Obama finally called them out

[patandchickens]

what it says is that government shall not abridge the people's rights- not that it gives them.

I guess I'm not clear what you are meaning "give" rights? I was under the impression that the whole concept on which the US was founded is that certain rights are *intrinsic* to the human condition; that they do not exist because a gov't "grants" them, nor would they cease to be basic rights just because a gov't does not acknowledge them.

?


Pat

 

[reinbeau]

I would also (in addition to defining socialism) appreciate a footnote of Obama's "chafes under" comment, in context.

This was covered in the other thread, starting with this post. The direct link to the article is here. A pertinent quote from that article:

Seven years before Barack Obama's "spread the wealth" comment to Joe the Plumber became a GOP campaign theme, the Democratic presidential candidate said in a radio interview the U.S. has suffered from a fundamentally flawed Constitution that does not mandate or allow for redistribution of wealth.

In a newly unearthed tape, Obama is heard telling Chicago's public station WBEZ-FM in 2001 that "redistributive change" is needed, pointing to what he regarded as a failure of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in its rulings on civil rights issues in the 1960s.

The Warren court, he said, failed to "break free from the essential constraints" in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. But Obama, then an Illinois state lawmaker, said the legislative branch of government, rather than the courts, probably was the ideal avenue for accomplishing that goal.

.

 

[enjoy the ride]

what it says is that government shall not abridge the people's rights- not that it gives them.

I guess I'm not clear what you are meaning "give" rights? I was under the impression that the whole concept on which the US was founded is that certain rights are *intrinsic* to the human condition; that they do not exist because a gov't "grants" them, nor would they cease to be basic rights just because a gov't does not acknowledge them.

?


Pat

Yes- you have it- but the Bill of Rights came into existance because certain Founding Fathers were fearful that the government would exercise too much authority over people so, in order for a federal government to continue to exist, they insisted that these "inalienable rights" were listed. So the government couldn't just take someone's gun so they couldn't resist or close newspapers who stirred people against government actions, etc.
But if it can not fit into one of the original or amended sections of the Constitution, it is not a Constitutional right.

The Constitution allowed a government to be formed by people who were very self-sufficient and were very wary of government forcing them to conform to someone else's standards as in a state religion.

Even if you have a right to health care, it doesn't mean the government is requred to provide it, just as they are not required to build you a church for your religion. It simply means they can not prevent your reasonable pursuit of it yourself. For the basic idea is that no government can give you a right- you are born with it or you acquire a limited right with the passage of the law.

 

[VT-Chicklit]

enjoy the ride, you are exactly correct. The Founding Fathers felt that our rights came directly from God, not from the government. They were tryng to have as minimal a government intrusion into the lives of the citizery as possible, while preventing anarchy. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are there to prevent over reach of the Federal Government. The Founders envisioned that the power lay with the people who gave some of their power to the state and federal governments. It was envisioned that the most powerful would be the individual, then the state and the entity with the least power would be the federal government.
Over time this has become distorted.

The founders knew that inorder for the individual citizen to be able to truely persue true happiness, they would need to delegate some of the responsibilities that come wih the rights to the government. You cant be persueing happiness if you were always having to protect yourself from invaders, or if each person was their own police or fire dept, as examples. The federal government had few rights when the Constitution was written. Their main job was to protect the Republic from all who meant her harm, both domestic and foreign.

Some how, over time the idea of rights coming from God to the citizen and the citizen determining what responsibilities to delegate to their state and federal governments has been turned up side down. Our citizens, through out the past two centuries, have delegated more and more responsibilities to the state and federal governments until now the feds think they are the ones who dole out the rights to us! The feds are to the point that they even disregard "States Rights". Unfortunately true Civics is no longer taught in most of our schools.

Health Care is only a responsibility of the Federal Government if we abdicate our own responsibility for our health care to the federal government. Most of what they do in Washington DC is not according to the Constitution. They do things and then let the Supremes sort it out. The Supremes are not strict Constitutionalists either. The further we get away from our founding the more distorted the relationship between the governments and the citizenry gets!

Earlier in the posts to this thread the question was raised regrding why now when Obama is President? Have you ever heard of the "Straw That Broke the Camels Back". Bush started the ball rolling with the unfunded war and the first bailout. He used $300 billion of the bailout monies and left the remaining monies for Pres. Obama to use or not, as he saw fit. Pres Obama spent the rest of the Bush bailout monies, then spent more and bailed out more, and spent more again. Until Pres Obama and our current Congress, most of us had never heard of a number called Trillion. In the past 8 months the use of this word has become common place. This debt was run up under Bush, and then went into hyperdrive under the new administration. I would have a problem with these same policies and spending, if Saint Peter was president. It has nothing to do with Pres Obama. It has to do with his policies and the bills and spending that are coming out of Congress!

 

[me&thegals]

Even if you have a right to health care, it doesn't mean the government is requred to provide it, just as they are not required to build you a church for your religion. It simply means they can not prevent your reasonable pursuit of it yourself. For the basic idea is that no government can give you a right- you are born with it or you acquire a limited right with the passage of the law.

That's an excellent way of explaining that, ETR!

