Do people want a Public Option???

kev9100

Yep.

http://act.boldprogressives.org/cms/sign/natpollresults121809/

Passing proper Health care reform is not only good policy but its good politics . The Democratic base will not turn out in 2010 if the dems let Lieberman and Nelson ruin Health Care Reform. Its time for reconciliation.

InTheTrees

Its a perfect example of the corruption of the US political system that it most likely wont pass.

Hopefully it'll be the end of libermans political career, nobody likes a turncoat.

Pocono Joe

InTheTrees wrote: »

Hopefully it'll be the end of libermans political career, nobody likes a turncoat.

I hope you're right with regards to Benedict Arlen.

Manic Moran

I note that the polls don't ask the most important question of 'how should the public option be funded?' There are several differing opinions on the matter, I wouldn't be surprised if the devil is in the details when it comes to opposition.

NTM

kev9100

Pocono Joe wrote: »

I hope you're right with regards to Benedict Arlen.

You say that, but with the way things are currently lieberman may run as a republican in 2012.

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977949885&grpId=3659174697244816&nav=Groupspace

Out of interest, would you support lieberman as a republican??

Overheal

Lieberman is an Independent thats playing the system. Its all very confusing. All I know is: Jon Stewart despises the man :pac:

kev9100

Overheal wrote: »

All I know is: Jon Stewart despises the man :pac:

And with good reason. He has even admitted that he is only doing all this to piss off the Liberals who opposed him in 2006. Did you see the episode on Wednesday by any chance? He DESTROYED him.

Overheal

That was the one.

Anyway should it matter what one Senator decided? If this bill was the best thing since sliced bread they would have gotten fillabuster long before now. They havent.

Pocono Joe

kev9100 wrote: »

Out of interest, would you support lieberman as a republican??

I like his stance on defense and terrorism, but he is a social democrat at heart. So it would depend on the opposition. If he were to run in a GOP primary against the likes of another candidate such as Dede Scozzafava from the infamous NY-23 race, Leiberman would get my vote. But I would always vote for a more conservatie candidate regardsless of the political power Lieberman might bring.


As for the Public Option... I doubt many Americans could tell you what it is, which is basically a government-run health insurance plan, like Medicare. They don’t realize medicare turns down more medical procedures than private insurance. Medicare doesn’t have to generate a profit, so how can private insurance compete? And how well is medicare run now? If it was not a government run entity, it would be bankrupt. And in order to remain solvent the government would either have to raise taxes or reduce services… how is that considered competitive? The Public Option will eventually run almost all private insurance out of business. Then the government will surely control our lives from cradle to grave IMO.

kev9100

Pocono Joe wrote: »

As for the Public Option... I doubt many Americans could tell you what it is, which is basically a government-run health insurance plan, like Medicare. They don’t realize medicare turns down more medical procedures than private insurance. Medicare doesn’t have to generate a profit, so how can private insurance compete? And how well is medicare run now? If it was not a government run entity, it would be bankrupt. And in order to remain solvent the government would either have to raise taxes or reduce services… how is that considered competitive? The Public Option will eventually run almost all private insurance out of business. Then the government will surely control our lives from cradle to grave IMO.

Three points. I find it extremely hard to believe that Medicare turns down more medical procedures than private insurance. It may be true, but i seriously doubt it. Secondly, in the UK (which has a single payer system which is the best way IMO) i can guarantee that personal liberties are not affected by the NHS . Anyone can choose private health care if they wish. Thirdly, do you not think that it is a truly noble sentiment for a society to say "If you get sick, no matter what your personal wealth or background, we will take care of you to the best of our ability. Health care is a right not a priviledge.

Rant over:D.

Manic Moran

Health care is a right not a priviledge.

Is it?

I always thought that your rights were things which you could do. The right to say things. The right to live. The right to travel. Even the right to vote, though I'm not sure how fundamental a right that is in terms of humanity.

The 'right' to have someone provide for you, however, I think is stretching it a bit.

NTM

kev9100

Manic Moran wrote: »

Is it?

I always thought that your rights were things which you could do. The right to say things. The right to live. The right to travel. Even the right to vote, though I'm not sure how fundamental a right that is in terms of humanity.

