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

[emilynghiem]

I was searching on the Houston Chronicle website to find the comment by someone on the need to address right to health care as a BELIEF.

Instead I found this Bill of Non-Rights below.

If you enjoy this, can someone please return the favor by helping me find any reference to any person I can contact regarding the right to marriage and right to health care as political beliefs, and how to protect opposing political beliefs from imposing on each other or the public through govt where it violates equal rights of others.

Thanks! Please enjoy:

============================================================================

LETTER: Bill of non-rights

The following has been attributed to Lewis Napper, a Jackson, Mississippi computer programmer. He didn't expect his essay -- a tart 10-point list of "rights" Americans DON'T have -- to become an Internet legend.

=============================================================

'We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny,
guilt ridden, delusional. We hold these truths to be self -evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights.'

ARTICLE I:

You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth.. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II:

You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of dummies, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III:

You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to

make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV:

You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are
quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V:

You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI:

You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want
to see you get the blue juice.

ARTICLE VII:

You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the
rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure..

ARTICLE VIII:

You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE IX:

You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

ARTICLE X:

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

Lastly

ARTICLE XI:

You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the
freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and
history, sorry if you are uncomfortable with it.

If you agree, share this with a friend. No, you don't have to, and nothing tragic will befall you if you don't. I just think it's about time common sense is allowed to flourish. Sensible people of the United States must speak out because if you do not, who will?

everything in there is idiotic. and a lie.

this country was not founded as a christian country.

hack

Dear jillian
Yes and no. It depends how you define Christian.
Even if people keep things secular, based on natural laws
as Jefferson attempted to,
if people RECEIVE and PRAY in unity with Christians
then whoever is not against them is with them.

They certainly did not REJECT Christianity,
only rejected mixing denominational requirements with govt authority.

Also, the founding fathers DID gather and pray together to God
for divine guidance before penning the founding documents.
So that is a Christian practice to pray in agreement,
whether people identify as Christian under scriptural laws
or Gentiles under natural laws (where the Bible says Jesus
governs BOTH paths as two flocks of one fold) The key is
whether we RECEIVE one another as neighbors in AGREEMENT by CONSCIENCE
(or Christ), then we can still act in the Christian spirit of following ONE truth.

but as I have found from other sources
* Jefferson did believe in divine providence and even that
govt leaders might be called to take a different direction based on God,
rather than go with public opinion; so this still shows some
belief in "divine" right or authority to rule even
above consent of the governed or what people think or believe, surprisingly enough.

* some states did have state religions, Texas for example still has references to God in the laws.
So there seems to be more allowance for this on state levels,
and it's mainly the federal govt where "religious establishment" is
contested and reverted to the states where people have more freedom to decide locally.

That surprises me also, because I thought the same restrictions and protections
that apply federally ought to apply to states.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I feel I'm qualified to speak on single payer since I've gone through cancer and a hip replacement surgery.
The cost to my insurance and our medical savings plan was extraordinary to say the least,yet we payed for it through private insurance and our medical savings plan at great personal expense.
If we'd also had to pay for some dumbass who failed to take into account the possibility that they to may need these life saving surgeries they would have been out of reach for me.
So tell me? Why should I suffer death or debilitating injuries to assure the health of someone who didnt lift a fucken finger to ensure their own health?
Screw that!! The wife and I took care of our own health care and the idea that I would be denied that due to the laziness of others is unacceptable.

Why would you have to?

Are you actually saying the cost of health care wont go up if I have to also pay for the indigent?
My hospital bills for those two procedures was just shy of the million mark.
Of which we paid around 40K with our personally paid health savings account.
So tell me genius...who pays for the indigent?
I refuse to give up my excellent health care for substandard care so a lazy **** can receive the same substandard care when they paid Butkus.

Why is it going up?

I would advise you look into the last eight years to find your answer.

So, you are as ticked off about the hospital mergers as I am?

I have my choice of hospitals and surgeons. In fact i had the best because I took responsibility for my own healthcare.
Why not let the indigent go to a VA type hospital? After all you seem to think those are just fine for our veterans?
Not that I think our veterans dont deserve better of course.

 

[Ringel05]

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?

United States v. Butler 297 U.S. 1 (1936)

and stem from here:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1

Document 21

Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

5 Dec. 1791

Papers 10:302--4
A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.

