Sub Optimal coverage? The people on Meidcaid are the most vunerable among the population and they are the ones with the most health issues. They would be dead if it wasn't for Medicaid.
Before they had these programs people without money died.
i love alan grayson this idea that this legislation is somehow taking away are right is ludicris we are under the control of the ins companys and the corporations we need a puplic option a single payer system it would save this country so much money i hope and pray that people will wake up to the truth
Grayson totally schooled that girl in the beginning, what a shame she was cute too. However, she has been brain-washed to think that a cancer patient can just stroll into the E.R. and get Chemo-therapy, wake up you stupid B! Just take the bronze plan and shut up, it is freedom you dummy, why don't you listen to the congressman, people do not want the freedom to die... If she wasn't cute Grayson probably wouldn't give her as much time.. Nice, give your name to my roadie and well be in touch.
speaking from the point of view and biases of a privileged white woman. Notice how she doesn't seem to care about not getting hired for women's insurance costs.
If you are concerned with my obcene words, think about the obscene things that our world leaders. And by the way. I think that genocide, apathy, corporate greed,and no compassion are way worse than what I said. It's not being able to get medical attention, and prevenative medicine. But the hospital conglomorates, and insurance companys don't want us to have any easy access to health care. Further more, all of the people supporting big buisness. Should take a look at how, they exported jobs.
OMG! It's a Jr. Sara Palin. This stupid bitch Don't have a clue. I hope someday you face one of your kids being sick with no insurance. This dumb cunt sides with the insurance co. Look what AIG brought us. Maybe she should live in the real world. She has been born with a silver spoon. The tea party is only afraid that the average person might get something that they have. I don't normally swear like this, but these lamebrained fools are fucked up!!!
@guitarman82656 Your swear words totally diminish your arguments and make you sound like a misogynist. Are you? Anyway you should check yourself in and get that fixed. You can easily remove this comment yourself and if you like post something more respectable and worthy - or leave it up as an example of what not to say.
@guitarman82656 Don't be such a fool. Medicare and medicaid already provides healthcare for those that can't afford it. Stupid twats like you are why America and the world is bankrupt. We can't afford your stupidity.
I appreciate this ladys calmness and professional dialogue with the congressman. Although I don't agree, I feel that people who see a conversation like this then we are more likely to form our own opinion.
@erscott13 Listen, I am a progressive and tend to agree with Mr. Grayson on virtually every political issue, but to claim that the woman in the video was ill-informed (which is the implication, as she is the only "tea-party" representative in the video) is truly dishonest. It is possible to disagree with someone who is intelligent, even if they are wrong in their conclusions.
@Fergit3 Mr. Grayson makes it clear that this lady is NOT well-informed. For example, when she claims everyone has access to health care through emergency rooms and he points out that people with cancer can't get chemo in ERs.
poor americans like that woman.. stubbid american if you just would vote with your brain and not by whom adds you most see on TV. Grason made that poor voman look soooo stubbid and simply minded
On Slavery in the Constitution I suggest reading Dorothy Hodgson's "Domesticating the World", it specifically talked about how "Imported People" was a term popularized in the 1600's and 1700's to give a more palatable taste to slave language.
If you want to see into the eyes of the founding fathers, look at James Madisons Federalist #43, where he notes that the governments ability to suppress riots would be most helpful to keep blacks from seizing political power. This was the argument used on the floor of the convention as to why the government should have that power.
8) A right is a reflexive property of life, that with which we are born, not "given" by another.
9) Of the basic rights, health care is not among them, as it requires a infringement of another person's rights in order to be a right
10) The point of the Great Awakening, the Enlightenment, the Reformation and the American Experiment was "man governing himself", implying the freedom to do so and individual enpowerment though liberty
8. All rights other than Life and Dignity are socially constructed. See Hobbes on this. Without a social contract system there is no protection of any right. Society grants the right to property, freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc, as those are not base rights in nature. Only exist within the society.
9. The right to life hinges on health care. It does not infringe upon the rights of others. In fact the denial of health care is an infringement on the right to life of the sick.
@SeriphArcher 8) Life is given at birth by God, Nature or the Cosmos, not man. Possesion/Property is the only way to sustain life, so if one can make something or obtain something, it is theirs to keep. Movement is a right to allow you to seek a place to maintain your rights. Preservation is a right, because it maintains your rights through protection from others taking your possetions, life or stop your movement. Thought is a right, for it manages your other rights. These all exist in Nature.
@SeriphArcher 8) cont. Society puts retraints on movenment, possessions, thought and so on. When it does, a person have the right to leave or change this. But when other people are involved, it must be shared rights... When a right is infringed, the options are either leave (right) or fight (right)... and these don't have to be violent, just agreed by all parties.
@SeriphArcher 9) Life depends on preservation. You can care for yourself, you can care for others if they let you. You can't force another to care for you or others. It must be by their choice or you infringe on the right to movement, property and preservation.
Denile of my rights by forced coersion is an infringement of a right.
A personal choice to not help the sick infringes no rights, as the sick or injured are still free to buy, ask, trade, or seek elsewhere that which they need.
The Great Awakening, the Enlightenment, and the Reformation have little to do with each other philosophically. The American Experiment was not about 'man governing himself' it intended to have an upper class, and an aristocracy. The American Experiment was simply a rejection of theocratic monarchy, not a fight for democracy or rights. That is why America is a republic, didn't grant rights to women or blacks, and encouraged the slave trade in its constitution. "Liberty" was a privilege.
@SeriphArcher "he American Experiment was not about 'man governing himself' " Then you and I must not be talking about the same country. I am talking about the United States of America.
The American Experiment was a rejection of a monarch, an Emporer, King, Tyrant, Dictator, Nobles or elites, giving to the people the power to determine their government, their leaders and their laws.
A republic is the people "hiring" a person to represent their ideas, not abdication of their responcibility
@SeriphArcher - The Reformation told the dictatorial and corupt Church there are other ways to interpret the doctrine, taking away the monopoly or thought.
- The Great Awakening told the many prodestant churches the same thing, that individuals can interpret the doctrine for themselves, allow for individual awareness.
- The Enlightenment introduced science and individual thought beyond religion, allowing for logic and reason to replace myths and dogma.
4. The FF can't have foresight, thus the SCOTUS provisions.
5. The constitution supported slavery, I answer this earlier. "importation" vs. "immigration"
6. Any law that violates the constitution is unconstitutional. Spirit of the constitution is a personal often times emotionally rooted argument that can come from any emotion, including hate, racism, or oppression mechanics.
7. Redistribution is constitutional. See eminent domain and taxation in the constitution.
@SeriphArcher 4) All humans can have foresight. The SCOTUS and Amendments are to cover when they didn't... but they had some.
5) And you failed as it applies to People, who you said slaves aren't. And it applies to "migration"
6) Yes, but as I told you my pronoun, him is her has that to them it.
8) Taxation covers the functions of the government, not tells them how to do it. Eminent domain allows for redistributuion when there is also just compensation.
1. The Constitution was written with very specific intentions, that which is that constitutional interpretations are made by the SCOTUS.
2. Sure.
3. The only individuals who have the power to reinterpret the constitution in a question of constitutionality are the member of SCOTUS, who are ok'd by the Senate who represent all americans. People can disagree, but any claim to 'unconstitutionality' is void of meaning.
3) So, I guess Article 5 of the Constituion doesn't exist in your world? BTW, that gives the people and the government the power to change the Constitution. No SCOTUS needed.
"any claim to 'unconstitutionality' is void of meaning" This means that people can't bring a case to the SCOTUS. I say we can, thus the people change the interpretation if argued well.
And remember, I said violation of the Constitution, not unconstitutional.
Until you admit that you are flat out wrong about Article 1 section 9 being the preservation of the slave trade, I have no issue in continuing the conversation, as I have no belief that you will bend to any proof, meaning the debate will just be you arguing that things are real, even when every legal organization in the world recognizes what a certain law means.
I don't feel like wasting my time when you can't engage genuinely. Ultimately, this is why your side is rejected by anyone educated.
@SeriphArcher "Until you admit that you are flat out wrong about Article 1 section 9 being the preservation of the slave trade, I have no issue in continuing the conversation" Agreed, and did (see a previous response). But until you admit you are wrong about the actual words written in Art 1 Sec 9, then I can't trust you to think critically and can't even trust your comment about having a "with a linguistics degree" to be true.
I'm never wrong about any words at all. Importation is very clearly there. The other term deals with indentured servants- essentially another form of slavery.
@SeriphArcher "I'm never wrong about any words at all" Wow. Better check to see if your local college has a reading comprehension class. I did say Importation was there. I also defined it.
An importee is defined as a person from another country brought in for a purpose. It isn't defined as a servant, though it can include them.
Words are meaningless without context, the context of the article is about slavery, importation is defined the same way there as it is defined in the 1807 Act ending 'importation' of slaves. You really are embarrassing yourself in the long run. The importation clause is wholly and completely about slavery. No exclusion.
@SeriphArcher migration - the movement of persons from one country or locality to another;
Human migration denotes any movement of groups of people from one locality to another, rather than of individual wanderers. The movement of populations in modern times has continued under the form of voluntary immigration/emigration and involuntary forced migration. There's also seasonal human migration related to agriculture.
Daily human commuting can be compared to the diurnal migration of organisms in the oceans.
As you can see the one word you ignore over and over can apply to any person.
You want me to admit that this clause applies to slaves I did (see comments), especially to the people of the time. I wasn't arguing what "Johny dumbass" thought. I was, this entire discussion, arguing what was in the Constitution... from forced redistribution with no compensation to slavery.
@SeriphArcher "Ultimately, this is why your side is rejected by anyone educated." Well, if by "my side" you mean the ant-slavery and abolistionists, I think you better look at the world today. Seems everybody on Earth (minus a few people) sided with me that blacks are human and are endowed with the same rights as everybody else. So my side won.
If by "my side" you mean thinking the US Constitution was anti-slavery, well Frederick Douglas said as much.
1. the vast majority of the world was pro-slavery until the mid 19th century.
