Isn't Universal Health care guaranteed in the Constitution?

[The Red Herring]

Dermezel

The Ninth Amendment is meant to prevent the government from doing things we would normally consider tyrannical or crazy, or harmful enough to society to begin infringing on social function and our ability to live and act freely.

Surely, if any group qualifies for this position of numerous, organized and well-funded petty tyrants it is the insurance companies.

By putting the general public at the mercy of these petty tyrants, insurance companies, who have a monopoly on a tax-payer subsidized area of the economy, one that represents nearly a sixth of our economy, and has control over life and death I would argue that the US is violating the Ninth Amendment, as that threatens our natural rights and the social compact.

To quote a great protector of the general welfare: "It's illegal."

You were doing okay until this part. You make a huge jump between your reasoning over Madison's intent and that insurance companies are "harmful enough to society to begin infringing on social function and our ability to live and act freely," because you never logically establish this fact- something that various groups will more easily contest.

[agrab0ekim]

well then, states have the right to kill their people under the 10th (not under the 14th, damnit)
and, states have the right to leave under the 10th
and i have the right to kill without punishment under the 9th

just because it reserves rights does not mean that there are more rights

[Lord Cameron]

agrab0ekim

well then, states have the right to kill their people under the 10th (not under the 14th, damnit)
and, states have the right to leave under the 10th
and i have the right to kill without punishment under the 9th

just because it reserves rights does not mean that there are more rights

thats the most insane thing you're ever said...

(I'm going to steal it from you)

[agrab0ekim]

Lord Cameron

agrab0ekim

well then, states have the right to kill their people under the 10th (not under the 14th, damnit)
and, states have the right to leave under the 10th
and i have the right to kill without punishment under the 9th

just because it reserves rights does not mean that there are more rights

thats the most insane thing you're ever said...

(I'm going to steal it from you)

what part was insane and/or are you stealing?
why, the thing says that if there are more rights then they are reserved, not THERE ARE more rights

[Dermezel]

Ash_Strife

Depends on if free healthcare is a right or not.

Well consider the reason why the Ninth Amendment was even made. Madison was responding to objections to the Bill of Rights which basically argued that they would imply other areas were not rights until specified. That is to say, people would assume that anything not specifically listed in the Bill of Rights was not a right, and the government could violate it.

For example, the government could declare it that people do not have a right to "water" or food or other necessities they need to secure their existence and hence liberty. You need to exist in order to have anything like freedom of speech or the right to property.

If health care is essential to these other freedoms, it is a right. And to argue otherwise, is basically just saying that because it was not specifically listed, it is de facto not considered a right, which argues against the entire concept of the Bill of Rights.

[Dermezel]

agrab0ekim

Lord Cameron

agrab0ekim

well then, states have the right to kill their people under the 10th (not under the 14th, damnit)
and, states have the right to leave under the 10th
and i have the right to kill without punishment under the 9th

just because it reserves rights does not mean that there are more rights

thats the most insane thing you're ever said...

(I'm going to steal it from you)

what part was insane and/or are you stealing?
why, the thing says that if there are more rights then they are reserved, not THERE ARE more rights

Did you read the part where Madison was responding to objections to the Bill of Rights? According to your logic unless the Bill of Rights literally spells out every possible rights you can have, those rights should be assumed to be non-existent. So unless the Bill of Rights specifies that you are allowed to drink water, drinking water is not a right. Breathing air is not a right. The Ninth Amendment was meant to cover such basic things as existential rights, because otherwise it could always be objected to on the basis that it is not a complete and exhaustive list of all rights.

[agrab0ekim]

Dermezel

agrab0ekim

Lord Cameron

agrab0ekim

well then, states have the right to kill their people under the 10th (not under the 14th, damnit)
and, states have the right to leave under the 10th
and i have the right to kill without punishment under the 9th

just because it reserves rights does not mean that there are more rights

thats the most insane thing you're ever said...

(I'm going to steal it from you)

what part was insane and/or are you stealing?
why, the thing says that if there are more rights then they are reserved, not THERE ARE more rights

Did you read the part where Madison was responding to objections to the Bill of Rights? According to your logic unless the Bill of Rights literally spells out every possible rights you can have, those rights should be assumed to be non-existent. So unless the Bill of Rights specifies that you are allowed to drink water, drinking water is not a right. Breathing air is not a right. The Ninth Amendment was meant to cover such basic things as existential rights, because otherwise it could always be objected to on the basis that it is not a complete and exhaustive list of all rights.

oh, you are talking about the federalist papers, not the constitution, which DONT MATTER ONE ******** BIT

Existential rights? You mean rights that can not possibly be realized? Rights that involve something otherwise stated in the constituion are covered, but health care is not. YOu are assuming that anything not mentioned is covered, which is bull

[Dermezel]

agrab0ekim

Dermezel

Did you read the part where Madison was responding to objections to the Bill of Rights? According to your logic unless the Bill of Rights literally spells out every possible rights you can have, those rights should be assumed to be non-existent. So unless the Bill of Rights specifies that you are allowed to drink water, drinking water is not a right. Breathing air is not a right. The Ninth Amendment was meant to cover such basic things as existential rights, because otherwise it could always be objected to on the basis that it is not a complete and exhaustive list of all rights.

oh, you are talking about the federalist papers, not the constitution, which DONT MATTER

The Federalist Papers represent the underlying arguments for the Constitution. They are what established the Constitution over the Articles of Confederation. While they may not be the law of the land, they are useful with respect to deciding what the Founding Fathers intended.

agrab0ekim

Existential rights? You mean rights that can not possibly be realized? Rights that involve something otherwise stated in the constituion are covered, but health care is not. YOu are assuming that anything not mentioned is covered, which is bull

Are you arguing that civil-political rights come before existential? Because that is illogical, without the right to exist you cannot realistically practice other rights, such as those of free speech or press.

