Government of the people, by the people, for the people

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

-Abraham Lincoln
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania November 19, 1863

Now the philosophical question is does the Republican party of today, who unilaterally did and continues to do all in its power to block health care for the poor knowing full well that the very lives of these people are jeopardized and often lost because of such policies, have any relationship whatsoever to the Republican party of Abraham Lincoln? Lincoln is often credited with being its most important founder. But rather is the Republican party of today the very enemy of the republic to which Abraham Lincoln also gave his life and 'the last full measure of devotion'? And if fact is not the Republican party of Mitt Romney and associates guilty of attempting to enslave the public to money using the trite excuse that they are saving it from government - the government of the people, by the people, for the people?

If you give a small group of people the right to create and enforce laws that affect everyone, even though "everyone" never is in complete agreement on anything, and then don't expect some groups and individuals to find ways to influence and manipulate those "superhumans", then Mr. Lincoln, you were indeed quite naive.

People always look for personal advantages. So of course some of them will find ways to rig the game in order to change the rules in their favor. It's the most natural, obvious thing in the world.

The idea of a "government of the people, by the people, for the people" is a fantasy that can't even be realized on a very small scale, because as soon as even one person disagrees, violence has to be used to enforce the opinions of the majority - as if it were so terrible to have a real diversity and competition of ideas in our society.

For some reason, we always seem to be under the impression that our ideas are the best, therefore they should be enforced by the government (since it's there to serve *us*, right?). But then we are surprised to find out that the government does exactly that - enforce some subjective preferences - except not "ours".

The republican party of today follows exactly the ground rules that have been layed out by people like Lincoln - even if perhaps not their intent.

[Scott]

Lincoln was a Northern Liberal. The parties switched. The modern Democratic Party is really the descendants of Lincoln's Republican party. Yes, the modern Republican party has its roots in Lincoln's political opponents. Red states tend to be the one's who wanted to recede from the Union and keep slavery of blacks. Modern Republicans are far more likely to have wave confederate flags, want interracial marriage criminalized, sympathize with the South in their historical view of the civil war, and things of that nature.

Incidentally, Romney is the one who spearheaded much of Obamacare, namely the healthcare mandate, even before Obama was elected.

Sure most Republicans oppose health care reform that will allegedly help the poor, which includes many more people if we also count so-called middle class people who cannot afford the healthcare they need as poor. However, I don't think you can conclude this makes them callous, pro-slavery or otherwise opposed to a "government of the people by the people". Rather, they may genuinely believe that the proposed reforms would not improve the health of the poor. They may genuinely believe that the proposed reforms would increase health care costs and/or reduce outcomes or average health. They may even genuinely believe in conspiracy theories or lies involving death panels or secret Muslim alien presidents or such. They might genuinely believe that it is Democrats and/or supporters of health care reform who are supporting divisive policies and an anti-Lincoln-like agenda.

Lincoln was a Northern Liberal. The parties switched. The modern Democratic Party is really the descendants of Lincoln's Republican party. Yes, the modern Republican party has its roots in Lincoln's political opponents. Red states tend to be the one's who wanted to recede from the Union and keep slavery of blacks. Modern Republicans are far more likely to have wave confederate flags, want interracial marriage criminalized, sympathize with the South in their historical view of the civil war, and things of that nature.

Incidentally, Romney is the one who spearheaded much of Obamacare, namely the healthcare mandate, even before Obama was elected.

Sure most Republicans oppose health care reform that will allegedly help the poor, which includes many more people if we also count so-called middle class people who cannot afford the healthcare they need as poor. However, I don't think you can conclude this makes them callous, pro-slavery or otherwise opposed to a "government of the people by the people". Rather, they may genuinely believe that the proposed reforms would not improve the health of the poor. They may genuinely believe that the proposed reforms would increase health care costs and/or reduce outcomes or average health. They may even genuinely believe in conspiracy theories or lies involving death panels or secret Muslim alien presidents or such. They might genuinely believe that it is Democrats and/or supporters of health care reform who are supporting divisive policies and an anti-Lincoln-like agenda.