2. the congress and the supreme court both agree slavery was preserved by the constitution and thus required an amendment to change the nature of the constitution, as the SCOTUS can not act outside constitutional bounds.
@SeriphArcher 1) England banned the Slave Trade in 1809, the US banned it in 1808 but planned the ban in 1788 (see the Constitution). However, my comment about "my side" winning includes a war, protests and amendments. Therefore, "my side" won the arguement that slavery was a violation of the Constitution and fixed it so that it was unconstitutional.
You really should bone up on reading comprehension so you can remember what I said in previous comments. It'd make it easier.
The constitutional interpretation was not changed, the constitution itself was changed. You should learn what the difference between contextual alteration and contextual interpretation is; as without it you are going to continue looking like a fool. There was no contextual interpretation change, however; there was a contextual alteration. In fact, the government has noted several times that the constitution originally was cool with slavery.
@Seripharcher1 Honestly, I have said more than enough to prove my point and don't need to respond. I will just sit down with Frederick Douglass and those who believed that the US Constitution was never pro-slavery as it never mentions, nor endorses the concept. It does, however, put many conditions and clauses open to interpretation (as the founders meant it to be) so that it would create the same struggles they had about slavery. It did so, and we solidified the anti-slavery intent into law.
Sure, keep believing your lie. The Constitution was a racist and highly flawed document, that had anything but the best for slaves or women in mind. Thats why there had to be amendments. But until there is an amendment the constitution says what it says, there isn't a way out of it. The intent of several sections is clear. Stop treating the constitution like some sacrosanct document that only has the most righteous concepts. Its pretty awful actually.
@Seripharcher1 "until there is an amendment the constitution says what it says" You seem to just get to my point, then back away from it, like you were afraid to touch a hot kettle.
Remember:
- It is constitutional if it says something word for word
- It is unconstitutional if it contradicts the exact words
- It violates the Constitution if it goes against the words that are their, though it isn't mentioned
- Nothing in the Constitution supports slavery, much runs against it.
- Amendments are there to fix the violations, solidifying them as unconstitutional
All I did was take the document for its word. This is what the founders asked on the citizens: to educate themselves, study the philosophy behind it and to interpret the document. Otherwise, the court system, the electorial system and the ideas of the Enlightenment, Great Awakening and so on would have been meaningless as we turned back to a king and nobels to dictate from on high.
You keep trying to define your way out of a corner. Either you can take the document as a spirit based document or as a legal based document. If you argue spirit, then you can't argue constitutionality you have to argue an amendment to the constitution that meets your personal belief system, at which point you are arguing ethics as opposed to law. You keep jumping around from 'what is' to 'what should be' to 'what could be'. You can't argue from all positions.
@Seripharcher1 "You keep trying to define your way out of a corner." I agree. I keep trying to set a fixed point in the discussion we can agree on so that we can argue from the same, non-moving point.
I hear that allows two people with differing viewpoints to find a single fixed set of rules to define the discussion.
I tried defining them my way, you didn't agree.
I tried getting you to set a definition, you didn't want to.
@Seripharcher1 "Stop treating the constitution like some sacrosanct document that only has the most righteous concepts. Its pretty awful actually" I will remind you that we both agreed on these two points. So, let's look at it this way...
There are only four ways to read a text:
1) By the words on the paper, defined at the time of its writing (literal)
2) In context of modern times (progressive)
3) In context of the times when writen (originalist)
Actually, those aren't the only way to read a document, especially not the constitution. My position always has been that constitutionality is based wholly on compliance with the literal text of the constitution or progressive advancement of rights and obligations through Judicial Review which is part of the literal text as well. However, Judicial Review is harnessed by not allowing the Judicial branch the ability to go against literal text.
@Seripharcher1 "My position always has been that constitutionality is based wholly on compliance with the literal text of the constitution or progressive advancement of rights and obligations through Judicial Review " Good, let's call it this then (which, by the way is actually number 1) literal).
So, you now must agree that slavery is not actually in the Constitution until A13, which merely clarifies the document's rights.
No. It is literally in the constitution. Its very clear in both the representation section (note how indentured servants are 1 person, where as slaves are 3/5 of a person). Its also in the article that protects the slave trade. I strongly encourage you to read history on the writing of the constitution. Its very clear. The term "imported" was a very commonly used word for slavery.
@Seripharcher1 "Its very clear in both the representation section " which states it is 1) for the purposes of enumeration for representation, and not defining what a "person" is, 2) doesn't say "slavery" or "slaves" and 3) says the 3/5th is for all other "persons".
If we stick to literal interpretation, that may or may not include slaves, but also immigrants, resident aliens and migrant workers (fully paid, but not bound for years) such as nomadic farmers and "hobos".
@Seripharcher1 "I strongly encourage you to read history on the writing of the constitution" so you want to change the rules? You said you were following the literal reading of the contract. Are we going to a different set of standards? If so, you should have said that when you wrote: "My position always has been that constitutionality is based wholly on compliance with the literal text of the constitution "
@Seripharcher1 Oh and you can actually drop the progressive in "progressive advancement of rights" for two reasons:
1) If you mean moving foreward to that set of absolute truths inherent in rights, it is redundant
2) If you mean as it politically stands, the loose definition of a "living document" based on the thought of society, you're comment contradicts this idea, as does the term advancement.
1) rights aren't absolute, hence voting, gun ownership, etc being denied by getting a felony. Also, most rights protected in the constitution are positive rights not negative rights and are civil right not human rights.
2). Stance of a society doesn't matter until an amendment or Judicial review happens.
@Seripharcher1 1) "rights aren't absolute" Ah, but read the words in the Constitution. There is a set of conditions which says when we voluntarily forgoe our rights to things: A4, A5. and even those hold to keeping the rights more than forfeiting them. But I agree, the rights protected are against what the government does to people.
2) Yes, I agree. That's why I am being literal, not progressive or originalist. May I suggest you try it too.
@Seripharcher1 Let me say that by reading that the Constitution as a pro-slave document because that's what the people believed it to be (progressive), then ignoring the public when we call universal health [insuance] is not constitutional is a bit hypocritical.
If you would rather go with an originalist view, then universal health [insurance] is also not constitutional.
If you want to argue a literal reading, then slavery is not constitutional.
@Seripharcher1 "Literal Reading- Slavery is constitutional given the language of the time" As you said, the literal reading is "compliance with the literal text of the constitution" which doesn't say slavery and has language that points away from it (you just ignored the definitions).
"Original (which is literal)" If we agree to this, then SSI, Medicare and welfare becomes, as yuoi say, unconstitutional.
No I didn't. Imported Person is a Slave. It was commonly used term of the time. Please, please stop trying to argue against what is proven history. You aren't going to win it. No legal scholar will ever agree with you on that fact that the constitution was anti-slavery. Everyone will point to the two things I did.
@Seripharcher1 "Imported Person is a Slave" Somebody call the ACLU on Hollywood. Christopher Eccleston, who was an importee to work on Heroes, is a slave.... a well paid, free to leave when he want, slave...
Now, if you use the words as they are written, as you said you were, you don't have the word slave until A13.
You are using the originalist or progressive agruments. Please choose one and stay with it.
"No legal scholar will ever agree with " I guess F.Douglass is wrong.
Eccleston was not imported, he was paid to come over by his free will. The term imported person at the time meant slave. There is no linguistic way around it.
However, I'm done with the argument. At this point I've decided a) you are a troll b) you just really don't get history, language, or political science at all, and are not worth the time trying to educate. Your views are historically nonsequiter, you don't grasp basic political theory, and lack any impact. Good day.
@Seripharcher1 a) If discussing a matter of historical importamce with other people is trolling, I got the boat and net.
b) You were the one who wouldn't pick a set of rules and kept jumping around to suit your argument. I tried to anchor thing. By the way, you did ignore things for your own goal, you chose to write me, even after you said you wouldn't, and no need to educate he who is educated.
You even ignored the definition with "Eccleston was not imported". Look it up.
@Seripharcher1 "Everyone will point to the two things I did" Point away. But please, if you aren't going with a literal reading of the Constitution, tell me and we will try to pick either an origanlist view (the maning based on what the writers thought) or a progressive view (the meaning based on contempory society's beliefs).
I am not just trying to build on something fixed and stable. Not something that will change as we wish to "get a win".
@Seripharcher1 "Progressive- Slavery was constitutional but eventually should have been outlawed via amendments which is later was" Actually a progressive view doesn't need the amendments, as the ideas are within the society... making slavery, as you say, unconstitutional by virtue that society thinks so. The amendment process makes the reading literal.
Progressive needs amendments, it always has, the progressive movement just can do more with each amendment than a strict interpretation dose. Progressive readings require judicial review even more than others as thats how the progressive method functions, so you still come back to the fact that progressively slavery was deemed constitutional for a long time.
@Seripharcher1 "Progressive needs amendments" I think you have it backwards. In order for a literal reading of the Constitution to happen, you need the words in the document itself. Hence the term literal. If the progressive movement were to actually get amendments, as they did in the 1910s and 1920s, they wouldn't have the problem they have today: saying that the Constitution says something it doesn't, and pushing laws though that get tossed out in court.
@Seripharcher1 "Progressive readings require judicial review even more than others as thats how the progressive method functions" I agree. And if this were the time of prohibition, I'd say that was constitutional. I would not like it, but it would be. However, there was no amendment that says slavery is okie-dokie. Those who wanted slavery argued the progressive and originalist position and courts agreed. But literally it was not there and we had to amend the Constitution to shut them up.
@Seripharcher1 "you still come back to the fact that progressively slavery was deemed constitutional for a long time" Hey, hey, give the man a seee-garrrr. You got it.
Progressively it was argued that way, though it could have been literally argued (and was) that it wasn't. It just didn't take intil people wnet to war and amendments made slavery literally unconstitutional.
I love it when the person I'm arguing with makes my point better than I do.
Law deals with health insurance which is a interstate institution as there is free movement in the United States and most insurance applies outside of your own state. It also deals with how health care must be given which is interstate as well.
@Seripharcher1 "Law deals with health insurance which is a interstate institution " Reread your federal laws. Health insurance from New Jersey was not allowed, by federal law (they used the commerse clause, go figure) to be sold in California, New York or any other state. Insurance companies had to set up offices in each states (and two in some) and write different poicies for each. This drove up the price and violated the Constitution. This is why it was suggested as a solution by the GOP.
