Bill of Non-Rights: Do you agree or not?

[Disir]

What does your emotive justifications and emotive judgments have to do with what is or is not covered under the Constitution?

Are you quite sure that isn't backwards? It absolutely can be covered under the constitution.

I'm not discussing whether it can be added or not, (added because no matter which Amendment you or politicians and lawyers try to spin it doesn't currently exist), I'm discussing what is there without personal judgment.

I don't need an amendment for it. It can be done within the constitution.

Dear Disir

A. if you are talking about the duty to promote the general welfare
1. the arguments for general welfare and commerce clause already failed when attempted to use these for ACA
2. what passed the SCOTUS was arguing as a tax bill,
but if you notice, ACA was not passed through Congress as a tax bill but as a public health bill.

so it never passed Constitutional procedures through both legislative (and executive) and judicial.
it was actually a DIFFERENT reading and/or revision of the bill
a. the public health bill version passed through Congress and presumably would have FAILED had it been presented as a tax bill
b. the version passed and approved by SCOTUS was revising it as a TAX bill that was argued as abuse of judicial power to overreach into legislative this way

B. since half the nation believes in STATES RIGHTS and also right of the people to free market
you would have to pass an Amendment authorizing Federal Govt to manage regulate or mandate health care

This step was skipped when Obama and Congress passed ACA and that's why it is contested to this day as Unconstitutional and violation of states' rights.

Two other Constitutional arguments being made
1. passing a law such as ACA mandates *without citizens consent* basically DEPRIVES
law abiding citizens of liberty without due process to prove they have committed any crime
2. requiring labor or income to pay for costs or services of health care
*without citizens consent* would essentially constitute "involuntary servitude"
so both of these arguments require *CONSENT of the taxpaying citizens*, ie
NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION, in order not to violate other
existing Constitutional rights and principles.

C. Now some people believe that Statists who believe in using Govt to establish beliefs
such as "right to health care" by just making and passing laws by majority rule
DO have this right to make and pass such laws, REGARDLESS of other people's Constitutional beliefs in LIMITS on federal govt that otherwise require a Constitutional Amendment to change

I don't believe that is Constitutional, to impose one political belief over the other.

As a Constitutionalist myself, I treat political beliefs equally as religious beliefs,
and these should require a Consensus on law and process so there is no imposition
of one creed abusing govt to dominate, impose, exclude or discriminate against another.

Others argue with me, saying the First and Fourteenth Amendments do not
apply to political beliefs. I say that is discrimination to treat religious beliefs
differently from secular, political or other personal beliefs. To me these are
inherent as part of people's spiritual identity, and should be respected regardless
if these are expressed using religious political or secular terms.

So this is how I treat "the right to health care"
as a political belief covered Equally by the First Amendment,
where govt can neither establish nor prohibit the exercise of this belief.

If people agree to a political process, that's fine,
but that means including ALL OTHER "political beliefs"
including states' rights and "due process of laws before
depriving citizens of liberty"

You cannot simply pass a law that deprives citizens of free choice
in a matter when they have committed no crime, or it's violating
other Constitutional laws and principles.

The ACA compelled people to buy a private product and one that was defective to begin with. It was challenged under the commerce clause.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

What does that have to do with the rights argument? You're off on a tangent.

I am on target.

No, you're arguing what you believe should be not what is, that's a completely different subject.

You're starting with a bill of non-rights. You do in fact have a right to health care and the authority like in tax and spend and general welfare clauses.

That's an interpretation and a relatively new one at that. Show me the historical precedence that proves your claim.

Medicare was originally passed under tax and spend and general welfare clause.

Which of course was designed for the elderly and physically disabled.

 

[emilynghiem]

Yes, you openly violate others rights 'just like that.'

There is no justification in allowing it to happen to begin with.

What does that have to do with the rights argument? You're off on a tangent.

I am on target.

No, you're arguing what you believe should be not what is, that's a completely different subject.

You're starting with a bill of non-rights. You do in fact have a right to health care and the authority like in tax and spend and general welfare clauses.

