Rights vs Entitlements
Nov. 13th, 2009 10:17 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fantastic_jackieI’ve been thinking about this a lot recently. Partly it stems from the healthcare debate, but I’ve also found myself swaying libertarian on economic and scope-of-government issues as I continue on a personal quest to truly examine my actual beliefs and ask the question why.
In the healthcare debate, I’ve found myself faced with the contention that healthcare is a right, and I had to ask myself, “Is it?” My gut always told me no, but I had to stop and really ponder why that was and whether it was really true. If it wasn’t right, then what is a right and what defines one? These are the conclusions I’ve drawn:
The rights listed in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights are not our only rights. To assert such not only limits our freedom, but demonstrates a belief that our rights as free men and women begin only at recognition from a government rather than an intrinsic state of being granted us by our Creator. – And whether that Creator is God or just your parents by your non-religious beliefs is beside the point; it is self evident that we are endowed with them by creation. – The rights listed within the Bill of Rights are comparable to guidelines, thus the reason for the 9th and 10th Amendments. These two essentially say that just because all rights are not listed does not mean they do not exist, and that they are retained by the states and the people.
Now this particular line of thought brought about a tangent I continue to ponder, but ask here anyway: Do rights actually exist? Better phrased, are rights the limiting concept or even function of a governing body, or are they simply a means by which we can recognize, categorize, and define what liberty is? Is compartmentalizing our freedoms into little boxes a means by which governments can limit our Freedom even as the 9th Amendment was meant to prevent that? Even if that’s so, aren’t limits to freedom necessary to a government’s existence? But that’s a digression I won’t get into here.
The initial rights listed in the first few amendments are speech, religion, free press, assembly, to petition, arms (aka guns or otherwise stated protection), due process, trial by jury, etc. We are also protected from things such as eminent domain (Well… we were….), undue search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, etc. Of course, the Declaration of Independence recognizes the three basic rights we have in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (The last which was originally Property but changed so as not to give the South a reason to keep slavery forever.) The question here, examining these stated rights, is why did the Founders specifically mention these? What made them choose these rights and not others, such as healthcare, housing, or jobs? What makes a right a right?
Freedom is the prism through which this should be answered. I do not get my free speech from the government. I need no permission from the government to think, speak, write, or petition. I would never accept a religious handout from Congress. I didn’t expect to receive a gun with my voter’s registration card when I turned 18. As an independent society, we believe that our freedoms end when they infringe upon someone else’s freedom. So then, my rights are my own to provide for, experience, and take advantage of. They are things that speak to my individuality and define, enhance, and even protect it.
Furthermore, my right to a gun does not supersede my neighbor’s right to his property. In other words, how would anyone feel if the NRA and conservatives en masse determined that the government should use tax dollars to ensure that every American citizen was afforded their right to a gun? Would that be considered wrong? I would assert, using the premise of the healthcare debate, that it would not be. To claim such would be the equivalent of denying a man the ability to protect his very life. After all, is not every person entitled to the ability to defend himself against enemies and a tyrannical government? How heartless of you to believe such! It must be your intention to rob that man, rape his wife, and kill his children!! Child killer!!
Of course, I don’t believe this. No conservative does – not that I’ve met, and anyone who does couldn’t possibly claim to be such. It comes down to not a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, but a firm set of principles and values which shape our beliefs.
My right to a gun is not an entitlement. None of my rights are entitlements. It is simply a protection, a safeguard, a sacred claim I have to not be prevented from doing such. My rights are dependent upon no one else except me and my ability to utilize, attain, and maintain them. They are endowed, intrinsic, and self-evident. The very idea that I would be dependent upon someone to express my rights in and of itself limits Freedom and one’s ability to experience it. I am free as you are free, and we do not need each other for such to be the case.
The only rights listed that impose upon others are those regarding your right to a fair trial by jury. Why is that? Do these set a precedent for other rights that impose upon others, such as healthcare? Truthfully, you could follow a path that would conclude an affirmative answer. I believe the case to the negative is the superior argument, though.
The need for a jury, attorney, and trial come down to the necessity for society to have and maintain blind justice. Justice is a facet not only of individuality, but also of society as a whole. I cannot judge myself to be innocent or guilty of a crime I have been charged with; among other things, I could be lying. Yes, I could plead to myself my guilt, but on what grounds would I determine a punishment, if any? A transgression of the law, an imposition upon someone else’s freedom, goes beyond the individual. It involves not only the defendant, but also a victim who also has rights. By its very nature, guilty or innocent, the charge of a crime requires the People to investigate, judge, and fairly determine the truth not only for the victim and defendant, but for the very fabric of the nation. If we do not protect each other’s rights to life and liberty on both sides of the courtroom, then we cannot function as a society.