@Seripharcher1 "{the law} also deals with how health care must be given" Actually, no it doesn't say how care is given or to whome. In fact, it refers to the old, standing laws. It just explains how the care will be paid for, who would be covered by the payment and the rules the payments will be funded. That is insurance coverage, not the care.
If you read the law (the worst 10 days of my life) you will find that it concerns more with tax implications than medicine, doctors or hospitals.
@Seripharcher1 If it were concerned with care and not coverage, it would have addresses actual care. However the care of a patient is dependant not on price but on quality and avalibility, both of which are the best in the world (the US's low ranking is baced on coverage and price, which is not care).
If you believe in gov't involvement, more could have been done with labor laws and tax breaks and tort reform, all which are ignored in the law.
-Not buying is part of General Welfare, the regulation is commerce. In much these same way the government can tax you for certain things. The government brings health insurance into the norms of other forms of insurance practices.
Meets the constitution in literal. Passed the congress, upheld by the appellate court, meets progressive.
@Seripharcher1 "upheld by the appellate court" I'll start here. Two federal courts have deemed a portion of the law is unconstitutional. Because there was no seperatability clause, that makes the entire law unconstitutional. One court was a bit more activist, saying that the mandate (the unconstitutional portion) was so interweaved in the law, even with a severability clause, the law would break down completely if it were removed, making the law unfunctionable.
@Seripharcher1 "Not buying is part of General Welfare, the regulation is commerce" Please, now you are arguing that if one point is valid that makes the other point valid. Yes, it meets welfare (though not general), but that doesn't make it commerce. If I don't buy gum or a car or viagra, that is not commerce because I have not engaged in commerse. Both parties must engage in a purchase to make it commerse.
@Seripharcher1 "The government brings health insurance into the norms of other forms of insurance practices" Actually, it doesn't.
In insurance, the company underwriting the policy gets to raise premiums based on risk or can choose not to insure. With the health [insurance] law, insurance companies can't allocate more than 20% to overhead, can't refuse to cover somebody and can't raise rates more than a dictated amount.
Remember, we will define things not as contempory society wishes it (progressive) or as the writters believed (originalist) but in a word for word translation, as you said you did.
General Welfare falls under two places
Preamble: promote the general welfare
Art1 Sec8: ... to lay and collect taxes...to pat debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare...
- Promote: to help or encourage to exist or flourish; further; to encourage the sales, acceptance, etc., of (a product), especially through advertising or other publicity
- These definitions are so we have a common understanding
- Universal health [insurance] doesn't promote business, nor encourage sales
- UH [insurance] isn't general, picking out and waiving specific groups or individuals
@Seripharcher1 "Stop treating the constitution like some sacrosanct document " And last, contract law.
If a contract is to be credible for people and business, it must be defined in one of these manners. Generally the "letter of the law" or as it is written is the most reliable. Some also argue the "spirit of the law", however I do find that this opens up a can of worms such as a progressive or "living document" interpretation,
@Seripharcher1 "there is no way around that the original document protected slavery and the slave trade" You are saying the document was afirmative in word and actuion. Please provide the location of the word "slavery" and not just your definition of words where you exclude other meanings (note I included definitions of words which would undermine my argument).
As is, according to Frederick Douglass, escaped slave and scholar, the Constitution is an anti-slave document.
Notw, the definition of the word importation is also, well, import-ant.
Just as the word "happiness" didn't merely mean "look, I'm smiling a lot" but also "fortune", "luck" and "wealth", the word "import" meant many things in the King's English, some that have fallen out of use.
An "import" mean that which is brought in, such as goods and merchandice, but also meant people who traveled from a foriegn land, as in those who migrated, as in... my point.
The article refers to two things, 1. Migration which is about people who choose to come to the US as indentured servants. 2. Importation, people who are brought in as slaves. The constitution upholds both as being legal and fine. The primary purpose of the article is to protect the slave trade. There is no way around that interpretation. Not a single source agrees with your interpretation.
@SeriphArcher Though my interpretation, which is literal and not historical and sheep-like, let's say it does refer to slaves (though it doesn't say slaves, just PERSONS.
Then this is false: "The constitution upholds both as being legal and fine". In fact it doesn't uphold it or say it is fine. It just says the federal government would not pass a law for 20 years... as T.Jefferson and 100 years later F.Douglas both said, it merely gave the south a change to prepare for the end.
@Seripharcher1 "[Fredrick Douglass] was one of the primary protectors of slavery for many years" Are you seriously referring to the escaped slave who spoke out about abolishing slavery for all of his free life as a "protector of slavery"?
Okay, I will sit here and you can now say anything and everything about my personal beliefs that the freedom the US Constitution protects is for all people, because this comment you made is proof enough you can live with believing two opposites are the same.
Misread your comment, I thought you were talking about the Douglas who was instrumental in the implementation of slave provisions in the constitution. I assumed we were still talking about the founding fathers, as that had been the point we'd been on for a while.
@Seripharcher1 " I assumed we were still talking about the founding fathers" We were actually talking about the US Constitution and whether it said what it said (my point) vs it says only what a court tells us it says (your point). I quoted an actual person who is educated and agreed with me that the US Constitution did not support slavery, but was actually against it.
It may have took 80 years to get the government to realize that the Constitution was a freedom document, but they did.
Regardless of what position a person takes on this issue this is a refreshing moment in democracy at work. This was a nice change of pace from all the vitriol.
I wish our politicians would debate and discuss the health care issues like this.
I suppose International waters are free. However, theyre called "International" because they belong to everyone, and under the control of United Nations regulations. So head for the hills..of the Sea of Tranquility.
the reason i like this video is because even though these two had differences and didnt agree at the end of the argument they shook hands, respected each others side of the argument and still had nice things to say about each other. she didnt call him a socialist and tell him to go to tell like sarah palin or any other teabagger would
I'm not an American. British, live and work here. Love my American colleagues, but totally baffled by the vilification of a president trying to introduce some equity into the health system. Citizens of all the developed countries I know off - except America - regard universal health care, education, law and order, as their birthright. God help anyone in America who falls sick or has an accident without health insurance - or just been let go? tough.
she didn't know anything, the congressman knew his stuff from whatever his Dem buddies told him.
and lol put uninsured in a "over arching insurance plan". that girl just described what? a. universal healthcare b. universal healthcare c. universal healthcare
@KOMC4444 Actually, it sounded as though she was the one defeating Grayson. In his typical way, he skirted the issues, refusing to tell her that she would be required to purchase health insurance. I give her credit for her intelligent questions and refusal to back down to Grayson's inadequate answers.
...
Very interesting to see how the Capitol Police surrounded Grayson. It must have been very intimidating for Lydia and her friends to approach him. Anyone notice his touching her? Creepy...
That was amazing! Everyone here talking shit about Grayson & this woman are crazy. She was articulate and he was responsive. That was one of the best, factually based discussions I've seen during the whole healthcare debate. Much respect to the woman for being so well informed & much respect to Grayson for going out there to talk w/people. He answered her questions in an honest and straight forward way. She voiced her legitimate concerns w/o screaming or accusing. THAT'S what America should be!!
The Tea Party gives libertarians a bad name. It's so sad to see this intelligent woman buy into the corporatist propaganda. The health insurance companies have successfully brainwashed people to believe that limitation of opportunity = equality of opportunity and top-down monopoly = the free market. It may be true that literal equality is an impossibility in any sexually reproducing species, but using state power to create cartels and institute profit over people as law of the land is heinous.
informed vs. uninformed: if you think the tea bagger is the informed.. read a book, look at things that are called FACTS.. it's funny that tea baggers only came on the scene when a black president came into power.. look at the majority of tea baggers, white, biggeted men and women..
@arby86 The tea party movement solidified long before, in 2007, with a grassroots effort behind Ron Paul and a Libertarian way of thinking. In the last year or so, the GOP has very rapidly split between the Bush-esque mindset which has become so unpopular, versus the grassroots "tea party" that is trying to reform the platform, but now the former has adopted the "tea party" name because of the success of the latter.
I disagree with forcing people to buy insurance. Either increases taxes or provide a basic floor plan for catastrophic illnesses for all. But forcing people to patronize a business is not right.
@EsClayWilson How is that not the same thing? If the Federal Government raised taxes and used those new taxes to pay for insurance, in what way is it different?
@2ndtoJohn I was addressing the issue of forcing people to buy something. It is a disingenuous way to get around the core issue. Furthermore, the bill or anything else proposed doesn't address the real issue: Why health care costs have risen so dramatically as a whole and for an individual procedures? That is the core of the matter
@EsClayWilson@EsClayWilson So it's not the outcome that's important (more people having coverage) it's the name that matters (tax vs private purchase). Although, I will agree with you that the bill doesn't address the real issue of health insurance greed. The only way to fix the problem is with an alternative non-profit health plan that challenges health insurance companies to offer competitive pricing. Ideally, we would get rid of for-profit altogether, people shouldn't profit off death.
@2ndtoJohn I think a little profit motive in medicine is not a bad thing. If people can come up with better methods, drugs, treatments that are legit why not let them profit by it. Altruism only goes so far. But we do need some over sight or quacks and the deluded will bilk and kill people with bad medicine
There are so many successful models of socialized healthcare in the world where overall health costs are lower, coverage is more universal and outcomes are better. Where are the successes that follow Libertarian health policies? East Africa? Southeast Asia?
@pbmdh You are incorrect my friend, what she has said and the message she is saying is exactly what the Tea Party is founded on, she is just a person that isn't as in your face or loud about the message she wants to get across.
Not really. Her "facts" are mostly regurgitated crap spewed from tea-party heads, yes. But she actually knows some of what she's talking about. Unlike most teapartytards yelling something like "NO SHARIA LAW IN US! HERP DERP!", then when asked what it is, they don't know.
@xpat73 This women is in fact intelligent and represents her opinion with fact, unlike you whom make personal accusations and calling her names because your threatened by her intelligence.
