much.

See above for the non objectivity of "needs", in a political context anyhow.

Furthermore, you pay for expectations and desires already, all over the place. You pay for whatever level of interstate transportation network the country "needs" or "expects" during any particular administration. You pay for whatever level of military protection/activity the country "needs" or "expects". Education (particularly at the nonfederal level, but remember federal funds are involved in that too). Etc etc etc.

The government does VASTLY more than just make sure everybody has oxygen, subsistance levels of food, and a roof and hearth. And all of that is just as much a matter of social consensus as to what's "acceptible levels" as healthcare is.

Pat

 

[reinbeau]

I understand the government does vastly more than ........ That's the whole problem. There are many of us who feel the government does more than enough - and we don't want them to do any more. That's the core of the differences between our ways of thinking. We don't want to be taken care of. We don't want to pay to take blanket care of everyone else. We don't want to have even less control over our individual freedoms. Since you hold little stock in the Constitution I don't expect you to agree with me, I take some comfort in knowing there are more and more out there who think like I do, and that the tide seems to be turning against this movement to turn the US into even more of a nanny state.

 

[patandchickens]

Since you hold little stock in the Constitution

Quite the contrary.

I believe it is an excellent document and continues to serve the country quite well. In great part because it allows *flexibility* within its broad directive concepts -- the possibility of amendment, and the lack of overly-restrictive specifics that would tie details to just one time and one culture.


Pat