The people that end up paying for the "life threatening condition" or the "labor".
Posted on 02/22/2008 4:36:57 PM PST by Daffynition
Hillary Clinton just raised her campaign pledge for universal health care to the level of a new Constitutional right, telling a crowd in De Pere, Wis., today that the way things stand in America it’s OK to discriminate against the sick.
It’s actually an idea being floated by Wisconsin Rep. Steve Kagen, a doctor who introduced Clinton here at St. Norbert’s College. (She gave him credit.)
But Hillary embraced it wholly, and made it her own.
“Under our Constitution, no one is supposed to be discriminated against. That’s part of our values, that’s our law in America. Except sick people can be discriminated against,” she said, recouting Kagen’s argument, which he plans to try and turn into legislation.
“When you’re sick you can lose your insurance; when you’re sick, you can be charged so much more that you can’t pay for it,” before segueing into her own familiar litany of people’s health care tragedies, and apparently embracing Kagen’s concept.
“We have to start asking ourselves, ‘Do we want to enshrine discrimination in our health care system, the one area where of our lives where we’re most vulnerable?’” Clinton told the crowd.
“The Constitution says you can’t discriminate against somebody because of what color they are or what religion they are,” she went on. “Why is it OK to discriminate against somebody who is born with a heart defect, or who is diagnosed with prostate cancer?
“I think it’s time we say, ‘We’re not going to let the health insurance industry say who lives and who dies.and who gets health care in this country,” she concluded to applause that drowned out her final words.
Rep. Kagen, it seems, is onto something in his district around Green Bay.depereA021808.jpg For her part, Clinton has talked about health care being a moral right, but we can’t recall her ever elevating it to the Constitutional level before. We’re betting we hear more of this from her.
Our rights are God given and the Constitution outlines limits on the federal government. The Bill of Rights outlines things the government can't do and was never intended to list all our rights. Hillary is full of it.
Article 1, Section 8. It’s all very clear, if she ever bothered to read it.
For me, rights are just a recognition of free-will and individual liberty. There is no right to security, but you do have a right to secure yourself, your family, and property to the best of your ability. There is no right to be healthy, but there should be a recognition of individual pursuit of health or rejection of it (to me, a law against fast food is as immoral as a law against exercise - the intended consequence of the law means nothing compared to its treatment of free-will).
The only rights that can be conditional on government action are the ones that limit governments’ arbitrary powers - like requiring a warrant for search & seizure.
BTW, 9th 10th amendments are my favorites.
It is only a matter of time before George Washington is replaced with Karl Marx as the father of this nation.
Not only am I afraid I am heartbroken that drivel like this from both her and BHO is championed by so many.
This is NOT the dream our forefathers had in mind!!
I sense that you replied to the wrong poster.
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and
provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of
the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises
shall be uniform throughout the United States;
I think it comes right after the “Right to Drive” amendment.
The people that end up paying for the "life threatening condition" or the "labor".
Of course, in a sane world the notion that something is a right is not equated with the idea that the government should tax the populace at large and distribute the revenues to pay for the means to exercise the right.
Freedom of press is a right explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. Before we tax everyone to provide the means to exercise a ‘right’ to health care, the same logic would demand that anyone who wants to publish a newspaper should receive a government subsidy to do so.
With the Founder’s understanding of rights, one might very well adduce a ‘right to health care’ from the Constitution, meaning only that the government has a responsibility to not pass laws which would prevent people from engaging physicians or seeking other medical treatment. Of course the goverment does quite the opposite by banning drugs found to be therapeutic in oversea clinical trials, regulating traditional healers, placing onerous requirements on midwives, and the like.
In a sane world, ‘health care’ means access to treatment. All Americans have access to health care, since there are requirements for the provision of emergency treatment with the cost borne by the hospital if the patient is indigent, and all Americans can pay a physician or go to clinics where physicians do pro bono work,
Of course, in the lunatic world of the left, ‘health care’ means ‘health insurance’, and a ‘right’ to it seems to mean an obligation to buy it.
Plainly if the demonRATs had their way, anything which is not forbidden would be compulsory.
>>Food and shelter are even more fundamental than healthcare.
But does that mean that we all get the same menu or same accomodations regardless of ability to pay?<<
Exactly.
Well, let’s hear it for housing. And transportation. And while we’re at it, we can look to Europe for guidelines regarding our constitutional rights.
Than national healthcare. I will be able to afford the above long before I will be able to afford Hillarycare.
JP
I don’t know what it is, but everytime I see a picture of her, I think “high class call girl”.
What does Toast know of the Constitution?
The Bill of Rights is not a full listing of our rights that is why the 9th and 10th are included. I know our rights are God given but how do we determine what are rights and what are merely privleges? The 9th seems to open up almost anything as a right to us as long as the Consitution does not allow the govt to limit or regulate whatever “it” is.
9th amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
In other words there are some out there that were not included by the founders.
I’ve asked attorneys this and have not gotten a satisfying answer.
ML/NJ
Since Canada and England have people dying from socialized medicine, and we don’t have many cases of people dying for lack of capitalist care, I would argue that socialized medicine DEFINITIVELY DEPRIVES CITIZENS OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE, thus IS UNconstitutional.
I have to treat all pts whether they have insurance or not. I treat several uninsured patients daily. There is no discrimination
I will NOT work for Hilary or Obama under a socialized medicine plan. IF she pushes this through, good luck finding physicians to treat the patients. (at least competent ones)
Because it's not *discrimination*, Senator Bubble-head... it's an accident of Nature.
----
They're starting to push this collective crapola just a bit too far, IMHO!
Okay then. If health care is a constitutional right, does that mean a certain number of people have an obligation under the constitution to go medical school so they can provide for my health care?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.