Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 2:02 PM
Tue Dec 1
55 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder |
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield |
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate |
Media:
Hamilton Nolan |
Politics:
Alex Pareene |
Investigations:
John Cook |
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan |
Nights:
Adrian Chen |
Azaria Jagger |
Ravi Somaiya |
Weekends:
Foster Kamer |
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
08/19/09
08/19/09
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.
Now, obviously this is a bit hopeful but it's a good goal. At least we see that it's defined internationally as a natural born right.
08/19/09
08/19/09
Whatever. Let's go on. This woman is of the opinion that merely because the framers of the Consitution and the Bill of Rights didn't place a public healthcare clause in the Constitution that it's unconstitutional. Her argument is historically ignorant. This is exactly the reason why Hamilton and the Federalists didn't want to codify rights, because they feared that doing so would lead to other unforeseen rights being excluded. The other group of framers wanted as many rights as possible as well, but they wanted them legally binding on paper. Jefferson was on that team but was willing to pragmatically change the document every number of years to incoporate new concepts. This woman is basically reading the Constituition as christian fundamentalist preachers read the bible, ignoring the intention and situation of the people who wrote it.
08/19/09
08/19/09
This guy (Cornell Law Professor) says that it was staged, that the lady was put up by liberals to give health care opponents a bad rep.
[legalinsurrection.blogspot.com]
MY HEAD HURTS.
08/19/09
Or maybe, you know, she's a nutjob like most of these protestors. Occam's Razor anyone?
08/19/09
08/19/09
08/19/09
08/19/09
08/19/09
08/19/09
Why is it the ones who claim to be so "religious" are also the ones who are least able to feel empathy or compassion? When did any God tell us the path to salvation is to be selfish?
08/19/09
I do have to laugh, though, at the grafting on of a right to healthcare to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The Founding Fathers were pretty precise, pretty unh-government-y and pretty good at choosing their words. I'm pretty sure they'd have said "government-sponsored healthcare entitlement" if they'd meant it. On the other hand, my pursuit of happiness would require a lot more shoes...perhaps we can add that, too?
08/19/09
08/19/09
When they did use precise words, we've whittled away at those. That First Amendment? It doesn't mean what it says, even though "Congress shall make no law" is pretty precise language.
And this arg, too, would apply to private healthecare. Nowhere in the Constitution did the founders say that anyone has a right to select the "private insurance provider of your choice." This, I guess, leaves is without anything.
I do, however, appreciate your division of the arguments--the question of "should we" is not the same as "can we" which is also not the same is "how"
08/19/09
Also learn to read with some precision. I was commenting on the terms, "life," "liberty" and "pursuit of happiness." None of which are universal healthcare. We can, of course, make policy decisions in one direction or another, but I was strictly - as I specified - referring to that phrase.
08/19/09
08/19/09
08/19/09
08/19/09
08/19/09
08/19/09
08/19/09
Do we need to add basic reading comprehension to the syllabus?
08/19/09
My comment to you about literal vs. figurative had nothing to do with your Strict Constructionist argument. So save the "penumbra and originalism" for another time. Instead, I was referring to your first long-winded explanation of what would happen to this woman under the current system because you were unable to understand the figurative interpretation of my original post, "Let her see for herself" (if she still feels) whether "nobody is obligated to give you health care." Most of us are very familiar with what happens when you lose your job and don't have health care from personal experience, family or friends. It can be devastating. But if you'd like to offer up the intellectually dishonest comparison of those wanting universal health care for our citizens with you personally wanting more shoes, so be it.
That is all.
08/19/09
I do have to laugh, though, at the grafting on of a right to healthcare to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The Founding Fathers were pretty precise, pretty unh-government-y and pretty good at choosing their words. I'm pretty sure they'd have said "government-sponsored healthcare entitlement" if they'd meant it. On the other hand, my pursuit of happiness would require a lot more shoes...perhaps we can add that, too?
Followed by your later post to Miss Linda:
PS - that's a phrase from Mr. Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, darlin'. :-) Different decade, different concepts altogether.
You were the only one here to wrongly connect those two, then you tried to dishonestly act like you hadn't. So tell me now, who needs the basic reading comprehension class?