The 'right' to have someone provide for you, however, I think is stretching it a bit.

NTM

Yes it is. The State has a duty to offer certain services to its citizens and to help them in their time of need. The State already provides free education, social housing, social welfare and care for the elderly. Why should there not be an "option" of having healthcare provided for by the State? After all, Congressman and Senators receive their healthcare through a public plan. So do many Veterans through the VA system. Why can`t the general public have the same opportunity??

Pocono Joe

kev9100 wrote: »

Three points. I find it extremely hard to believe that Medicare turns down more medical procedures than private insurance. It may be true, but i seriously doubt it. Secondly, in the UK (which has a single payer system which is the best way IMO) i can guarantee that personal liberties are not affected by the NHS . Anyone can choose private health care if they wish. Thirdly, do you not think that it is a truly noble sentiment for a society to say "If you get sick, no matter what your personal wealth or background, we will take care of you to the best of our ability. Health care is a right not a priviledge.

Rant over:D.

As for point 1, it is my understanding that it has to do with Medicare only paying for treatment or procedures that appear on their code sheet. Basically it pays only for acute care that the program administrators view as reasonable and necessary to diagnose or treat an illness or injury. It also does not cover long-term nursing home, in-home care, or preventive or chronic health care. This is why Medicare beneficiaries often have to purchase private insurance policies called “Medigap” policies.

As for point 2, good for you. Hope your country does not go broke supporting it.

As for part 3, I’ve relooked at the US Constitution and fail to find where healthcare is a Right. So I’ll shoot the question back to you. Is it right that our elderly cannot get proper care towards their end of life. Do you subscribe to Obama’s vision of taking the Red pill (as long as it’s not his Grandma or Ted Kennedy) instead of the Blue Pill… or should it just be left to you to divvy healthcare out and you to decide who gets these envisioned Rights?

Medicare, Medicaid, the Veteran's Administration Health System, the Indian Health Service, and the Public Health Service are all inept disasters of the federal government and in financial disarray. But I’m sure the federal government will get the takeover of all our healthcare correct. :rolleyes:

kev9100

Pocono Joe wrote: »

As for point 1, it is my understanding that it has to do with Medicare only paying for treatment or procedures that appear on their code sheet. Basically it pays only for acute care that the program administrators view as reasonable and necessary to diagnose or treat an illness or injury. It also does not cover long-term nursing home, in-home care, or preventive or chronic health care. This is why Medicare beneficiaries often have to purchase private insurance policies called “Medigap” policies.

As for part 3, I’ve relooked at the US Constitution and fail to find where healthcare is a Right. So I’ll shoot the question back to you. Is it right that our elderly cannot get proper care towards their end of life. Do you subscribe to Obama’s vision of taking the Red pill (as long as it’s not his Grandma or Ted Kennedy) instead of the Blue Pill… or should it just be left to you to divvy healthcare out and you to decide who gets these envisioned Rights?

While it is true that there are problems with Medicare your original point was that private insurance denies MORE than Medicare and you have still offered no evidence of this. Regarding the Constitution, while I accept it was an incredibly important and groundbreaking document, do you really think it is logical to say "well if X or Y is not in there these things can never happen!"? Times have changed since 1787.

Finally, this whole thing thing about Obama wanting to kill granma is pure bull****. I bet you cannot show me one piece of evidence of your Red and Blue pill crap.

Pocono Joe

kev9100 wrote: »

Finally, this whole thing thing about Obama wanting to kill granma is pure bull****. I bet you cannot show me one piece of evidence of your Red and Blue pill crap.

I’m sure you can find videos of these Obama quotes if you try. Regardless, it’s not too tough to figure out that in the matter 1+1=death panel. There is absolutely no way we can add 30 million new patients, without adding new doctors, decrease payments to healthcare professionals, and continue the level of care Americans are accustomed to. Common sense dictates there will be less drugs developed, and rationing and delayed care… resulting in death.

"If there's a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half price for the thing that's going to make you well?"

pretty good: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTIw7XaS_A4&feature=player_embedded

"I don't know how much that hip replacement cost, I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement just because she's my grandmother. Whether, sort of in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else's aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they're terminally ill is a sustainable model, is a very difficult question."