I might agree except for on fact. Throughout the approval of so-called Obamacare, I can not recall one Republican making a 'meaningful' proposal for ways of covering people who can not afford health insurance unless you want to consider such meaningless proposals as the last president Bush suggesting charities should do it !?!? But he might have really believed it - not the smartest of US Presidents. When we talk of Government of the people, by the people, for the people which is at the foundation of this nation, it would seem to me that medical care, at least basic health care for the nations citizens can be considered a basic right and denying health care for the poor and giving it mostly to the rich can be considered a violation of the constitution which states: As stated in Declaration of Independence and later re-defined through the Constitution: "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 to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed....."

There is no stretch of the imagination that can equate legal equality {admittedly an ideal} and the right to 'Life' with a government that does not allow for basic medical care for its citizens. To me its like that famous Supreme Court decision {I believe it was part of the Miranda case}, where the Supreme Court concluded that every citizen accused of a crime must be given the right to legal counsel whether he could afford it or not. Maybe Chief Justice Roberts was thinking the same thing when he allowed Obamacare to stand? To me not allowing for basic health care to all citizens violates a basic human right and is in clear violation of the intent and purpose of the US Constitution.

[Scott]

UniversalAlien, you say that you "cannot recall one Republican making a 'meaningful' proposal" but what about Romney's healthcare mandate which he initiated in Massachusetts and then Obama adopted at the federal level?

In any case, saying you "cannot recall" is more or less anecdotal, meaning it is not a very convincing argument. Moreover, my point isn't that Republicans are making proposals that you or I think would be meaningful/effective at improving the lives of poor people and namely improving the healthcare of those who receive inadequate care namely because they cannot afford it. Rather, my point is that the Republicans themselves likely believe it. They may think their proposals are meaningful and effective even though you do not, and they may genuinely believe that the Democratic proposals are counter-productive and they think repealing the allegedly counter-productive Democratic policies would have a 'meaningful' positive impact on improving the coverage of the poor.

To me not allowing for basic health care to all citizens violates a basic human right and is in clear violation of the intent and purpose of the US Constitution.

To you, yes. But now you have three issues tied up into this:

1) whether or not one supports the idea of "a government of the people, by the people and for the people"

2) whether or not one believes that basic health care is a basic human right such that in "a government of the people, by the people and for the people" there would be universal basic health care

3) whether the Democratic proposals are generally more effective at leading to more affordable healthcare and universal basic health care than Republican proposals

Surely, any given Republicans almost certainly disagrees with you on at least one of those 3 things. But it's illogical to assume which one. Indeed, one given Republican may agree with on two but not the other while for a different Republican it may be vice versa.

I'm not a Republican, but for what it's worth, I generally agree with you on 1 and 3, and I am in undetermined on 2 because it's kind of a vague idea, I generally don't believe in moral "rights", political rights are mitigated by responsibilities meaning the proposed solution could be more antithetical to a government by the people than the original problem, and there is the issue of priorities such that for example funding health care could mean less funding for education or for tax breaks for entrepreneurs or any number of other things.

Still what stands as a 'basic' principal advocated by the creation of the USA is this quote from the Declaration of Independence:

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 to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Now please explain to me how we can even talk about all men being created equal and being born therefore with an equal right to live when those with money will receive all the health care they want while those without will receive only emergency medical care and often may die because of this situation. Further, I personally know of individuals who because they were not covered by basic health services did survive but were permanently disabled and then because of this ended up on disability and government programs which will now cost the government {and taxpayers} much more money than it would have cost had they been able to afford basic medical care and screening before their condition led to a permanent state of disability.

[Scott]

My point is that a Republican could agree with you on those two points (1 & 2), but not on the other (3), which would lead to them opposing Democratic health reform proposals and to them presumably making no proposals that are "meaningful" in your or my opinion and/or that would be effective in your or my opinion because there opinion on such matters may honestly differ.

As for the specific explanation for which you asked, I think I have provided my answer in my topic: Equality, Meritocracy and Desert in which I explain the kind of distribution of wealth and by extension access to private medical care I wish to see, and the ways in which it is equal and not equal.

Firstly it is important to note our founding fathers did not establish whether health care was to be included as part of life liberty and pursuit of happiness. I know this seems transparent but it is not. At the time of the writing of the constitution what meager advanced health care was available was essentially limited to the wealthy. This was an understood and excepted fact of life at that time. Extended visits from doctors were prohibitively expensive to all but the upper middle class and higher. Today's health care system is vastly superior to what was available to "commoners" of that era.

We as Americans need to decide if health care is a right or a commodity. If it is a fundamental right as a wealthy society then drastic reform is certainly called for, but if so don't cry about the taxes that comes with it. There is a lot of dead weight in the country which others will have to foot the bill for.