I wouldn't agree to follow the UK's example on Health Care personaly I'd follow any of the following which also have better health Care then us 1 France 2 Italy 3 San Marino 4 Andorra 5 Malta 6 Singapore 7 Spain 8 Oman 9 Austria 10 Japan any of those would be fine (and they all gross less money then the USA) i know most of those people wouldn't trade for our health care
Bravo to both Lydia and Grayson...After all the mind blowing stupidities from a number of tea party members, Lydia is a breath of civility and fresh air.
If Ms. "Uninsured because I am healthy" is hit by a bus, she is going to the emergency room. They will fix her up and discharge her with a $267k bill. She will not get a payment plan for that, because the average person cannot pay a $267k bill over three or four years. So she will file for bankruptcy and the hospital will not get paid. It will get passed on to you and me, all because she wants to be free to be financially irresponsible. Why should society bear the cost of your unpaid care?
I wish I could debate as well as this woman. She knows her stuff.
This Representative is a perfect example of answering a question by avoiding the topic, then ignoring the question all together.
y the way, ebecker2000, this isn't "Tea Bag Rally". The tea bag people are a tiny group that wants to mail tea bags to congress. This looks like a TEA Party rally. Let's be civil and not use prejoratives.
@bsabruzzo Thanks - Changed to Tea Party. If you could be specific about which questions remains unanswered - maybe we can find see if anyone knows the answer as close to the answer as possible being no one has yet to experience the changes.
@ebecker2000 Well, he never answered if he, or anybody really, has the right to require a person to buy a product to be a citizen of the US. After all, now people like Rush Limbaugh (one of the "uninsured") are now forced to buy insurance or be penilized. The United States of America does require taxes (though, it is not allowed to taget a tax unless spelled out in the Constitution), but this isn't a tax, it's a mandate to buy insurance. Not even SSI is set up that way. It's set up as a tax.
@bsabruzzo OK how far can the US government go in making you do things. Can it make you give up your gun? Buy medical insurance? Go fight in wars, Take your land? Make you pay tax? Compel you to pay your credit card/student dept. Pay fines, Pay into social security. Obey the law. What else does the feds make us do?
@ebecker2000 The parts that are debatable are in flux and constantly tested in the courts. Most items the federal government are allowed to enforce are based on the US Constitution, all others are reserved to the states. The "obey the law" portion is based on the social contract of citizenship. If you don't like the law, your options are to change it or move. The US Constitution is set up to prevent laws from being made against the individual's freedom by the federal government.
@ebecker2000 Oh, and my personal opinion, fines and social security insurance are not constitutional, however, I would pay "fines" if they were proper taxes. And I'd gladly pay into a real insurance for disability and safety-net for the elderly. I would just structure SSI differently, including making it optional and privatizing it, so that it becomes solvent and even profitable.
I dont understand where this idea that youre immune from government's will comes from? You are born into a government. you are not a sovereign individual. There is no place on earth where you are considered a sovereign. Your rights go as far as the borders which you live in, permit them to go. You have no inherided rights except to maybe live and breath. If you want to be a sovereign, youll have to leave the Earth and put your own flag on another planet.
@bsabruzzo But it really IS just a tax. If you don't have health insurance you have to pay a tax. The words "penalty" and "requirement" obscure the basic point of it. It's literally, "do you have health insurance? No? Pay this amount."
@zackwoodson Yes, but if it is a tax it should be applied as a tax, a set amount applied to all people. Tax law allows deductions and credits for those who have insurance, so why write the requirements into the part that describes taking the "penalty"?
As in your example...
Tax= "Give me this amount. Do you have insurance? Yes= return the amount."
Penalty="Do you have health insurance? No? Pay this amount."
@zackwoodson Why are we trying to force R.limbaugh, B.Gates etc to buy insurance when they pay out of pocket for most things? Why are we saying "buy this or pay"? Under that rule, can I require people to buy my clothing (everybody needs pants)? The arguement that you "need insurance" is false. Charity, hospital programs and existing gov't programs already cover those "uninsured". Most who quality for these things just don't apply. So, how are you going to get them to apply under the new law?
@bsabruzzo That's not true that the uninsured just haven't applied for readily available insurance yet. Medicaid/Medicare have real limits, and charity is not going to pay for organ transplants, surgeries, or chemo treatments.
The good thing about the new law is that it will help lower health care costs and fund government subsidies that will allow the uninsured to get insurance (and allow the un-insurable to become insurable, once pre-existing condition bans are implemented).
@zackwoodson We can certainally disagree about who will be covered. There are studies that showed that most of the people who didn't have insurance (the product we are now required by law to buy) were eligible for other forms of insurance and charities. And, yes, according to the President's example, chemo is covered by hospital programs and charities (one of him many rhetorical miscalculations).
@zackwoodson Not everybody who needs these things have access of course. But this is care, not coverage, and a different issue. We were discussing being forced to buy insurance, not giving care to those who neet it.
As for costs, the math only works if you restrict and ration care. But as we are talking about the forced purchase of a product, not costs, we still sit at this point: the gov't doesn't have the Constitutional power to take away a god-given liberty.
@bsabruzzo We're not REALLY forcing Limbaugh/Gates to buy health insurance. We're telling them that if they'd prefer not to enter the insurance system, they just need to pay a tax to make up for the loss of their health care insurance dollars.
You can certainly oppose the tax, by all means, but I don't see how it's different from any other tax, and it doesn't look like you think there's one, either, with the "splitting hairs" comment.
@zackwoodson "We're telling them that if they'd prefer not to enter the insurance system, they just need to pay a tax to make up for the loss of their health care insurance dollars" So, you are saying what?
As the fine is tageted to people who don't need insurance and aren't a burden on the system and, in fact, most likely give to the charities that cover the "uninsured", why punish them for mot being a burden?
A tax would be applied to everybody, insurance or not. This is a fine.
hihi kuckt auf mich bin n hamster
HallieCristyzk838 1 month ago
Sub Optimal coverage? The people on Meidcaid are the most vunerable among the population and they are the ones with the most health issues. They would be dead if it wasn't for Medicaid.
Before they had these programs people without money died.
Go back to school Lydia you're a joke.
genYprogressive83 1 month ago
i love alan grayson this idea that this legislation is somehow taking away are right is ludicris we are under the control of the ins companys and the corporations we need a puplic option a single payer system it would save this country so much money i hope and pray that people will wake up to the truth
garsmullkard 2 months ago
Freaking background noise, ugh!
bodinian 3 months ago
Grayson totally schooled that girl in the beginning, what a shame she was cute too. However, she has been brain-washed to think that a cancer patient can just stroll into the E.R. and get Chemo-therapy, wake up you stupid B! Just take the bronze plan and shut up, it is freedom you dummy, why don't you listen to the congressman, people do not want the freedom to die... If she wasn't cute Grayson probably wouldn't give her as much time.. Nice, give your name to my roadie and well be in touch.
larryjohnny 3 months ago
Though I disagree with her views, I commend her for her behavior and well mannered debate. Too bad most tea baggers can't be like her!
MisbahAliSyed 4 months ago
@MisbahAliSyed We know that when you call someone a "teabagger" its just because you're the one being teabagged... lol what a fool you are.
intrepidorator 1 month ago
speaking from the point of view and biases of a privileged white woman. Notice how she doesn't seem to care about not getting hired for women's insurance costs.
illfaptothis 4 months ago
If you are concerned with my obcene words, think about the obscene things that our world leaders. And by the way. I think that genocide, apathy, corporate greed,and no compassion are way worse than what I said. It's not being able to get medical attention, and prevenative medicine. But the hospital conglomorates, and insurance companys don't want us to have any easy access to health care. Further more, all of the people supporting big buisness. Should take a look at how, they exported jobs.
guitarman82656 5 months ago
OMG! It's a Jr. Sara Palin. This stupid bitch Don't have a clue. I hope someday you face one of your kids being sick with no insurance. This dumb cunt sides with the insurance co. Look what AIG brought us. Maybe she should live in the real world. She has been born with a silver spoon. The tea party is only afraid that the average person might get something that they have. I don't normally swear like this, but these lamebrained fools are fucked up!!!
guitarman82656 5 months ago
@guitarman82656 Your swear words totally diminish your arguments and make you sound like a misogynist. Are you? Anyway you should check yourself in and get that fixed. You can easily remove this comment yourself and if you like post something more respectable and worthy - or leave it up as an example of what not to say.
ebecker2000 5 months ago
@guitarman82656 you took the words right out of my keyboard (mouth)... thanks..
larryjohnny 3 months ago
@guitarman82656 Don't be such a fool. Medicare and medicaid already provides healthcare for those that can't afford it. Stupid twats like you are why America and the world is bankrupt. We can't afford your stupidity.
intrepidorator 1 month ago
Alan you're not an embarrassment! These idiot corporate dick suckers are...
MsGmon1 6 months ago 3
I bet she thought she was really smart before this point.
THEINVENTABLETHREAT 6 months ago
Every time she tries to make a point to silence him, he comes back with an even better point to shut her up. HILARIOUS
HCJamelIReef 7 months ago
I appreciate this ladys calmness and professional dialogue with the congressman. Although I don't agree, I feel that people who see a conversation like this then we are more likely to form our own opinion.
liberalsocks92 8 months ago
Informed and tea party are hard to put in the same sentence.
erscott13 11 months ago 2
@erscott13 Listen, I am a progressive and tend to agree with Mr. Grayson on virtually every political issue, but to claim that the woman in the video was ill-informed (which is the implication, as she is the only "tea-party" representative in the video) is truly dishonest. It is possible to disagree with someone who is intelligent, even if they are wrong in their conclusions.
Fergit3 7 months ago
@Fergit3 Mr. Grayson makes it clear that this lady is NOT well-informed. For example, when she claims everyone has access to health care through emergency rooms and he points out that people with cancer can't get chemo in ERs.
erscott13 7 months ago
poor americans like that woman.. stubbid american if you just would vote with your brain and not by whom adds you most see on TV. Grason made that poor voman look soooo stubbid and simply minded
Jarmo187 1 year ago
lol i'm so glad he is out!!!