Or are you arguing that the Bill of Rights as enumerated are completely exhaustive? In other words, are you arguing that every possible and necessary right was covered? Because if so I can name a thousand other rights, just as important as those listed, not specifically mentioned.

[agrab0ekim]

Dermezel

agrab0ekim

Dermezel

Did you read the part where Madison was responding to objections to the Bill of Rights? According to your logic unless the Bill of Rights literally spells out every possible rights you can have, those rights should be assumed to be non-existent. So unless the Bill of Rights specifies that you are allowed to drink water, drinking water is not a right. Breathing air is not a right. The Ninth Amendment was meant to cover such basic things as existential rights, because otherwise it could always be objected to on the basis that it is not a complete and exhaustive list of all rights.

oh, you are talking about the federalist papers, not the constitution, which DONT MATTER

The Federalist Papers represent the underlying arguments for the Constitution. They are what established the Constitution over the Articles of Confederation. While they may not be the law of the land, they are useful with respect to deciding what the Founding Fathers intended.

agrab0ekim

Existential rights? You mean rights that can not possibly be realized? Rights that involve something otherwise stated in the constituion are covered, but health care is not. YOu are assuming that anything not mentioned is covered, which is bull

Are you arguing that civil-political rights come before existential? Because that is illogical, without the right to exist you cannot realistically practice other rights, such as those of free speech or press.

Or are you arguing that the Bill of Rights as enumerated are completely exhaustive? In other words, are you arguing that every possible and necessary right was covered? Because if so I can name a thousand other rights, just as important as those listed, not specifically mentioned.

No, the useful for what ONE founding father wanted, not the rest. Keep that in mind
I am arguing that there are rights to a person which consist of 4 things (Lockovian rights) and nothing more.
I am also arguing that the 9th means that IF there are more rights, then they are protected. You are not proving that Health Care IS a right, as need be

[marinebase7]

Forcing it isn't (not to mention.. no it isn't granted by the Constitution... it may be implied... but no ) :
You will go to jail if you don't get health insurance (it's on Youtube.. the speech is like 2 min. long).

[agrab0ekim]

marinebase7

Forcing it isn't (not to mention.. no it isn't granted by the Constitution... it may be implied... but no ) :
You will go to jail if you don't get health insurance (it's on Youtube.. the speech is like 2 min. long).

and people in jail get free health care, so it hits them there too

[Dermezel]

agrab0ekim

No, the useful for what ONE founding father wanted, not the rest. Keep that in mind

You mean the Founding Father who wrote the Bill of of Rights? I mean that point is the equivalent of arguing that Marx's intent is irrelevant to an examination of the Communist Manifesto because he was only 1 Communist.

agrab0ekim

I am arguing that there are rights to a person which consist of 4 things (Lockovian rights) and nothing more.

1- How was this determined? Maybe those methods are a little outdated seeing as Locke was arguing this in the 1600s.

2- What is the context? This is important because Locke himself may be noting the incompleteness of his analysis.

3- Madison's basis for the Ninth Amendment, again, was in response to an objection made by other Founding Fathers during the creation of the Constitution. Again the objection to the Bill of Rights was that it would be assumed anything not mentioned specifically was not a right. Simply put, your argument is the same as those Federalists, simply in the opposite. According to your logic we may as well have never even had a Bill of Rights.

agrab0ekim

I am also arguing that the 9th means that IF there are more rights, then they are protected. You are not proving that Health Care IS a right, as need be

Well would you say that the right to live is essential to other liberties?

[BlueCollarJoe]

So...you're blowing off George Mason, Thomas Jefferson, the entire congress and numerous others to try and get your point across, even though you know it's a load of s**t?
The Declaration of Independence was authored by one man. But many others had input. How about some integrity?

[agrab0ekim]

Dermezel

agrab0ekim

No, the useful for what ONE founding father wanted, not the rest. Keep that in mind

You mean the Founding Father who wrote the Bill of of Rights? I mean that point is the equivalent of arguing that Marx's intent is irrelevant to an examination of the Communist Manifesto because he was only 1 Communist.

But, the Constitution needed approval of several people, his book didn't. The only way to argue about the constitution is either what is written or what the majority thought, not what one of them thought.

Quote:

agrab0ekim

I am arguing that there are rights to a person which consist of 4 things (Lockovian rights) and nothing more.

1- How was this determined? Maybe those methods are a little outdated seeing as Locke was arguing this in the 1600s.

2- What is the context? This is important because Locke himself may be noting the incompleteness of his analysis.

3- Madison's basis for the Ninth Amendment, again, was in response to an objection made by other Founding Fathers during the creation of the Constitution. Again the objection to the Bill of Rights was that it would be assumed anything not mentioned specifically was not a right. Simply put, your argument is the same as those Federalists, simply in the opposite. According to your logic we may as well have never even had a Bill of Rights.

No, my argument is that health care MIGHT NOT BE one of the rights

Quote:

agrab0ekim

I am also arguing that the 9th means that IF there are more rights, then they are protected. You are not proving that Health Care IS a right, as need be

Well would you say that the right to live is essential to other liberties?

You have a right to life, that does not give a right to health care