Judge Napolitano : Rights Vs Goods!

[24KT]

thats about the response i expected when someone like you jag reads something they cant refute ,

Oh but I have refuted it... many times, ...and quite soundly too.
Had you been posting here long enough, ...you would already know that. 

[kcballer]

it says in the bible he who shall not work shall not eat,  same applies if you dont want to work for things why should you get if for free? as much as some of you hate it, AMERICA, the consitution, bill of rights , and the founding fathers all came about around the christian system of beliefs as much as some of you wish it wasnt or dont like it that is how it is.

Really? You don't seem to know history too well.  Ask Adonis to post on this.  He'll show you the way.  Church and state are separate and should always stay that way.

[Skip8282]

There is no right to healthcare.  If we do it, we do it for humanitarian reasons.  And, like any privilege, if you abuse it, it should be taken away.  Those scamming the system should not be entitled to its use. 

I don't get giving out all the foreign aid that we've given out yet refusing to help our fellow countrymen.  It just doesn't make sense to me that we would try and take care of others before helping our own.

It sickens me to see a family have to file for bankruptcy because they were trying to care for a sick child.

That said, this current reform is not going to fix healthcare.  IMO, things will be worse, much worse.  I envision Barry 30 years from now sitting in a chair telling the interviewer, "Well, our intentions were good".  And, we all know about the road to hell.

[tonymctones]

Ah but you did not read what i said did you?  I said show me where it can not be amended.  

Besides it could well be said that 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' are heath care related.  If you are sick and can not afford health care you die so there goes life a basic right which could have been extended had you had health care.  You aren't exactly happy are you if you die or are sick and unable to get health care to treat what ails you.  It's all interpretation.  As in the right to bear arms.  I could say well it's my right to have actual bear arms couldn't i? I mean it's an interpretation.

LOL this is the problem you interpret the constitution with a non biased eye, you could interpret it anyway you want

I dont have a 62 inch flat screen HDTV hanging on my wall so my pursuit so im not happy Ill expect you to buy me one though KC, when can you have the check in the mail?

 

The constitution is the constitution is the constitution the shit doesnt change from one day to the next or with political whims.

[tonymctones]

As a concept, I am firmly on the side of universal healthcare. How your country goes about implementing it... well that's another story. Your system as it stands is unsustainable and is a train wreck waiting to happen.

Serious question jag do you think this bill will help or hurt our current system?

[George Whorewell]

There have been Supreme Court cases arguing similar issues. Plaintiffs arguing about expanding the bundle of fundamental rights included in the constitution to include a right to education, food, shelter etc.---

These are not fundamental rights and will never be fundamental rights. Forget about the slippery slope argument ( i.e. adding the right to have a college education, wireless internet, sex, recreational drugs all the way down until the concept of "fundamental rights" becomes utterly meaningless), from a legal standpoint adding these things are impossible. Only the Supreme Court can interpret the constitution and make judgements accordingly. Congress can never infer or legislate beyond the bounds of what the text of the constitution explicitly states. And who decides what the constitution says? The Supreme Court.

So from that standpoint, you would need two thirds of both houses and 75% of all state legislatures-- or its impossible.

So, for obvious reasons, amending the constitution is pretty much impossible from a logistical standpoint. Second of all, making these kinds of amendments will force the country to become communist, destroy our standard of living and pretty much make America inhabitable.

What liberals cannot grasp is that inequality is part of the human condition. The only thing the government owes you is an equal playing field-- the rest is up to fate, your parents and your own abilities.

[tonymctones]

What liberals cannot grasp is that inequality is part of the human condition. The only thing the government owes you is an equal playing field-- the rest is up to fate, your parents and your own abilities.

I truly believe this is one of the main differences between liberals and conservatives.

Liberals feel the govt should put them on the same level as others instead of providing a level playing field to all.

Conservatives feel the govt should provide a level playing field and you do with it what you do with it.

[Soul Crusher]

There have been Supreme Court cases arguing similar issues. Plaintiffs arguing about expanding the bundle of fundamental rights included in the constitution to include a right to education, food, shelter etc.---

These are not fundamental rights and will never be fundamental rights. Forget about the slippery slope argument ( i.e. adding the right to have a college education, wireless internet, sex, recreational drugs all the way down until the concept of "fundamental rights" becomes utterly meaningless), from a legal standpoint adding these things are impossible. Only the Supreme Court can interpret the constitution and make judgements accordingly. Congress can never infer or legislate beyond the bounds of what the text of the constitution explicitly states. And who decides what the constitution says? The Supreme Court.

So from that standpoint, you would need two thirds of both houses and 75% of all state legislatures-- or its impossible.

So, for obvious reasons, amending the constitution is pretty much impossible from a logistical standpoint. Second of all, making these kinds of amendments will force the country to become communist, destroy our standard of living and pretty much make America inhabitable.

What liberals cannot grasp is that inequality is part of the human condition. The only thing the government owes you is an equal playing field-- the rest is up to fate, your parents and your own abilities.

Good post as always.  Most people crying for health care as a right have zero clue about the constitution and the concept of negative liberties. 

[24KT]

once again jag more typical response after you read something you cant refute, attack my spelling , lol  well sorry i dont have time to go through and wait on the dam spell check window to pop up i have many other things going on seeing as i am at work so i can pay my own way and not depend on the government

If you don't have time to wait on spell check, ...then stay off the damn computer til you learn to spell. 

