| jimlongo wrote on Tue, 11 August 2009 22:38 |
So strange that guns are seen as a "right" but health isn't.
|
Well, odd as it may seem, 'arms' are in the US Constitution but health care is not.
Of course an easy argument is that health insurance didn't exist in 1787 - perhaps an amendment is in order. As it stands, this isn't a Federal power, imo.
| Strummer wrote on Tue, 11 August 2009 22:59 |
Actually, I think the preamble says something about promoting the general welfare?
I heard something in Sunday School about doing unto others as you'd have them do unto you.
I would hope that if hard times came upon me and mine, as they are to millions of people, I could ask you all for help and you would.
|
Indeed, it does, and that clause has been abused for decades to allow growth of the Federal Government beyond the original intent. The general welfare clause is actually quite limited in scope in the US Constitution - it's not about the Federal Government becoming the all-encompassing safety net that some think it is.
And I'm glad you bring up Sunday School here - I dared not do it myself, for fear of being railed against for making this a 'religious issue'. But paying taxes so some inefficient government office can anonymously give money to the needy isn't what 'giving to others' is about - true giving is about blessing someone in need. I'd suggest that the general decline of society (which has been studied over and over - how we as a nation are becoming more withdrawn from one another, even our neighbors, it's widespread) is due, in part, to the fact that we (generally speaking) aren't helping each other face to face, but rather relying more and more each day for some 'entity' to do so, whether that be a church or a government office.
Real charity is done face to face where both parties are blessed.
And I know many here know this personally - I'm not suggesting that anyone here falls into the ever increasingly 'reclusive norm'.
| Jon Hodgson wrote on Wed, 12 August 2009 04:44 |
I don't think it's a right, I think it's a responsibility.
IMHO the question shouldn't be, "do these people have a right to healthcare", it should be "Why is it that people who are willing to give a full day's work cannot afford healthcare, and what are we as a society going to do about it?"
|
I would agree that the government should function to promote the welfare of it's people (within reason). That being said, I don't think this particular approach falls in line with the US Constitution at all.
And like some, I feel that the Constitution is the difference maker. It doesn't really matter to me if something 'seems like a good idea' or was beyond the scope of what the founding fathers could have ever envisioned - unless we change the Constitution (and there are provisions to do so, it's been amended twenty-seven times so far) we have to respect the law. That's what makes us a Representative Republic and not a pure Democracy.
IMO, if we ignore what the Constitution says we may as well throw it out. The previous administration did enough damage to it (as have several in the last 150 years) to last a lifetime.
I've said this over and over, but liberty - true liberty - is dangerous and can be quite ugly if the people are greedy and completely self-absorbed. The US has shown over and over again that we are a giving people - I'd suggest that if the government got out of the way, we the people would do a far better job of helping and equipping folks to improve their lives. I guarantee the almost 20% of my taxes that are spent on entitlement programs would go further if I were the one helping my neighbors.