The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

Again, nothing to do with your assertion of an inalienable right to healthcare.

You said: Again you're interpretation of the extent and areas the General Welfare clause encompasses is very new.

I provided the framework demonstrating it isn't new.

You don't like that? Try the 9th.

“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Your interpretation of what you've posted is still a modern interpretation that has nothing to do with the historical interpretation, what part of that don't you understand?

 

[Disir]

Why would you have to?

Are you actually saying the cost of health care wont go up if I have to also pay for the indigent?
My hospital bills for those two procedures was just shy of the million mark.
Of which we paid around 40K with our personally paid health savings account.
So tell me genius...who pays for the indigent?
I refuse to give up my excellent health care for substandard care so a lazy **** can receive the same substandard care when they paid Butkus.

Why is it going up?

I would advise you look into the last eight years to find your answer.

So, you are as ticked off about the hospital mergers as I am?

I have my choice of hospitals and surgeons. In fact i had the best because I took responsibility for my own healthcare.
Why not let the indigent go to a VA type hospital? After all you seem to think those are just fine for our veterans?
Not that I think our veterans dont deserve better of course.

My dad is a vet. He is dealing with the ramifications of Agent Orange. You are making assumptions of my views that don't exist.

 

[Disir]

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?

United States v. Butler 297 U.S. 1 (1936)

and stem from here:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1

Document 21

Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

5 Dec. 1791

Papers 10:302--4
A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.

The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

Again, nothing to do with your assertion of an inalienable right to healthcare.

You said: Again you're interpretation of the extent and areas the General Welfare clause encompasses is very new.

I provided the framework demonstrating it isn't new.

You don't like that? Try the 9th.

“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Your interpretation of what you've posted is still a modern interpretation that has nothing to do with the historical interpretation, what part of that don't you understand?

Hamilton is pretty danged historical. It's ok for you not to like it but that interpretation still exists.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Are you actually saying the cost of health care wont go up if I have to also pay for the indigent?
My hospital bills for those two procedures was just shy of the million mark.
Of which we paid around 40K with our personally paid health savings account.
So tell me genius...who pays for the indigent?
I refuse to give up my excellent health care for substandard care so a lazy **** can receive the same substandard care when they paid Butkus.

Why is it going up?

I would advise you look into the last eight years to find your answer.

So, you are as ticked off about the hospital mergers as I am?

I have my choice of hospitals and surgeons. In fact i had the best because I took responsibility for my own healthcare.
Why not let the indigent go to a VA type hospital? After all you seem to think those are just fine for our veterans?
Not that I think our veterans dont deserve better of course.

My dad is a vet. He is dealing with the ramifications of Agent Orange. You are making assumptions of my views that don't exist.

So you dont feel your father deserves better care than some asshole who sucks off the gov tit?
The depth of liberal malfeasance has no bottom....

 

[Ringel05]

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?

United States v. Butler 297 U.S. 1 (1936)

and stem from here:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1

Document 21

Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

5 Dec. 1791

Papers 10:302--4
A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.

The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

Again, nothing to do with your assertion of an inalienable right to healthcare.

You said: Again you're interpretation of the extent and areas the General Welfare clause encompasses is very new.

I provided the framework demonstrating it isn't new.

You don't like that? Try the 9th.

“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Your interpretation of what you've posted is still a modern interpretation that has nothing to do with the historical interpretation, what part of that don't you understand?

Hamilton is pretty danged historical. It's ok for you not to like it but that interpretation still exists.

It's not Hamilton that is the issue here, it's your modern interpretation of Hamilton that is the issue. Read it again in historical context.

 

[Disir]

United States v. Butler 297 U.S. 1 (1936)

and stem from here:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1

Document 21

Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

5 Dec. 1791

Papers 10:302--4
A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.

The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

Again, nothing to do with your assertion of an inalienable right to healthcare.

You said: Again you're interpretation of the extent and areas the General Welfare clause encompasses is very new.

I provided the framework demonstrating it isn't new.

You don't like that? Try the 9th.

“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Your interpretation of what you've posted is still a modern interpretation that has nothing to do with the historical interpretation, what part of that don't you understand?

Hamilton is pretty danged historical. It's ok for you not to like it but that interpretation still exists.

It's not Hamilton that is the issue here, it's your modern interpretation of Hamilton that is the issue. Read it again in historical context.

You just don't like it.

