Democracy INSTEAD OF the Bill of Rights.

[eclipsenow]

Believe it or not, I'm starting to think that we have a Choice between Democracy and a Bill of Rights. I'm convinced that a Bill of Rights so fundamentally undermines the Democratic process that we should start to question just how well a Bill of Rights even does its 'job' of protecting people!? Let's start at the beginning.

Human Rights

I’m all for human rights, who isn’t? But what is the best mechanism to protect human rights in a country? Is it a Bill of Rights, or some other mechanism?
1. A Bill of Rights is stuck in an ivory tower and is not specific or real!

We are all for right to privacy, agreed? As long as we stay in the abstract like this we are happy. I want my privacy, you want yours — if that’s all we had to say about it we can all agree. Let’s just have Australia sign the Bill of Rights and be done with it. Pass the champagne.
Not so fast. Let’s get specific here. I can easily imagine situations where I gladly give up my right to privacy, and yet others would be horrified by this idea! A few decades ago I described to an American friend how the Australian Police have the power to randomlypull drivers over — without ‘due cause for concern’ or anything like it — and ask the driver to blow into a tube which measures their breath’s alcohol content. It’s called Random Breath Testing (RBT). I love it. I’ll gladly blow into that bag once a year or so if it means statistically safer roads. But my American friend? He gasped in horror! “What about your right to privacy?” he protested, as if I had said something unthinkable.
Once we get specific the battle lines are drawn up. I’m completely happy to donate a few minutes a year to blow into an RBT bag, but others are horrified. I mean … they might get caught drink driving!

But RBT is not the point — the fact that we can so easily disagree about RBT is. I see it helping my right to life but others see it attacking their right to privacy. We can all agree on a vaguely worded, sugar-and-spices bill of rights sitting in a shiny showroom, but take it out on the streets for a drive in the real world and we suddenly discover all sorts of problems. Don’t just buy a Bill of Rights that’s only been sitting in the showroom. Take it for a drive. It can’t just look good in the showroom, it’s got a specific job to do.
For instance, what is a right to free speech? Does it mean I can say what I want about a company or product and get away with it? Every time? Publicly, on TV? Does it mean I can yell “FIRE!” in a crowded cinema? Does it mean I can burn the flag, put up pornography in public places, or even walk down the street nude as part of my free expression?
Once we get into the mucky business of getting specific we discover that smart, educated people disagree. The rest of this page is about how best to protect our rights in a society that must adapt to new technologies, changing cultures, and above all, have a process for protecting our rights even when people disagree. I believe Australia already has those mechanisms in place, but we simply don’t appreciate them for what they are because too many of us feel we need a parchment of fine sounding words, without asking what all these fine sounding words actually mean in our daily lives.
As ‘Big Ideas’ said:

The language of human rights is arguably the dominant language of moral discussions in today’s world, but does this language alter a State’s scope for action?
According to today’s guest yes it does.
He argues that the language of human rights can achieve a sort of bogus consensus because it deals in moral abstractions that are so abstract and so couched in emotively appealing connotations and generalisations that just about everyone can sign up to it. And that the definitions of human rights are contestable and contested, debatable and debated every day and all of the time.
Canadian Professor James Allen
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bigideas/stories/2011/3210017.htm
​

2. A Bill of Rights will make unelected Judges the interpreters of our rights, not our elected Politicians who are often trained in the statistics of social policy and public mood.

