Poll

Select your preferred candidate(s) for U.S. President

Donald Trump
1 (4.8%)
Some other Republican
1 (4.8%)
Third Party
1 (4.8%)
Joe Biden
1 (4.8%)
Elizabeth Warren
5 (23.8%)
Bernie Sanders
1 (4.8%)
Pete Buttigieg
2 (9.5%)
Kamala Harris
2 (9.5%)
Andrew Yang
1 (4.8%)
Some other Dem candidate (e.g. Klobuchar, Booker, Castro, etc)
3 (14.3%)
Some other Dem not yet in the race (e.g. Clinton, Bloomberg, Abrams, etc)
0 (0%)
A literal pile of rotting meat
2 (9.5%)
Jake/Pence 2020
1 (4.8%)

Total Members Voted: 8

Voting closes: November 03, 2020, 02:48:43 PM

Author Topic: Election 2020  (Read 1648 times)

charlie

  • Jackass In Charge
  • Posts: 7570
  • Karma: +84/-53
Re: Election 2020
« Reply #105 on: November 22, 2019, 01:47:56 PM »
I'm not sure that makes sense to look at it that way, though.

There are different ways to pay for universal coverage, none proposed so far come close to adding an additional 20% tax on anybody.

But more importantly, in the scenario where everybody went on medicare, you would be on medicare also and would no longer be paying thousands of dollars a year in medical costs. Between the amount I pay in premiums and copays and the amount my employer pays, that's getting pretty close to 20% of my income. That's means my tax rate would have to increase to by 30-40% for me to actually have to have an additional 20% of my income go to solving this problem.

KnuckleBuckett

  • Jackass In Charge
  • Posts: 8568
  • Karma: +26/-259
  • [url=http://google.com]I search a lot[/url]
Re: Election 2020
« Reply #106 on: November 22, 2019, 06:55:05 PM »
Ben.  Just because something might or might not be a good idea morally or ethically does not make it a right.  You might want it to be, but read the Constitution and Bill of Rights, it isn't in there.

Yes. The healthcare system here has major issues. I think we agree on this.  My wife has made a career in this system.  I get it.  Higher taxes aren't the way to remedy these issues.  We in the US already spend enough on healthcare.  Maybe doing a better job with the money already apportioned for this might be a place to start.  Get the damned money to the people that need it.  Start here. 

KnuckleBuckett

  • Jackass In Charge
  • Posts: 8568
  • Karma: +26/-259
  • [url=http://google.com]I search a lot[/url]
Re: Election 2020
« Reply #107 on: November 23, 2019, 08:03:10 AM »
We have had several amendments in "modern" times.  The most recent in the 90s.

Mike

  • Ass Wipe
  • Posts: 10663
  • Karma: +168/-32
  • Ex Asshole - a better and more caring person.
Re: Election 2020
« Reply #108 on: November 23, 2019, 11:20:39 AM »
We have had several amendments in "modern" times.  The most recent in the 90s.
The one ratified in 1992 was submitted to the states was submitted in 1789 and had to do with delaying congressional salary changes.  Yeah, the paragon of modern issues.

But let's look at what else has been ratified in the last 50 years:
* Lowers the voting age to 18 (26th - 1971)

Oh jeez, how about the last 100
* Presidential succession (25th - 1967)
* Prohibits poll taxes (24th - 1962)
* Grants DC electors (23rd - 1961)
* Term limits for president (22nd - 1951)
* Repeals 18th amendment (21st - 1933)
* Changes start date for congress and president (20th - 1933)
* Women's right to vote (19th - 1920)
* Alcohol bad (18th - 1919)

Really, looking at the list of amendments most of the after the initial 10 don't deal with new issues but instead just tweak the existing rules.

Quote
You might want it to be, but read the Constitution and Bill of Rights, it isn't in there.

You may want to read the 9th amendment:
> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

So, just because it isn't in the Constitution doesn't mean it isn't a right.

micah

  • A real person, on the Internet.
  • Jackass In Charge
  • Posts: 6544
  • Karma: +57/-55
  • Truth cannot contradict truth.
    • micahj.com
Re: Election 2020
« Reply #109 on: November 23, 2019, 04:30:29 PM »
The only inalienable rights we have are the God-given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The other "rights" in the constitution are limits on government affording us Freedom; the amendments are not granting the people any new privileges that we would not already have if we were not governed.

The rights to free speech, or to assemble or protest, or petition congress, or carry a gun, or not have your property taken or your home searched without cause, are not free gifts granted by government that you would otherwise not have were there no government; instead, they are freedom from government.  They are laws to prevent oppression.   "Free healthcare" or "Free college" are NOT RIGHTS. 
« Last Edit: November 23, 2019, 04:50:26 PM by micah »
"I possess a device, in my pocket, that is capable of accessing the entirety of information known to man.  I use it to look at pictures of cats and get in arguments with strangers."

Mike

  • Ass Wipe
  • Posts: 10663
  • Karma: +168/-32
  • Ex Asshole - a better and more caring person.
Re: Election 2020
« Reply #110 on: November 23, 2019, 08:16:44 PM »
I would think that the right to life implies the ability to seek medical aid.  And, if the ability to seek that aid is curtailed by going into financial ruin then we are not supporting that right nor the right of liberty.