So, what is a right? Dictionary.com had a decent definition:
It’s not an entitlement; it’s a guarantee. There is a wealth of difference between entitlements and rights – no pun intended. Entitlements require the acquisition of funds from one group of people and the redistribution of those funds to a different set of people. Rights require nothing but the guarantee that you have the protected ability to do them. – Protected in the sense that you cannot be prevented. – Rights are not provided to you; they sit ready for you to take advantage of.
Is healthcare a right? Sure it is, as surely as you have the right to dance and sing on the street about the evils of the federal government. There are no grounds upon which any governing body can (practically should) stand to deny you care for the purpose of saving your very life. That is abhorrently wrong and should never be defended. In actuality, I’ve never heard such a stance defended. But just because it is a right, much like our right to bear arms, it does not translate to an entitlement system of wealth redistribution.
Are healthcare entitlements a guarantee – not right – that need to be offered by governing bodies to protect that right? Well now, there’s a whole new question. ;)
I decided to share this line of thought for a couple of reasons, one of which was to answer the implied questions that all start at the contention that healthcare is a right, as well as to answer that specific question. I also wanted to stress how much thought I put into my political beliefs.
For anyone who has been convinced and even asserted that I simply take my marching orders from talk radio, right wing blogs, Fox News, and a measure of paranoid fears and delusions with no consideration or thought for myself, I hope this post can serve as a measure of proof that such is not the case. These thoughts and all others I’ve made the case for are my own and are not some plagiarized, talking point inspired, half-baked assumptions I’ve stolen for myself with no deliberation.
I put a lot of thought into what I believe, state, and defend; it’s sad I even have to say this. My assumption therefore is and always has been that every person does the same, and I would hope that by choosing to believe such repeatedly, eventually I’ll be paid the same respect and courtesy for my beliefs.
In the healthcare debate, I’ve found myself faced with the contention that healthcare is a right, and I had to ask myself, “Is it?” My gut always told me no, but I had to stop and really ponder why that was and whether it was really true. If it wasn’t right, then what is a right and what defines one? These are the conclusions I’ve drawn:
The rights listed in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights are not our only rights. To assert such not only limits our freedom, but demonstrates a belief that our rights as free men and women begin only at recognition from a government rather than an intrinsic state of being granted us by our Creator. – And whether that Creator is God or just your parents by your non-religious beliefs is beside the point; it is self evident that we are endowed with them by creation. – The rights listed within the Bill of Rights are comparable to guidelines, thus the reason for the 9th and 10th Amendments. These two essentially say that just because all rights are not listed does not mean they do not exist, and that they are retained by the states and the people.
Now this particular line of thought brought about a tangent I continue to ponder, but ask here anyway: Do rights actually exist? Better phrased, are rights the limiting concept or even function of a governing body, or are they simply a means by which we can recognize, categorize, and define what liberty is? Is compartmentalizing our freedoms into little boxes a means by which governments can limit our Freedom even as the 9th Amendment was meant to prevent that? Even if that’s so, aren’t limits to freedom necessary to a government’s existence? But that’s a digression I won’t get into here.
The initial rights listed in the first few amendments are speech, religion, free press, assembly, to petition, arms (aka guns or otherwise stated protection), due process, trial by jury, etc. We are also protected from things such as eminent domain (Well… we were….), undue search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, etc. Of course, the Declaration of Independence recognizes the three basic rights we have in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (The last which was originally Property but changed so as not to give the South a reason to keep slavery forever.) The question here, examining these stated rights, is why did the Founders specifically mention these? What made them choose these rights and not others, such as healthcare, housing, or jobs? What makes a right a right?
Freedom is the prism through which this should be answered. I do not get my free speech from the government. I need no permission from the government to think, speak, write, or petition. I would never accept a religious handout from Congress. I didn’t expect to receive a gun with my voter’s registration card when I turned 18. As an independent society, we believe that our freedoms end when they infringe upon someone else’s freedom. So then, my rights are my own to provide for, experience, and take advantage of. They are things that speak to my individuality and define, enhance, and even protect it.