InTheTrees

US Insurance companies routinely deny treatment to people with life threatening medical issues.

They'll happily let you die if it would increase their profits.

I believe california had to make laws restricting the insurance company death panels.

Pocono Joe

InTheTrees wrote: »

US Insurance companies routinely deny treatment to people with life threatening medical issues.

They'll happily let you die if it would increase their profits.

I believe california had to make laws restricting the insurance company death panels.

I believe almost all the insurance companies lay out and provide to each subscriber what is and is not covered. Just because someone does not like that a procedure is not covered, does not make it wrong for the insurance company to not cover it based on the rates they charge. With higher rates they can cover more.... but we can't have that!

And oh… you mean those evil insurance companies who make all those obnoxious profits. Here are profits of the 10 largest health insurance companies reported for the year ending December 31, 2008.

Blue Cross, 3.4%.
United Health Group, 3.6%.
Well Point, 4.1%.
Aetna, 4.5%.
Humana, 2.2%.
Cigna, (loss).
Health Net, 0.62%.
Coventry Health Care, 3.2%.
Americagroup, (loss)
Universal American, 2.0%.
Centene, 2.5%.

kev9100

"Continue the level of care Americans are accustomed to"" are you serious? I am sure that the 46 million Americans who have no Health Insurance would love to talk to you about this brillaint level of care you talk about. By the way, what are the Gops ideas on healthcare? Sweet **** all.


p.s. Since you have still not provided any evidence for you claim that "Medicare denies more than Private insurance" I`m going to presume you have none. Ok??

Pocono Joe

kev9100 wrote: »

p.s. Since you have still not provided any evidence for you claim that "Medicare denies more than Private insurance" I`m going to presume you have none. Ok??

No... not okay.
http://biggovernment.com/2009/10/05/ama-endorses-largest-denier-of-health-care-claims/

Pocono Joe

kev9100 wrote: »

"I am sure that the 46 million Americans who have no Health Insurance would love to talk to you about this brillaint level of care you talk about.

So I take it that if I sneak into your country, I'm automatically one of your citizens?

kev9100

Oh yes because the site "Big Goverment.com" really strikes like a truly non-partisan tone. Either way, it seems unlikely there will be a public option now anyway. Thank you Mrs. Sarah Palin and of course, a man who has as much integrity as a scared puppy, Mr. Joe Lieberman.

kev9100

Pocono Joe wrote: »

So I take it that if I sneak into your country, I'm automatically one of your citizens?

I`m getting a real big sense of Deja vu here. Facts please.

Pocono Joe

kev9100 wrote: »

I`m getting a real big sense of Deja vu here. Facts please.

Even the Obama administration has stopped using the 46 million number, and now uses 30 million. Why you might ask... could it be becasue 16 million are illegal aliens? (well at least until 2010 when they will push extremely hard to make them faithful democrat citizens, as the DNC becomes worried Americans will throw democrats out of office in 2010 and 2012. and if you need examples just see NJ and VA).

Let loose the yabutts.

LostinKildare

Manic Moran wrote: »

Is it?

I always thought that your rights were things which you could do. The right to say things. The right to live. The right to travel. Even the right to vote, though I'm not sure how fundamental a right that is in terms of humanity.

The 'right' to have someone provide for you, however, I think is stretching it a bit.

NTM

No. You have numerous rights, both enumerated and unenumerated, that you cannot exercise without help -- actually the provision -- of the state.

For example, the right to a speedy and public criminal trial with an impartial jury of your peers. Although the right belongs to the accused, the primary actor in its exercise is the state. A complex framework and expensive bureaucracy -- all paid for and maintained by the state -- makes possible the exercise of that individual's right. And the state very specifically acknowledges that a citizen's penury cannot be a bar to the exercise of this right -- if you cannot afford legal representation, it is provided to you free.

There ya go, a model of the US govt "providing" a right to its citizens.

Overheal

kev9100 wrote: »

Yes it is. The State has a duty to offer certain services to its citizens and to help them in their time of need. The State already provides free education, social housing, social welfare and care for the elderly. Why should there not be an "option" of having healthcare provided for by the State? After all, Congressman and Senators receive their healthcare through a public plan. So do many Veterans through the VA system. Why can`t the general public have the same opportunity??