Does RBT infringe on my right to privacy or help protect my right to life? Will society judge that my right to privacy is violated if a cop pulls me over and asks me to blow into a tube, or will society decide my right to protection from drunken idiots wielding a ton of steel at a hundred kilometers an hour is more important?
When we break down notions of human rights into specific questions we can see that they become divisive. It’s just like watching the ABC’s Q&A, you can see the audience drawing up their battle lines and feel the tension in the air. Educated, nice people will just disagree because of their own life experiences and baggage. For instance, if I have had a ban run in with the authorities as a youth, and naturally feel suspicious about giving the police extra powers, I would no doubt want to ban RBT. It’s just too open to abuse! But if — on the other hand — I had watched my dear father die in the twisted metal of a car wreck, then I might be more likely to want strong action against drink drivers.
Lawyers and judges have had training to interpret the law, not decide social issues for us. Who are lawyers to interpret multi-disciplinary issues that might involve Australian society, culture, psychology, architecture and infrastructure? Human rights can affecteverything, from how we design a train station with access for the disabled to how we run the public transport system as a whole. Rights questions are asked of employment programs and military training, running a school and how you walk to school. Are a bunch of wealthy lawyers going to make better decisions than engineers and teachers and bus drivers on these matters? Are they somehow more qualified to debate the issues and rights and wrongs of the best ways to protect Australian citizens living in the real world with real problems?
I say no. I say — as imperfect as it is — that we keep our human rights where they are. We keep them under Parliamentary Law. For our Parliaments, whether Federal or State, are subject to the ebb and flow of contemporary wisdom and common sense. Politicians should adapt the laws to the concerns of the day. Every year brings new social problems, scientific concerns, technological innovations, infrastructure concerns and public health crisis. Laws travel in one direction for a while and society learns from experience. Then — when the situation changes and public pressure builds — laws can move back again. This is a good thing!
Social policies should be decided by science and statistics and sociology and psychology and, if all else fails, elections! Surely, in a specific question like the RBT laws, we want the public to decide. Surely we want controversial policies like banning the Burqa or pub curfews or teenage driving laws decided by statistics and social sciences and public opinion, not dusty old texts written by our grandfathers. For make no mistake — a Bill of Rights will age. Even more so in this era of technological acceleration.
3. A Bill of Rights will politicize the judiciary

Lawyers and judges are unelected, unaccountable, and unsuited to interpret a bill of rights in the thousands of very real, very practical questions that could be put to them. A bill of rights turns judges into high priests of social policy. This politicizes the judiciary. Just watch American politics the next time a new judge is appointed to the Supreme Court.
4. A Bill of Rights will encode the silly prejudices and blind spots of our generation forever!

Policies can be right for one generation and wrong for another. RBT might be necessary in this generation of drinking and driving. But if robot cars arrive over the next ten years, driving may become a thing of the past — let alone drink driving. So if RBT’s become irrelevant, the laws and policies can easily be changed. They are not enshrined in some interpretation of the Bill of rights — a hallowed parchment up there with our Constitution!
The problem with these Bills is they cannot predict the thousands of new social policies we will need for each situation. The ivory tower doesn’t always understand life on the street. A bill of rights attempts to condense weighty and complex issues into trite summaries. Do we really want these things encoded for all time?
Bills of rights promote an absolute formula of ‘rights’ as interpreted by our generation, and make them absolute for all time. However they should more accurately be described as social policies and Parliamentary laws held to account by the political process and democratic discussion of the day. Instead of ensuring our rights through some abstract, ivory tower parchment codified for all time, we should protect them through a strong democratic process. It will reflect the silly prejudices and blind spots of our day.
Instead let’s protect our human rights by protecting the free press and good government and integrity of our elections and all the other foundations of a good democracy. Let’s stay vigilant in protecting the processes of effective democracy, for this best protects the integrity of the conversation of the day. Not some piece of paper stuck behind glass in a museum.
5. A Bill of Rights will enshrine selfishness over the good of the community

I would have sworn the Australian Christian Lobby would have been for a bill of human rights. Of course they are for human rights, but surprisingly they are against a bill of rights! Instead, Brigadier Jim Wallace, AM, (Ret’d) Managing Director of the Australian Christian Lobby said something to the effect that “Bills of rights enshrine selfishness over the rights of the community”, which helped me remember my conversation with my American friend about RBT. For is it really that big a deal to pull over and blow through a little tube once a year, if that? Is it really affecting my privacy that much, especially if I am a law abiding citizen and have nothing to fear? In other words, YES, I support RBT! I think it is a valuable tool for getting the idiots off the road. Drink driving is death on wheels. I have trouble imagining a society that would refuse this powerful tool for curbing a very real problem. But my American friend gasped in revulsion at the concept. He saw view it as an attack on his freedom because he was taught about his ‘right to privacy’ from a very young age. But that’s not really the lesson Americans seem to learn. Instead, in this and so many other areas, they learn that the individual matters more than the community, that selfishness is good. I find that appalling.
Please, “Don’t leave us with the bill!” Download the podcast here.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bigideas/stories/2009/2596855.htm

