Live coverage: Senate heads for dramatic healthcare repeal vote
Source: The Hill
The Hill will be providing live updates as Senate Republicans seek to start their ObamaCare repeal effort on Tuesday.
Protestors chant from Senate gallery
Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/343627-live-coverage-senate-heads-for-dramatic-healthcare-repeal-vote
The country now has death panels, McCain and Johnson just fucked 22 million people and another ten million
BumRushDaShow
(129,084 posts)turbinetree
(24,703 posts)FUCK YOU
I have a fucking right to health care, you mother fuckers now own this shit
BumRushDaShow
(129,084 posts)turbinetree
(24,703 posts)We are at fucking war for inalienable rights , and these motherfuckers want to kill me and my family
:Gr: :Gr:
BumRushDaShow
(129,084 posts)There needs to be people "in the voting booths" EVERY fucking election (including this year) and not just every 4 years.
turbinetree
(24,703 posts)starting today, fuck this Bullshit
Igel
(35,317 posts)They're things that don't have to be provided. At best, a government can unjustly limit them.
Free speech is one. It's something you have; it can be limited, rightly or wrongly. By yourself, with nobody else around, you have this right.
Freedom of religion is the same. Nobody grants it to you--you enjoy it by virtue of having a mind. It can be infringed on. It can be protected. But if you're by yourself, you have it. It's a bit trickier when you require props for your religion.
Property, legally acquired, is another. Nobody bestows upon you the right to property. But there is no natural right to receive property--just to acquire it and, once possessed, retain possession. Nobody has to give you property, nobody has to be willing to trade. Forced deals are not part of the right.
In other words, natural rights impose a burden of tolerance on others. That is the obligation imposed on them. Those natural rights that require the participation of others are merely rights to access and opportunity. If you have right to happiness, it doesn't follow others must provide it. You merely have the right to pursue it--as with property. The right to free association does not require that anybody provide you with associates if you're unliked by all. The right to freedom of the press merely requires that the press, if you have one, be untaxed and not unduly limited--there's no requirement that anybody give you a press.
Health care as an inalienable or natural right misses this in a few ways. If you're by yourself, what health care do you have a natural right to? You have the right to take care of yourself given what you have. There's your inalienable right. Seems rather trivial, since freedom to act was so basic it didn't make the top 10, and what you use is going to be your property and that right's also there.
What's left to the right to health care isn't an inalienable right. It's not something you automatically have by virtue of being a human and not having limits thrust upon you. It's like the right to work. If you have a right to work, it means somebody has the obligation to hire and pay you. At that point government--or a warlord--is there interfering with the natural right to free association and property.
The only "positive" right in the Bill of Rights is still negative: It's due process, which means that government will not infringe on your natural rights. It's still a limitation on government, just worded backwards. It's come to be interpreted, a over a century later, as de facto implying that help be provided. But that's already screwing with a crucial part of the definition. It shifts rights from what you enjoy as a human to what you get by virtue of having power. Locke and Hobbes would have a few choice words, as would most of the Founding Fathers.
Health care may be a positive right, one bestowed by government. But as a natural or inalienable right? It's not something you naturally have; you don't inalienably possess it. This right requires an obligation on the part of others to do something for you: If nobody's willing to pay, then governmental force makes them pay; if nobody's willing to render services, then either they have to be bribed through higher pay or they have to be conscripted. I've heard it argued that sex and reproduction are also inalienable rights; if we treat them like some do jobs or health care then we'll have conscripted prostitutes and mandatory womb service provided to men who otherwise can't find a mate. The parallel is ludicrous. But I'm sure there are some who would think this a great idea.
It really is the difference between "kill" and "let die." One's causative, with death meted out. The other is without regard to external agency.
There's the view, not entirely contemporary, that all rights are social constructs, and you have no more a right to life and liberty than you do to whatever else the government or "society" deigns to grant you. This seems like a great idea, because then we can declare anything to be a right. Even required sex with undesirable males (or females). One has to be very picky to avoid sanctioning totalitarianism. If they deprive you of a right, well, who cares, if they take it away it ceases to be a right. There are no natural rights, so the only complaint is, "But I want it." Such arguments boil down to a trivial, "Yup, here's the definition, we're done here" or a careful dance in which words have a variety of definitions carefully chosen by just one side and we must pretend we're having a reasoned argument when what we're doing is carefully shifting definitions as necessary, like getting through a corn maze to the desired exit or using a very carefully stacked deck to win a poker game. That way be dragons.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,112 posts)or remove the mandate to buy, which is what finances it, then it is time for the streets.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,629 posts)I am not terribly surprised at this outcome.
McCain is a traitor.
turbinetree
(24,703 posts)none.
This asshole got his surgery paid for by the VA or by the taxpayers in one way or another, I really hope that people are in the streets of this asshole and Johnson home and they stay there
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,002 posts)1. Present bill
2. Vote
3. Hear from constituents. Should be before #2, but you know how RepubliCons are.
4. Get the House bill and Senate bill in Reconcilliation committee.
5. Vote on reconciled bill in House and Senate.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)For all those Dems who decided to pout and stay home?
Congratulations, because today belongs to you -- Own it!
Doug the Dem
(1,297 posts)And I hereby withdraw my good wishes for John McCain!
IronLionZion
(45,450 posts)for something. Most of them can't even say what her crime was.
Javaman
(62,530 posts)FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)Your comment may well be true of much of the public, but the greed driving the GOP isn't just about racism.
Owl
(3,642 posts)Still In Wisconsin
(4,450 posts)And don't fucking tell me that this was "just the motion to proceed." It will now pass the Senate, and I'll fucking eat this keyboard if it doesn't.
The only silver lining here is the Republicans now own the incoming shit storm once people realize what they've actually lost. It's 100% theirs.
Also, McCain just cemented his legacy, and it ain't a great one. What a shame for a once heroic American airman.
forgotmylogin
(7,529 posts)That was objected to, reading was temporarily interrupted by protest in the gallery. Chants of "kill the bill" were heard on CSPAN.
Old Vet
(2,001 posts)The republicans don't give two fucks about the common man.....Period
Plus they will pick up seats in the House and Senate in 2018 as a reward. Welcome to fascism folks and this is only the beginning.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,002 posts)Republicon Senators are more likely to defect on an actual bill than on a motion to proceed.
hibbing
(10,098 posts)I really wish I could feel a tinge of optimism, but I don't. They are going to dismantle every piece of legislation and regulation that has benefited every American.
Peace
Stuart G
(38,434 posts)We will see, but I wish it was killed now, instead of later.
Peach4u2
(9 posts)Senator Capito stated she was against "proceeding"; unlike Murkowski & Collins however, Capito did not keep her word. Perhaps the worst of a bad lot.