The Elderly pay taxes throughout their Adult Lives. The Country is Infinitely Indebted to its Veterans (Thanks NTM), and her Senators and Congressman are elected into Office to provide the upkeep and operation of the Country. Oh, and you forgot Active Servicemen. My boss hit a Seargant on a bicycle. Sarge was in the wrong ultimately but unable to pursue charges for medical care because spoiler alert: He didnt have any medical expenses despite the broken leg.

And you also forgot Minors, whom are the future of any society and must be cared and raised into self sufficiency until they can generate returns to society.

Now, consider this: Able Bodied Adults (group A) already pay into Medicare and other taxes (which go into Federal and State Budgets) to provide for group B (made up of the Young and Old, and select Civil Servants)....And all the While, Medicare is prepared to go Bankrupt from just using Group A sources of income to provide for Group B.

How on earth do you expect us to afford to provide that same level of care to both groups A and B using the resources of Group A?

By the way, what are the Gops ideas on healthcare? Sweet **** all.

I dont know about the GOP but I think dramatically reformatting the foundations of the Healthcare System is hazardous at best and at worst Catastrophic. Its like me reinstalling Windows because my display is acting funny: Wouldnt I just install a video driver update? Do I need to tear the Living Room wall down to change a lightbulb?

I think this All or Nothing approach by Democrats is, ultimately, going to fall flat on its face. They could have done so much more by now if they had gone for a brick here and there and not the entire wall. Why do we need to pass Govercare RIGHT THE **** NOW OR ELSE? Cant we just pass a law that redefines the Pre-Existing Medical Conditions stipulation in Private Insurance? Cant we just make a piece of legislature, pass it, sign it, that makes it easier for Private Insurance Companies to provide their services across state lines and jurisdictions? Can we then not go back, once all that is done, and write-pass-sign another piece of legislature that would give more powers to the FDA/reform flawed FDA practices?

Seriously, why does it need to be One Single Bill?

kev9100

Couple of points. If anyone got the impression from my earlier comments that i dont think Veterans should get the best healthcare possible I sincerely apologise. The US owes a huge debt to its veterans and will never be able to repay it. The least they deserve is good healthcare. That is why they have the VA system, which as far as i am aware is quite good.

On the issue of cost, the CBO (which is completely non-partisan) has said that the Public Option will reduce the deficit by around 900 million in its first ten years and possibly more after that. The Public Option will also provide much needed competition to the Insurance Industry which will lower premiums. All good things in my book.

Overheal wrote: »

I think dramatically reformatting the foundations of the Healthcare System is hazardous at best and at worst Catastrophic.

This kind of argument would be fine if the system just had one or two problems, but the truth healthcare in the US is in terrible shape. 46 million (or 30 million according to Joe) people without health insurance is quite a serious problem that requires dramatic reform, no?

And finally,"Why do we need to pass Govercare RIGHT THE **** NOW OR ELSE?" Simple politics Im afraid. Because of Republican stalling tactics and the fact that the Dems have such a divided caucus it would have been impossible to pass Health Care in stages. Personally, I would have no problem with Health Care Reform being achieved piece by piece but with a two year Congress and a divided party it wouldnt have been possible.

Overheal

Wouldnt have been possible? Its Not possible Now! :pac: Even when they have a Supermajority. The door for changes is open, but we're ramming EVERYTHING through it all at once:

EVERYTHING [] <-- an iddy biddy door called Politics.

They Need to wisen the **** up and realise their eyes are bigger than their ****ing mouths. You CHEW the Hot Dog you stupid bastards. Stop trying to deepthroat it. Aww now youre just coughing up relish.

Couple of points. If anyone got the impression from my earlier comments that i dont think Veterans should get the best healthcare possible I sincerely apologise. The US owes a huge debt to its veterans and will never be able to repay it.

I wasnt implying anything of you, but it just had to be said as part of the point I was making.