 

[Blackguard_]

Looks like I was right in that other thread, the whole concept of rights is opposed to your Collectivist ideals.

I don't want the majority to be able to tyrannize the minority or sacrifice them to the Common Good. A pure Majoritarian process should be undermined.

For our Parliaments, whether Federal or State, are subject to the ebb and flow of contemporary wisdom and common sense.

...and their whims and hysterias and foolishness and evil.

 

[eclipsenow]

Looks like I was right in that other thread, the whole concept of rights is opposed to your Collectivist ideals.

I don't want the majority to be able to tyrannize the minority or sacrifice them to the Common Good. A pure Majoritarian process should be undermined.

...and their whims and hysterias and foolishness and evil.

Sounds great, and TOTALLY proves my point. Have you got a SPECIFIC point in mind? Can you get down out of the ivory tower and debate something SPECIFIC for once? Something that might be discussed in public, and voted on, so that the majority are not ruled by the MINORITY, especially if that minority are a privileged Machiavellian super-rich lawyer class given special priestly rights to interpret an archaic, out of date piece of paper any old way THEY want without being democratically accountable to the PUBLIC?

Do you believe in democracy or not?

I'm sorry, you were saying something about particular human rights or just throwing us unicorns and rainbows from your ivory tower of abstract irrelevance?

 

[DuneSoldier]

The Bill of Rights protects us from Democracy. It's entire reason for being is so that the majority can't take away the rights of the minority.

 

[eclipsenow]

The Bill of Rights protects us from Democracy. It's entire reason for being is so that the majority can't take away the rights of the minority.

Now you need protecting from Democracy?

So which human rights are Americans protecting so much better than here in Australia? I fully support human rights. If you are in this conversation at all, it is to convince me that a Bill of Rights is the best way to protect my rights.

When you come out with vague fluffy ideals as expressed above, there is nothing to discuss. Pass the champagne, because your meaningless platitudes have 'won' the argument for you! Cheers! Except.... when you get down to it, a Bill of Rights doesn't protect the minority from the will of the majority. It creates a minority that will apply rules to the majority! It creates a priestly class of lawyers removed from the hurly burly of working class or even middle class life, that are experts in the law but not on social policy or what 'works' in a given situation. They are expected to interpret an arcane old document that says nothing about the modern world.

They rule your democracy in ways you can't even begin to imagine. Governments are left to debate tax rates and a few military expeditions and health care plans. Populations are robbed of the power to vote on a real issue, like gun control or random breath testing or some new technology. If the issue touches on 'rights' then the priestly class gets to determine the outcome. And who are they again? Did I vote for them?

Once again we have the fanboys of a Bill of Rights expressing their moral outrage in meaningless platitudes that everyone could agree with.

But make it specific, and then you're in a whole world of pain. Tell me, does your "right to privacy" prevent police officers from randomly ordering your car to the side of the road and asking you to blow into a breathaliser? Tell me, does this protect your right to privacy, or protect drunk drivers who might statistically be proven to flourish under a legal framework like that? Does it protect your right to privacy or impede your right to life by placing you in a country with far more drunk drivers?

 

[Rion]

Of course it does. That's why we have a Republic.

 

[Blackguard_]

Do you believe in democracy or not?

No, I don't believe in Mob Rule.

I fully support human rights.

What rights can't a Majority strip you of?
Do you believe in Democracy or not?

. Tell me, does your "right to privacy" prevent police officers from randomly ordering your car to the side of the road and asking you to blow into a breathaliser?

