Affordable Care Act (AKA Obamacare)

[stlouie_lipp]

i dont believe in a creator, thus gov't will have to do.

wouldn't those denying health care to people with pre-existing conditions be the ones taking away natural law, i.e. life. i also dont think that the govt requesting minimum standards for the health industry as taking away any sort of rights you have. govt is looking out for its people, which it is supposed to do. just like it protects us from the bad guys.

do you criticize science/medicine for getting in the way of cancer killing someone? (dramatic question, but still...)

Not sure. You'd have to ask Thomas Jefferson. All I did was point out that unalienable rights don't come from government. At least according to those who designed it.

[Arthur Dent]

Life is an unalienable right. A decent health care system helps secure that right.

It seems both sides are more interested in political brinksmanship that making that happen.

Unalienable rights don't come from the government.

Doesn't the Declaration of Independence say directly that the first purpose of government is to secure unalienable rights?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men...

Where did I say anything about the purpose of government? I just said unalienable rights don't come from the government, just like your quote illustrates - unalienable rights come from man's Creator, not government.

As to the purpose of government, governments are instituted among men to stop those in power from taking those natural rights away, and "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles".

Like I said, that's the idea anyway.

I don't really understand your point. Whether unalienable rights come from the government or not, I thought it was uncontroversial that a primary function of government is to secure such rights. Whether you like this law or hate it, I don't see the how passing it has anything to do with changing the source of unalienable rights. To the extent that this law is about the unalienable right to life, it is as an attempt to secure that right through legislation, just as protecting the public order or public safety through various other legislation secures the right to life. As I read it, at least, the point of the bit about the source of unalienable rights being man's creator is to say the that this is a principled belief that doesn't need to be justified -- it is self-evident. It seems very clear that the authors of the Declaration felt that men must take action to secure these rights. They don't exist without our action to protect them, and the Declaration clearly takes the view that the government should take this roll.

Anyway, not that interpreting the Declaration of Independence has any bearing on the rightness or wrongness of the ACA, but it seems an awfully strange ground to criticize it.

[cardsfansince82]

I don't think the founding fathers had any grasp of what things would look like today. But I suspect they would be in favor of everyone having equal access to the system in place.

[Popeye_Card]

I don't think the founding fathers had any grasp of what things would look like today. But I suspect they would be in favor of everyone having equal access to the system in place.

Well, everyone but black people.

[stlouie_lipp]

Life is an unalienable right. A decent health care system helps secure that right.

It seems both sides are more interested in political brinksmanship that making that happen.

Unalienable rights don't come from the government.

Doesn't the Declaration of Independence say directly that the first purpose of government is to secure unalienable rights?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men...

Where did I say anything about the purpose of government? I just said unalienable rights don't come from the government, just like your quote illustrates - unalienable rights come from man's Creator, not government.

As to the purpose of government, governments are instituted among men to stop those in power from taking those natural rights away, and "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles".

Like I said, that's the idea anyway.

I don't really understand your point. Whether unalienable rights come from the government or not, I thought it was uncontroversial that a primary function of government is to secure such rights. Whether you like this law or hate it, I don't see the how passing it has anything to do with changing the source of unalienable rights. To the extent that this law is about the unalienable right to life, it is as an attempt to secure that right through legislation, just as protecting the public order or public safety through various other legislation secures the right to life. As I read it, at least, the point of the bit about the source of unalienable rights being man's creator is to say the that this is a principled belief that doesn't need to be justified -- it is self-evident. It seems very clear that the authors of the Declaration felt that men must take action to secure these rights. They don't exist without our action to protect them, and the Declaration clearly takes the view that the government should take this roll.

Anyway, not that interpreting the Declaration of Independence has any bearing on the rightness or wrongness of the ACA, but it seems an awfully strange ground to criticize it.

Jesus Christ you people are sensitive and unnecessarily defensive. Why don't you relax and read what I wrote. It had nothing to do with criticizing Obamacare. I was simply correcting a misstatement about the source of unalienable rights per our founding father's political philosophy as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. If you want to debate political philosophy I'd be happy to do so. Start a new thread and we can debate til the cows come home because I think you (and others) have a mistaken interpretation of the meaning and intent behind the words "securing unalienable rights" and the philosophy behind where they come from. Because, at a very basic level, they did feel that these rights exist without any "action to protect them" (thus the thought that they are natural rights of man endowed by the creator, or from some other natural source) and that the people should take all necessary steps to ensure that the government doesn't take them away. They most certainly did not think that they come from the government. But like I said, we can debate that in another thread if you'd like.

As to Obamacare itself: I think it is a terrible piece of legislation. It is overreaching and will cost taxpayers billions of dollars. I think it will raise health care costs for most working Americans and is designed to fail. I think the President lied to get it the national support he needed to ram it through Congress ("if you like you plan, you can keep it", "if you like your doctor you can keep her"). I think it will irreparably harm the best health care system in the world. Did the system need some changes to ensure that all Americans can get basic services at a reasonable cost? Of course it did. But we didn't need this disaster of legislation.

[sighyoung]

I don't think the founding fathers had any grasp of what things would look like today. But I suspect they would be in favor of everyone having equal access to the system in place.

Well, everyone but black people.

And humans with ovaries.

[Radbird]

Okay lipp, I'll concede my misuse of the phrase "unalienable rights" that the founding fathers intended. I'll also concede that the ACA is not a brilliant piece of legislation. Well intended but flawed.

With those concessions out of the way, what I was attempting to say was the government does provide many services and functions that help protect us and secure the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". It's okay for the government to have laws in place to ensure that we have safe food and drugs, provide roads and other needed infrastructures, protect us from criminal and unethical behavior - but not ensure health care for its citizens? Yes, I realize none of these are free. The cost of government-provided services is borne by all of us because "we the people" have deemed them necessary.

That's what I don't understand - health care doesn't qualify as one of those services? It should only be available to those who can afford it? Why don't we have a system where we buy our food and then have to separately pay to have that food inspected for safety? I shouldn't have to pay to make sure your food is safe.

[Leroy]

My biggest problem isn't even with Obamacare. I have no idea how it is going to work out.

My problem is with Obama himself. Remember, 'Law of the land' squawk 'law of the land' squawk 'can't alter' squawk 'can't alter' squawk. Now Obama can wave some magic wand and change it. He doesn't believe Congress has this power. Only the President. Show me where the founding fathers thought this was a good idea. It doesn't matter if it is 1800, 1900, 2010, or 2100. It just isn't right.

[Socnorb11]

My biggest problem isn't even with Obamacare. I have no idea how it is going to work out.

My problem is with Obama himself. Remember, 'Law of the land' squawk 'law of the land' squawk 'can't alter' squawk 'can't alter' squawk. Now Obama can wave some magic wand and change it. He doesn't believe Congress has this power. Only the President. Show me where the founding fathers thought this was a good idea. It doesn't matter if it is 1800, 1900, 2010, or 2100. It just isn't right.

Technically, I don't think he's changing the law. He's delaying the enforcement of one aspect of it. Semantics, granted.

FWIW, here is the justification:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plu ... acare-fix/

“The Supreme Court held more than 25 years ago that agencies charged with administering statues have inherent authority to exercise discretion to ensure that their statutes are enforced in a manner that achieves statutory goals and are consistent with other administrative policies. Agencies may exercise this discretion in appropriate circumstances, including when implementing new or different regulatory regimes, and to ensure that transitional periods do not result in undue hardship.”

The Supreme Court case in question, HHS says, is Heckler v. Chaney in 1985. That case involved a lawsuit brought by inmates who were sentenced to death by states. They sued to force the FDA to take action to block the use of certain drugs in state lethal injections, on the theory that the FDA has no authority to approve this use of the drugs. But the Court ruled that private citizens cannot force a federal agency to bring an enforcement action, even one in keeping with federal statutes.

[Arthur Dent]

Jesus Christ you people are sensitive and unnecessarily defensive.

Heh