Manic Moran

kev9100 wrote: »

Yes it is. The State has a duty to offer certain services to its citizens and to help them in their time of need. The State already provides free education, social housing, social welfare and care for the elderly. Why should there not be an "option" of having healthcare provided for by the State? After all, Congressman and Senators receive their healthcare through a public plan. So do many Veterans through the VA system. Why can`t the general public have the same opportunity??

You're confusing the provision of a service with the right to have that service. Free education or social welfare is provided as a benefit to society, not as a moral requirement.

As far as Congresscritters/military are concerned, healthcare from the government is not something arbitrarily given as a right, it is earned as part of the compensation package of working for the federal government.

For example, the right to a speedy and public criminal trial with an impartial jury of your peers. Although the right belongs to the accused, the primary actor in its exercise is the state. A complex framework and expensive bureaucracy -- all paid for and maintained by the state -- makes possible the exercise of that individual's right. And the state very specifically acknowledges that a citizen's penury cannot be a bar to the exercise of this right -- if you cannot afford legal representation, it is provided to you free.

There ya go, a model of the US govt "providing" a right to its citizens.

Disagree, and I had actually considered the 'right to trial by jury' when I was typing my earlier post. The right is the right of freedom. To travel, to associate, and so on. The 'right to trial' isn't so much a right in itself as a mechanism which is required to respect the individual right: It is argued that rights are not provided by the government, and that governments must take efforts to respect the rights that you have. Hence the various bureaucratic procedures and rules to ensure that your rights are not being un-necessarily violated. Trial is a process undertaken to ensure that your rights are not arbitrarily revoked.

NTM

kev9100

Manic Moran wrote: »

You're confusing the provision of a service with the right to have that service. Free education or social welfare is provided as a benefit to society, not as a moral requirement.

I am afraid you are wrong on this point. While there is no mention of the right to free education or of Social Secuirty in the Constitution, there is in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. The Declaration also states that Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality. Since the Declaration was signed by The United States and is International Law US citizens have a right to avail of these services.

LostinKildare

Manic Moran wrote: »

Disagree, and I had actually considered the 'right to trial by jury' when I was typing my earlier post. The right is the right of freedom. To travel, to associate, and so on. The 'right to trial' isn't so much a right in itself as a mechanism which is required to respect the individual right: It is argued that rights are not provided by the government, and that governments must take efforts to respect the rights that you have. Hence the various bureaucratic procedures and rules to ensure that your rights are not being un-necessarily violated. Trial is a process undertaken to ensure that your rights are not arbitrarily revoked.

NTM

No, rights in the US -- and AFAIK, throughout the world -- are not limited to "natural rights" (i.e., moral rights or inalienable rights). There are also legal rights (civil rights or statutory rights), and the right to a trial by jury is most certainly a right recognized and enumerated by the US govt in the Bill of Rights (6th amendment -- ratified at the same time as the protections of freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly, etc.):

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

The right in question is not a general "right to freedom"(?), as you say, but a specific right to a fair etc. trial. The govt does not bestow that right, it instead recognizes it; nonetheless, that right cannot be exercised except by the considerable effort and expense of the state, and therefore, through our taxes you and I pay the tab for Accused Person X to exercise this specified fundamental right. In the same way, if access to health care was recognized as a legal right in the US, we would pay the tab for Sick Person Y to exercise his right.

It might not fit with your political worldview, but rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are indeed held to be rights.

kev9100 wrote: »

I am afraid you are wrong on this point. While there is no mention of the right to free education or of Social Secuirty in the Constitution, there is in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that Eveeryone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. The Declaration also states that Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality. Since the Declaration was signed by The United States and is International Law US citizens have a right to avail of these services.

+1. And back on topic, looky what else is in the UDHR (Article 25):

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

JohnMc1

kev9100 wrote: »

Oh yes because the site "Big Goverment.com" really strikes like a truly non-partisan tone.

This from the guy that started the thread with a link from a site called bold progressives. :rolleyes:

kev9100

Good point. But to be fair, many polls show support for a Public Option. Like this one.

http://www.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUSN0210977220091203

I suppose you think reuters have a Liberal Bias as well eh??:D

JohnMc1

kev9100 wrote: »

Good point.