TheHabit00 1 year ago
On Slavery in the Constitution I suggest reading Dorothy Hodgson's "Domesticating the World", it specifically talked about how "Imported People" was a term popularized in the 1600's and 1700's to give a more palatable taste to slave language.
Seripharcher1 1 year ago
Comment removed
Seripharcher1 1 year ago
If you want to see into the eyes of the founding fathers, look at James Madisons Federalist #43, where he notes that the governments ability to suppress riots would be most helpful to keep blacks from seizing political power. This was the argument used on the floor of the convention as to why the government should have that power.
Seripharcher1 1 year ago
@Seripharcher1 Summary Part 3
8) A right is a reflexive property of life, that with which we are born, not "given" by another.
9) Of the basic rights, health care is not among them, as it requires a infringement of another person's rights in order to be a right
10) The point of the Great Awakening, the Enlightenment, the Reformation and the American Experiment was "man governing himself", implying the freedom to do so and individual enpowerment though liberty
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
8. All rights other than Life and Dignity are socially constructed. See Hobbes on this. Without a social contract system there is no protection of any right. Society grants the right to property, freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc, as those are not base rights in nature. Only exist within the society.
9. The right to life hinges on health care. It does not infringe upon the rights of others. In fact the denial of health care is an infringement on the right to life of the sick.
SeriphArcher 1 year ago
@SeriphArcher 8) Life is given at birth by God, Nature or the Cosmos, not man. Possesion/Property is the only way to sustain life, so if one can make something or obtain something, it is theirs to keep. Movement is a right to allow you to seek a place to maintain your rights. Preservation is a right, because it maintains your rights through protection from others taking your possetions, life or stop your movement. Thought is a right, for it manages your other rights. These all exist in Nature.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
@SeriphArcher 8) cont. Society puts retraints on movenment, possessions, thought and so on. When it does, a person have the right to leave or change this. But when other people are involved, it must be shared rights... When a right is infringed, the options are either leave (right) or fight (right)... and these don't have to be violent, just agreed by all parties.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
@SeriphArcher 9) Life depends on preservation. You can care for yourself, you can care for others if they let you. You can't force another to care for you or others. It must be by their choice or you infringe on the right to movement, property and preservation.
Denile of my rights by forced coersion is an infringement of a right.
A personal choice to not help the sick infringes no rights, as the sick or injured are still free to buy, ask, trade, or seek elsewhere that which they need.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
The Great Awakening, the Enlightenment, and the Reformation have little to do with each other philosophically. The American Experiment was not about 'man governing himself' it intended to have an upper class, and an aristocracy. The American Experiment was simply a rejection of theocratic monarchy, not a fight for democracy or rights. That is why America is a republic, didn't grant rights to women or blacks, and encouraged the slave trade in its constitution. "Liberty" was a privilege.
SeriphArcher 1 year ago
@SeriphArcher "he American Experiment was not about 'man governing himself' " Then you and I must not be talking about the same country. I am talking about the United States of America.
The American Experiment was a rejection of a monarch, an Emporer, King, Tyrant, Dictator, Nobles or elites, giving to the people the power to determine their government, their leaders and their laws.
A republic is the people "hiring" a person to represent their ideas, not abdication of their responcibility
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
@SeriphArcher - The Reformation told the dictatorial and corupt Church there are other ways to interpret the doctrine, taking away the monopoly or thought.
- The Great Awakening told the many prodestant churches the same thing, that individuals can interpret the doctrine for themselves, allow for individual awareness.
- The Enlightenment introduced science and individual thought beyond religion, allowing for logic and reason to replace myths and dogma.
The American Experiment came from that
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
@Seripharcher1 Summary Part 2
4) The FF placed logic traps either based on their own contradictions, their flaws or their foresight
5) evidence of the flaws and the implied freedoms is the issue of slavery, which the Constitution makes wrong without saying so directly
6) All this is to explain how a law can violate the Constitution without being unconstitutional
7) Redistribution of wealth is a matter of a violation that remains constitutional
cont.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
4. The FF can't have foresight, thus the SCOTUS provisions.
5. The constitution supported slavery, I answer this earlier. "importation" vs. "immigration"
6. Any law that violates the constitution is unconstitutional. Spirit of the constitution is a personal often times emotionally rooted argument that can come from any emotion, including hate, racism, or oppression mechanics.
7. Redistribution is constitutional. See eminent domain and taxation in the constitution.
SeriphArcher 1 year ago
@SeriphArcher 4) All humans can have foresight. The SCOTUS and Amendments are to cover when they didn't... but they had some.
5) And you failed as it applies to People, who you said slaves aren't. And it applies to "migration"
6) Yes, but as I told you my pronoun, him is her has that to them it.
8) Taxation covers the functions of the government, not tells them how to do it. Eminent domain allows for redistributuion when there is also just compensation.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
@Seripharcher1 Summary Part 1
To get back on track and to wrap this up (we can disagree after this):
1) The US Constitution was written with implied freedoms as well as specific directions and rules
2) Because man is flawed, the law, the government and the Constitution are flawed and have contradictions
3) The Constitution provides for the people to fix the contradictions and for a SCOTUS to interpret any violations when in doubt or pending changes
cont.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
1. The Constitution was written with very specific intentions, that which is that constitutional interpretations are made by the SCOTUS.
2. Sure.
3. The only individuals who have the power to reinterpret the constitution in a question of constitutionality are the member of SCOTUS, who are ok'd by the Senate who represent all americans. People can disagree, but any claim to 'unconstitutionality' is void of meaning.
SeriphArcher 1 year ago
@SeriphArcher 1) reread Amendment 9
3) So, I guess Article 5 of the Constituion doesn't exist in your world? BTW, that gives the people and the government the power to change the Constitution. No SCOTUS needed.
"any claim to 'unconstitutionality' is void of meaning" This means that people can't bring a case to the SCOTUS. I say we can, thus the people change the interpretation if argued well.
And remember, I said violation of the Constitution, not unconstitutional.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
Until you admit that you are flat out wrong about Article 1 section 9 being the preservation of the slave trade, I have no issue in continuing the conversation, as I have no belief that you will bend to any proof, meaning the debate will just be you arguing that things are real, even when every legal organization in the world recognizes what a certain law means.
I don't feel like wasting my time when you can't engage genuinely. Ultimately, this is why your side is rejected by anyone educated.
SeriphArcher 1 year ago
@SeriphArcher "Until you admit that you are flat out wrong about Article 1 section 9 being the preservation of the slave trade, I have no issue in continuing the conversation" Agreed, and did (see a previous response). But until you admit you are wrong about the actual words written in Art 1 Sec 9, then I can't trust you to think critically and can't even trust your comment about having a "with a linguistics degree" to be true.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
I'm never wrong about any words at all. Importation is very clearly there. The other term deals with indentured servants- essentially another form of slavery.
SeriphArcher 1 year ago
@SeriphArcher "I'm never wrong about any words at all" Wow. Better check to see if your local college has a reading comprehension class. I did say Importation was there. I also defined it.
An importee is defined as a person from another country brought in for a purpose. It isn't defined as a servant, though it can include them.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
Words are meaningless without context, the context of the article is about slavery, importation is defined the same way there as it is defined in the 1807 Act ending 'importation' of slaves. You really are embarrassing yourself in the long run. The importation clause is wholly and completely about slavery. No exclusion.
Seripharcher1 1 year ago
@SeriphArcher migration - the movement of persons from one country or locality to another;
Human migration denotes any movement of groups of people from one locality to another, rather than of individual wanderers. The movement of populations in modern times has continued under the form of voluntary immigration/emigration and involuntary forced migration. There's also seasonal human migration related to agriculture.
cont...
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
@SeriphArcher Part 2
Daily human commuting can be compared to the diurnal migration of organisms in the oceans.
As you can see the one word you ignore over and over can apply to any person.
You want me to admit that this clause applies to slaves I did (see comments), especially to the people of the time. I wasn't arguing what "Johny dumbass" thought. I was, this entire discussion, arguing what was in the Constitution... from forced redistribution with no compensation to slavery.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
@SeriphArcher "Ultimately, this is why your side is rejected by anyone educated." Well, if by "my side" you mean the ant-slavery and abolistionists, I think you better look at the world today. Seems everybody on Earth (minus a few people) sided with me that blacks are human and are endowed with the same rights as everybody else. So my side won.
If by "my side" you mean thinking the US Constitution was anti-slavery, well Frederick Douglas said as much.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
1. the vast majority of the world was pro-slavery until the mid 19th century.
2. the congress and the supreme court both agree slavery was preserved by the constitution and thus required an amendment to change the nature of the constitution, as the SCOTUS can not act outside constitutional bounds.
SeriphArcher 1 year ago
@SeriphArcher 1) England banned the Slave Trade in 1809, the US banned it in 1808 but planned the ban in 1788 (see the Constitution). However, my comment about "my side" winning includes a war, protests and amendments. Therefore, "my side" won the arguement that slavery was a violation of the Constitution and fixed it so that it was unconstitutional.
You really should bone up on reading comprehension so you can remember what I said in previous comments. It'd make it easier.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
The constitutional interpretation was not changed, the constitution itself was changed. You should learn what the difference between contextual alteration and contextual interpretation is; as without it you are going to continue looking like a fool. There was no contextual interpretation change, however; there was a contextual alteration. In fact, the government has noted several times that the constitution originally was cool with slavery.
Seripharcher1 1 year ago
@Seripharcher1 Honestly, I have said more than enough to prove my point and don't need to respond. I will just sit down with Frederick Douglass and those who believed that the US Constitution was never pro-slavery as it never mentions, nor endorses the concept. It does, however, put many conditions and clauses open to interpretation (as the founders meant it to be) so that it would create the same struggles they had about slavery. It did so, and we solidified the anti-slavery intent into law.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
Sure, keep believing your lie. The Constitution was a racist and highly flawed document, that had anything but the best for slaves or women in mind. Thats why there had to be amendments. But until there is an amendment the constitution says what it says, there isn't a way out of it. The intent of several sections is clear. Stop treating the constitution like some sacrosanct document that only has the most righteous concepts. Its pretty awful actually.
