In the second video, she says that there is no "natural born right" to healthcare. That's simply wrong. In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it states:
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.
@i'm a bottle: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a beautifully utopian PR release. It is not legally binding in any way, shape or form. It was drafted in the spirit of the US Declaration of Independence, but since the issuing body was not a nation-state that can make and enforce laws, but rather a inter-national coalition, it remains but a dream to aspire to. I'm pointing this out only because the health care debate we're discussing is pegged on the active role of government in providing services to its people.
@snugbug: Okay, you're right. But it's an internationally accepted civil right that's not legally binding. She's not necessarily making a positive legal argument here, she's mixing natural and positive legal philosophies.
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.
Don't you just love it when Conservatives insist their tax dollars only go to things they morally support? I oppose the death penalty and certain wars, and yet I still seem to be paying my taxes.
Ok, you want to pile up the CRAZY?
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.
Well, I just sent a message to Ms. Pilger, stating that if she wanted to have a rational, thoughtful, and intelligent conversation on health care (without swearing or invoking Hitler), I would like to be her friend on Facebook. What kind of chances to do you think I've got? :)
The best thing that could happen to this idiot is for her to lose her job and health care so she can see for herself whether "Nobody is obligated to give you health care."
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?
@TheMediaMob: Not to get all technical, but if she did lose her job and healthcare, she would see certainly that no one has an obligation to provide that to her. She'd have to suck it up with COBRA, buying individual insurance or going without like everyone else, until she hit some chronic low spot to be eligible for Medicaid. Whether or not it should be, it isn't currently an obligation.
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?
@no I said no I won't no: In what way were the Founding Fathers "pretty precise"? If that were the case, all of those pesky Supreme Court decisions would be pretty clear-cut. The Constitution is about as un-precise as you can get, it is open to many different interpretations. The Founding Fathers knew that they didn't "know it all" and couldn't anticipate what was going to happen in a hundred years, so they left it open-ended, AND subject to amendment. Learn your history before speaking please!
@no I said no I won't no: Based on that constitutional interpretation, we would have a very different country. Maybe you're right, maybe not, but it would look nothing like the country we currently have. There are many things that over the past two plus centuries have become "rights" or powers in the constitution given to the federal government or given to a particular branch of the government (to the exclusion of another) that are not specifically identified as such in the constitution with Greg Brady style words.
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"
@misslinda: Erm, and you could learn the concept of *theories* of Constitutional interpretation. You've stated one theory as literal fact. Learn your history before speaking, please!
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.
@misslinda: In addition to a history lesson, a "literal meaning" vs. "figurative meaning" lesson would also be pretty awesome for this poster too. Not to get too technical or anything.
@misslinda: PS - that's a phrase from Mr. Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, darlin'. :-) Different decade, different concepts altogether.
@no I said no I won't no: My PS to misslinda seems to have disappeared. I pointed out that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are the words of Mr. Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Completely different decade and concepts.
@TheMediaMob: Originalism, penumbra, etc. I'm familiar. Again, though, my comment was as to the phrase. Interestingly, the original phrase, from John Locke, referred to not causing harm to another's life, health, liberty and possessions. Jefferson chaned the meaning somewhat, deleted health and replaced possessions with happiness. So yes, please go sign up for US History 101.
@TheMediaMob: I quote misslinda: "In what way were the Founding Fathers "pretty precise"? If that were the case, all of those pesky Supreme Court decisions would be pretty clear-cut. The Constitution is about as un-precise as you can get, it is open to many different interpretations. The Founding Fathers knew that they didn't "know it all" and couldn't anticipate what was going to happen in a hundred years, so they left it open-ended, AND subject to amendment. Learn your history before speaking please!"
Do we need to add basic reading comprehension to the syllabus?
@no I said no I won't no: Let us review how we got here. With that phrase from the Declaration of Independence, you then launched into a Constitutional Theory argument. Then you dishonestly tried to pin that leap on another poster. Quite condescendingly, I might add "darlin'."
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.
@no I said no I won't no: I quote you, who started this whole thing by connecting the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution in the first place, and then in later posts trying to act as if somebody else did it:
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?