[24KT]

i was using that as a metaphor k.c not trying to imply that the church and state are not separate, however the very basic fundamentals of our constitution revolve are Christian believes, and nowhere in the constitution or bill of rights does is say that healthcare or any other government funded program i.e. welfare Medicaid medicare  is a right, do you see the metaphor now?  and jag i hope it warms your butthole to know that i spell checked this just for you

Thank You. 

...now, if only you could learn to use the quote function, ...it might even warm up my vajayjay. 

[24KT]

There is no right to healthcare.  If we do it, we do it for humanitarian reasons.  And, like any privilege, if you abuse it, it should be taken away.  Those scamming the system should not be entitled to its use. 

OK, this is the part I don't get... how does one abuse healthcare? Outside of numerous and far too frequent visits to the gynecologist for thorough extensive bi-manuals, ...or in the case of some of the guys here... frequent prostate exams, ...how does one abuse healthcare? The only abuse of healthcare is by the doctors themselves who order unecessary tests or who bill for procedures and tests never performed.

I don't get giving out all the foreign aid that we've given out yet refusing to help our fellow countrymen.  It just doesn't make sense to me that we would try and take care of others before helping our own.

It sickens me to see a family have to file for bankruptcy because they were trying to care for a sick child.

That said, this current reform is not going to fix healthcare.  IMO, things will be worse, much worse.  I envision Barry 30 years from now sitting in a chair telling the interviewer, "Well, our intentions were good".  And, we all know about the road to hell.

I hear ya skip.  {sigh}

[24KT]

LOL this is the problem you interpret the constitution with a non biased eye, you could interpret it anyway you want

I dont have a 62 inch flat screen HDTV hanging on my wall so my pursuit so im not happy Ill expect you to buy me one though KC, when can you have the check in the mail?

 

The constitution is the constitution is the constitution the shit doesnt change from one day to the next or with political whims.

Spoken like a man who clearly was asleep during the Bush years. 

[24KT]

Serious question jag do you think this bill will help or hurt our current system?

From what I've gathered so far, there are aspects that will improve the system, ...and otherr aspects that are questionable at best. I do believe that reform is the way to go, however as Olbermann has stated, there is a very small tiny space between compromiseS & compromiseD. Check your keyboard.  

[24KT]

There have been Supreme Court cases arguing similar issues. Plaintiffs arguing about expanding the bundle of fundamental rights included in the constitution to include a right to education, food, shelter etc.---

These are not fundamental rights and will never be fundamental rights. Forget about the slippery slope argument ( i.e. adding the right to have a college education, wireless internet, sex, recreational drugs all the way down until the concept of "fundamental rights" becomes utterly meaningless), from a legal standpoint adding these things are impossible. Only the Supreme Court can interpret the constitution and make judgements accordingly. Congress can never infer or legislate beyond the bounds of what the text of the constitution explicitly states. And who decides what the constitution says? The Supreme Court.

So from that standpoint, you would need two thirds of both houses and 75% of all state legislatures-- or its impossible.

So, for obvious reasons, amending the constitution is pretty much impossible from a logistical standpoint. Second of all, making these kinds of amendments will force the country to become communist, destroy our standard of living and pretty much make America inhabitable.

What liberals cannot grasp is that inequality is part of the human condition. The only thing the government owes you is an equal playing field-- the rest is up to fate, your parents and your own abilities.

Amending the constitution is NOT impossible from a logistical standpoint. It's been done many times in the past.

Destroying the poor standard of living and making America inhabitable is the goal.

I think the word you were struggling for was UNinhabitable.  moron.

[Soul Crusher]

Amending the constitution is NOT impossible from a logistical standpoint. It's been done many times in the past.

Destroying the poor standard of living and making America inhabitable is the goal.

I think the word you were struggling for was UNinhabitable.  moron.

Fool.  America was a much better place BEFORE we adopted all of the current liberal social welfare garbage.   

[George Whorewell]

It's really pathetic when the only observations you add to the discussion are correcting other peoples typo's and punctuation errors.

I suppose when you have the IQ of pregnant racoon, running spell check is pretty much your only recourse if you want to contribute to the discussion.

Kudos on another stellar posting!

And yes, there have been amendments in the past-- Adding the thirteenth amendment to abolish slavery is probably the only one of relevance these days. The only one I can remember is the one that was enacted and then repealed shortly after which made alcohol illegal.

If you think that from a logistical standpoint there is enough support from the population of this country to enact an amendment to the constitution making healthcare a fundamental right, you really are too stupid to acknowledge.

Until you come to terms with the fact that your fairy tale communist utopia is impossible, you are going to lead a very miserable and unfillfilling life (Which in your case would just be more of the same).

[tonymctones]

Spoken like a man who clearly was asleep during the Bush years. 

really i was against the patriot act, have called Iraq a mistake please tell me where I was asleep during the bush years  try to not let your idiotic bias get in the way here jag

[tonymctones]

From what I've gathered so far, there are aspects that will improve the system, ...and otherr aspects that are questionable at best. I do believe that reform is the way to go, however as Olbermann has stated, there is a very small tiny space between compromiseS & compromiseD. Check your keyboard.  

LOL please dont ever, ever, ever ever ever quote olbermann to me

I agree reform needs to happen but dont fall for the classic mistake of acting simply for the sake of acting thats how we got Iraq and the spending bill and now this bill...

so all in all do you think this bill will do more good or more harm?