Dear Disir Are you talking about the ER and hospitals not turning anyone away?

Even if you invoke the general welfare clause,
NO laws and enumerated rights can be construed to DISPARAGE other rights.

so you still cannot IMPLEMENT or exercise your belief in right to health care
if it violates equal protection of other people's beliefs and Due Process of Laws,
where people must be convicted of a crime, or govt must have compelling interest,
before depriving citizens of liberty.

I think the issue is people do not agree on TERMS of providing for health care.
Mandates from federal govt violate Beliefs in states' rights that are at least
equal with the right to health care as Political Beliefs.

At least
* States Rights are in the Tenth Amendment
* Govt neither establishing nor prohibiting beliefs is in the First
* Due Process and no involuntary servitude are also in the Amendments

So if your "belief in health care is a right" is protected
under the First Amendment, it must be exercised in context
with the rights and beliefs of others also under the same
Bill of Rights and Constitution you invoke to protect your rights and beliefs.

by the Fourteenth, all these rights and beliefs should be protected equally,
not imposing yours where you violate the beliefs and creeds of others!

 

[Disir]

Wrong answer. If you set up a dump site x amount of miles away from a town and the people in the town are showing an increase in cancer or even asthma then you have an issue. People that are sick are less productive.

And that has noting to do with the contention that you have a right to free healthcare.

You are responsible for your actions as is the dump site. Should their actions cause you harm then they are liable. There is no justification to force others into covering healthcare for you because someone somewhere may or may not do something that might cause you harm.

Like a tax.......bam, just like that.

Like barrycare?

Barrycare used the commerce clause.

Yet it did not guarantee free healthcare or complete overarching coverage in all 50 states and our Territories nor was the Constitution amended hence it's still not a right.

Barrycare was not designed for free health care.

 

[Disir]

I am on target.

No, you're arguing what you believe should be not what is, that's a completely different subject.

You're starting with a bill of non-rights. You do in fact have a right to health care and the authority like in tax and spend and general welfare clauses.

That's an interpretation and a relatively new one at that. Show me the historical precedence that proves your claim.

Medicare was originally passed under tax and spend and general welfare clause.

Which of course was designed for the elderly and physically disabled.

Hence, strike through 65 and older.

 

[emilynghiem]

Sorry, but you don't. A "right" comes with no cost to your neighbor.

When your neighbor has to pay for your "rights", he becomes your slave. We abolished slavery (Republicans did anyway).

Wrong answer. If you set up a dump site x amount of miles away from a town and the people in the town are showing an increase in cancer or even asthma then you have an issue. People that are sick are less productive.

And that has noting to do with the contention that you have a right to free healthcare.

You are responsible for your actions as is the dump site. Should their actions cause you harm then they are liable. There is no justification to force others into covering healthcare for you because someone somewhere may or may not do something that might cause you harm.

Like a tax.......bam, just like that.

Like barrycare?

Barrycare used the commerce clause.

Dear Disir
ACA was passed through Congress by revising a previous PUBLIC HEALTH bill.
SCOTUS rejected the commerce clause argument.
The controversy was caused by the court revising it and claiming it was a TAX bill in order to approve it.
This was argued as overreaching and doing the job of the legislature; where it should have
been kicked back to Congress to pass as a tax bill first. Not the courts changing it mid process into a tax bill!

 

[Ringel05]

What does that have to do with the rights argument? You're off on a tangent.

I am on target.

No, you're arguing what you believe should be not what is, that's a completely different subject.

You're starting with a bill of non-rights. You do in fact have a right to health care and the authority like in tax and spend and general welfare clauses.

That's an interpretation and a relatively new one at that. Show me the historical precedence that proves your claim.

Medicare was originally passed under tax and spend and general welfare clause.

Not the General Welfare clause, as Emily said that attempt failed, it was part of the commerce clause (which was struck down) but again that doesn't make it a GUARANTEED RIGHT under the Constitution. You actually have no Idea how constitutional law works, do ya.