 

[Disir]

I'll come right out and say it. The indigent deserve sub,substandard care compared to mine since I pay for my own and they should feel lucky to get what the tax payer offers.
In what world should the tax payer feel thankful for crappy care when they pay the way for the lazy *****?

You know there are people I encounter regularly that are lazy as hell. There is an entire group of young women that don't graduate high school because they want to be housewives and have kid after kid after kid and they do nothing. They don't raise the kids and they don't clean the house...........nothing. Then there are the grandmas on meth. The con artists that would rather hustle than work. People who live in bad situations and do nothing to get themselves out. I regularly think violent thoughts.

Why is it going up?

I would advise you look into the last eight years to find your answer.

So, you are as ticked off about the hospital mergers as I am?

I have my choice of hospitals and surgeons. In fact i had the best because I took responsibility for my own healthcare.
Why not let the indigent go to a VA type hospital? After all you seem to think those are just fine for our veterans?
Not that I think our veterans dont deserve better of course.

My dad is a vet. He is dealing with the ramifications of Agent Orange. You are making assumptions of my views that don't exist.

So you dont feel your father deserves better care than some asshole who sucks off the gov tit?
The depth of liberal malfeasance has no bottom....

Seriously?

 

[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.

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!

Why would you contest it? Further, can you explain why insurance companies are necessary to begin with?

Disir because for accountability and service directly to the public paying for it,
this needs to be managed by states and people on a local level first.

Once a system is working (such as USAA insurance, Doctors without Borders, or the Nurturing Network)
that effectively manage resources cost-effectively, then it can expand nationally.

You don't start any business from the top down with huge branches in every state
while you are experimenting with services and terms of payments and programs.

so if it doesn't work for businesses or nonprofits
what makes you think govt can work that way???

[As for insurance, that can remain a free choice if people want to use that to defray costs.
Or pay other ways. It's not the only way.

Spiritual healing is another way to reduce costs, but by its nature
it has to remain a free choice. All the effective spiritual healing
experts I know do not charge money, but remain nonprofit charity.

We still need charity hospitals and nonprofits,
medical schools and nursing internships, etc.

Why not give tax breaks for investing in all means available
and not "penalize" people if they don't buy insurance?]

Single payer would be run as medicare. Therefore, it is already "branched out".

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I'll come right out and say it. The indigent deserve sub,substandard care compared to mine since I pay for my own and they should feel lucky to get what the tax payer offers.
In what world should the tax payer feel thankful for crappy care when they pay the way for the lazy *****?

You know there are people I encounter regularly that are lazy as hell. There is an entire group of young women that don't graduate high school because they want to be housewives and have kid after kid after kid and they do nothing. They don't raise the kids and they don't clean the house...........nothing. Then there are the grandmas on meth. The con artists that would rather hustle than work. People who live in bad situations and do nothing to get themselves out. I regularly think violent thoughts.

I would advise you look into the last eight years to find your answer.

So, you are as ticked off about the hospital mergers as I am?

I have my choice of hospitals and surgeons. In fact i had the best because I took responsibility for my own healthcare.
Why not let the indigent go to a VA type hospital? After all you seem to think those are just fine for our veterans?
Not that I think our veterans dont deserve better of course.

My dad is a vet. He is dealing with the ramifications of Agent Orange. You are making assumptions of my views that don't exist.

So you dont feel your father deserves better care than some asshole who sucks off the gov tit?
The depth of liberal malfeasance has no bottom....

Seriously?

Yes fucken seriously!!!!
Vets deserve the best care available and the tit suckers deserve what we give them.

 

[Ringel05]

Again, nothing to do with your assertion of an inalienable right to healthcare.

You said: Again you're interpretation of the extent and areas the General Welfare clause encompasses is very new.

I provided the framework demonstrating it isn't new.

You don't like that? Try the 9th.

“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Your interpretation of what you've posted is still a modern interpretation that has nothing to do with the historical interpretation, what part of that don't you understand?

Hamilton is pretty danged historical. It's ok for you not to like it but that interpretation still exists.

It's not Hamilton that is the issue here, it's your modern interpretation of Hamilton that is the issue. Read it again in historical context.

You just don't like it.

Wrong. You're arguing a specific interpretation that is in fact modern, I'm trying to get you to at least see it if not accept it as a modern interpretation. Modern interpretation of what the founders wrote is not uncommon and not unexpected but I suspect your approach is to find a way to make an end run around Constitutional Amendment procedures to avoid potential failure of the concept. That's the normal tact to take these days, reinterpret then reapply.