Then, it becomes an argument of whether you trust employers, private companies or others to provide that right or whether the gov't steps in to regulate that or even provide it.

 

[me&thegals]

Health Care is only a responsibility of the Federal Government if we abdicate our own responsibility for our health care to the federal government.

I agree with this, Chicklit. However, I believe this is exactly what private health insurance and HMOs have done (abdicated responsibility through their irresponsibility and greed). They have botched the system so badly that people are turning to gov't to fix it. I would rather see it thrive in the private sector---done well, affordably, fairly, accessibly. It's not happening.

 

[Big Daddy]

Wouldn't it be great if they could have a one payer system. Meaning the government would pay for it all through employee deductions. The twist being that a private corporation could manage the whole thing for a reasonable service fee. Then the govt wouldn't be involved with all the congressional reps making special concessions in exchange for campaign contributions. They would have to audit the company of course. There would still be tons of fraud though. The human condition again.

 

[VT-Chicklit]

Big Daddy said Wouldn't it be great if they could have a one payer system. Meaning the government would pay for it all through employee deductions.

NO! You may trust this president and this congress but you do not know who will get in next. You need to be able to make your own decisions regarding your care. This will not be guarenteed with government involvement. The government is not trustworthy when it comes to handling our money. They rob from Social Security to spend elsewhere and then say they problem is all our fault for living longer. They always underestimate the costs and over estimate the satisfaction of the population on what they are doing. I wouldnt trust anyone of them to even park my car! Have you seen the satisfaction rating that Congress has with the American people. The only reason why Pres Obama's rating is still around 50% is because he hasn't been in office that long. The honeymoon is barely over. If the networks start covering all the news instead of being selective, that will change. It is changing already. I am not dumping on Pres Obama, I would say this about anyone who has his stand on most issues. The general population was not paying attention to what he was saying and did not do their homework on the various choices we had during the primaries. They thought "Change" meant something other than BUSH. The did not realise how much "Change" they would really get and how much this "Change" would really cost! The bill that is being crafted in the Senate currently has provisions for people to buy into "Government" at a cost as high as 13% of their income. I believe that threshold would be reached at an income of $70 K, if I remember correctly. I know that that is not the only bill being considered, but Congress has been known to spend $600 on toilet seats and $200 for wrenches . . . they do not bargain shop or coupon!

Congress and the government do not do anything efficiently. If they would do thngs that would allow insurances to compete across state lines that would help. There is so much regulation at the state level that most states only have a few companies that compete for the business out of a possible 1300 companies selling health insurance. The states regulate what things must be covered. Why should I have to pay for maternaty services, or prostate exams. I am a post menopausal woman. Why should I have to have coverage for sex changes, I like my gender. These are all things that drive costs. Most states have many things that they require covered that I do not need and should not have to pay for.

The high cost of Health Insurance is not only caused by the insurance companies. The government only will pay a percentage of what it costs to provide health care under Medicare and Medicaid. The providers push the remainder of the cost over to those who have insurance. The government again drives that additional cost to my insurance. If I am denied a proceure or medicine by my insurance I can go to my state Insurance Comissioner and plead my case. Most times they will require that the insurance company covers the item in question. Who will you plead your case to when a government desk jockey denies your care?

Just food for thought if you think the government would be the best thing for your health care. What will happen when the medical providers can no longer push the cost that Medicare and Medicaid wont cover, over on to the insurance companies. Do you think you will get the same level of care? Probably not. They will not provide care at a loss. They will either close up shop or provide less care. The only one that will loose is us because Congress will have their own "Special Plan"

 

[patandchickens]

The founders knew that inorder for the individual citizen to be able to truely persue true happiness, they would need to delegate some of the responsibilities that come wih the rights to the government. You cant be persueing happiness if you were always having to protect yourself from invaders, or if each person was their own police or fire dept, as examples

Now that you (plural) have gotten me more interested in this issue (for which, thank you! ) I would like to do more reading on it... but at the moment I will at least say that what you're saying (VT-Chicklit) makes a lot of sense and sounds right to me.

I have a question, though -- this is not an argument *disguised* as a question, it is an *actual question* LOL -- what is different about saying "you can't be pursuing happiness if you are in frequent poor health, unable to work because of a fixable condition, or dying of a curable disease"? How is that different from the examples you give?

Trying to understand,

Pat

 

[Big Daddy]

I've been told that most insurance companies base reimbursement to preferred providers at approximately the same rate as Medicare/Medicaid. The cost that are pushed over are all the people that don't pay their bills that are uninsured.

So it sounds like you feel that insurance companies should offer health plans kind of like auto insurance is offered. Start with basic coverage and then add what you want?

I can understand why you don't trust Congress, or any politician for that matter. The coverage I have heard them specify for their public option sounds pretty comprehensive. Your'e right though. It has a lot ocf coverage in it that wont be needed by a lot of people. But what if it is needed? It's designed for people with little or no money. Back to the auto insurance analogy. You are required to carry liability. Your car is 12 years old and only worth 2000 so you choose not to carry collision coverage. That works on cars because you don't have to have a car. You have to have a body.