 

[emilynghiem]

What does that have to do with the rights argument? You're off on a tangent.

I am on target.

No, you're arguing what you believe should be not what is, that's a completely different subject.

You're starting with a bill of non-rights. You do in fact have a right to health care and the authority like in tax and spend and general welfare clauses.

That's an interpretation and a relatively new one at that. Show me the historical precedence that proves your claim.

Medicare was originally passed under tax and spend and general welfare clause.

Disir
and if people still contest it to this day and don't consent to it,
that's why I argue people should have the right to separate health policies
by party so they don't have to fight over terms and conditions if their
entire party agrees on a plan. Let taxpayers go through the party of
their choice and democratically vote on their own terms and conditions
of health care they pay taxes into, so there is representation to go with taxation!

 

[Ringel05]

And that has noting to do with the contention that you have a right to free healthcare.

You are responsible for your actions as is the dump site. Should their actions cause you harm then they are liable. There is no justification to force others into covering healthcare for you because someone somewhere may or may not do something that might cause you harm.

Like a tax.......bam, just like that.

Like barrycare?

Barrycare used the commerce clause.

Yet it did not guarantee free healthcare or complete overarching coverage in all 50 states and our Territories nor was the Constitution amended hence it's still not a right.

Barrycare was not designed for free health care.

The passage of it didn't make it a right, just the opposite, it was created to be an obligation by legal definition.

 

[Coyote]

ARTICLE X:

This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you came from, English is our language. Learn it!

About a quarter of this country was Spanish speaking long before we grabbed it. It continues to be heavily bilingual. It has nothing to do with where they "came from" but rather - who came later and suddenly decided it had to be English. How about live and let live?

 

[emilynghiem]

What are you talking about Disir?

To make health care cost effective and stretch resources to serve entire populations,
I believe this will take incorporating the spiritual healing methods that Christians use to dramatically cut costs and causes of disease, addictions, and both physical and mental ills.

Yes Disir this still has to be freely chosen, that's why it takes longer.
And that's why I protest both parties for spending resources fighting over policy and lobbying and campaigns
when that money could go into separating policies and only paying for what they support in the first place!

Currently I have met another Christian medical research group that focuses on glycoscience.
This is another way to reduce medical costs with natural alternatives that can lead to affording universal care.
It still has to be free choice in order to be constitutional.

I will try to write formal letters to key Congress reps and the Governor
in support of separating health care tracks by party, so all people can
protect and exercise political beliefs equally without imposing on each other.

This would respect both states rights, and allow those who believe in
right to health care to pursue those nationally through party and not
impose through federal govt, but make that optional if others choose to support and participate.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

And that has noting to do with the contention that you have a right to free healthcare.

You are responsible for your actions as is the dump site. Should their actions cause you harm then they are liable. There is no justification to force others into covering healthcare for you because someone somewhere may or may not do something that might cause you harm.

Like a tax.......bam, just like that.

Like barrycare?

Barrycare used the commerce clause.

Yet it did not guarantee free healthcare or complete overarching coverage in all 50 states and our Territories nor was the Constitution amended hence it's still not a right.

Barrycare was not designed for free health care.

Thats exactly what it gives to those unable to pay,on the backs of the tax payer.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Like it or not, when Gub'mint starts handing out goodies, that creates an entitlement, and they cannot be withheld without good reason. Thus, if the government decides to hand out money (Social Security, Welfare, Disability payments), if you meet the criteria, you are ENTITLED to those goodies, even though you may have done NOTHING to "deserve" them. So you just might have a "right" to subsidized housing, monthly checks, free health care, and so forth.

The most conspicuous example is that you have a right to a free public education, and under some circumstances, you have a right to be taught in a foreign language if you don't understand the Queen's English.

Nauseating, isn't it?

How would you reconcile "free" checks with Social Security payments to people who have paid into the program, as required, for 40-60 years, or better? Workers forced to subsidize Social Security are certainly not in the same class as those "entitled" to free food, housing, and other subsidies.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

No, you're arguing what you believe should be not what is, that's a completely different subject.