I find it morally and ethically reprehensible that the collective response is "don't be poor".

micah

  • A real person, on the Internet.
  • Jackass In Charge
  • Posts: 6544
  • Karma: +57/-55
  • Truth cannot contradict truth.
    • micahj.com
Re: Election 2020
« Reply #111 on: November 23, 2019, 09:03:11 PM »
I would think that the right to life implies the ability to seek medical aid.  And, if the ability to seek that aid is curtailed by going into financial ruin then we are not supporting that right nor the right of liberty.

I find it morally and ethically reprehensible that the collective response is "don't be poor".

Yes, the right to life and liberty completely means you have the ability to seek medical aid.  And if the government was going to make a law that said only certain people could seek medical help, or that only some medical procedures could be allowed (yes, that's an abortion concession I'm making) then that WOULD be a violation of our rights.  I also agree 100% that if cost or some other factor curtails the ability to seek aid that it totally sucks.  But we (this group) were talking about rights guaranteed by the constitution and my point was that the bill of rights is there to stop the government from interfering in freedom.   Just like you can't yell fire in a theater or carry a gun at Six Flags; the bill of rights does not guarantee or defend your personal rights from anyone other than the government.
"I possess a device, in my pocket, that is capable of accessing the entirety of information known to man.  I use it to look at pictures of cats and get in arguments with strangers."

charlie

  • Jackass In Charge
  • Posts: 7570
  • Karma: +84/-53
Re: Election 2020
« Reply #112 on: November 23, 2019, 11:00:18 PM »
I'm with Knuck and Micah on the rights vs privilege thing. I don't consider healthcare a right.

Mike

  • Ass Wipe
  • Posts: 10663
  • Karma: +168/-32
  • Ex Asshole - a better and more caring person.
Re: Election 2020
« Reply #113 on: November 23, 2019, 11:15:33 PM »
I would think that the right to life implies the ability to seek medical aid.  And, if the ability to seek that aid is curtailed by going into financial ruin then we are not supporting that right nor the right of liberty.

I find it morally and ethically reprehensible that the collective response is "don't be poor".

Yes, the right to life and liberty completely means you have the ability to seek medical aid.  And if the government was going to make a law that said only certain people could seek medical help, or that only some medical procedures could be allowed (yes, that's an abortion concession I'm making) then that WOULD be a violation of our rights.  I also agree 100% that if cost or some other factor curtails the ability to seek aid that it totally sucks.  But we (this group) were talking about rights guaranteed by the constitution and my point was that the bill of rights is there to stop the government from interfering in freedom.   Just like you can't yell fire in a theater or carry a gun at Six Flags; the bill of rights does not guarantee or defend your personal rights from anyone other than the government.

Just to be clear, I was arguing that Knuck's argument that healthcare isn't a right because the constitution doesn't enumerate it is just plain wrong given the 9th amendment.  The constitution doesn't enumerate all rights.

charlie

  • Jackass In Charge
  • Posts: 7570
  • Karma: +84/-53
Re: Election 2020
« Reply #114 on: November 23, 2019, 11:23:42 PM »
I do believe a goal of modern, wealthy society should be to ensure its citizens* have access certain basic "privileges". In other words, one goal of the government should be to "promote the general welfare".

I personally believe that can include access to food, shelter, basic healthcare and an iPhone.

The iPhone part was a joke, but I don't think there should be a hard and fast rule on what the "general welfare" includes. I think it should depend on the will of the people and the ability of the society to provide the "privilege" weighed against the cost (not just in money but in how it affects the privileges of other citizens). Most of our citizens agree that we can afford to ensure everybody in the U.S. has access to food and shelter. In my opinion I think we can also ensure all people in the U.S. have reasonable access to healthcare.

In other words, the question of whether it's a right or a privilege is moot for me. Food and shelter aren't rights either. But we should have it as a goal of our society to ensure they are available for every person here. I think we can do a much better job of it without significant cost if the government takes a larger role.

Mike

  • Ass Wipe
  • Posts: 10663
  • Karma: +168/-32
  • Ex Asshole - a better and more caring person.
Re: Election 2020
« Reply #115 on: November 23, 2019, 11:27:20 PM »
Sorry it took so long to respond, it has been a really long week.

Or why shouldn't schools educate students on the impacts of LGBTQ people? 

because I don't think that it is necessary to stress that this person was gay, or that person was black, yellow, white, whatever. I think we should stress the importance of that person and what they have done, instead of what it says on their facebook profile...constantly having breaking down people into groups has might have an adverse effect - and I think it does. It just points out how different we are, where I think that the point would be to show how similar.

This is because you are part of the majority culture.  It is easy for us to go "focus on what is the same between us" when we aren't being ignored and beaten down.  I think it is important to intentionally show the works and contributions of the minority cultures so that we can lift them up and show that - while different - they are deserving of respect and dignity.

I was recently thinking about a story I saw about a black kid being shown a Miles Morales comic and his reaction to seeing someone that looked like him as Spider Man.

That said, some people in all groups are just dicks and will blame everyone else.

Side note: I do find it interesting on how the definition of "white" has changed over the last century. At some point the Irish and Italians (and certainly not the Poles) weren't considered white.  Then the term solely grew to encompass more and more European groups.  It is also interesting how that definition shifts depending on the part of the country.  Like, around here you'd be white but I've seen evidence of other parts of the country that would not include Polish people in their definition of white.