Likewise if health care is a commodity reform will also be needed. Under this thinking hospitals should not be required to offer any care to anyone who can't pay. If you can't afford a car then you can't have one, end of discussion. If health care is a commodity then it falls under the same thinking. It may be harsh but it is also very pro Darwin.

I fall under the opinion that a country as wealthy as America should provide for it's starving and it's infirm. That we should have welfare and health care. However it should be up to the public to decide. If the public decides to be greedy pricks who wish to stomp on the spines of the workers who made them rich in order to save a few bucks who am I to say they are wrong.

Now please explain to me how we can even talk about all men being created equal and being born therefore with an equal right to live when those with money will receive all the health care they want while those without will receive only emergency medical care and often may die because of this situation. Further, I personally know of individuals who because they were not covered by basic health services did survive but were permanently disabled and then because of this ended up on disability and government programs which will now cost the government {and taxpayers} much more money than it would have cost had they been able to afford basic medical care and screening before their condition led to a permanent state of disability.

You have no idea, for sure, if this or that medical care would have kept someone from becoming permanantly disabled. Any argument in that area is guesswork.

Here is an interesting bit of stat.

Being among the very poorest means you have an average life span about 4.5 years less than the very richest. Seems like a decent difference, till you look at state by state ale differences. The highest being 6.1 years above the lowest... Not counting hawaii, which looks like an outlier, maybe by race, counting it would add another .6 to the gap.

So if you want to live longer, don't worry about getting rich, move to minnisota.



edit: btw, some of the difference between rich & poor life span gape has nothing to do with healthcare, smoking is higher, risky behavior is higher, body weights are higher, general hygene is lower, education about health is lower, among the poorest... As opposed to the reverse in the richest. This has to account for a good % of the difference.

If one reads the Constitution of the United States and many related documents such as the Declaration of Independence and even later documents such as Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, it is obvious that these men who wrote these documents and speeches were believers in irrevocable and unalienable right of human equality. So you say what does that mean? It does not mean we must all be the same size or have the same amount of money; But it does mean you should have equal rights to due process under law, protection under law and without stretching the concepts I and others believe it can be inferred that it should mean equal protection to the right to live. 'Basic' health care is not a luxury it is a necessity. Why can you not deprive a person of due process under the law but still deprive them of the right to live?

If the Republicans win in the coming election and as they threaten they undue so-called Obama care, Many including myself will no longer consider this nation to be government of the people, by the people, for the people, but rather it will be One nation of money, for money and by money and that that great nation that men from the beginning of the Republic, through Lincolns time, and up to today, fought to preserve, will in fact have perished from the earth.

"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 to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed....."

There is no stretch of the imagination that can equate legal equality {admittedly an ideal} and the right to 'Life' with a government that does not allow for basic medical care for its citizens. To me its like that famous Supreme Court decision {I believe it was part of the Miranda case}, where the Supreme Court concluded that every citizen accused of a crime must be given the right to legal counsel whether he could afford it or not. Maybe Chief Justice Roberts was thinking the same thing when he allowed Obamacare to stand? To me not allowing for basic health care to all citizens violates a basic human right and is in clear violation of the intent and purpose of the US Constitution.

Whether or not healthcare is a right is debatable. But even if it is, it does not mean that the government is obligated to provide it to you. The Constitution also guarantees my right to the pursuit of happiness, but I don't expect the government to be paying for my vacation to Hawaii any time soon. Just because it is a right does not mean that the government is obligated to provide it.

The fact that the government is obligated to provide you with legal counsel is also completely irrelevant. The government IS the legal system, therefore being a government of the people it is obligated to provide everyone with equal protection. But even in the case of the legal system the rich are free to access legal protection of a level beyond the means of the average American.

As for the person you mentioned who suffered permanent disability because they did not have the means to acquire adequate healthcare. I can easily counter that with the story of my sister, who has never worked a day in her life, and other than sales taxes has never paid any taxes. Yet I would estimate that she has received between $5 and $10 million dollars in free medical services since she turned 18. Plus the government kindly sends her a check every month, and has for forty years. You see the government already provides healthcare to millions of Americans. They just don't do it very well.

The constitution was an attempt to offer people an equal opportunity to provide their own food living and health care. The document makes no mention of taking care of the incapable or infirm. The document was about freedom and escape from oppression, and nothing more.