Furthermore, my right to a gun does not supersede my neighbor’s right to his property. In other words, how would anyone feel if the NRA and conservatives en masse determined that the government should use tax dollars to ensure that every American citizen was afforded their right to a gun? Would that be considered wrong? I would assert, using the premise of the healthcare debate, that it would not be. To claim such would be the equivalent of denying a man the ability to protect his very life. After all, is not every person entitled to the ability to defend himself against enemies and a tyrannical government? How heartless of you to believe such! It must be your intention to rob that man, rape his wife, and kill his children!! Child killer!!
Of course, I don’t believe this. No conservative does – not that I’ve met, and anyone who does couldn’t possibly claim to be such. It comes down to not a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, but a firm set of principles and values which shape our beliefs.
My right to a gun is not an entitlement. None of my rights are entitlements. It is simply a protection, a safeguard, a sacred claim I have to not be prevented from doing such. My rights are dependent upon no one else except me and my ability to utilize, attain, and maintain them. They are endowed, intrinsic, and self-evident. The very idea that I would be dependent upon someone to express my rights in and of itself limits Freedom and one’s ability to experience it. I am free as you are free, and we do not need each other for such to be the case.
The only rights listed that impose upon others are those regarding your right to a fair trial by jury. Why is that? Do these set a precedent for other rights that impose upon others, such as healthcare? Truthfully, you could follow a path that would conclude an affirmative answer. I believe the case to the negative is the superior argument, though.
The need for a jury, attorney, and trial come down to the necessity for society to have and maintain blind justice. Justice is a facet not only of individuality, but also of society as a whole. I cannot judge myself to be innocent or guilty of a crime I have been charged with; among other things, I could be lying. Yes, I could plead to myself my guilt, but on what grounds would I determine a punishment, if any? A transgression of the law, an imposition upon someone else’s freedom, goes beyond the individual. It involves not only the defendant, but also a victim who also has rights. By its very nature, guilty or innocent, the charge of a crime requires the People to investigate, judge, and fairly determine the truth not only for the victim and defendant, but for the very fabric of the nation. If we do not protect each other’s rights to life and liberty on both sides of the courtroom, then we cannot function as a society.
So, what is a right? Dictionary.com had a decent definition:
Right (n) - A just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral. That which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.
It’s not an entitlement; it’s a guarantee. There is a wealth of difference between entitlements and rights – no pun intended. Entitlements require the acquisition of funds from one group of people and the redistribution of those funds to a different set of people. Rights require nothing but the guarantee that you have the protected ability to do them. – Protected in the sense that you cannot be prevented. – Rights are not provided to you; they sit ready for you to take advantage of.
Is healthcare a right? Sure it is, as surely as you have the right to dance and sing on the street about the evils of the federal government. There are no grounds upon which any governing body can (practically should) stand to deny you care for the purpose of saving your very life. That is abhorrently wrong and should never be defended. In actuality, I’ve never heard such a stance defended. But just because it is a right, much like our right to bear arms, it does not translate to an entitlement system of wealth redistribution.
Are healthcare entitlements a guarantee – not right – that need to be offered by governing bodies to protect that right? Well now, there’s a whole new question. ;)
I decided to share this line of thought for a couple of reasons, one of which was to answer the implied questions that all start at the contention that healthcare is a right, as well as to answer that specific question. I also wanted to stress how much thought I put into my political beliefs.
For anyone who has been convinced and even asserted that I simply take my marching orders from talk radio, right wing blogs, Fox News, and a measure of paranoid fears and delusions with no consideration or thought for myself, I hope this post can serve as a measure of proof that such is not the case. These thoughts and all others I’ve made the case for are my own and are not some plagiarized, talking point inspired, half-baked assumptions I’ve stolen for myself with no deliberation.
I put a lot of thought into what I believe, state, and defend; it’s sad I even have to say this. My assumption therefore is and always has been that every person does the same, and I would hope that by choosing to believe such repeatedly, eventually I’ll be paid the same respect and courtesy for my beliefs.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-11-13 10:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-14 12:27 am (UTC)But I forgot to bring in a key element of the debate: the difference between rights and privileges. Now if ever I didn’t know where to begin, that would be it! I think it even comes back to whether rights exist at all when one truly believes in freedom…
no subject
Date: 2009-11-14 01:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-14 03:30 am (UTC)As to your question through the prism of whether I agree, it depends on what you mean by right. If you mean that everyone should have access to it, then we would agree. If your belief is that the government should provide healthcare to its citizens, then we would not agree.
Now I’m not a purist. I think realistically we need to have a safety net of some sort, and I think that maybe the government might even intervene in some catastrophic care. Of course there’s the Catch 22 of creating dependency and instilling a belief that the government will take care of your problems when you can’t... More so, the question becomes the honesty and integrity of our government officials, which I don’t need to tell you are severely lacking. I honestly don’t have any clue how such a system could possibly be set up to accomplish its actual goal without massive abuse and fraud from citizens and especially the government.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-14 11:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-15 06:22 pm (UTC)But just because it is a right, much like our right to bear arms, it does not translate to an entitlement system of wealth redistribution. Are healthcare entitlements a guarantee – not right – that need to be offered by governing bodies to protect that right? Well now, there’s a whole new question. ;)
I'm not sure I entirely agree with a direct comparison between guns and healthcare...I mean, the firearms debate is a loaded issue (pun intended, sorry) in itself... But in any case, this post still made me think and helped me form a lot of my own half-baked thoughts and beliefs into an actual stance.
Up till now I've never taken much of a stance in the healthcare debate, because I do believe that access to affordable healthcare is the right to all people. I don't believe that it's right to look at fellow man and take an Ebenezer Scrooge attitude: "If they'd rather die, they'd better do it, and decrease the surplus population." We're human beings, not animals; we have the capacity to rise above social Darwinism and assist each other without detriment to ourselves. And I also believe that, much as it's to a nation's best advantage that its population be educated, it's also to a nation's best advantage that its population be healthy. The question, I've realized, is not should we have a healthcare system that is more readily available to our poorer citizens, but should the government be the one to provide it? Or rather, is our government even capable of providing quality healthcare to all of our citizens?
We have a government that is, by design, inefficient. When I step back from the emotional side of the debate -- that there are hard-working families who either can't get the care they need, or go into massive debt to get it -- I see that there are ways for those who don't have good insurance, or who have no insurance at all, to get medical care. We have St. Jude's Research Hospital. We have Shriner's Hospitals. I'm sure there are others. They provide world-class medical care absolutely free of charge to families, funded entirely by the charitable donations of Americans. I think that such charities exist and function speaks volumes about the generosity of Americans, the willingness of our people to reach out to those of us in need. We give without coercion, and look what we can achieve.
Could we do more? Absolutely. But could our Federal government, by taxing us, provide that same level of care achieved by charitable organizations? Honestly, I don't know. I doubt it, given the inefficiency of our government -- and the scale of our population. And I also wonder, if a national healthcare system is instituted and funded by taxpayer dollars, if private healthcare providers like St. Jude and the Shriners will be crippled because donors suddenly have less money to give charitably. Would other such charitable organizations even be able to get off the ground?
no subject
Date: 2009-11-15 06:22 pm (UTC)And what about those of us who currently do have good healthcare, who are in positions to pay for the privilege? My husband and I, for example, just signed up for new insurance for the coming year, and we're committing a lot to it to ensure that we have the kind of coverage we might need should I have a complication with my pregnancy, or our baby be born prematurely and require time in ICU or long-term treatment for some birth defect or illness. It's important to us to be able to provide the best care possible for our family, without ruining us financially, and we're confident that with this plan we've chosen, we will both be protected financially and receive the best medical care we can get. Now, I would also like to think that if we couldn't afford this, we could get the help we need, but we don't expect other people to bail us out -- that's why we worked to go to college, worked to get through college, and worked after college to pay off debts and not accrue more debts. We live frugally, we save, we plan, and it's paid off for us. And I do understand that we've been very lucky, while other people just seem to get struck by disaster after disaster and can never get their feet under them...But this is how it is for us, and we can't apologize for that. Nor am I willing to sacrifice the level of care we're able to afford for some system that might or might not provide quality healthcare to everyone. When you come right down to it, my family is more important to me than anyone, and if I have a choice between what I have now and a system that could, potentially, screw us over, leaving us barely, or unable, to provide the care we would wish for ourselves, nevermind giving charitably to those less fortunate...Well, can you really blame me for being hesitant to support that kind of uncertain change?