Seripharcher1 1 year ago
@Seripharcher1 "until there is an amendment the constitution says what it says" You seem to just get to my point, then back away from it, like you were afraid to touch a hot kettle.
Remember:
- It is constitutional if it says something word for word
- It is unconstitutional if it contradicts the exact words
- It violates the Constitution if it goes against the words that are their, though it isn't mentioned
- Nothing in the Constitution supports slavery, much runs against it.
cont
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
@Seripharcher1 Part 2
- Amendments are there to fix the violations, solidifying them as unconstitutional
All I did was take the document for its word. This is what the founders asked on the citizens: to educate themselves, study the philosophy behind it and to interpret the document. Otherwise, the court system, the electorial system and the ideas of the Enlightenment, Great Awakening and so on would have been meaningless as we turned back to a king and nobels to dictate from on high.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
You keep trying to define your way out of a corner. Either you can take the document as a spirit based document or as a legal based document. If you argue spirit, then you can't argue constitutionality you have to argue an amendment to the constitution that meets your personal belief system, at which point you are arguing ethics as opposed to law. You keep jumping around from 'what is' to 'what should be' to 'what could be'. You can't argue from all positions.
Seripharcher1 1 year ago
@Seripharcher1 "You keep trying to define your way out of a corner." I agree. I keep trying to set a fixed point in the discussion we can agree on so that we can argue from the same, non-moving point.
I hear that allows two people with differing viewpoints to find a single fixed set of rules to define the discussion.
I tried defining them my way, you didn't agree.
I tried getting you to set a definition, you didn't want to.
I guess you prefer sand to bedrock
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
@Seripharcher1 "Stop treating the constitution like some sacrosanct document that only has the most righteous concepts. Its pretty awful actually" I will remind you that we both agreed on these two points. So, let's look at it this way...
There are only four ways to read a text:
1) By the words on the paper, defined at the time of its writing (literal)
2) In context of modern times (progressive)
3) In context of the times when writen (originalist)
Let's choose one, not jump around.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
Actually, those aren't the only way to read a document, especially not the constitution. My position always has been that constitutionality is based wholly on compliance with the literal text of the constitution or progressive advancement of rights and obligations through Judicial Review which is part of the literal text as well. However, Judicial Review is harnessed by not allowing the Judicial branch the ability to go against literal text.
Seripharcher1 1 year ago
@Seripharcher1 "My position always has been that constitutionality is based wholly on compliance with the literal text of the constitution or progressive advancement of rights and obligations through Judicial Review " Good, let's call it this then (which, by the way is actually number 1) literal).
So, you now must agree that slavery is not actually in the Constitution until A13, which merely clarifies the document's rights.
Thank you for agreeing.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
No. It is literally in the constitution. Its very clear in both the representation section (note how indentured servants are 1 person, where as slaves are 3/5 of a person). Its also in the article that protects the slave trade. I strongly encourage you to read history on the writing of the constitution. Its very clear. The term "imported" was a very commonly used word for slavery.
Seripharcher1 1 year ago
@Seripharcher1 "Its very clear in both the representation section " which states it is 1) for the purposes of enumeration for representation, and not defining what a "person" is, 2) doesn't say "slavery" or "slaves" and 3) says the 3/5th is for all other "persons".
If we stick to literal interpretation, that may or may not include slaves, but also immigrants, resident aliens and migrant workers (fully paid, but not bound for years) such as nomadic farmers and "hobos".
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
@Seripharcher1 "I strongly encourage you to read history on the writing of the constitution" so you want to change the rules? You said you were following the literal reading of the contract. Are we going to a different set of standards? If so, you should have said that when you wrote: "My position always has been that constitutionality is based wholly on compliance with the literal text of the constitution "
You cheated and wasted our time.
Pick a set of rules and stay with them.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
@Seripharcher1 Oh and you can actually drop the progressive in "progressive advancement of rights" for two reasons:
1) If you mean moving foreward to that set of absolute truths inherent in rights, it is redundant
2) If you mean as it politically stands, the loose definition of a "living document" based on the thought of society, you're comment contradicts this idea, as does the term advancement.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
1) rights aren't absolute, hence voting, gun ownership, etc being denied by getting a felony. Also, most rights protected in the constitution are positive rights not negative rights and are civil right not human rights.
2). Stance of a society doesn't matter until an amendment or Judicial review happens.
Seripharcher1 1 year ago
@Seripharcher1 1) "rights aren't absolute" Ah, but read the words in the Constitution. There is a set of conditions which says when we voluntarily forgoe our rights to things: A4, A5. and even those hold to keeping the rights more than forfeiting them. But I agree, the rights protected are against what the government does to people.
2) Yes, I agree. That's why I am being literal, not progressive or originalist. May I suggest you try it too.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
@Seripharcher1 Let me say that by reading that the Constitution as a pro-slave document because that's what the people believed it to be (progressive), then ignoring the public when we call universal health [insuance] is not constitutional is a bit hypocritical.
If you would rather go with an originalist view, then universal health [insurance] is also not constitutional.
If you want to argue a literal reading, then slavery is not constitutional.
We need to pick what we argue here.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
Literal Reading- Slavery is constitutional given the language of the time.
Original (which is literal)- Slavery is constitutional.
Progressive- Slavery was constitutional but eventually should have been outlawed via amendments which is later was.
Universal Health Care is upheld by any reading under General Welfare and Interstate Commerce.
Seripharcher1 1 year ago
@Seripharcher1 "Literal Reading- Slavery is constitutional given the language of the time" As you said, the literal reading is "compliance with the literal text of the constitution" which doesn't say slavery and has language that points away from it (you just ignored the definitions).
"Original (which is literal)" If we agree to this, then SSI, Medicare and welfare becomes, as yuoi say, unconstitutional.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
No I didn't. Imported Person is a Slave. It was commonly used term of the time. Please, please stop trying to argue against what is proven history. You aren't going to win it. No legal scholar will ever agree with you on that fact that the constitution was anti-slavery. Everyone will point to the two things I did.
Seripharcher1 1 year ago
@Seripharcher1 "Imported Person is a Slave" Somebody call the ACLU on Hollywood. Christopher Eccleston, who was an importee to work on Heroes, is a slave.... a well paid, free to leave when he want, slave...
Now, if you use the words as they are written, as you said you were, you don't have the word slave until A13.
You are using the originalist or progressive agruments. Please choose one and stay with it.
"No legal scholar will ever agree with " I guess F.Douglass is wrong.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
@bsabruzzo
Eccleston was not imported, he was paid to come over by his free will. The term imported person at the time meant slave. There is no linguistic way around it.
However, I'm done with the argument. At this point I've decided a) you are a troll b) you just really don't get history, language, or political science at all, and are not worth the time trying to educate. Your views are historically nonsequiter, you don't grasp basic political theory, and lack any impact. Good day.
Seripharcher1 1 year ago
@Seripharcher1 a) If discussing a matter of historical importamce with other people is trolling, I got the boat and net.
b) You were the one who wouldn't pick a set of rules and kept jumping around to suit your argument. I tried to anchor thing. By the way, you did ignore things for your own goal, you chose to write me, even after you said you wouldn't, and no need to educate he who is educated.
You even ignored the definition with "Eccleston was not imported". Look it up.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
@Seripharcher1 "Everyone will point to the two things I did" Point away. But please, if you aren't going with a literal reading of the Constitution, tell me and we will try to pick either an origanlist view (the maning based on what the writers thought) or a progressive view (the meaning based on contempory society's beliefs).
I am not just trying to build on something fixed and stable. Not something that will change as we wish to "get a win".
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
@Seripharcher1 "Progressive- Slavery was constitutional but eventually should have been outlawed via amendments which is later was" Actually a progressive view doesn't need the amendments, as the ideas are within the society... making slavery, as you say, unconstitutional by virtue that society thinks so. The amendment process makes the reading literal.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
Progressive needs amendments, it always has, the progressive movement just can do more with each amendment than a strict interpretation dose. Progressive readings require judicial review even more than others as thats how the progressive method functions, so you still come back to the fact that progressively slavery was deemed constitutional for a long time.
Seripharcher1 1 year ago
@Seripharcher1 "Progressive needs amendments" I think you have it backwards. In order for a literal reading of the Constitution to happen, you need the words in the document itself. Hence the term literal. If the progressive movement were to actually get amendments, as they did in the 1910s and 1920s, they wouldn't have the problem they have today: saying that the Constitution says something it doesn't, and pushing laws though that get tossed out in court.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
@Seripharcher1 "Progressive readings require judicial review even more than others as thats how the progressive method functions" I agree. And if this were the time of prohibition, I'd say that was constitutional. I would not like it, but it would be. However, there was no amendment that says slavery is okie-dokie. Those who wanted slavery argued the progressive and originalist position and courts agreed. But literally it was not there and we had to amend the Constitution to shut them up.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
@Seripharcher1 "you still come back to the fact that progressively slavery was deemed constitutional for a long time" Hey, hey, give the man a seee-garrrr. You got it.
Progressively it was argued that way, though it could have been literally argued (and was) that it wasn't. It just didn't take intil people wnet to war and amendments made slavery literally unconstitutional.
I love it when the person I'm arguing with makes my point better than I do.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
@Seripharcher1 "Universal Health Care is upheld by any reading under General Welfare and Interstate Commerce" Let's look, okay.
Commerce Clause: To regulate commerce with forign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes
Literal
- The law is not about health care, but about health insurance
- Health insurance is prohibited by federal law to sell across state lines (not interstate)
- Insurance that would not sell across state lines would not qualify
More...
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
Literal-
Law deals with health insurance which is a interstate institution as there is free movement in the United States and most insurance applies outside of your own state. It also deals with how health care must be given which is interstate as well.
Seripharcher1 1 year ago
@Seripharcher1 "Law deals with health insurance which is a interstate institution " Reread your federal laws. Health insurance from New Jersey was not allowed, by federal law (they used the commerse clause, go figure) to be sold in California, New York or any other state. Insurance companies had to set up offices in each states (and two in some) and write different poicies for each. This drove up the price and violated the Constitution. This is why it was suggested as a solution by the GOP.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
@Seripharcher1 "{the law} also deals with how health care must be given" Actually, no it doesn't say how care is given or to whome. In fact, it refers to the old, standing laws. It just explains how the care will be paid for, who would be covered by the payment and the rules the payments will be funded. That is insurance coverage, not the care.
