tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post5527668216616366150..comments2024-03-18T20:41:46.283-05:00Comments on Althouse: "Obama's aggressive endorsement of a healthcare plan that does not even exist yet, except in five competing, fluctuating drafts..."Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger370125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-51989693472286790152009-08-14T20:53:21.189-05:002009-08-14T20:53:21.189-05:00@Shadowfox
Taken on a negative tinge due to the R...@Shadowfox<br /><br />Taken on a negative tinge due to the Republicans?<br /><br />Come on, my man. Even for you, that's a pretty lame broad brush stroke.<br /><br />Tax and spend, taking from producers to prop up those that don't, etc etc. My parents were not Republicans (in point of fact they were apolitical if anything), but I had some relatives that were ardent liberals (modern sense) and I had a pretty good idea of what was negative about their beliefs at an early age. It didn't take anything more than exposure to liberals as a teenager to convince me that there's a screw or two loose there.<br /><br />I said it before and I'll state it yet again. If we lived in a world in which I could bring chocolate pudding packs to work and leave them in the fridge over the weekend without fear of them disappearing, the "progressive" agenda might work. As that is not the case, nor has it ever been the case in any place I've worked or any place anyone I've mentioned this to has worked, we have to deal with the world-as-it-is, not the world as liberal/progressives would-have-it.<br /><br />Not all policies espoused by one side or the other are all kosher. There's a lot to gripe about all around and where liberals overestimate human nature's ability to be decent to one-another, conservatives tend to underestimate it (at least socially). However, I'll go for the side that wants less control over me, thank you.<br /><br />As I see it, the political playing field runs from tyranny on one side and anarchy on the other. from the middle, the further you slide left, the more control the government has. The further you slide right, the less.<br /><br />Which side do you want to be on in general?Scott Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08871331702531675368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-22550345079555365442009-08-14T16:37:44.121-05:002009-08-14T16:37:44.121-05:00People who identify themselves as "classical ...<i>People who identify themselves as "classical liberal" are actually liberals as it was originally meant.</i><br /><br />This is complete horseshit, just like the nice straw man you have set up for "modern liberal". Neither self-identified "liberals" nor "classic liberals" are a homogeneous enough group to be swept all together under one rug. In fact, there is sufficient disagreement between "classical liberals" to make any sense of "original meaning" worthless. Nor are they all "humanists" as you claim--for many, it's quite the opposite (consider, for example, that corporate personhood is NOT a humanist ideal).<br /><br />There are quite a few self-identified "liberals" that I would be ashamed of if I were liberal in some narrow sense (short of Trotskyites or Maoists--neither group being recognized as "liberal" by anyone with a brain outside of the two groups themselves). But, it seems, someone who self-identifies as a "classical liberal" is just trying to get into a pissing contest with the liberals that he despises. It seems that "classical liberals" are largely market-based anarchists and would make more sense to call them "classical anarchists" than "classical liberals". The problem is that, historically, "liberal" has been a positive descriptor (e.g., liberal professions, liberal education) and "anarchist" has always had a negative connotation. In fact, the word "liberal" has acquired a negative tinge solely to hysterical propaganda by the John-Birchers and the rest of the nutballs that have taken control of the Republican propaganda machine.ShadowFoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06043933642833087018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-78153718946295472092009-08-14T16:24:08.803-05:002009-08-14T16:24:08.803-05:00Honey, Pelosi started the whole thing. People are ...<i>Honey, Pelosi started the whole thing. People are responding to THAT. Plus, I saw one guy had an obama hitler mustache poster was id'd as a plant.</i><br /><br />Honey, get a clue!<br /><br />Pelosi was <i>responding</i> to photos and videos of protesters with signs that either displayed swastikas or equated Democrats (and Obama, in particular) with Nazis--and I am not saying it because I heard or read about it somewhere, but because I saw the actual images reported more than 20 hours before Pelosi made her remarks.<br /><br />But, if you listen to FoxNews, Pelosi said it first (which is, incidentally, where one might hear about the alleged "plant" with Hitler mustache--now, is there a difference between a "plant" and someone mocking the other side?). And, if you believe WorldNetDaily, Rep. Scott had a swastika painted on his own office to drum up support. Of course, the evidence for this claim is even more scant than for the "death panels" in the bill.ShadowFoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06043933642833087018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-15603201193768288872009-08-14T13:26:28.261-05:002009-08-14T13:26:28.261-05:00ShadowFox said...