Would you have accpeted anything I posted from a boldconservatives.com? [i have no idea if such a site actually exists mind you]

But to be fair, many polls show support for a Public Option. Like this one.
http://www.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUSN0210977220091203

I suppose you think reuters have a Liberal Bias as well eh??:D

You and this thread would have had more legitimacy if you had posted that in your first post instead of the bold progressives one.

kev9100

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Would you have accpeted anything I posted from a boldconservatives.com? [i have no idea if such a site actually exists mind you]



You and this thread would have had more legitimacy if you had posted that in your first post instead of the bold progressives one.

Yeah, but im a noob here so how about a bit of leeway?:D And it depends upon how the question was phrased, but I like to think I would have yeah.

JohnMc1

kev9100 wrote: »

Yeah, but im a noob here so how about a bit of leeway? And it depends upon how the question was phrased, but I like to think I would have yeah.

I'm just yanking your chain a little bit.:D

Personally about the HealthCare and the Public Option is concerned I'm beyond caring anymore. We're getting it whether we like it or not. Though giving the people the honesty and transparency that the President promised when he was candidate Obama would have eased peoples fears instead of all this closed doors and votes at 1 in the morning stuff we've been getting.

kev9100

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Though giving the people the honesty and transparency that the President promised when he was candidate Obama would have eased peoples fears instead of all this closed doors and votes at 1 in the morning stuff we've been getting.

To be fair, I dont see how you can blame Obama for that. The reason for the late votes and the back door deals is because of Republican stalling tactics and the insane amount of power certain Senators possess.

JohnMc1

kev9100 wrote: »

To be fair, I dont see how you can blame Obama for that. The reason for the late votes and the back door deals is because of Republican stalling tactics and the insane amount of power certain Senators possess.

Yeah the Dems run all 3 branches of the Govt have a supermajority to boot and it still those evil and nasty Reps stalling everything. :rolleyes:

Dude the boldprogressives link diminished your credibility. Dragging out that pathetic excuse isn't helping your cause.

Pocono Joe

kev9100 wrote: »

To be fair, I dont see how you can blame Obama for that. The reason for the late votes and the back door deals is because of Republican stalling tactics and the insane amount of power certain Senators possess.

People need to stop blaming Republicans... it's getting very old. The Democrats have their supermajority of 60. The Republicans can't do a thing. The problems lie within the Democrat party and thier token Independent.

kev9100

Well if the Reps are the good guys in this story can you explain this little nugget?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2009/12/17/cbs-dems-tantalizingly-close-health-care-republicans-use-stall-tactics

And by the way, while I accept I should have used the Reuters link instead, I wonder how much do you think this particular link damaged your reputation?

http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2009/10/19/how-much-obamacare-costs-the-average-family/

Because as well all know Dick Morris is one of the most respected and non-partisan political commentators working in the US today.:p

p.s I fully agree with you guys when you say the Dems are incompetent as well.

JohnMc1

kev9100 wrote: »

p.s I fully agree with you when you say the Dems are incompetent at times as well.

Neither side is really the "good guy" People need to stop thinking of Politics like that [That and like its some kind of sport of my team vs your team]

Both sides have screwed us over throughout the years. Obama is getting it thrown back in his face becuase he promised he would end that and he's just brought more of the same into his office.

Manic Moran

kev9100 wrote: »

I am afraid you are wrong on this point. While there is no mention of the right to free education or of Social Secuirty in the Constitution, there is in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that...<snip>

And back on topic, looky what else is in the UDHR (Article 25):

It is perhaps worth noting that UDHR has no legally binding effect within the US. No less an authority than the US Supreme Court has said as much (Sosa v Alvarez-Machain, 2004). It's not the only time the SCOTUS has rejected 'foreign' treaty law as binding within the US, witness the case of that Mexican chap sentenced to death a little over a year ago.

