• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

The Doctor is NOT in

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
Doc holiday - m.NYPOST.com

Is this the future of health care in America? 55 day wait like in Mass? Repeal that obamanation!
 

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
I see. You'd prefer to wait to get into the emergency room. That is, after all, where a lot of Americans turn to for primary care, in absence of a means of seeing a primary care provider. Or, ideally, would it be best to keep the poor from receiving any medical attention, as you might have to wait in line behind them?
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
Why no, EI, are those the ONLY choices? Because I oppose an unread, unconstitutional expansion of federal authority into the most private decisions about how I will manage my finances and provide for my family does that mean that I want to deny someone access to health care? Am I to be demonized as evil, wicked, mean, and selfish?

BTW, I have been to the emergency room on numerous occasions. When the issue was critical I was rushed right in. When it was not critical I had to wait.

I met a Canadian nurse a couple of weeks ago. It was a very enlightening conversation. She let me know that she could get a better level of care than the average person and that her friend would be dead now if she had waited months for a cancer screening when she was presenting symptoms. She came to the US, got the test, confirmed her cancer was still in the early stages, and had a successful operation which saved her life.
 

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
Why no, EI, are those the ONLY choices? Because I oppose an unread, unconstitutional expansion of federal authority into the most private decisions about how I will manage my finances and provide for my family does that mean that I want to deny someone access to health care? Am I to be demonized as evil, wicked, mean, and selfish?
Yes, I'm attempting to demonize you for opposing measures that will help prevent people from having to turn to emergency rooms for primary care. I'm not being sarcastic. That's what I'm trying to do here, because I consider your position on this immoral.
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
Yes, I'm attempting to demonize you for opposing measures that will help prevent people from having to turn to emergency rooms for primary care. I'm not being sarcastic. That's what I'm trying to do here, because I consider your position on this immoral.
That is interesting! That one might find it moral to use government to take that which they have no authority to steal, under threat of inprisionment and at the point of a gun, take their cut of the prize, and redistribute what remains to those to whom it does not belong. While at the same time it is immoral to resist the unconstitutional authority of an ever-expanding bureaucracy which infringes upon the god-given rights of the citizens. Not only that, but this morality also includes the right to bear false witness against those opposed, to demonize and dehumanize them, in an effort to silence them.

That is quite an interesting moral compass.
 

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
That one might find it moral to use government to take that which they have no authority to steal, under threat of inprisionment and at the point of a gun, take their cut of the prize, and redistribute what remains to those to whom it does not belong.
I remember that part of Bioshock. Incidentally, property rights are something the government gives you, not God.
------
“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's[...]". You get me?
 
Last edited:

Kazmarov

For a Free Scotland
That one might find it moral to use government to take that which they have no authority to steal, under threat of inprisionment and at the point of a gun, take their cut of the prize, and redistribute what remains to those to whom it does not belong. While at the same time it is immoral to resist the unconstitutional authority of an ever-expanding bureaucracy which infringes upon the god-given rights of the citizens.
Mind if you pause that rant, rewind, and tell us what's actually unconstitutional here?
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
I remember that part of Bioshock. Incidentally, property rights are something the government gives you, not God.
No, all rights are god-given. That truth is the American tradition: Principle 3. Unalienable Rights From God

We voluntarily authorized federal government to use some of those rights, on loan from "we the people" not the other way around.
------
Mind if you pause that rant, rewind, and tell us what's actually unconstitutional here?
Vinson opinion | Scribd
------
“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's[...]". You get me?
That is an interesting quote, on one hand is demonstrates the understanding that, at that time, all must bow before Caesar and to deny his supremacy would surely result in persecution. On the other hand it demonstrates the genius of the American tradition where the authority of government is only legitimate as agreed to by we the people, not some divine authority somehow appointed to rule over otherwise free men.
 
Last edited:

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
No, all rights are god-given. That truth is the American tradition:
I'm glad you mentioned that. The Declaration of Independence states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

That's a paraphrasing of the philosophy of John Locke who said men have a natural right to "life, liberty, and property." Notice the difference? Thomas Jefferson decided to go with "pursuit of Happiness" instead of "property".
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
I'm glad you mentioned that. The Declaration of Independence states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

That's a paraphrasing of the philosophy of John Locke who said men have a natural right to "life, liberty, and property." Notice the difference? Thomas Jefferson decided to go with "pursuit of Happiness" instead of "property".
Regardless of Locke's philosophy, my statement stands. If you follow the link provided you will see that "natural" or "god-given" rights encompass all rights and that the list is endless. Government authority is only derived from the consent of the governed: "we the people". For example "among them" indicates that the three listed are not the sum of those rights.
 
Top