Is there a right to education, ...ShadowFox said...<br /><br /><i>Is there a right to education, oh mighty hunter? Or are we limited to the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights? If you believe the latter, you clearly did not read the Bill of Rights.</i><br /><br />Certainly there is a right to education. The government should not prevent people from being educated. Just as it should not prevent people from obtaining healthcare.<br /><br />My point, that you clearly missed, was not the difference between enumerated and unenumerated rights. It was the difference between what the government may not do to you, and what the government must do for you.<br /><br />And yes, I'm well aware of the ninth amendment. Did you know that there is another amendment right after that one?Ignorance is Blisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17351664545145783244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-47862494004460527052009-08-14T13:16:44.701-05:002009-08-14T13:16:44.701-05:00@Shadowfox
Oh, and I almost forgot to mention. I...@Shadowfox<br /><br />Oh, and I almost forgot to mention. I'm a card-carrying Libertarian. It's plain to see that I'm not one to not ask questions. That also applies to all of the Libertarian I know personally here in MO.<br /><br />Got any other broad brush strokes you'd like to paint incorrectly?Scott Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08871331702531675368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-11216530495301993412009-08-14T12:12:00.686-05:002009-08-14T12:12:00.686-05:00@Shadowfox
"One reason I am no longer conser...@Shadowfox<br /><br /><i>"One reason I am no longer conservative is because conservatives tend to ask only simple questions and provide even simpler answers. It has nothing to do with religion--it's the kind of reductionism that is natural to conservative philosophy. Liberals, on the other hand, tend to get bogged down in minutiae and libertarians don't want to ask questions at all."</i><br /><br />It almost sounds like you're so much smarter than the rest of us that you're completely screwed.<br /><br />In case you didn't get the original point, I don't think health care is a "basic human right" at all. I said that if someone wants to contend that it is, they have to answer to the prenatal question. Is the OBGYN only there for the mother? Or does that doctor have a responsibility to both the mother and the health of the baby? What you don't seem to want to allow is that, in the context of health care, the abortion debate changes because the unborn DO require health care that's targeted right at them.Scott Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08871331702531675368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-21443082116305710022009-08-14T12:02:34.892-05:002009-08-14T12:02:34.892-05:00One of these things is not like the others,
One of...<i>One of these things is not like the others,<br />One of these things just doesn't belong,<br />Can you tell which thing is not like the others<br />By the time I finish my song?</i><br /><br />Is there a right to education, oh mighty hunter? Or are we limited to the rights <i>enumerated</i> in the Bill of Rights? If you believe the latter, you clearly did not read the Bill of Rights.<br /><br /><i>As one of the aforementioned nimrods,</i><br /><br />Earlier ScottM wrote:<br /><i>I still want the question answered by these nimrods on when that human right kicks in.</i><br /><br />I'd like to correct the misconception here--you're not "one of", you're "the". In case it wasn't obvious to the rest of the echo chamber, I used the word because you did. Just making a point.<br /><br />As for your question, it's a category mistake. You're just trying to bait a debate on the beginning of life, which is not an issue in this case. When does the right to bear arms begin? Are you for ante-natal gun rights? What about <a href="http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local-beat/8-Year-Old_Ashford_Boy_Shoots_Himself_at_Mass_Gun_Show.html" rel="nofollow">8 year old's</a> rights? Or do they begin at majority?<br /><br />What if rights <a href="http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/article/20090813/WDH0101/908130640/1981/WDHopinion" rel="nofollow">conflict</a>?<br /><br />One reason I am no longer conservative is because conservatives tend to ask only simple questions and provide even simpler answers. It has nothing to do with religion--it's the kind of reductionism that is natural to conservative philosophy. Liberals, on the other hand, tend to get bogged down in minutiae and libertarians don't want to ask questions at all.<br /><br /><i>The Nordics don't have to deal with illegals. ... They don't have unpatriotic people in Finland.</i><br /><br />Of course, reductionism is so much simpler when you're ignorant.<br /><br /><i>Why do you think that the so called organized mobs (what a joke from the propagana media) consists of current and soon to be Medicare recipients? They can PLAINLY see the handwriting on the wall.</i><br /><br />Hmm... Perhaps that also explains their signs that say, "Keep government out of my Medicare!" And, I am sure, it has nothing to do with them being organized by FreedomWatch which is operating under a lobbying contract with insurance companies. No, sir, it could not be... It must be the "handwriting on the wall"... Or on Fox News... or whatever...ShadowFoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06043933642833087018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-70688971132936159432009-08-14T09:27:45.992-05:002009-08-14T09:27:45.992-05:00Having a "right" means that the governme...Having a "right" means that the government can not prevent you from it. It does not mean it must be provided for you.<br /><br />"Right" to free speech does not mean you get a free megaphone or soap box from the government.<br /><br />What's so hard to understand here people?bagoh20https://www.blogger.com/profile/10915174575358413637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-67745985868162792272009-08-14T07:07:22.039-05:002009-08-14T07:07:22.039-05:00@Shadowfox