As I said elsewhere, it's our "right to due process" that does that.

Searching people/places without a good reason is harassment of the citizenry.

You're proving my point, you're willing to throw out due process in the name of the Common Good.

Why stop at RBT, why not Random Car Searches? Random House Searches? Searches of People?

Why is it Ok to randomly search motorists for booze but not houses and cars and people for drugs, illegal weapons, and other contraband?

Does your "right to privacy"(or due process) against the alleged "Common Good" ever kick in?

I can't imagine you're a big fan of things like the right against double jeopardy, or to an attorney or habeus corpus.

Tell me, does this protect your right to privacy, or protec drunk drivers who might statistically be proven to flourish under a legal framework like that?

It does not protect drunk drivers, they can still be pulled over if the officer has reason to think they are drunk.

 

[eclipsenow]

As I said elsewhere, it's our "right to due process" that does that. Searching people/places without a good reason is harassment of the citizenry.

Now it finally gets interesting. You're imposing your definition of 'just cause' onto RBT when our nation's culture, criminologists, driving experts and drinking experts have all debated the pro's and con's, the risks and benefits, of RBT. Our nation decided RBT is a good thing. It's for a specific purpose, and we have limited this function of the police to that special purpose. We think it is good for our nation and saves lives and maiming.

You're proving my point, you're willing to throw out due process in the name of the Common Good.

Ah, but we kept due process and limited the rights of police in these other areas you are mentioning. So when you write...

Why stop at RBT, why not Random Car Searches? Random House Searches? Searches of People?

.... it's proving my point. A Democratically elected parliament IS accountable to the population and culture, and so doesn't go too far. They moved the goal posts on this one issue, and often have advertising blitzes over the holiday periods to remind Australians that RBT's are out there, ready to test for drink driving. But we HAVEN'T just thrown out all rights to privacy.

What we HAVE done is protect our right to privacy through RELEVANT laws written after public and cultural debate involving social policy experts in the relevant fields. WE ALL contribute to protecting our rights through the democratic process rather than just delegating that right to dusty old lawyers.

You have handed over your right to write your rights! You handed it over to dusty old unelected lawyers.

Why is it Ok to randomly search motorists for booze but not houses and cars and people for drugs, illegal weapons, and other contraband?

Well, that's what WE get to debate. You don't. You handed over your right to debate this to a bunch of old men.

Does your "right to privacy"(or due process) against the alleged "Common Good" ever kick in?

Have you ever lived in Australia and seen how these things are debated, if and when they ever come up in our media and parliaments? Generally we are VERY cautious of over-burdening the public. Much in our lifestyle operates under very 'American' libertarian assumptions of how life should be conducted free from interference from the authorities. The main difference is that ours is better because I have the RIGHT to vote on my rights, if and when a debate is open. You don't have that right. Your nation delegated it away to a super-rich super-class of super-lawyers.

It does not protect drunk drivers, they can still be pulled over if the officer has reason to think they are drunk.

ONLY if they are driving so bad that the police officer has 'reasonable grounds'. However usually that person is so drunk it's amazing the person found their keys! No, see, our society is open to what SCIENCE says on this subject. We know which level most people are intoxicated at, and are scientifically proven to be slower to react. So we test for it. Randomly. So that less people will risk drink driving. Because we've found that drink driving is SUCH a deadly killer, our right to LIFE is more important than our right to privacy in this one particular area.
We've trialled it for decades and generally speaking, appreciate it.

You can be ARRESTED if you have a high enough blood alcohol level. The threat of this is a good thing. It just may have saved my family's life, and I would never know it.

Can you see how we're still quite a libertarian society, and still have privacy laws that would (largely) echo yours? How common sense still rule the day? Can you see that on this one issue we are more open to changing how our rights are protected because it is not encoded forever on a dusty old bit of parchment kept in the hallowed grounds of some dusty old lawyers? How REAL experts in REAL subjects can have input, and change the country for the better!?

 

[IanCG]

This kinda sounds like some rants a Voluntaryist former coworker of mine would throw up on facebook.