You're starting with a bill of non-rights. You do in fact have a right to health care and the authority like in tax and spend and general welfare clauses.

That's an interpretation and a relatively new one at that. Show me the historical precedence that proves your claim.

Medicare was originally passed under tax and spend and general welfare clause.

Which of course was designed for the elderly and physically disabled.

Hence, strike through 65 and older.

Unfortunately barrycare doesnt distinguish that.

 

[Ringel05]

ARTICLE X:

This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you came from, English is our language. Learn it!

About a quarter of this country was Spanish speaking long before we grabbed it. It continues to be heavily bilingual. It has nothing to do with where they "came from" but rather - who came later and suddenly decided it had to be English. How about live and let live?

Yeah, I disagree with his Article X. Algonquian should be the official language.........

 

[Disir]

I am on target.

No, you're arguing what you believe should be not what is, that's a completely different subject.

You're starting with a bill of non-rights. You do in fact have a right to health care and the authority like in tax and spend and general welfare clauses.

That's an interpretation and a relatively new one at that. Show me the historical precedence that proves your claim.

Medicare was originally passed under tax and spend and general welfare clause.

Not the General Welfare clause, as Emily said that attempt failed, it was part of the commerce clause but again that doesn't make it a GUARANTEED RIGHT under the Constitution. You actually have no Idea how constitutional law works, do ya.

I do. The general welfare clause, qualifier, failed in accordance with the commerce clause. Do you follow?

 

[Disir]

You're starting with a bill of non-rights. You do in fact have a right to health care and the authority like in tax and spend and general welfare clauses.

That's an interpretation and a relatively new one at that. Show me the historical precedence that proves your claim.

Medicare was originally passed under tax and spend and general welfare clause.

Which of course was designed for the elderly and physically disabled.

Hence, strike through 65 and older.

Unfortunately barrycare doesnt distinguish that.

Which is why single payer is necessary rather than barrycare.

 

[Disir]

Like a tax.......bam, just like that.

Like barrycare?

Barrycare used the commerce clause.

Yet it did not guarantee free healthcare or complete overarching coverage in all 50 states and our Territories nor was the Constitution amended hence it's still not a right.

Barrycare was not designed for free health care.

The passage of it didn't make it a right, just the opposite, it was created to be an obligation by legal definition.

Ain't interstate commerce a &($%.

 

[Ringel05]

No, you're arguing what you believe should be not what is, that's a completely different subject.

You're starting with a bill of non-rights. You do in fact have a right to health care and the authority like in tax and spend and general welfare clauses.

That's an interpretation and a relatively new one at that. Show me the historical precedence that proves your claim.

Medicare was originally passed under tax and spend and general welfare clause.

Not the General Welfare clause, as Emily said that attempt failed, it was part of the commerce clause but again that doesn't make it a GUARANTEED RIGHT under the Constitution. You actually have no Idea how constitutional law works, do ya.

I do. The general welfare clause, qualifier, failed in accordance with the commerce clause. Do you follow?

Again you're interpretation of the extent and areas the General Welfare clause encompasses is very new. Again show me historical precedence (that means from day one......) that what you claim it covers it actually does cover. The problem is you can't go back and find that past last year and your interpretation was struck down as unconstitutional. Care to try again?

 

[emilynghiem]

That's an interpretation and a relatively new one at that. Show me the historical precedence that proves your claim.

Medicare was originally passed under tax and spend and general welfare clause.

Which of course was designed for the elderly and physically disabled.

Hence, strike through 65 and older.

Unfortunately barrycare doesnt distinguish that.

Which is why single payer is necessary rather than barrycare.

Dear Disir
Why not set up singlepayer through all the Democrats and Greens who support this.
Organize it collectively by state and nationally.
Prove it works starting with that scale, with people who WANT it to work.
And then invite others to join to expand, develop and replicate a working model.

If secular arguments should be based on proof and laws not depend on "faith based" beliefs
shouldn't programs be proven to work before expecting voters and taxpayer to support them?