As one of the aforementioned nimrods, ...@Shadowfox<br /><br />As one of the aforementioned nimrods, I'll ask you to back up that pejorative with an answer to my question.<br /><br />Before we get rolling, let me say that my stance against abortion has zero to do with religion. Now that my potential zealotry is out of the way, let's get on to yours (potentially).<br /><br />If health care is a human right, when does that right start? As I mentioned prior, health care is a completely different ball game than the standard pro-choice/pro-life dichotomy. Babies in the womb require health care as well as the woman carrying said baby.<br /><br />When does the "human right" to health care start?Scott Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08871331702531675368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-59380357022953859142009-08-13T23:51:50.868-05:002009-08-13T23:51:50.868-05:00I just came over from reading at Volokh and the te...I just came over from reading at Volokh and the temperate tone 'How can you oppose something that is vague in 5 different bills?' seemed pretty big in the comments on the 'health care slippery slope argument.' Paglia makes the excellent contrary point about why do we have to buy Obama's quantum mechanical 'the electron could be anywhere except where you worry it could be plan?' otherwise we are opposed to loving 'progress and humanity.' As to her assertion about Obama restoring our place in the world as reflected in his Mexico trip, what a mismash that was. The Dallas Morning News editorial today, and they are usually as critical as courtesans, bashed it. To me these trips seem like nothing so much as races for high school student body president; this was certainly no better.a psychiatrist who learned from veteranshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00347313804041291393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-49393864554792316662009-08-13T21:27:09.547-05:002009-08-13T21:27:09.547-05:00And for goodness sake... the crack about when is t...And for goodness sake... the crack about when is the government going to give me a free rifle was obviously an *illustration* to show how silly it is to say that a right means you have a right to be *given* something instead of a right to *pursue* it.<br /><br />And arming one's self IS an actual, real, right of any human being.<br /><br />Actually, I just thought of a medical related right of human beings... reproduction. Forced sterilizations (which have happened in the US to people who are NOT convicted psychopathic sex offenders) or government enforced limits on reproduction violate inalienable rights.<br /><br />But even this right is not a... is the term "positive" right? It's wrong to prevent someone but no one has to *provide* you a child.Synovahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01311191981918160095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-40369876446352159162009-08-13T21:18:04.660-05:002009-08-13T21:18:04.660-05:00"The right is in the access to affordable hea..."<i>The right is in the access to affordable healthcare. That is, you cannot be denied healthcare if you need it and cannot pay for it.</i>"<br /><br />Why?<br /><br />What you've described is the right to own the labor of other people without their consent.<br /><br />Any time you've got a right TO something like that you take the rights of other people to their own selves and freedom away.<br /><br />The libertarian idea is that your rights end where they intersect another person. I have a right to "pursue happiness" to make my way in the world, to worship my own God, to feed myself, to supply my physical and other needs, rights to my own body and self-determination, rights to my own property, rights to employ violence to defend my rights (which is pretty much a good way to define what is a right or *not*)... just up *until* I intersect another human being. I may not take someone else's food nor compel their labor nor sacrifice them to my God nor otherwise violate *their* rights in the pursuit of my own.<br /><br />We could argue til judgment day over the extent to which this may be followed in the "real world" but it does illustrate the points I was making about the use of the word "rights." We call things "rights" that are in no way rights at all and don't understand anymore that a separate thing called "rights" even exist.<br /><br />The "right" to access to medical care without having to pay for it doesn't exist. A law is in place that allows it, but it is not a right.<br /><br />The right to self-defense and to arm one's self to the effective level of technology and to commit violence on other people (or your government, something our founding fathers saw as a moral imperative) to secure the RIGHT to life, liberty and the freedom to pursue happiness... that is not malleable. It's not *limitable*. It exists no matter what the laws are in place in any culture in the world.<br /><br />We may CHOOSE to provide a level of health care and medical attention to those who can not pay. It *ought* to be entirely voluntary, but we do have a representative process and collectively we have decided that hospitals should not knowingly turn away anyone who is ill.<br /><br />This is a choice of those paying, NOT a right that those who seek care are entitled to compel.Synovahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01311191981918160095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-10271902630628796542009-08-13T20:35:06.727-05:002009-08-13T20:35:06.727-05:00Freedom of Speach