 

[Disir]

I'll come right out and say it. The indigent deserve sub,substandard care compared to mine since I pay for my own and they should feel lucky to get what the tax payer offers.
In what world should the tax payer feel thankful for crappy care when they pay the way for the lazy *****?

You know there are people I encounter regularly that are lazy as hell. There is an entire group of young women that don't graduate high school because they want to be housewives and have kid after kid after kid and they do nothing. They don't raise the kids and they don't clean the house...........nothing. Then there are the grandmas on meth. The con artists that would rather hustle than work. People who live in bad situations and do nothing to get themselves out. I regularly think violent thoughts.

So, you are as ticked off about the hospital mergers as I am?

I have my choice of hospitals and surgeons. In fact i had the best because I took responsibility for my own healthcare.
Why not let the indigent go to a VA type hospital? After all you seem to think those are just fine for our veterans?
Not that I think our veterans dont deserve better of course.

My dad is a vet. He is dealing with the ramifications of Agent Orange. You are making assumptions of my views that don't exist.

So you dont feel your father deserves better care than some asshole who sucks off the gov tit?
The depth of liberal malfeasance has no bottom....

Seriously?

Yes fucken seriously!!!!
Vets deserve the best care available and the tit suckers deserve what we give them.

They do deserve the best health care. Be less of a dick.

 

[Bush92]

I was searching on the Houston Chronicle website to find the comment by someone on the need to address right to health care as a BELIEF.

Instead I found this Bill of Non-Rights below.

If you enjoy this, can someone please return the favor by helping me find any reference to any person I can contact regarding the right to marriage and right to health care as political beliefs, and how to protect opposing political beliefs from imposing on each other or the public through govt where it violates equal rights of others.

Thanks! Please enjoy:

============================================================================

LETTER: Bill of non-rights

The following has been attributed to Lewis Napper, a Jackson, Mississippi computer programmer. He didn't expect his essay -- a tart 10-point list of "rights" Americans DON'T have -- to become an Internet legend.

=============================================================

'We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny,
guilt ridden, delusional. We hold these truths to be self -evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights.'

ARTICLE I:

You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth.. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II:

You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of dummies, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III:

You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to

make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV:

You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are
quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V:

You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI:

You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want
to see you get the blue juice.

ARTICLE VII:

You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the
rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure..

ARTICLE VIII:

You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE IX:

You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

ARTICLE X:

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

Lastly

ARTICLE XI:

You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the
freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and
history, sorry if you are uncomfortable with it.

If you agree, share this with a friend. No, you don't have to, and nothing tragic will befall you if you don't. I just think it's about time common sense is allowed to flourish. Sensible people of the United States must speak out because if you do not, who will?

That's why Mississippi is a red state.

 

[Disir]

You said: Again you're interpretation of the extent and areas the General Welfare clause encompasses is very new.

I provided the framework demonstrating it isn't new.

You don't like that? Try the 9th.

“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Your interpretation of what you've posted is still a modern interpretation that has nothing to do with the historical interpretation, what part of that don't you understand?

Hamilton is pretty danged historical. It's ok for you not to like it but that interpretation still exists.

It's not Hamilton that is the issue here, it's your modern interpretation of Hamilton that is the issue. Read it again in historical context.

You just don't like it.

Wrong. You're arguing a specific interpretation that is in fact modern, I'm trying to get you to at least see it if not accept it as a modern interpretation. Modern interpretation of what the founders wrote is not uncommon and not unexpected but I suspect your approach is to find a way to make an end run around Constitutional Amendment procedures to avoid potential failure of the concept. That's the normal tact to take these days, reinterpret then reapply.

You're attempting to use the original intent theory and Hamilton provides that you can't guess what you are going to need.

I am not an originalist.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I'll come right out and say it. The indigent deserve sub,substandard care compared to mine since I pay for my own and they should feel lucky to get what the tax payer offers.
In what world should the tax payer feel thankful for crappy care when they pay the way for the lazy *****?

You know there are people I encounter regularly that are lazy as hell. There is an entire group of young women that don't graduate high school because they want to be housewives and have kid after kid after kid and they do nothing. They don't raise the kids and they don't clean the house...........nothing. Then there are the grandmas on meth. The con artists that would rather hustle than work. People who live in bad situations and do nothing to get themselves out. I regularly think violent thoughts.

