First you say that no one is denying anyone healthcare.
Then you go right ahead with your new constitution that would, by default, deny healthcare to those who cannot afford it because your inhumane state would just refuse to pay for it.
Sure. And by they same logic (
reductio ad absurdum) it also denies children loving parents, denies us nice clothes and quality entertainment. It denies us friends and family and a good job. Those reciting this slogan would have us believe we are 'denied' everything not provided by government.
It would make a complete and utter mockery of the concept of equality for all under the law.
I'm not sure you understand what "
equality under the law" means. It doesn't mean "equality enforced by law".
Amen and amen. What some of our friends don't realize that a government who can order people to provide others with healthcare (or anything else) is a government who can deny those same people anything it wishes to deny, including their life, liberty, and ability to pursue their own happiness. It could order D.T. to provide Mr. and Mrs. Foxfyre with whatever they need or take whatever it wants from D.T.
The notion that goodness comes only from authoritarian government is so flawed I don't even really know where to start. How do you correct that kind of fuzzy thinking? A tunnel visioned, rose-colored glasses view that a government given power to do 'good' would never use that same power to do evil?
And you are quite right. "equality under the law" or the 'equal protection' clause in the 14th amendment requires that the state must treat an individual or class of individuals the same as it treats other individuals or classes in like circumstances. So on the theory that everybody needs healthcare, how is it 'equal under the law' that some people receive their healthcare free or heavily subsidized while others of us not only have to pay for our healthcare but also are forced under threat of fine or imprisonment or confiscation of our property to pay for everybody else who is subsidized?
I am very strong on the idea that a moral people takes care of the helpless among us, but a government that protects liberty leaves that up to the people to do.
I am very strong on the idea that a moral people takes care of the helpless among us, but a government that protects liberty leaves that up to the people to do.
48 million Americans were without any healthcare while the "moral people" such as the OP ignored their plight even though they had their "government protected liberty" to take care of them.
Can we "call bullshit" in CDZ? Cause this one reeks. There might have been that many people without health
insurance, but - most especially for the poor and those in dire emergencies - they didn't go without health
care; largely because of "moral people such as the OP".
So REALITY tells us even if the OP's Libertarian Utopian New Constitution were to be ratified it would actually do more harm to We the People than the current ACA which is providing healthcare to at least 10 million of those people already.
No, ACA is "providing" health
insurance. Which has proven itself a really bad way to provide health care.
If I had to choose between paying taxes or living in the OP's Libertarian Utopia where everyone is at the dubious mercy of the "moral people" who ignored the plight of 48 million Americans the decision is an easy one for anyone who understands that freedom doesn't mean having nothing left to lose.
And that choice is exactly what a new Constitution would give us the chance to address. Let's spell out, in clear terms that we all understood, exactly what we can expect from government and then decide whether we want to be a part of that or not. All the bickering is killing us.
But the bickering will go on as long as some insist on dishonestly mischaracterizing points made in order to justify their own point of view.
For instance, contrary to what has been argued by some, the truth is:
Belief that the federal government is not the best way to deliver the best healthcare to the most people is NOT the same thing as an unwillingness to pay taxes nor does it deny healthcare or anything else to anybody.
Belief that helping the poor is best done at the state, local, and private level is NOT the same thing as lack of concern for the poor or that the poor should not be helped.
Belief that liberty requires the federal government to be assigned specific authority and be prevented from reinterpreting or stepping outside that authority is NOT the same thing as wanting no government at all.
Belief that liberty requires that our rights be secured so that we cannot do physical or material violence to each other with impunity, and then we will be left alone to live our lives as we choose and form whatever sorts of societies we wish to have is NOT the same thing as wanting people to be racists, bigots, selfish, hateful, or pick your uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
I could go on but I'm sure those without blinders on will get my drift.
In short, until people with differing points of view are willing to see dishonest characterization for what it is and resist using it, all we will have is ugly bickering. As yet some here have yet to make an argument for their point of view and continue to accuse the rest of us of all manner of ugliness. Or they will continue to demand definitions and for us to 'spell something out' when we have been doing that for a lot of pages now. We can't even call it hyperbole because they are deadly serious.