I don't claim to be an economic expert by any stretch, but I do understand that we benefit from the insurance industry being a competitive industry operating within a free market. If suddenly the government is regulating that market, offering some alternative that takes away that competitive edge, people who worked to afford a certain level of care may well find themselves unable to afford that, and forced to settle for something inferior. And then you have done exactly the opposite of what you set out to do: denied people's right to have access to healthcare.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-16 06:16 pm (UTC)But no. Everyone's still under the lies that it's going to be "free." Only for some people - the same ones that still receive it free today. The rest of us will have to pay for ourseves, those people, AND for the Public Option. - And then we'll all be forced into it.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-16 06:51 pm (UTC)take an Ebenezer Scrooge attitude:
OT, but have you seen it yet? It's really good. It's worth it to see it 3D Imax. Green ghosts withstanding, it is the single most accurate version to Dickens' book I've seen.
The question, I've realized, [...]
There... is not a thing you wrote that I didn't agree with! These are the real questions, the answers to which I believe is big no. - And there are several solid facts, statistics, and principles which attest to that belief. I'm still pondering whether to make a post purely on that case since several of my proofs come from published works. I hope their missing presence here didn't lead you to believe that I'm in favor of Washington's current plans, though!
I suppose the purpose of my post was to namely define that even if healthcare is a right, such a designiation doesn't equate to an entitlement. They use that as a bludgeon in debate: "But healthcare is a right!" To which we really need to be saying, "Yes, and... This means government handout how?" Instead, people backtrack all over themselves, avoiding the quesion while attempting to still mantain that they are, in fact, very compassionate people.
We have a government that is, by design, inefficient.
I would say more by evolution than design, though the Founders' blueprint certainly had its weak points that both parties have exploited. If we were still following the intent of Constitution, - to restrain the government and not the people, - there'd be a whole lot less bureaucracy, spending, and waste.
I think that such charities exist and function speaks volumes about the generosity of Americans, the willingness of our people to reach out to those of us in need.
Indeed, and we've always been like that. This is one of the coolest stories I've ever heard, and about a democrat President!
The year was 1887, and Congress had passed a bill to send money to some farmers in Texas who had been hit with a terrible draught. President Grover Cleveland vetoed the bill and said,
O_O Srsly. Dude was a democrat. What's more is that he further contended that the generosity of the farmers' neighbors would help sustain them through the draught. Not only was he right, but the neighbors charitably contributed 10 times what Congress had passed to help them!
The same was true of Katrina and even in overseas disasters like the massive tidal wave that killed all those people in the far east.
I've got to head to work though; I'll catch the second half later today. ;)
no subject
Date: 2009-11-16 08:03 pm (UTC)I haven't...big plans to go see it with the family the Saturday after Thanksgiving. I have to confess, I have trouble believing any version can ever top A Muppet Christmas Carol, lol. Even though it's silly, I think Michael Caine is the best Scrooge. And...Muppets!
There... is not a thing you wrote that I didn't agree with!
LOL Shocked much? ;)
I hope their missing presence here didn't lead you to believe that I'm in favor of Washington's current plans, though!
Not for a second. ;)
I suppose the purpose of my post was to namely define that even if healthcare is a right, such a designiation doesn't equate to an entitlement. They use that as a bludgeon in debate: "But healthcare is a right!" To which we really need to be saying, "Yes, and... This means government handout how?" Instead, people backtrack all over themselves, avoiding the quesion while attempting to still mantain that they are, in fact, very compassionate people.
YES. Which is really why your post resonated so much with me -- neither side of the debate is entirely wrong, they're just failing to communicate the crux of the problem. One wonders if anyone has actually ever posed the question, "Why should the government pick up the slack here?"
I would say more by evolution than design, though the Founders' blueprint certainly had its weak points that both parties have exploited. If we were still following the intent of Constitution, - to restrain the government and not the people, - there'd be a whole lot less bureaucracy, spending, and waste.
Oh yes, I completely agree. I meant more in the sense that the Constitution intended to set up so many checks and balances that one party or the other couldn't easily make sweeping changes to the Federal government -- that kind of inefficiency. But I guess thankfully since the Federal government is now too powerful, Congress has just descended into chaos so no one can get a bloody thing passed now, lol.
That's a very cool story about old Grover! Thanks for sharing. I certainly can't fault the democrats for their compassion -- and I do lean more toward the bleeding heart side of issues myself -- but you can't govern based on emotion, can you?
no subject
Date: 2009-11-17 03:01 pm (UTC)so I'm not entirely against such a system.
Obviously both systems work to accomplish the basic goals of healthcare and keeping the population healthy. I wish people would acknowledge this instead of rushing to tear down any good things about the other system, as if it simply can't be acknowledged. There's no one solution to any problem. - Just better solutions to problems. Like ones that don't involve giving up all our freedoms...