I have my choice of hospitals and surgeons. In fact i had the best because I took responsibility for my own healthcare.
Why not let the indigent go to a VA type hospital? After all you seem to think those are just fine for our veterans?
Not that I think our veterans dont deserve better of course.

My dad is a vet. He is dealing with the ramifications of Agent Orange. You are making assumptions of my views that don't exist.

So you dont feel your father deserves better care than some asshole who sucks off the gov tit?
The depth of liberal malfeasance has no bottom....

Seriously?

Yes fucken seriously!!!!
Vets deserve the best care available and the tit suckers deserve what we give them.

They do deserve the best health care. Be less of a dick.

Why do you keep leaving out half of my questions?

 

[Disir]

I'll come right out and say it. The indigent deserve sub,substandard care compared to mine since I pay for my own and they should feel lucky to get what the tax payer offers.
In what world should the tax payer feel thankful for crappy care when they pay the way for the lazy *****?

You know there are people I encounter regularly that are lazy as hell. There is an entire group of young women that don't graduate high school because they want to be housewives and have kid after kid after kid and they do nothing. They don't raise the kids and they don't clean the house...........nothing. Then there are the grandmas on meth. The con artists that would rather hustle than work. People who live in bad situations and do nothing to get themselves out. I regularly think violent thoughts.

My dad is a vet. He is dealing with the ramifications of Agent Orange. You are making assumptions of my views that don't exist.

So you dont feel your father deserves better care than some asshole who sucks off the gov tit?
The depth of liberal malfeasance has no bottom....

Seriously?

Yes fucken seriously!!!!
Vets deserve the best care available and the tit suckers deserve what we give them.

They do deserve the best health care. Be less of a dick.

Why do you keep leaving out half of my questions?

That was a question?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I'll come right out and say it. The indigent deserve sub,substandard care compared to mine since I pay for my own and they should feel lucky to get what the tax payer offers.
In what world should the tax payer feel thankful for crappy care when they pay the way for the lazy *****?

You know there are people I encounter regularly that are lazy as hell. There is an entire group of young women that don't graduate high school because they want to be housewives and have kid after kid after kid and they do nothing. They don't raise the kids and they don't clean the house...........nothing. Then there are the grandmas on meth. The con artists that would rather hustle than work. People who live in bad situations and do nothing to get themselves out. I regularly think violent thoughts.

So you dont feel your father deserves better care than some asshole who sucks off the gov tit?
The depth of liberal malfeasance has no bottom....

Seriously?

Yes fucken seriously!!!!
Vets deserve the best care available and the tit suckers deserve what we give them.

They do deserve the best health care. Be less of a dick.

Why do you keep leaving out half of my questions?

That was a question?

Not going to play the game. The fact that you use your father as a pawn sickens me.
Off to ignore based on humane principles.

 

[Disir]

You know there are people I encounter regularly that are lazy as hell. There is an entire group of young women that don't graduate high school because they want to be housewives and have kid after kid after kid and they do nothing. They don't raise the kids and they don't clean the house...........nothing. Then there are the grandmas on meth. The con artists that would rather hustle than work. People who live in bad situations and do nothing to get themselves out. I regularly think violent thoughts.

Seriously?

Yes fucken seriously!!!!
Vets deserve the best care available and the tit suckers deserve what we give them.

They do deserve the best health care. Be less of a dick.

Why do you keep leaving out half of my questions?

That was a question?

Not going to play the game. The fact that you use your father as a pawn sickens me.
Off to ignore based on human principles.

I'm ok with that considering you made the stupid ******* accusation to begin with.

 

[gallantwarrior]

On ACA, we're not being forced to pay for health care, instead we are being taxed for insurance. I don't want health insurance, especially not some crap with a $10k deductible that costs me $8k a year... $18k a year before it pays anything?!? I pay $500/y total... Seriously the penalty I owe is far more than I spend on health care every year (and I'm over 40.) I've never had a problem paying my medical costs out of pocket, I'm not poor and I have savings in the bank for emergencies.

The ACA has nothing to do with health care. I don't think people understand that.

Nothing to do with health care...everything to do with health insurance. Follow the money, look to who wrote the healthcare bills rubber stamped by our so-called representatives.