As far as tossing the bill of rights out... yeah no. If the constitution needs amending, we have processes for that.

 

[IanCG]

Also, there's that famous quote about democracy, "two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner."

 

[eclipsenow]

A little name-calling and cheap anecdotes do not an argument make. When you're ready to contribute something of substance that actually attempts to contradict some of the points above with counter-ideas, and, maybe even statistics, then I'll engage your arguments with pleasure. If you do well enough, I might even learn something new about your country. Or even change my mind! (It has been known to happen). Until then, I'm still waiting.

 

[IanCG]

A little name-calling and cheap anecdotes do not an argument make. When you're ready to contribute something of substance that actually attempts to contradict some of the points above with counter-ideas, and, maybe even statistics, then I'll engage your arguments with pleasure. If you do well enough, I might even learn something new about your country. Or even change my mind! (It has been known to happen). Until then, I'm still waiting.

Why?

I'm not here to convince you the Bill of Rights works. You're here to convince me it doesn't.

 

[eclipsenow]

Again, when you have something substantive to say, I'll respond to that. Until then, I'm still waiting.

 

[GarfieldJL]

Again, when you have something substantive to say, I'll respond to that. Until then, I'm still waiting.

Actually he did say something substantive...

Look I'm able to figure out how the anecdote related to this topic, and I've had to memorize figures of speech when I was younger...

To break this down...

You have the wolves deciding to eat the sheep for dinner and the sheep (whom wanted to eat some grass), suddenly finds himself turned into lambchops...

That's what the tyranny of the majority means. The majority uses the fact they are the majority to prey on a minority.

The Bill of Rights exists to ensure that something like that doesn't happen.

 

[eclipsenow]

Actually he did say something substantive...

Look I'm able to figure out how the anecdote related to this topic, and I've had to memorize figures of speech when I was younger...

To break this down...

You have the wolves deciding to eat the sheep for dinner and the sheep (whom wanted to eat some grass), suddenly finds himself turned into lambchops...

That's what the tyranny of the majority means. The majority uses the fact they are the majority to prey on a minority.

The Bill of Rights exists to ensure that something like that doesn't happen.

Really? So how's that working out for guaranteeing health care for the poor in America, or the health of Indigenous Americans, or for public transport policy, or for public health, or for reducing driving fatalities to DUI by introducing RBT? What measurable real world statistics show that your 'rights' are better protected than mine? Story time's all good and fine, but when it comes to something that actively removes my right to vote on policies that affect my rights, then it seems bizarre that freedom loving American's would willingly hand over public policy to unelected grey-haired lawyers. Like they have a clue about your opinion on things.

For make no mistake, that is what you have done. Robbed yourself of having a voice when it comes to matters of public policy.

So we end up with grey-haired old dudes interpreting a dusty old document that doesn't know a thing about Henry Ford inventing a cheap motor car that changed society. The document doesn't know a thing about road safety and how alcohol impairs that. The document is there to be interpreted by lawyers that seem to be gaining increasing power to make decisions not on the law, but on matters of public policy! Like whether to introduce RBT because it might save far more lives and be far more beneficial to America than any perceived risks of police abusing such a system.

This silly old bit of paper seems to get in the way, more than anything else. It didn't stop the unjust internment of American's of Japanese decent in WW2.

Japanese-American internment was the relocation and internment by the United States government in 1942 of about 110,000 Japanese Americans and Japanese who lived along the Pacific coast of the United States to camps called "War Relocation Camps....