If you read the law (the worst 10 days of my life) you will find that it concerns more with tax implications than medicine, doctors or hospitals.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
@Seripharcher1 If it were concerned with care and not coverage, it would have addresses actual care. However the care of a patient is dependant not on price but on quality and avalibility, both of which are the best in the world (the US's low ranking is baced on coverage and price, which is not care).
If you believe in gov't involvement, more could have been done with labor laws and tax breaks and tort reform, all which are ignored in the law.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
@bsabruzzo Literal cont (part 2)
- Not buying an item is not commerce
- Health insurance in the US does not deal with foriegn nations and only those sold to indians deal with indians
- To regulate (1780s): to make regular; to bring into conformity with a rule, principle, or usage; cause to conform to standard or norm
While making something conform to a law might qualify, is is, according to the words written, as you say, unconstitutional.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
-Not buying is part of General Welfare, the regulation is commerce. In much these same way the government can tax you for certain things. The government brings health insurance into the norms of other forms of insurance practices.
Meets the constitution in literal. Passed the congress, upheld by the appellate court, meets progressive.
Seripharcher1 1 year ago
@Seripharcher1 "upheld by the appellate court" I'll start here. Two federal courts have deemed a portion of the law is unconstitutional. Because there was no seperatability clause, that makes the entire law unconstitutional. One court was a bit more activist, saying that the mandate (the unconstitutional portion) was so interweaved in the law, even with a severability clause, the law would break down completely if it were removed, making the law unfunctionable.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
@Seripharcher1 "Not buying is part of General Welfare, the regulation is commerce" Please, now you are arguing that if one point is valid that makes the other point valid. Yes, it meets welfare (though not general), but that doesn't make it commerce. If I don't buy gum or a car or viagra, that is not commerce because I have not engaged in commerse. Both parties must engage in a purchase to make it commerse.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
@Seripharcher1 "The government brings health insurance into the norms of other forms of insurance practices" Actually, it doesn't.
In insurance, the company underwriting the policy gets to raise premiums based on risk or can choose not to insure. With the health [insurance] law, insurance companies can't allocate more than 20% to overhead, can't refuse to cover somebody and can't raise rates more than a dictated amount.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
@Seripharcher1 Literal part 3
Remember, we will define things not as contempory society wishes it (progressive) or as the writters believed (originalist) but in a word for word translation, as you said you did.
General Welfare falls under two places
Preamble: promote the general welfare
Art1 Sec8: ... to lay and collect taxes...to pat debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare...
cont
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
@Seripharcher1 literal universal helath insurance part 4
- Universal [insurance] states in it that the fee levied in the mandate is not a tax, so it doesn't qualify as a tax
- General: of or pertaining to all persons or things belonging to a group or category; not limited to one class, field, product, service, etc
- Welfare: the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; well-being
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
@Seripharcher1 literal part 5
- Promote: to help or encourage to exist or flourish; further; to encourage the sales, acceptance, etc., of (a product), especially through advertising or other publicity
- These definitions are so we have a common understanding
- Universal health [insurance] doesn't promote business, nor encourage sales
- UH [insurance] isn't general, picking out and waiving specific groups or individuals
Now we are on the same page, literal-wise
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
@Seripharcher1 "Stop treating the constitution like some sacrosanct document " And last, contract law.
If a contract is to be credible for people and business, it must be defined in one of these manners. Generally the "letter of the law" or as it is written is the most reliable. Some also argue the "spirit of the law", however I do find that this opens up a can of worms such as a progressive or "living document" interpretation,
So I read the document as is.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
If you read the document as is, there is no way around that the original document protected slavery and the slave trade.
Seripharcher1 1 year ago
@Seripharcher1 "there is no way around that the original document protected slavery and the slave trade" You are saying the document was afirmative in word and actuion. Please provide the location of the word "slavery" and not just your definition of words where you exclude other meanings (note I included definitions of words which would undermine my argument).
As is, according to Frederick Douglass, escaped slave and scholar, the Constitution is an anti-slave document.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
@SeriphArcher Part 3
Notw, the definition of the word importation is also, well, import-ant.
Just as the word "happiness" didn't merely mean "look, I'm smiling a lot" but also "fortune", "luck" and "wealth", the word "import" meant many things in the King's English, some that have fallen out of use.
An "import" mean that which is brought in, such as goods and merchandice, but also meant people who traveled from a foriegn land, as in those who migrated, as in... my point.
Linguistic
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
The article refers to two things, 1. Migration which is about people who choose to come to the US as indentured servants. 2. Importation, people who are brought in as slaves. The constitution upholds both as being legal and fine. The primary purpose of the article is to protect the slave trade. There is no way around that interpretation. Not a single source agrees with your interpretation.
SeriphArcher 1 year ago
@SeriphArcher Though my interpretation, which is literal and not historical and sheep-like, let's say it does refer to slaves (though it doesn't say slaves, just PERSONS.
Then this is false: "The constitution upholds both as being legal and fine". In fact it doesn't uphold it or say it is fine. It just says the federal government would not pass a law for 20 years... as T.Jefferson and 100 years later F.Douglas both said, it merely gave the south a change to prepare for the end.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
Quoting Fredrick Douglas is silly, he was one of the primary protectors of slavery for many years.
Seripharcher1 1 year ago
@Seripharcher1 "[Fredrick Douglass] was one of the primary protectors of slavery for many years" Are you seriously referring to the escaped slave who spoke out about abolishing slavery for all of his free life as a "protector of slavery"?
Okay, I will sit here and you can now say anything and everything about my personal beliefs that the freedom the US Constitution protects is for all people, because this comment you made is proof enough you can live with believing two opposites are the same.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
Comment removed
Seripharcher1 1 year ago
Misread your comment, I thought you were talking about the Douglas who was instrumental in the implementation of slave provisions in the constitution. I assumed we were still talking about the founding fathers, as that had been the point we'd been on for a while.
Seripharcher1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Seripharcher1 " I assumed we were still talking about the founding fathers" We were actually talking about the US Constitution and whether it said what it said (my point) vs it says only what a court tells us it says (your point). I quoted an actual person who is educated and agreed with me that the US Constitution did not support slavery, but was actually against it.
It may have took 80 years to get the government to realize that the Constitution was a freedom document, but they did.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
Regardless of what position a person takes on this issue this is a refreshing moment in democracy at work. This was a nice change of pace from all the vitriol.
I wish our politicians would debate and discuss the health care issues like this.
75630KaraokeStar 1 year ago
I suppose International waters are free. However, theyre called "International" because they belong to everyone, and under the control of United Nations regulations. So head for the hills..of the Sea of Tranquility.
ZeusTelemaxos 1 year ago
the reason i like this video is because even though these two had differences and didnt agree at the end of the argument they shook hands, respected each others side of the argument and still had nice things to say about each other. she didnt call him a socialist and tell him to go to tell like sarah palin or any other teabagger would
blakefish820 1 year ago
I'm not an American. British, live and work here. Love my American colleagues, but totally baffled by the vilification of a president trying to introduce some equity into the health system. Citizens of all the developed countries I know off - except America - regard universal health care, education, law and order, as their birthright. God help anyone in America who falls sick or has an accident without health insurance - or just been let go? tough.
WAKE UP AMERICA........DOH
armstrongariz 1 year ago
shit debate.
she didn't know anything, the congressman knew his stuff from whatever his Dem buddies told him.
and lol put uninsured in a "over arching insurance plan". that girl just described what? a. universal healthcare b. universal healthcare c. universal healthcare
SS0UTHB0UND 1 year ago
Im surprised Alan didnt make some of his assface remarks and sneers at her like he usually does.
Willredd94 1 year ago
ebecker2000 my msn in profile! Informed Debate on Health Reform. Tea Party vs. Liberal Congressman
sexykatie911 1 year ago
@KOMC4444 Actually, it sounded as though she was the one defeating Grayson. In his typical way, he skirted the issues, refusing to tell her that she would be required to purchase health insurance. I give her credit for her intelligent questions and refusal to back down to Grayson's inadequate answers.
...
Very interesting to see how the Capitol Police surrounded Grayson. It must have been very intimidating for Lydia and her friends to approach him. Anyone notice his touching her? Creepy...
sbpickering 1 year ago
That was amazing! Everyone here talking shit about Grayson & this woman are crazy. She was articulate and he was responsive. That was one of the best, factually based discussions I've seen during the whole healthcare debate. Much respect to the woman for being so well informed & much respect to Grayson for going out there to talk w/people. He answered her questions in an honest and straight forward way. She voiced her legitimate concerns w/o screaming or accusing. THAT'S what America should be!!
marcrocksout 1 year ago
tea partiers are so fucking dumb
amk4956 1 year ago
Statesman Ron Paul is one of the few leading men in the Nation who can lead the U.S. on the Wise & Prudent Path to American Strength.
TheOwl1776 1 year ago
LOL @ this girl arguing to pay more for medical care.
stingyzx 1 year ago
The Tea Party gives libertarians a bad name. It's so sad to see this intelligent woman buy into the corporatist propaganda. The health insurance companies have successfully brainwashed people to believe that limitation of opportunity = equality of opportunity and top-down monopoly = the free market. It may be true that literal equality is an impossibility in any sexually reproducing species, but using state power to create cartels and institute profit over people as law of the land is heinous.
forrestcrow 1 year ago
informed vs. uninformed: if you think the tea bagger is the informed.. read a book, look at things that are called FACTS.. it's funny that tea baggers only came on the scene when a black president came into power.. look at the majority of tea baggers, white, biggeted men and women..
arby86 1 year ago
@arby86 The tea party movement solidified long before, in 2007, with a grassroots effort behind Ron Paul and a Libertarian way of thinking. In the last year or so, the GOP has very rapidly split between the Bush-esque mindset which has become so unpopular, versus the grassroots "tea party" that is trying to reform the platform, but now the former has adopted the "tea party" name because of the success of the latter.
interneteffects 1 year ago
@arby86 So I see you're judging a movement based on the colour of not only their, but the president's skin.