Freedom of the Press
Freedom of ...Freedom of Speach<br />Freedom of the Press<br />Freedom of Religion<br />The Right to Bear Arms<br />Protection from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures<br />Prohibition on Cruel and Unusual Punishment<br />Access to Affordable Healthcare<br /><br />One of these things is not like the others, <br />One of these things just doesn't belong, <br />Can you tell which thing is not like the others <br />By the time I finish my song?<br /><br />Oh, and of course a <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nimrod" rel="nofollow">nimrod</a> wants a gun.Ignorance is Blisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17351664545145783244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-33305721142565022332009-08-13T18:50:31.698-05:002009-08-13T18:50:31.698-05:00Of course healthcare is a human right. So is the r...<i>Of course healthcare is a human right. So is the right to bear arms.<br /><br />So when is the government going to provide me with a rifle?</i><br /><br />Why am I not surprised that one nimrod wants to bring abortion into this--and not <i>access</i> to abortion, but the actual definition of life--and another wants a free gun. Given the vacuous nature of the rest of this discussion (e.g., it's "socialized medicine", not "socialist medicine"), empty unrelated rhetoric should be par for the course.<br /><br />But it might help if you at least frame the question correctly. It's the right to bear arms--you can <i>possess</i> them if you choose, but you'll only receive one if you join the military (or civilian police force, which is, in some sense, a civil militia).<br /><br />But when it comes to healthcare, healthcare itself cannot be that civil right--that does not make sense. The right is in the <i>access to affordable healthcare</i>. That is, you cannot be denied healthcare if you need it and cannot pay for it.<br /><br />What's always bothered me about the second amendment arguments is that nowhere does it say that "arms" is "firearms". Why not a dagger, a mace, a spear, a halberd, a crossbow or a billy club? In fact, I have never heard a 2nd Amd. nut ever foam at the mouth about the right to possess an piece of assault cutlery the way they want their assault rifles. Yet, there are more regulations banning specific kinds of cutting and mechanical shooting weapons than there are outright bans on firearms. Even billy clubs and nunchuks are banned in many jurisdictions.<br /><br />Damn it, people--I want my billy club!! Won't any defenders of second amendment freedoms stand up for my right?!ShadowFoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06043933642833087018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-56346880140366107022009-08-13T18:13:11.062-05:002009-08-13T18:13:11.062-05:00President Obama's Lefty Health Club Band
Actu...<a href="http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/tgmccotter/2009/08/13/a-health-dirge-night/" rel="nofollow">President Obama's Lefty Health Club Band</a><br /><br />Actually quite good when you get to the end.JALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15503869597362866878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-8763899805813456782009-08-13T18:11:02.270-05:002009-08-13T18:11:02.270-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.JALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15503869597362866878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-55564918946668275032009-08-13T18:04:30.186-05:002009-08-13T18:04:30.186-05:00Will we make this 400 without Sarah Palin?Will we make this 400 without Sarah Palin?JALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15503869597362866878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-71447280168956273792009-08-13T18:03:58.130-05:002009-08-13T18:03:58.130-05:00Alex says we have food stamp program as a voucher-...Alex says <i>we have food stamp program as a voucher-program for the poor. Why not adopt the same for health care?</i><br /><br />We do.<br /><br />And you say you are a libertarian?<br /><br />The "health care is a right" schtick is interesting because in the eyes of Obama & Co. it is not really a "right." It's one of those shell games. Now you see it ...<br /><br />If it were a "right" he wouldn't be musing about his grandmother's hip replacement, (it was her "right," right?) or taking a pain pill instead of having heart surgery (or whatever the heck that was about).<br /><br />It is a "right" right now to push the emotional buttons of people who don't want to feel like they are mean people to expect people to take care of themselves. But once it is codified into law there will be hell to pay. It will be just a matter of years before the "right" has to be sacrificed for the "common good."<br /><br />Watch out for the "common good." It isn't common, and it isn't good.<br /><br />And we DO have health care for the poor. Its called medicaid.<br /><br />In general people who qualify for food stamps can access medicaid type programs and the local health department. In Nc we have health departments which provide basic stuff (pap smears, BP checks, physicals etc.) Of course you wait, and it isn't like a private provider. But get used to it. We'll all be pulling numbers under the new plan. <br /><br />Shoot, one of our local non-profits has benn providing acute and "episodic" health care for indigents, uninsured and the underinsured for probably 20 years now. Including meds. They make referrals to the larger medical community when needed.<br /><br />When a "right" depends on someone else doing it for you, is it a right?<br /><br />wv = splogi Soggy gelatoJALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15503869597362866878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-74307047922714159532009-08-13T16:44:20.768-05:002009-08-13T16:44:20.768-05:00@Alex, I'm not particularly amazed.@Alex, I'm not particularly amazed.Big Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15831645119853118904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-47647964362294260422009-08-13T16:32:44.948-05:002009-08-13T16:32:44.948-05:00Alex wrote:
I mean how many people would be for u...Alex wrote: <br /><i>I mean how many people would be for undoing the law that requires emergency rooms to treat anyone</i>?<br /><br />It cost 3 to 4 times as much to treat anybody in an emergency room setting at a doctor's office. I heard this number from a healthcare professional and went and found a link <a href="http://www.fixourhealthcare.ca.gov/index.php/facts/more/6771/" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />When can we have the discussion about the morality of <i>anyone</i> (including the poor)expecting someone else, i.e., doctors and nurses, to work for them for free?<br /><br />My lower middle class neighborhood is filled with people who would take advantage of "free" healthcare if they had a chance.<br /><br />When will we have a frank discussion of human nature and people's tendencies to want to get something for nothing?chickelithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10773887469972534979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-6964409007776349892009-08-13T16:18:39.996-05:002009-08-13T16:18:39.996-05:00It's true I live in a neighborhood of lefties....It's true I live in a neighborhood of lefties.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11205752419540502278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-29003116065039158872009-08-13T16:01:49.535-05:002009-08-13T16:01:49.535-05:00start with your neighbors. Ask them what they thin...<i>start with your neighbors. Ask them what they think about health care as a right</i><br /><br /><i>The average person I know believes health care is a human right and that's that. If you oppose that you are a "cruel person"</i>.<br /><br />You live in the wrong neighborhood, Alex. In places where people who work for a living live they don't think health care is a right and they don't think they are cruel.Big Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15831645119853118904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-7207930783248884822009-08-13T15:38:34.817-05:002009-08-13T15:38:34.817-05:00Yes. I mean, Alex, exactly.
But as annoying as i...Yes. I mean, Alex, exactly.<br /><br />But as annoying as it is what concerns me is that the proliferation of these "rights" is accompanied by a drastic weakening of foundational concepts such as Freedom of Speech.<br /><br />Every one must realize, at some level, that we do not have a "right" to health care no matter how much we don't want to see people not receive care (or go hungry, etc.) If that is what we call a "right" then how profound and how far do we have to go to support Freedom of Speech if it becomes annoying or seems that people are saying things that are not helpful?Synovahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01311191981918160095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-49955566865056178612009-08-13T15:06:26.954-05:002009-08-13T15:06:26.954-05:00What happens when we start calling anything we lik...<i>What happens when we start calling anything we like the sound of or consider a good idea a "right" is that it's very easy to start to think that those other "endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights" sorts of rights are really no different and we can start to decide if people deserve them or not.</i><br /><br />The average person I know believes health care is a human right and that's that. If you oppose that you are a "cruel person". It's interesting how health care is a right, but food is not? I don't see any "universal food coverage", but we have food stamp program as a voucher-program for the poor. Why not adopt the same for health care? I suspect people have been brainwashed to thin that health care is a some super-special right that we mustn't even perform any cost-benefit analysis on.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11205752419540502278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-19692030493014410162009-08-13T15:03:02.955-05:002009-08-13T15:03:02.955-05:00"I think it's important to distinguish be..."<i>I think it's important to distinguish between those things that society chooses to provide to it's people, and those things that people have a right to demand from their society.<br /><br />Maybe that's a distinction without a difference,...</i>"<br /><br />Actually, it's an essential difference.<br /><br />There are "rights". We recognize them as existing apart from and previous to any law. Our constitution attempts to describe those rights, not create or grant them. They are the things that a moral person will or must exercise even if a government or anyone else attempts to take them away and call it "law." (ie. self-defense, freedom of religion, personal sovereignty)<br /><br />What happens when we start calling anything we like the sound of or consider a good idea a "right" is that it's very easy to start to think that those other "endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights" sorts of rights are really no different and we can start to decide if people deserve them or not.Synovahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01311191981918160095noreply@blogger.com