[Emperor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Guids,

Saying something should be considered a right is simply a value judgment. Arguments like "you can't prove that health care is a right so it isn't" totally miss the boat. Why should free speech be considered a right? Because we as a society have deemed that a culture in which people could speak freely without fear of retribution is more attractive than one in which that isn't true. People who believe health care should be considered a right are saying the same thing about an acceptable level of health care. It's not something that can be "proved" one way or the other.

[/ QUOTE ]


Are you an American? this may be where the confusion comes in (Im not being snide, Im serious). Freedom of speech is a right, because it is in teh constitution as a right. Free Healthcare is not a right granted by teh constitution, so I can prove it. If there was a vote, and the constitution was amended than things would be different and I would defer to teh will of the people, but as of right now, its not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with your analysis. The Supreme Court could decide next year that healthcare is a right contemplated in the Constitution. You could disagree with it, but you would be out of luck. The Constitution does not address every issue known to man in plain terms.

Example - Is the death penalty "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibited by the Constitution? Some judges say no, and some judges say yes. As it stands now, the Supreme Court majority says no, but that could change, without a change in the Constitution.

We should all be suspicious of people who argue that their opinions are 100% right, above any debate whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with your analysis. The Supreme Court could decide next year that healthcare is a right contemplated in the Constitution, however they would be severely overstepping their authority. Disagreement could come in many forms. Congressional intervention, Militia uprising, etc. The Constitution does not address every issue known to man in plain terms for a reason, the writers intended for communities and state governments to address all of those issues. The State governors at the time even went out of their way to clarify by insisting on the Bill of Rights, specifically the 10th amendment, before ratifying the constitution.

Example - Is the death penalty "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibited by the Constitution? Some judges say no, and some judges say yes. However, in reality the judges shouldn't even be contemplating this issue, because the Constitution is very clear. Death for treason is appropriate. All other situations are to be left to the steates.

We should all be suspicious of people who intend to undo the document that is the fabric of our government and society.