Iisdabest889 1 year ago
@capt777737
RacistTeaBaggers 1 year ago
I disagree with forcing people to buy insurance. Either increases taxes or provide a basic floor plan for catastrophic illnesses for all. But forcing people to patronize a business is not right.
EsClayWilson 1 year ago
@EsClayWilson How is that not the same thing? If the Federal Government raised taxes and used those new taxes to pay for insurance, in what way is it different?
2ndtoJohn 1 year ago
@2ndtoJohn I was addressing the issue of forcing people to buy something. It is a disingenuous way to get around the core issue. Furthermore, the bill or anything else proposed doesn't address the real issue: Why health care costs have risen so dramatically as a whole and for an individual procedures? That is the core of the matter
EsClayWilson 1 year ago
@EsClayWilson @EsClayWilson So it's not the outcome that's important (more people having coverage) it's the name that matters (tax vs private purchase). Although, I will agree with you that the bill doesn't address the real issue of health insurance greed. The only way to fix the problem is with an alternative non-profit health plan that challenges health insurance companies to offer competitive pricing. Ideally, we would get rid of for-profit altogether, people shouldn't profit off death.
2ndtoJohn 1 year ago
@2ndtoJohn I think a little profit motive in medicine is not a bad thing. If people can come up with better methods, drugs, treatments that are legit why not let them profit by it. Altruism only goes so far. But we do need some over sight or quacks and the deluded will bilk and kill people with bad medicine
EsClayWilson 1 year ago
There are so many successful models of socialized healthcare in the world where overall health costs are lower, coverage is more universal and outcomes are better. Where are the successes that follow Libertarian health policies? East Africa? Southeast Asia?
martyyu 1 year ago
Holy shit, she was rational and had actual facts.
Obviously not a teabagger.
pbmdh 1 year ago
@pbmdh You are incorrect my friend, what she has said and the message she is saying is exactly what the Tea Party is founded on, she is just a person that isn't as in your face or loud about the message she wants to get across.
ewdmei 1 year ago
Not really. Her "facts" are mostly regurgitated crap spewed from tea-party heads, yes. But she actually knows some of what she's talking about. Unlike most teapartytards yelling something like "NO SHARIA LAW IN US! HERP DERP!", then when asked what it is, they don't know.
pbmdh 1 year ago
'You can't get chemo in the ER." Boo-yah. That sure shut up that libertarian douchebaguette asking the questions.
marduk131 1 year ago
she's an idiot
xpat73 1 year ago
@xpat73 This women is in fact intelligent and represents her opinion with fact, unlike you whom make personal accusations and calling her names because your threatened by her intelligence.
ewdmei 1 year ago
This woman is as sharp as a marble. There is no choice when all you have are for-profit health insurance companys.
The only solution is Single-Payer insurance. There is a reason that for-profit health insurance is illegal in countrys that have real health care.
MsZeitgeist85 1 year ago
kyokushin25mgt 1 year ago
O yeah and he was never charged a cent
kyokushin25mgt 1 year ago
hey.. why isnt she in the kitchen make me a sandwhich. If she wants good HEALTH, she better CARE about my hunger!!!!
Suffersosweetly 1 year ago
Grayson handled this great, she was grasping at straws
raybarry3433 1 year ago
Congressman Grayson is awesome.
acinodras 1 year ago
Bravo to both Lydia and Grayson...After all the mind blowing stupidities from a number of tea party members, Lydia is a breath of civility and fresh air.
nobletalent 1 year ago
Comment removed
xxdakxx 1 year ago
I want to marry this woman.
xxdakxx 1 year ago
Great video. Thanks for posting a civil conversation in the wild. I thought they were extinct.
sohanstag 1 year ago
If Ms. "Uninsured because I am healthy" is hit by a bus, she is going to the emergency room. They will fix her up and discharge her with a $267k bill. She will not get a payment plan for that, because the average person cannot pay a $267k bill over three or four years. So she will file for bankruptcy and the hospital will not get paid. It will get passed on to you and me, all because she wants to be free to be financially irresponsible. Why should society bear the cost of your unpaid care?
simont7 1 year ago
respectful =]
pandasftuw 1 year ago
Shorter Tea Party Fool: "I don't mind if I can't afford Health Care and Die. This is AMERICA!"
ottoskidoo 1 year ago
Can someone simply tell me what wrong with obamas health care plan? =S
pandasftuw 1 year ago
I wish I could debate as well as this woman. She knows her stuff.
This Representative is a perfect example of answering a question by avoiding the topic, then ignoring the question all together.
y the way, ebecker2000, this isn't "Tea Bag Rally". The tea bag people are a tiny group that wants to mail tea bags to congress. This looks like a TEA Party rally. Let's be civil and not use prejoratives.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
@bsabruzzo Thanks - Changed to Tea Party. If you could be specific about which questions remains unanswered - maybe we can find see if anyone knows the answer as close to the answer as possible being no one has yet to experience the changes.
ebecker2000 1 year ago
@ebecker2000 Well, he never answered if he, or anybody really, has the right to require a person to buy a product to be a citizen of the US. After all, now people like Rush Limbaugh (one of the "uninsured") are now forced to buy insurance or be penilized. The United States of America does require taxes (though, it is not allowed to taget a tax unless spelled out in the Constitution), but this isn't a tax, it's a mandate to buy insurance. Not even SSI is set up that way. It's set up as a tax.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
@bsabruzzo OK how far can the US government go in making you do things. Can it make you give up your gun? Buy medical insurance? Go fight in wars, Take your land? Make you pay tax? Compel you to pay your credit card/student dept. Pay fines, Pay into social security. Obey the law. What else does the feds make us do?
ebecker2000 1 year ago
@ebecker2000 Government compelling you to do things, taken one at a time:
Give up you gun: Debatable, based on voluntarily commiting a crime and forfiting your right.
Buy a product (medical insurance): no.
Fight in Wars: Voluntarily based on Constitutional right to declare war.
Take land: For public use with just compensation, based on Constitution.
Taxes: In Constitution.
Credid Cards: Contractual law, in Constitution.
Fines, SSI: Debatable, still being discussed.
Laws: Social contract.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
@ebecker2000 The parts that are debatable are in flux and constantly tested in the courts. Most items the federal government are allowed to enforce are based on the US Constitution, all others are reserved to the states. The "obey the law" portion is based on the social contract of citizenship. If you don't like the law, your options are to change it or move. The US Constitution is set up to prevent laws from being made against the individual's freedom by the federal government.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
@ebecker2000 Oh, and my personal opinion, fines and social security insurance are not constitutional, however, I would pay "fines" if they were proper taxes. And I'd gladly pay into a real insurance for disability and safety-net for the elderly. I would just structure SSI differently, including making it optional and privatizing it, so that it becomes solvent and even profitable.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
@ebecker2000
I dont understand where this idea that youre immune from government's will comes from? You are born into a government. you are not a sovereign individual. There is no place on earth where you are considered a sovereign. Your rights go as far as the borders which you live in, permit them to go. You have no inherided rights except to maybe live and breath. If you want to be a sovereign, youll have to leave the Earth and put your own flag on another planet.
ZeusTelemaxos 1 year ago
@bsabruzzo But it really IS just a tax. If you don't have health insurance you have to pay a tax. The words "penalty" and "requirement" obscure the basic point of it. It's literally, "do you have health insurance? No? Pay this amount."
zackwoodson 1 year ago
@zackwoodson Yes, but if it is a tax it should be applied as a tax, a set amount applied to all people. Tax law allows deductions and credits for those who have insurance, so why write the requirements into the part that describes taking the "penalty"?
As in your example...
Tax= "Give me this amount. Do you have insurance? Yes= return the amount."
Penalty="Do you have health insurance? No? Pay this amount."
Splitting hairs, I know.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
@zackwoodson Why are we trying to force R.limbaugh, B.Gates etc to buy insurance when they pay out of pocket for most things? Why are we saying "buy this or pay"? Under that rule, can I require people to buy my clothing (everybody needs pants)? The arguement that you "need insurance" is false. Charity, hospital programs and existing gov't programs already cover those "uninsured". Most who quality for these things just don't apply. So, how are you going to get them to apply under the new law?
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
@bsabruzzo That's not true that the uninsured just haven't applied for readily available insurance yet. Medicaid/Medicare have real limits, and charity is not going to pay for organ transplants, surgeries, or chemo treatments.
The good thing about the new law is that it will help lower health care costs and fund government subsidies that will allow the uninsured to get insurance (and allow the un-insurable to become insurable, once pre-existing condition bans are implemented).
zackwoodson 1 year ago
@zackwoodson We can certainally disagree about who will be covered. There are studies that showed that most of the people who didn't have insurance (the product we are now required by law to buy) were eligible for other forms of insurance and charities. And, yes, according to the President's example, chemo is covered by hospital programs and charities (one of him many rhetorical miscalculations).
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
@zackwoodson Not everybody who needs these things have access of course. But this is care, not coverage, and a different issue. We were discussing being forced to buy insurance, not giving care to those who neet it.
As for costs, the math only works if you restrict and ration care. But as we are talking about the forced purchase of a product, not costs, we still sit at this point: the gov't doesn't have the Constitutional power to take away a god-given liberty.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
@bsabruzzo We're not REALLY forcing Limbaugh/Gates to buy health insurance. We're telling them that if they'd prefer not to enter the insurance system, they just need to pay a tax to make up for the loss of their health care insurance dollars.
You can certainly oppose the tax, by all means, but I don't see how it's different from any other tax, and it doesn't look like you think there's one, either, with the "splitting hairs" comment.
zackwoodson 1 year ago
@zackwoodson "We're telling them that if they'd prefer not to enter the insurance system, they just need to pay a tax to make up for the loss of their health care insurance dollars" So, you are saying what?
As the fine is tageted to people who don't need insurance and aren't a burden on the system and, in fact, most likely give to the charities that cover the "uninsured", why punish them for mot being a burden?
A tax would be applied to everybody, insurance or not. This is a fine.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago