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.
>>You’re almost right. If it’s a right, it is a right in that government cannot prevent you from purchasing health care. It doesn’t mean that it has to be provided to you for free. Free speech is a right, but that doesn’t mean that the government has to provide you with your own personal radio station or newspaper. It just means that it cannot stop you from saying or publishing what you want. You have a right to personal firearms, but don’t expect the government to provide you with one for free so you aren’t discriminated against.<<
I don’t know... if we issued each household a shot gun there would probably be a lot less home invasions, at least there would be fewer repeat offenders...
If nobody is to be discriminated against, as Senator Clinton is claiming, then why are Democrats always trying to raise taxes on the rich?
Also, regarding Hillary Care, Senator Clinton is in contempt of the Constitution. She is in contempt because she is ignoring that the Constitution currently does not authorize the federal government to address health care issues. In fact, Thomas Jefferson reflected on the Founder's division of federal and state government powers by noting that the Founders trusted the states, not the federal government, with the care of people.
"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the care of our persons, (emphasis mine) our property, our reputation and religious freedom." --Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801. ME 10:262 http://tinyurl.com/onx4jNote that the states can always exercise their Article V powers to amend the Constitution to properly authorize the federal government to deal with health care. But until the states choose to do so, given that the federal Constitution says nothing about health care, health care remains a 10th A. protected state power issue.
In fact, regarding proposed Hillary Care, this post (<-click), while addressing a tax-related thread, explains in more detail why slick politicians like Clinton are foolishly following in the footsteps of FDR's dirty federal spending politics.
The bottom line is that the people need to wise up to the MAJOR problem of a federal government that is not operating within the restraints of the federal Constitution, a consequence of FDR's dirty politics. Bluntly put, the people need to quit sitting on their hands and send big-shot, constitution-ignoring federal spenders like Clinton and Obama home instead of trying to put people like them in the Oval Office.
Kagen told a group of activists that after he found himself in the restroom with Rove, he blocked the White House deputy chief of staff’s departure by holding the door closed. According to Kagen, he then said: “You’re in the White House and you think you’re safe. . . . My name’s Dr. Multimillionaire and I kicked your ass.””
If I were the Secret Service, I would consider this action a “threat” to the VP, and I would incarcerate and charge this bozo.
I was raised in Wisconsin when it really was dairy farms. Things sure have gone off the rails since I lived there.
"...Being necessary for the security of a free state,..."
No, that's not it.
How about "...to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,...."
No, that ain't it either....
Let's try "...the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial...."
or "The right of the citizens of the United States to vote...."
Funny but I don't see any mention of a right to Health Care (and especialy health care paid for by somebody else, which is what the commie/liberals want).
Clearly, Constitutional Law at her law school involved a different document than I recall. It is cause to be very afraid. Based on what she has been willing to do to anyone in her way, we all have reason to fear.
Those of us who, through direct payment or our insurance plans, pay the cost of the freeloaders.
End discrimination NOW!
Flat chested girls - rise up and demand your constitutional rights to free silicone implants.
150 million American men are on your side!
Relying on SCOTUS isn't advisable. The Second Amendment was written for a reason, and that reason ain't huntin'.
The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness....”
In Hillary’s view, anything that is in pursuit of Happiness is ‘Constitutional’ whether to have an abortion, to smoke dope or ingest narcotics, to pursue sexual pleasure at will, or to obtain medical care any time day or night whenever you want to under her universal plan...in her view anything that produces pleasure is an ‘inalienable right’...Other reasonable men and women have thought otherwise through the centuries..She is wrong in her thinking..
Yup. Amendment 2 trumps AND PROTECTS all the others.
So that government by the doctors, for the doctors, and of the doctors shall not perish from the earth. Didn’t somebody say that already?
The answer to your question is contained in your initial statement, “The Constitution is a limit on government.” The government cannot grant a right to something that it is not entitled to control. Rights come from our creator. Enforcement of those rights, is not always a function of government.
Medical treatment is a service provided by private individuals to others. To make treatment a right, you must take the choice to treat away from the provider. The degree to which taxpayers are willing to subsidize these contracts is an unnatural inflationary pressure on the cost of the service. Funny, I never see them whine about the increasing costs of publicly subsidized education. Could that be because the educators are part of the Marxist plot?
“Well, since hardly anyone reads the Constitution, and even if they did, the art of critical thinking is rather lost these days”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have masterfully understated the true gravity of the situation!
Something to check in to , don’t want to sell the fella short ,for some odd reason I’ve seem to have heard that expression,thanks for bringing it up.
[Justice Washington in Corfield, 1825] endorsed the colonial-era conception of the terms "privileges" and "immunities," concluding that Article IV encompassed only fundamental rights that belong to all citizens of the United States.4 Id., at 552.
--Justice Thomas
___________________________
"The inquiry is, what are the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states?" We feel no hesitation in confining these expressions to those privileges and immunities which are, in their nature, fundamental; which belong, of right, to the citizens of all free governments; and which have, at all times, been enjoyed by the citizens of the several states which compose this Union, from the time of their becoming free, independent, and sovereign."
What these fundamental principles are, it would perhaps be more tedious than difficult to enumerate. They may, however, be all comprehended under the following general heads: Protection by the government; the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety; subject nevertheless to such restraints as the government may justly prescribe for the general good of the whole. The right of a citizen of one state to pass through, or to reside in any other state, for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise; to claim the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; to institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the state; to take, hold and dispose of property, either real or personal; and an exemption from higher taxes or impositions than are paid by the other citizens of the state; may be mentioned as some of the particular privileges and immunities of citizens, which are clearly embraced by the general description of privileges deemed to be fundamental: to which may be added, the elective franchise, as regulated and established by the laws or constitution of the state in which it is to be exercised.
These, and many others which might be mentioned, are, strictly speaking, privileges and immunities, and the enjoyment of them by the citizens of each state, in every other state, was manifestly calculated (to use the expressions of the preamble of the corresponding provision in the old articles of confederation) "the better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states of the Union."
--Justice Washington, Corfield
Please garnish my wage Hillary you socialist pig. Don’t we pay for everything now?......They want more out of a dry stone- same old liberal re-tread but a different suit (one black - one lesbian) .
I’m not sure its healthy for you to so suppress your feelings about Hillary. :)
Is that the same Constitution that guarantees a woman’s “right” to murder her unborn child? I strongly suspect it is....
No, I don’t they won’t find it “as plain as day in the constitution.” Instead, they’ll find it in the penumbras, auras, emanations and dark recesses of the constitution — the same place they found all other liberal social law-making that could never get past an elected legislature.
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.