08/19/09
08/19/09
I can't pursue my happiness nor my life as well as my liberty if I don't have food in my stomach.
I can't pursue my happiness nor my life as well as my liberty if I don't have spending power.
I can't pursue my happiness nor my life as well as my liberty if I don't have proper living quarters.
I can't pursue my happiness nor my life as well as my liberty if I'm stuck in a job that doesn't match with my personal aspirations.
I can't pursue my happiness nor my life as well as my liberty if I...
And on. And on. And on. Et alii.
08/19/09
08/19/09
08/19/09
08/19/09
I would suggest the federal government stay out of this argument and leave reform to individual states. I have no idea why other states/constituents can't model their public system after other systems of health governance. Not only would this catch the wingnut retards off guard (as they'd be able to participate much more closely), but state reform would also allow individuals (should they find themselves unhappy with state legislation) to move to "non-reform" states.
As I've said in multiple posts (which, none have earned a response from Gawkerettes), the federal government was designed to protect Massachusetts (and other states) in creating/practicing reform, rather than funding/governing it. This radical idea! can be found in any 7th grade social studies text.
The only federal "reform" I'd be happy with would fall along the lines of Washington dismantling competitive clauses in state governments, prohibiting citizens from seeking insurance outside state lines. Funny enough, this falls into the "free-market capitalism" category.
08/19/09
08/19/09
Pseudo-Nazis and 2nd Amendment types aside, this has been a very educational couple of weeks. (And even those two groups seem determined to provide an object lesson in how not to behave in public...)
08/19/09
08/19/09
I think one of the great selling points regarding the U.S. is that there's 50 state governments across the nation, each carrying different tax policies (property, income, sales, etc.), social programs, incentives for business, and environmental interests. No one will find his/her self completely aligned with their respective state's governance, but there's some room to move to another, should the need arise.
Case in point: if I ever want to openly display an assault rifle, I'll move to the lunatic-hosting state of Arizona.
08/20/09
08/20/09
08/20/09
I think Obama said it perfect with regards to said "rights." To wit: "There's no such thing as a free lunch."
Yes. There most definitely is not.
08/21/09
Anyway, while I hate to belabor this point, I don't think your eloquent history lesson addressed my question. That question was essentially: why is a claim that healthcare is a right that follows naturally from one's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" untenable, even laughable or "bleak"?
I appreciate you shedding light on the historical context in which the statement originated (and, despite what you believe, I somehow, against all odds, made sense of the other relevent comments in this thread), but I don't believe that context is relevant 230 years later, so I don't really see the point of invoking it when discussing modern healthcare. Nor do I believe that, because the statement was made by an oppressed people during a rebellion against tyranny, its truth and relevancy is diminished in a time when our independence had long ago been won and we no longer confront the threat of such tyranny. One's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is a universal truth that transcends context. It is not dispensed by the government; it is an inheritance from one's humanity, or endowed to him by his Creator, if you believe in such things. It exists despite government.
If you can accept that one's health is essential to the full exercise of his inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then does it not follow that he has the right to be healthy to the extent that he desires and his circumstance allows? And, if being healthy ultimately requires access to healthcare, does he not likewise have a right to healthcare? Finally, if the purpose of government is, among other things, to promote the general welfare of the people and to ensure the free exercise of - not the dispensation of - their rights, does the government not have the obligation then to ensure equitable and universal (not necessarily a free lunch, as it were) access to healthcare? Is it somehow ludicrous to claim that we do have a right to healthcare and that the government should ensure that no one is deprived of it?
08/19/09
08/19/09
08/19/09
08/19/09
08/19/09
08/19/09
08/19/09
08/19/09
08/19/09
08/19/09
08/19/09
"Trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table, I have no interest in doing it."
08/19/09
This "debate" has long stopped being about health care. It has just given right-wing haters a reason to protest against a black president. They might as well as just get a hood and robe and stop pretending they give a fuck about health care.
08/19/09
08/19/09
That said, she fucking deserved to get called out for this bullshit. Going all Godwin over health care reform is a fucking rhetorical FAIL. Oh, and the "waa-waaa" really speaks to her inner twuntiness.