Listening
Gold Member
- Aug 27, 2011
- 14,989
- 1,650
- 260
I was reading some arguments for and against Obamacare and this one seemed to carry quite a large number of sloppy arguments in the debate.
Why Universal Health Care Is Our Inalienable Right | Sanjay Sanghoee
Here is my analysis from some of the statements this guy makes.
Garbage. His first assertion and it's already off the cliff. People have been making this claim since Hillarycare the rebuttals are just as frequent. It was Obama who said it was a right.
Does Sanghoee want to tell us what his definition of rights are ? Usually a definition of rights includes some statement of universal application. Does everyone have health care ? No.
Sanghoee then goes on to some pretend to utilize the some kind constitutional argument to justify....what I can't tell.
He states:
Again, bullpuckey.
Where is his justification for this claim.
Let's step back and look at his comment on how only through guaranteed health care can people realize a right to good health.
Did he even proofread his argument ? First, there is no right to good health. Second, people have taken steps to guarantee their ability to get good health care. They don't need the government to do this for them. But, setting that aside, there is the argument that people on Medicare somehow get good coverage. Many many doctors are not taking medicare patients. Hows that working for them ?
But birdbrain then goes on to say:
You bet. There was a process set up to modify it. Where was Obama in that ? Where is our amendment ? The right to privacy is a manufactured piece of crap. Lots of people deny it's existence.
And then there is the tired argument against his last point that food should come before health care. Where is Obama on that topic...and why has Songhoee ignored that fact.
He then goes on to satisfy his need to look stupid by making further arguments which you can read. The founders didn't know there would be huge costs of health care...so they didn't include them. OMG. What a tard.
This guy hasn't got a clue.
Neither do most.
As dblack has pointed on many occasions...it is definitions or a lack of agreement on definitions that cause people issues.
In this thread, I'd like to develop that list. We could have used some from Mr. Sloopy as he attempted to look smart.....
First, just what is health care ? In other words, just what do you have a right to have ? How will we know when someone has been granted this right ? I'll wait for the left to explain. We'll then tear into that one for starters.
Why Universal Health Care Is Our Inalienable Right | Sanjay Sanghoee
Here is my analysis from some of the statements this guy makes.
In the political firestorm over the ungainly rollout of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, one central question that should be front and center in our national debate seems to have receded into the background, and that is whether universal health care is a fundamental right or a privilege.
Garbage. His first assertion and it's already off the cliff. People have been making this claim since Hillarycare the rebuttals are just as frequent. It was Obama who said it was a right.
Does Sanghoee want to tell us what his definition of rights are ? Usually a definition of rights includes some statement of universal application. Does everyone have health care ? No.
Sanghoee then goes on to some pretend to utilize the some kind constitutional argument to justify....what I can't tell.
He states:
The reason that Americans are so divided on this issue is that the right to good health (which can only be ensured through guaranteed health care) is not mentioned in any of our founding documents. Unlike life, liberty, and happiness, which are protected by the Declaration of Independence, or the right to free speech, which is protected by the Constitution, our health is seemingly on its own, and therein lies the problem. We are so mired in the literal interpretation of our founding documents that we easily forget a number of important things:
Again, bullpuckey.
Where is his justification for this claim.
Let's step back and look at his comment on how only through guaranteed health care can people realize a right to good health.
Did he even proofread his argument ? First, there is no right to good health. Second, people have taken steps to guarantee their ability to get good health care. They don't need the government to do this for them. But, setting that aside, there is the argument that people on Medicare somehow get good coverage. Many many doctors are not taking medicare patients. Hows that working for them ?
But birdbrain then goes on to say:
Our founding framework was never meant to be a static structure but a living contract amongst the citizens of the United States that evolved over time to serve the best interests of the people.
The Constitution does not explicitly describe every right that we enjoy; such as, for example, the right to privacy. Amendments such as the Fourth, which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, and the Fifth, which confers a right against self-incrimination and other due process rights, light the way to privacy but do not mention it directly. And yet nobody would ever question that it is still a right.
If life, liberty, and happiness are indeed so important, then it stands to reason that health, which dictates the quality of our life and determines our ability to enjoy liberty and pursue happiness, is equally crucial to our welfare.
The Constitution does not explicitly describe every right that we enjoy; such as, for example, the right to privacy. Amendments such as the Fourth, which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, and the Fifth, which confers a right against self-incrimination and other due process rights, light the way to privacy but do not mention it directly. And yet nobody would ever question that it is still a right.
If life, liberty, and happiness are indeed so important, then it stands to reason that health, which dictates the quality of our life and determines our ability to enjoy liberty and pursue happiness, is equally crucial to our welfare.
You bet. There was a process set up to modify it. Where was Obama in that ? Where is our amendment ? The right to privacy is a manufactured piece of crap. Lots of people deny it's existence.
And then there is the tired argument against his last point that food should come before health care. Where is Obama on that topic...and why has Songhoee ignored that fact.
He then goes on to satisfy his need to look stupid by making further arguments which you can read. The founders didn't know there would be huge costs of health care...so they didn't include them. OMG. What a tard.
This guy hasn't got a clue.
Neither do most.
As dblack has pointed on many occasions...it is definitions or a lack of agreement on definitions that cause people issues.
In this thread, I'd like to develop that list. We could have used some from Mr. Sloopy as he attempted to look smart.....
First, just what is health care ? In other words, just what do you have a right to have ? How will we know when someone has been granted this right ? I'll wait for the left to explain. We'll then tear into that one for starters.
Last edited: