Papa John Is Mad About Obama Care

Im not against government getting involved but what obama is doing is encouraging higher health care prices. The insurance companies will still pay the ridiculous prices because for them nothing has changed except they have more customers.
My dental insurance used to note when my dentist charged to much.
like (filling $ 500. Declined more than customary amount. Amount paid $ 200.) Thats just an example I dont have the actual bill with me. But we should be able to do that.( $10 for an asperin. We should be able to refuse to pay that much being the customary price for an asperin is 50 cents.) prices for insurance would be much cheaper, although I get things like surgery are a bit harder to compare but I bet it can be done.

if obama care was just for kids and my taxes went up for it I would have nothing bad to say about it. But there is st.judes, ronald mcdonalds house, shriners will give rides, your church, local moose lodge. Asking the doctor if you can pay as you get the money (after all most of them took the job to help people)

 

So you have an opinion too.

 

Not to mention the additional government bureaucracy, needed to assure the collection of taxes, compliance, and administration of this gigantic program, including the wages, benefits and pensions provided to political cronies which are likely somewhat higher than the minimum wage.

 

Seeing as you are trying to get this thread back to it's main point, I'll engage you on this one. But first, tell me if you would what you define as a "right" ?

 

It's just a lame excuse to use since he was not for Obama in the first place. This guy would not lose a large amount of money from ObamaCare. Ugh, he makes me sick. I've never liked Papa Johns and don't plan on ordering from there ever. He won't lose anything at all from ObamaCare. He was just trying to make a lame excuse without saying, "Waaa!!! Why didn't Mittin's get the White House?!!!" Ugh, pathetic.

 

Relative to the question I posed, I would define it as being "something to which one is undeniably entitled to receive which can only be provided through the transference of the cost to, or by the efforts of another or others without regard for their consent.

My Originally Posted Question was:

"What's the basis of claim to universal healthcare being a human right?"

 

For those of you who want to get back to the point of the thread.....

Who fucking cares this much? I haven't had his shit in a while, but when I did, they made pretty good pizza, best I've had from a chain.... although then dominoes revamped their shit, because it was disgusting before, and they totally copied papa john's flavor, but... fuck dominoes anyways.

He doesn't like the president, big whoop, almost half of america doesn't.... and you know what? Almost half of america thinks EVERY president is fucking america.

So..... buy the pizza if you want it, if you can't afford it and he raises his price, he'll lose money and lower it again.

I'm glad that he might have to pay a few people's insurance, some people are not glad. I guess we'll have to let the pizza market decide.

 

Only asked because to address your question we'd have to understand what is meant by rights.
This isn't meant to be a leading question, rather, an exercise in thinking on the subject for me. The idea of rights is fundamental to your question.

I would suggest that in this case we're talking about the concept of legal rights. So called 'natural rights' are a different ball game.

So let me propose this. I say that "rights" (like in our bill of rights) are ideas or principles that a group have agreed on. In this case the group being our country.

We have decided that we are to have security in our person and our belongings for instance. Therefore you have a reasonable expectation that your things wont get stolen or you won't get murdered.

By contrast for instance, there are countries where if a woman is raped, she is ostracized. In those places, she does not have 'the right' to security in her person. Or in Britain, you have no automatic right to private gun ownership.

So take away your inserting the idea of cost and wealth redistribution into your reply, would you agree that a human right is a principle that a group has decided on as a principle of society?

I'm not leading you on here, but engaging directly on your question. :sunny:

 

That might require defining what you are claiming to be a human right, and also how you are defining a group, as well as a society.

 

Well as I said...

So since we're talking about Obamacare, the context is our U.S. society.

I'm also intentionally avoiding the term human right, as that implies (to my thinking) alot of the U.N. stuff, which I don't agree is a reason for or against our laws. The U.N. shouldn't be dictating how we write our laws. (seperate argument too)

I'm describing a right as an agreement within our society on a rule of law, such as our bill of rights.

And in that context, to answer your original question, no, there is no "basis of claim to universal healthcare being a human right", in this country.

The problem, as noted above, is that often people equate "human rights" to U.N. resolutions and conventions, and in that political body it has been decided that health care is a universal human right.
I disagree with using U.N. agreements as a basis to claim the right to universal health care in the U.S.

 

Would it not be more precise to use the word 'societies'? We are after all the United States of America, not the Unitary State of America, are we not? U.S. Constitution Article IV, Section 4

I agree.

I tend to agree, although it is my belief that sovereignty begins with the individual(s), and therefore it is the people who are the primary creators of rights which originate locally, and with the consent of others locales can become adapted by their own and other States and in some cases adopted by all States in accordance with the successful amendment process of the U.S. Constitution.

I agree with that also.

 

Splitting hairs. Ok, societies.

We are one country, we're discussing a national issue.

Fair nuff. But this isn't really a sovereignty issue, as I see it, if we're talking about national rights. This isn't an anarchy.
We do have an amendment process and that makes a good point. We as a society decided 18 year olds and women should vote. To prohibit alcohol and then to repeal that.

Now, let's bring health care up for the amendment process, not what we have in Obamacare. Then we could legitimately call it a 'right'.

 

Not splitting hairs at all, it's a very important factor in how our government was founded, as pointed out in Article IV, section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, and the 10th amendment.

Yes, we are one country, currently made up of 50 sovereign States, discussing an 'issue'.

That might be a good idea, but care must be taken as the wording would forever be open to reinterpretation, allowing the Federal government to go far beyond the original intent of the people in giving it power to be exercised over them.

Recognize that those who are in power in the Federal government acquire their position and powers by achieving a majority of the vote in an election. While they may have won by a simple majority, or even a landslide, they still may not have received votes by a majority of the people, and therein lies the reason our Federal government should have limited powers as stated in the 10th amendment.

 

Why do you feel the need to be so obtuse and stonewalling? Are you stating constitutional references for my benefit or for the benefit of other people reading this that you assume aren't familiar with the constitution?

Or are you assuming I don't understand states rights vs federal rights?

This is about Obamacare, and you wanted to discuss the concept of healthcare as a universal "right". It's a national issue. You're just being argumentative.

Just like you're doing with the states rights concept.

You're behaving like a bible thumping fundamentalist, as if somehow you fully understand the original intent of the people in 1787, and furthermore, believe that they were so amazingly wise that they could foresee all that has come to pass in the last 200 years. Surely everything they wrote and believed in the 18th century was carefully worded to take into account life as it is now.
The constitution is perfect in every way. It's only modern evil govt officials that is the problem.
Hogwash.

You're trying so hard to be argumentative that you're contradicting yourself now.
How do you win by simple majority and yet not receive votes by a majority???

And further more, I'm going to assume you understand the electoral college. Or do you insist on ignoring federal "powers" in order to focus your argument on states rights?

So if we're just going to make assumptions about each other here, I'll do that too. I'm going to assume that you have no interest in American's coming together to reach consensus on issues affecting us as a country. That perhaps you live in Texas and argue that you guys never rejoined the union after getting your ass kicked in the civil war and therefore the evil feds have no say in the affairs of your state.
Fuck everyone else in society, leave me alone and don't touch my shit. Did you vote for Romney?

No one's stopping you from dropping out of society, living in a cave and taking care of yourself. You choose to live in a house, in a community, in a state, that is part of the United States. Hide behind your 'sovereign state' rhetoric if you like, it's sounding more and more like anarchy drivel.
Next time you need a wound sewed up by a doctor, take him a couple of chickens for payment, common practice in the 1700's where you are apparently still living.

And one more thing about universal health care...

As a constitution thumping anti-federalist, I'm assuming you don't have a problem with the commander-in-chief ordering our military into Iraq to "defend our country". And to dictate to the Iraqi's what the outline of their "democratic" constitution has to be.

And so I ask you this... after spending trillions of our countrys money, countless men and women killed and permanently wounded, all in the name of the defense of our country... how come Iraqi citizens have the right to universal health care??? It's good enough for this country to insist on it for them but not in America.

http://www.thepragmaticpundit.com/2012/03/we-gave-iraqis-universal-healthcare-why.html

If you don't want to be a part of American society, you're free to go live somewhere where you agree 100%

 

I'm dying without health care.

Thanks, papa john!

 

I'm sure papa john would say, from the comfort of his palace, "who cares?"

 

Rather than engage you in a long, time wasting, unproductive series of posts simply to engage in name calling, I will agree that healthcare is a universal right in which no one should be denied the best care they can afford, or any additional care that another or others are willing to provide or pay for.

Now you can go look for another to engage in perpetual argument if you care.

 

Until I show up there (or someone likes me) to fertilize his big, lovely lawn with a big, lovely Crohn's diarrhea shit everywhere

 

It wasn't name calling on my side until you made thinly veiled assumptions that I don't understand the idea of states rights.

If I'm off base on things in my last post, correct me. Not sure how all of a sudden with my last post you now find it time wasting and unproductive.
What changed ?

From my side, I was trying to engage you on your points, get an understanding of where your strong opinions come from, and meet in the middle. Like we ought to do as a nation, dontcha think?

It's not productive to just say "im going to take my ball and go home" because I challenged some of your points. So seriously, take me to task if I'm way off base.

I agreed that there is no inherent right to universal health care. And agree that it's a dubious argument to take money from one person to pay for another.
However it seems all sides of the issue agree there is a serious problem with health care in the US and rather than run away, you might say what you think would be a step in the right direction.

 

Not that it matters anyway, I guess, because my state opted out of medicaid expansion. The only way to get medicaid here currently is to be pregnant, and fuck that