I agree that in a nation as wealthy as ours we can and should take care of the weaker among us. However do not say the Constitution dictates it because it does not. The Constitution gives (or attempts to give) you the right to equal opportunity to succeed or fail. It was focused on liberty. No where in the Constitution or the bill of rights is it implied that the government or it's citizens are obligated to take care of each other beyond rule of law.

Providing health care to citizens of a wealthy nation should happen because it is the right thing to do. Ethically you should support it. Trying to form an argument from a constitution which not only didn't address any form of wealth distribution but in fact implies resistance to such measures is folly.

Make your case on ethical grounds not on the grounds of a document which does not address your argument I supose is the moral of the story here.

The constitution was an attempt to offer people an equal opportunity to provide their own food living and health care. The document makes no mention of taking care of the incapable or infirm. The document was about freedom and escape from oppression, and nothing more.

I agree that in a nation as wealthy as ours we can and should take care of the weaker among us. However do not say the Constitution dictates it because it does not. The Constitution gives (or attempts to give) you the right to equal opportunity to succeed or fail. It was focused on liberty. No where in the Constitution or the bill of rights is it implied that the government or it's citizens are obligated to take care of each other beyond rule of law.

Providing health care to citizens of a wealthy nation should happen because it is the right thing to do. Ethically you should support it. Trying to form an argument from a constitution which not only didn't address any form of wealth distribution but in fact implies resistance to such measures is folly.

Make your case on ethical grounds not on the grounds of a document which does not address your argument I supose is the moral of the story here.

The Constitution was written a long time ago in an age where medical was often worse than the disease and at that time you would often be better off without it {still true sometimes even now!}. But it is encompassing in its meaning as to basic human rights among which are the right to life - In the modern world where medicine does save many lives if you can not obtain basic health care because you can not afford it your right to life is being questioned and the notion of liberty and equality becomes negated.

As I stated on another post in this forum:

Again with emphasis on the main points:

In the United State health care must be considered a Constitutional Right which opens thus:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Notice the words "promote the general Welfare"

According to The Declaration of Independence written in 1776 and considered one of the founding documents of the Republic it is so stated:

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.

Notice it says that Life is an unalienable Right. To be deprived of the right to live because you can not afford health insurance is a clear deprivation of your right to live; and how can all men created equal have any meaning if some are allowed to live because they have health insurance others die because they don't?

You pay through taxes the police, the military, intelligence agencies, government regulatory agencies etc. to protect you from all enemies foreign and domestic. But for some reason which defies reason many can not stand the idea that the government should protect the people from death by disease.

OK to get you killed in whatever military or police action the government wants and tax everyone to do it -But not alright to tax the public to save the lives of citizens from disease? Sounds like a Fascist mentality!

The Constitution was written a long time ago in an age where medical was often worse than the disease and at that time you would often be better off without it {still true sometimes even now!}. But it is encompassing in its meaning as to basic human rights among which are the right to life - In the modern world where medicine does save many lives if you can not obtain basic health care because you can not afford it your right to life is being questioned and the notion of liberty and equality becomes negated.

So in the old days medicine was not as good... but was of SOME good or it would not have been practiced. If it helped at all, why not include it as a specific right?

In the old days medicine was cheaper, care was cheaper (even in todays $$$), so why not included it as a right or at least a law?

Medicine is better today, lifespans are far longer today, even for the very poorest (in the west/US)... There are emergency rooms in every city that DO NOT turn away anyone, regardless of ability to pay. Why the need, now, as opposed to back in the old days, for more coverage? medical practices have extended EVERYONES life FAAAAAR in excess of what was a "natural" life span back then... You need more? How long a life should you be garanteed?

All men being created equal doesn't mean we all get the same "stuff" or have the same lives, or are protected from our bad diets, or have the same house/car/tv/lap-top, or must die at the same age. It just means no man/woman is more important than another... I refuted the rest of your post in the other thread, too lazy to repost here

I have no idea why health care has to be politically motivated. As a Brit with little knowledge of American politics is it not a fact that you excluded blacks, Chinese and native Americans from the new lands in the west? Do you really want to maintain ancient morality in the 21 century? Economically it has been proven in many countries that a national health service that provides free health care at source,is cheaper by far for all its citizens. Why not take the pragmatic path and experiment with a state that is predominately democratic and introduce a state health service? Lets see by experience what could be possible.