Why is it single-payer proponents spend so much time and energy building a case that denies even the integrity and honesty of private healthcare only to rush to a first defense that the choice will still exist? Shouldn't such a system be outlawed altogether if their arguments have any merit? Shouldn't they support it being outlawed altogether if they really believe doctors without government will take your feet and your child's tonsils for profit?
Of course, I still support a safety net, because I don't believe a utopia, left or right, will ever exist. But it should still be charitable contributions, not an appropriation of public funds. I'd say some program run by the private sector with oversight by the government. Reason: The private sector engages in profit, not revenue, so they sort of tend to place more value on a dollar than the government. You read the amounts of money the government will spend on things like turtle bridges (Yes. Bridges for turtles. Complete with little lit pathways. Millons.) and toilet seats and come to one of two conclusions: Either the government is engaging in frauding the American public and these dollars aren't going to these projects, OR Congress has absolutely no concept of money because they know they can just ask the Treasury and the Fed (*twitch*) to print more or buy the debt.
And what about those of us who currently do have good healthcare, who are in positions to pay for the privilege? [...] And then you have done exactly the opposite of what you set out to do: denied people's right to have access to healthcare.
Exactly! We worry about healthcare specifically for Terri, and by extension of empathy, all chronic patients. There's a provision in the bill, for instance, for having too many tests run. Doctors get charged a fine. She has to have periodic blood tests among other things, and needs to be able to see a doctor on a regular basis as well as at any given moment, so we're talking about patients being punished -because the doctors will have to pass along the costs, and when you shove X million into the system with no new doctors, there are going to be waits- for maintaining their health! As diseases progress in people with chronic conditions, their medication needs become more defined and extreme: Will the government be willing to pay for state-of-the-art treatments to help them? Or will that care be rationed?
It sounds so altruistic to say everyone should be covered, especially when no one they know is really sick, but at what cost? Is that cost even sustainable? Is that goal even achievable? None of the bills in Congress can even accomplish that goal and look how much it costs already --in government estimates which are ALWAYS wrong!
no subject
Date: 2009-11-17 03:12 pm (UTC)LOL! I agree wholeheartedly! I told my mom that when we left the theater! I don’t think any version will ever displace that one. But the Disney one is very close to the book, so it’s now my very close second. ;)
LOL Shocked much? ;)
Haha! Not really. It is rare treat though when you’re constantly fighting the one side and skeptically discerning the truth from the pandering on the other. (I realized last week that I have sent over 300 letters to Congress this year!! @_@)
neither side of the debate is entirely wrong,
Wow. This whole echoing thoughts thing is cool. 8)
I think the reason that question hasn’t been asked is because we’re still so partisan in our thinking as a nation. We’re afraid to really examine the other side for fear of what we might find out – such as my reversal of healthcare being a right – so people haven’t stopped to think that deeply to figure out the simplest of questions.
I do wonder what would happen if I was to pose that question at the forum I hang out at. It’s a well balanced one with plenty of repubs, dems, libs, cons, libertarians, anarchists – even a couple socialists and communists. It’s a pity I don’t have time to do it; they would become mighty irritated if I dropped the question and didn’t stick around!
so no one can get a bloody thing passed now, lol.
It's better that way, though!! - But they certainly didn't have a tough time giving themselves a raise, passing the stimulus and bailouts, enacting retroactive taxes on corporations... Considering that track record and the new taxes and revenue the healthcare bill promises, we should probably be a little worried! It hands out money and pulls money in while expanding the government all at the same time - a win win win for Congress!
That's a very cool story about old Grover!
Apparenly he vetoed a ton of spending during his Presidency. I haven't had a chance to read more into him, but if there are more stories like that, he may just become my new favorite President!
but you can't govern based on emotion, can you?
I asked once what made it any different than governing from one’s religion. ... Yeah, they didn’t take that well. LOL
no subject
Date: 2009-11-17 08:06 pm (UTC)Hm. Wonder if that has anything to do with this (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/OnCallPlusBreastCancerNews/mammogram-guidelines-spur-debate-early-detection/story?id=9099145)? (If you're short on time, basically, it's that the US Preventive Services Task Force (a panel that has no oncologists on it) is recommending that women under the age of 50 should not get mammograms, and women over 50 should only get them every other year. They also recommend that women not perform self-breast exams. I thought this was bizarre when I read it, but in light of what you say, it could potentially be downright alarming...
Will comment more on the rest later.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-17 10:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-17 11:01 pm (UTC)