@no I said no I won't no: I can't pursue my happiness nor my life as well as my liberty if I am dying from an easily treatable infection I got working on a construction site for $8/hr. I am pretty sure healthcare is a solid foundation for those three ideals. I'm sure the founding fathers would've called Kaiser Permanente on their cellphones to double check if they should add the phrase "healthcare" too.
@valet_of_the_dolls: Not to speak out of turn, since your query is specifically directed at someone else, but intellectual polemics can be fun and constructively educational for all involved. Even if the exchange doesn't aspire toward yielding practical solutions. It's a very civilized pastime and a bit of a lost art in the age of TV blowhards who won't listen nor process their opponents' retorts, but merely wait for their turn to blow.
@valet_of_the_dolls: I'm most definitely not happy with the way things are right now. But who is, and have we ever?
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.
@TheMediaMob: Once more, with feeling: I said I thought pushing healthcare into life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (referred to by more than one earlier poster) was a bit much. I did not mention the Constitution. misslinda started talking about the Constitution, which is not where you find that phrase. I corrected her. How do you keep finding curves in a straight line?
@takeouteurotrash: Thank you. There's a huge 'states rights' component that is mystifying to most Canadians, much of which (I think) has to do with differences in population. I mean, California alone has pretty much the same population as all of Canada, so the expectations of what different levels of government should be doing are quite different.
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...)
@valet_of_the_dolls: No snark here...thanks for taking my point into consideration.
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.
@no I said no I won't no, no I said no I won't no, takeouteurotrash: I'm one of the silly, intellectually bereft posters below who dared to "graft on a right to healthcare to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'". If any of you happen on this thread again, please explain why this is such a laughable concept.
@atlasfugged: Oh dearie. Still confused after this whole thread.. OK, in brief: Founding Fathers viewed government as a necessary evil that people need protection FROM. Not as a benign entity likely to dispense *rights* to its citizens. They viewed the role of government as something that needs to be strictly defined and constrained. Hence the Constitution, Bill of Rights aka 1-10 Amendments. "Liberty, life and pursuit of happiness" was as much of a humanistic statement as a battle cry AGAINST the idea that a government of any sort (be it an imperialistic enterprise like England was at the time, or any form or rulership) can dictate the lives of its citizens.
@snugbug, @takeouteurotrash: I'll be perfectly frank. I haven't taken a history course since AP European History in my junior year of high school. And, I was never compelled to take anything remotely related to political "science" while in college (except, perhaps, some economics courses and a brief, ill-fated foray into law school). So, I'll gladly defer to both of your judgments on matters of American history and on the various academic interpretations of the Constitution. Thank you, Snugbug, for the history lesson. I am in complete agreement with takeouteurotrash: Very well said.
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?
@momof3wildkids: you can't be ugly and not expect ugly to come back to you. i'm not going to go berate the woman, but i have no sympathy for her either.
Gawker ought to remove the link to her phone number and her address. Posting her address is irresponsible and inflammatory to the debate. It's not like this woman is a true anti-semite. She's merely a pathetic figure who's extremely mixed-up.
I always get a little spooked when people start posting personal information (even stuff that is easily available on the internet). She went to a public forum and acted like a shrill lunatic -- a public forum. She did not go to that guy's house to berate him. I don't think it's fair to go to her house, either. In fact, it's kind of creepy.
@Tiny Iota: Or in the immortal words of Barney Frank:
"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."
So now it comes down to this? wtf!! How the hell do you deal with these people?
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.
pumpkinsoup promoted this comment
Edited by funyuns are awesome in phx at 08/19/09 2:02 AM
funyuns are awesome in phx was starred
funyuns are awesome in phx was unstarred
I'm pretty sure this woman is one of those extreme right-wingers who think Obama hates Israel because he supports a two state solution. This would explain the Israeli Defense Forces T-shirt. It would also explain why, when the man says he is Jewish, she says "if you're a Jew you should be even more against Obama (paraphrased)". Yelling "Heil Hitler" is pretty standard shtick for the anti-health care nutsos. I don't think she was saying it to be anti-semitic, it was just your standard hyperbolic douchebaggery.
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.
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.