No, rights in the US -- and AFAIK, throughout the world -- are not limited to "natural rights" (i.e., moral rights or inalienable rights). There are also legal rights (civil rights or statutory rights), and the right to a trial by jury is most certainly a right recognized and enumerated by the US govt in the Bill of Rights (6th amendment -- ratified at the same time as the protections of freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly, etc.):

I would submit that they are simply variations on a theme. The right to jury is an offshoot of the right to freedom of movement: It places restrictions on the ability of the government to interfere. The right to prevent the housing of soldiers in you house restricts the ability of the government to invade your house and castle. The right to arms restricts the ability of the government to deny people the ability to defend themselves (and their other freedoms). And so on for all ten of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights: They lay out restrictions on what the government can do in order to prevent infringement on the individual's rights. The 'right' to healthcare and education, on the other hand, are no such thing: They are basically mandates on behalf of the government to do something active which does not risk mitigating a person's rights.

NTM

LostinKildare

Manic Moran wrote: »

It is perhaps worth noting that UDHR has no legally binding effect within the US. No less an authority than the US Supreme Court has said as much (Sosa v Alvarez-Machain, 2004). It's not the only time the SCOTUS has rejected 'foreign' treaty law as binding within the US, witness the case of that Mexican chap sentenced to death a little over a year ago.

Unless I'm missing something, Sosa v Alvarez-Machain doesn't even mention UDHR. And UDHR is not a treaty, "foreign" or otherwise, so I don't see how this is relevant. Rather, it is a declaration, not law, and for that reason it is not enforceable. Just as the guarantees of rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence are not enforceable.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I would submit that they are simply variations on a theme. The right to jury is an offshoot of the right to freedom of movement: It places restrictions on the ability of the government to interfere. The right to prevent the housing of soldiers in you house restricts the ability of the government to invade your house and castle. The right to arms restricts the ability of the government to deny people the ability to defend themselves (and their other freedoms). And so on for all ten of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights: They lay out restrictions on what the government can do in order to prevent infringement on the individual's rights. The 'right' to healthcare and education, on the other hand, are no such thing: They are basically mandates on behalf of the government to do something active which does not risk mitigating a person's rights.

With the right to bear arms, for example, yes you are correct that the govt is simply restricted from infringing a right: you can have guns if you want to, and the govt cannot interfere, but it is up to you to obtain that gun.

But with a jury trial you cannot organize and hold your own trial w/out govt interference, obviously. The govt produces the trial, and the constitutional amdmt specifies that you have a RIGHT to a specific type of trial (jury, speedy, public, etc) which requires that the govt "do something active," as you say. The right to counsel specifies that the govt must provide you with legal representation if you can't afford it. Really I don't see how you don't recognize that right for what it is -- an entitlement. But then again you mystified me with your stance on seatbelts too , so carry on. Perhaps we'll agree on something in 2010.

pagancornflake

JohnMc1 wrote: »

the boldprogressives link diminished your credibility. Dragging out that pathetic excuse isn't helping your cause.

Yeah, use sources like Dick Morris instead. That REALLY affects the case in a way that boldprogressives does not.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2009/10/19/how-much-obamacare-costs-the-average-family/

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/blog/diagnosis/whos-really-paying-for-obamacare

Trouser_Press

pagancornflake wrote: »

Yeah, use sources like Dick Morris instead. That REALLY affects the case in a way that boldprogressives does not.

I can't bring myself to search back through this thread....but please tell me no one used Dick Morris as a source in an, um, serious way?

Manic Moran

Unless I'm missing something, Sosa v Alvarez-Machain doesn't even mention UDHR.

Souter's judgement, IV C.

But the Declaration does not of its own force impose obligations as a matter of international law. See Humphrey, The UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in The International Protection of Human Rights 39, 50 (E. Luard ed. 1967) (quoting Eleanor Roosevelt calling the Declaration “ ‘a statement of principles … setting up a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations’ ” and “ ‘not a treaty or international agreement … impos[ing] legal obligations’ ”).23 And, although the Covenant does bind the United States as a matter of international law, the United States ratified the Covenant on the express understanding that it was not self-executing and so did not itself create obligations enforceable in the federal courts.

Really I don't see how you don't recognize that right for what it is -- an entitlement.

It's not so much an entitlement as a pre-requisite. Before the government can deprive the individual of his right to liberty, certain safeguards must be met. The provision of legal counsel and a jury trial being considered part of a satisfactory safeguard to that right. It's convenient to say "you have the right to an attorney", but in reality, I submit it's more a case that the government has the obligation to provide the attorney if requested.

NTM