Larry,

"Not when we neglect the most basic of Human Rights as Health Care is"

What will it be next? Isn't food a basic human right? Isn't a house a basic human right? What about owning property? Isn't that a basic human right? What about having a car? Isn't that a basic human right (The right to travel is widely recognized as a fundamental right.) What about paying for college? Isn't education a basic human right?

Bottom line, when is enough enough? If I have to buy your food, will you expect me to personally come to your house and prepare it for you? Do I have to cut it up and feed it to you also?

Jackass -

the key part of that is "General welfare" as opposed to "individual welfare". When you build a road, everyone benefits. When you establish a police force, everyone benefits. When you take money from me to pay for your health care, I suffer and you benefit. That is not what the phrase means.

Quit being so cheap and pay a little more in taxes. Your greed astounds me.

#31 | Posted by jackass

Get a job and pay for your own and stop being so damned lazy. Your sloth astounds me. Don't worry, assuming you can pass the drug test, getting a job won't change your lifestyle. In fact, it may help you understand the feeling you get when you work for something yourself...it may also help you understand what it feels like when it is taken away and given to someone else.

If you were any good at reading the constitution, you would know that the Preamble lays out the purpose for which the document was drafted. The things that were set out (i.e. the powers and responsibilities of government) followed. Funny thing is, the requirement that I pay for your health care was not listed.

Larry,

So you think that food, shelter, etc should be provided if someone does not have the MEANS, but health care is something everyone deserves? So health care is a greater "right" that you are "entitled" to?

Larry,

I ABSOLUTELY agree with your statement regarding the Ninth Amendment. From the article....

''The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments. . . . To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever.

So. I agree that the GOVERNMENT should not be able to DENY you health care. However, that doesn't mean that they have to provide it. Just like the GOVERNMENT cannot tell me I do not have the right to commit any thought I have to print...but they do not have to provide me with a newspaper and subscribers. The GOVERNMENT cannot force me to let troops stay at my house, but I can do it if I choose. Unless specifically stated there are no affirmative rights. (The right to an attorney or a jury is not even absolute. However, those are the two affirmative rights where someone else can be made to pay so you can have your rights.)

Hey Jackass,

nothing keeps you from snagging one of those uninsured and taking them to the local insurance company and buying a policy for them. Go on now. do your part. Don't be selfish.

If you can do more, please go ahead and do more. But there is a huge difference between you CHOSING to do it and FORCING me to help.

Larry,

if that is the case, why do you demand that I provide food and shelter for someone that does not have the means to provide it for themselves, but you think that - at the point of the government gun - I have to provide insurance to everyone in the US?

Jackass,

funny, I thought you would say something like that. Lord knows it is easier to simply take away my liberty and freedom than it is to admit that there is no right to health care on my dime.

Larry,

interesting argument. The problem is the health of the individual is not the "general welfare". And from your own article, the Ninth Amendment doesn't get you form here to there. Do try again.

Jackass,

I have a property interest in every penny I earn. If you take it away, you are infringing upon that. And if you believe 20 bucks every two weeks is the number, I have some lovely beach front property in Nevada I would love to sell you.

Jackass,

Let's use your analysis. That 520 per year would represent 0.1% of my income. You don't think that is significant. There are 8760 hours in a year. 0.1% of that is 8.7 hours. So if I told you that I was going to come to your house and have sex with either your daughter or your wife for 8.7 hours per year against their will, you would contend I have not infringed upon their liberty?

Monte,

Do your own legal research and I will tell you why you are wrong. I would suggest you start with the analysis of the Commerce clause since that is the most elastic and far reaching clause in the Constitution. You might look at Lopez there.

Monte,

With very little effort,

The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. However, it is only the latter that is referred to as the "General Welfare Clause" of this document. Unlike most General Welfare clauses, however, the clause in the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted as a limitation on the power of the United States Congress to use its powers of taxing and spending. The narrow construction of the General welfare Clause is atypical when compared to similar clauses in most State constitutions, and many constitutions of other countries.

And I didn't even have to hit West law. Now, let's see you back you assertions with a little case law.

Monte, Monte, Monte,

I stopped where I did because that is where the phrase "General welfare" is defined. The last sentence refers tot he Federal government's ability to control drinking age (for example) by linking it to highway money. The sentence before that merely says that Congress can do whatever it wants to to provide for the "general welfare". It does not say that "general welfare" is whatever you think it is, nor does it say that the "general welfare" covers a private need.

Nice try though. I am guessing if you have ever been to a bar that did not serve drinks, you had great difficulty with the Constitutional Law portion.

Danni,

Corporations are legal entities. For all practical purposes under American law they are considered "people" They have the same rights afforded under the Constitution that you do.

If you have some authority that says they don't I would be interested in seeing it.