ShortGuy
Trusted Contributor
- Messages
- 348
9/23 shall be known as ShortKaka day on this website going forward. Make it happen MJ!
32andBelow
Legendary Member
- Messages
- 9,314
As I said it’s tough when teaching that the earth is warming is political because the other side doesn’t believe in the evidence it’s tough to not look biased
There is a difference in a general belief and a substantiated belief.
Plus, I'm willing to bet most flat earthers are libertarian.
Acquired Taste
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 961
Yeah! and food and housing is a right too! and communication so gimme an iPhone! People need to be able to get around so I'd argue government issued cars are probably a right too! Everyone deserves some time for leisure and recreation and it's not fair for poor people that can't pay for a vacation so it's only right that everyone gets a prepaid travel card and ubi to be used on fun! /s
Seriously where does it end? The government has nothing to give to anyone that it doesn't first take from someone else. The only thing you have a right to are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It's not a guarantee. You are not owed anything because you just happened to be born. You do not have the right to consume the fruits of others' labors without the obligation to produce anything.
32andBelow
Legendary Member
- Messages
- 9,314
I’d say helping you not die from cancer and giving you an iPhone is pretty different.
we already have food stamps...we should do more for homeless, it would probably be cheaper anyways
SharkBait
Trusted Contributor
- Messages
- 409
I think this is one of those moments where we can take personal account ability into the equation. Could YOU give more of your paycheck to a homeless person? Or do you just want to take other peoples money to give to them? I donate my fair share of time and money to organizations I care about, I dont want the government deciding where it should go when I am perfectly capable of doing so.
As stated in the constitution, provide for the general welfare, public transportation is already a thing. Vacations and cell phones don't relate.
Or are you arguing your health is not general to your existence?
SharkBait
Trusted Contributor
- Messages
- 409
The United States Constitution does not set forth an explicit right to health care. While the
Supreme Court would likely find that the Constitution provides a right to obtain health care
services at one’s own expense from willing providers, the Supreme Court has never interpreted
the Constitution as guaranteeing a right to health care services from the government for those
who cannot afford it.
So is this like a wish the constitution had it included?
Supreme Court would likely find that the Constitution provides a right to obtain health care
services at one’s own expense from willing providers, the Supreme Court has never interpreted
the Constitution as guaranteeing a right to health care services from the government for those
who cannot afford it.
So is this like a wish the constitution had it included?
The constitution also doesn't say jack shit about your cell phone yet it's still protected. The necessity of deriving intent of the constitution is a Supreme Court function.
It would be nice to see subverting regarding this arrive in the SCOTUS.
Again in my personal opinion, the SCOTUS needs to define general welfare.
Acquired Taste
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 961
How do those things not relate? Wouldn't a vacation allow me to relieve the stresses of everyday life that are taking a toll on my health? Wouldn't my mental health be better off if I could communicate with my friends and family that I don't get to see everyday? What if I was really down in the dumps and needed someone to talk to? Why shouldn't I have that right?
The providing for the general welfare clause is often taken to mean the government has the power to tax and spend (or steal and redistribute) on whatever you deem is a right. It doesn't. If the framers wanted to give the power to congress to provide healthcare or education or any of your other fantasies, it would have specifically laid them like it did with the other 17 enumerate powers of congress. Why would the specifically mention the very limited powers of congress if all of it could be gotten around with the general welfare clause. It's not like healthcare and education didn't exist back then, because it did. The hard truth of the matter is that they just recognized that things like healthcare and education are privileges, not rights and they are not guaranteed to anyone.
The constitution is absurdly vague on many parts, a perfect example is the Heller decision, do you not have the right to self-defense because it's not included specifically?
In addition, the amendment process was one part that was absolutely clear, because they recognized change as a necessity.
Healthcare was not a thing in the 1700s of the Americas.
And the taxation portion of the general welfare clause is tied to the interests of the federal government... like a healthy population.
Acquired Taste
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 961
Self defense would fall under you're right to life, which you have a right to defend as no one is allowed to infringe on your inalienable rights. The constitution was written to limit the powers of the federal government and what it could do. If the libs had their way, they could argue for anything to fall under the general welfare clause just like I did, in which case the powers of the federal government are unlimited. If that was the case, they wouldn't have specifically enumerated Congressional powers.
But seriously, where does it end. You said you believe healthcare, water, and electricity are all rights. What about food? Clothing? Housing? Personal hygiene products? Aren't all of things beneficial to a person's wellbeing and health. If government spending money on things fixed the issues, all the problems would've been solved by now. Of course, when the government fails at solving those problems as they simply don't have the ability to, they'll just say well we didn't spend enough to actually fix it. We need MOAR! But it's never enough as man's desires are endless and insatiable.
But self-defense isn't explicitly stated it's just taken as common law.
It's also not my duty to describe the limit of it, it's the Supreme Courts duty to describe the intent. I'm simply saying I believe that a persons health is a basic right. Like this is literally a thing agreed upon around the world except in this country.
There is a fundamental difference between your health and health insurance man.
A persons health is a right. Universal taxpayer funded health care is not.
Last edited:
Acquired Taste
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 961
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Since it seems so many of the west coasters on here like yourself, CF, and 32andBelow believe it's a right, I think it would be great to see a state like California with such a wealthy tax base and so many wealthy liberals implement universal healthcare at the state level. Just raise the taxes necessary and all residents will be cared for. They can go ahead and experiment and show the rest of the country how it's done, just like they're going to make uber and lyft drivers full time employees with benefits and set schedules LOL! I'd give it 5 years max before the entire system collapsed and maybe the rest of the country would wise up before they too made the same colossal mistake on a national scale.
- Messages
- 3,446
Leave me out of this. I don’t feel like arguing today.
32andBelow
Legendary Member
- Messages
- 9,314
I would like to start by taking more money from billionaires that pay a lower tax rate than you and I
32andBelow
Legendary Member
- Messages
- 9,314
We already have single payer healthcare with the VA, Medicare, and Medicaid. What’s the problem with adding the rest of the people? There isn’t one.