....
In 1980, President Jimmy Carter conducted an investigation to determine whether putting Japanese Americans into internment camps was justified well enough by the government. He appointed the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians to investigate the camps. The commission's report, named “Personal Justice Denied,” found little evidence of Japanese disloyalty at the time and recommended the government pay reparations to the survivors. They formed a payment of $20,000 to each individual internment camp survivor. These were the reparations passed by President Ronald Reagan.
In 1988, Congress passed and President Ronald Reagan signed legislation which apologized for the internment on behalf of the U.S. government. The legislation said that government actions were based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership".[13] The U.S. government eventually disbursed more than $1.6 billion in reparations to Japanese Americans who had been interned and their heirs.[14]

Japanese American internment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or one could talk about how long the Civil Rights movement had to run before segregation ended. If this silly bit of paper produced results for your poor or Indigenous Americans or even recent Japanese arrivals, then it might demonstrably be seen to be protecting the minority from the wishes of the majority. But it doesn't.

Australia has had a long and chequered history with providing health care for our poor, pensions for the elderly, rights for our Aboriginals, etc. We've also made massive improvements as a society. But we don't have a Bill of Rights, and yet have improved in many of these areas anyway. It's cultural evolution, not legal systemic superiority. I can't see a single measure of societal progress where your 'Bill of Rights' has made a big difference.

As for me and my household, we don't want one. We like giving up a little of our time every few years to blow into an RBT bag to ensure a safer country. We don't mind this 'attack on our right to privacy' one little bit. Because it isn't. It's an action that statistically improves our right to life, and as such, irrelevant old lawyers interpreting dusty old documents can stay well clear from this policy in my country, thank you very much. We like to vote on these things, now and then, when they come up in the public discourse.

So once again, when you can provide a solid, concrete example, instead of telling me stories about Mr Wolf, then I might be impressed.

 

[GarfieldJL]

Really? So how's that working out for guaranteeing health care for the poor in America, or the health of Indigenous Americans, or for public transport policy, or for public health, or for reducing driving fatalities to DUI by introducing RBT? What measurable real world statistics show that your 'rights' are better protected than mine? Story time's all good and fine, but when it comes to something that actively removes my right to vote on policies that affect my rights, then it seems bizarre that freedom loving American's would willingly hand over public policy to unelected grey-haired lawyers. Like they have a clue about your opinion on things.

For make no mistake, that is what you have done. Robbed yourself of having a voice when it comes to matters of public policy.

So we end up with grey-haired old dudes interpreting a dusty old document that doesn't know a thing about Henry Ford inventing a cheap motor car that changed society. The document doesn't know a thing about road safety and how alcohol impairs that. The document is there to be interpreted by lawyers that seem to be gaining increasing power to make decisions not on the law, but on matters of public policy! Like whether to introduce RBT because it might save far more lives and be far more beneficial to America than any perceived risks of police abusing such a system.

This silly old bit of paper seems to get in the way, more than anything else. It didn't stop the unjust internment of American's of Japanese decent in WW2.

Japanese American internment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or one could talk about how long the Civil Rights movement had to run before segregation ended. If this silly bit of paper produced results for your poor or Indigenous Americans or even recent Japanese arrivals, then it might demonstrably be seen to be protecting the minority from the wishes of the majority. But it doesn't.

Australia has had a long and chequered history with providing health care for our poor, pensions for the elderly, rights for our Aboriginals, etc. We've also made massive improvements as a society. But we don't have a Bill of Rights, and yet have improved in many of these areas anyway. It's cultural evolution, not legal systemic superiority. I can't see a single measure of societal progress where your 'Bill of Rights' has made a big difference.

As for me and my household, we don't want one. We like giving up a little of our time every few years to blow into an RBT bag to ensure a safer country. We don't mind this 'attack on our right to privacy' one little bit. Because it isn't. It's an action that statistically improves our right to life, and as such, irrelevant old lawyers interpreting dusty old documents can stay well clear from this policy in my country, thank you very much. We like to vote on these things, now and then, when they come up in the public discourse.

So once again, when you can provide a solid, concrete example, instead of telling me stories about Mr Wolf, then I might be impressed.

Almost all of the instances you are providing are instances (one of the bad examples is Obamacare) where people went with DEMOCRACY OVER THE BILL OF RIGHTS and thus proved my case for me...


Obamacare was nothing more than a power grab, so that government has an excuse to dictate people's lives.

In fact, I actually could come up with something that could give everyone insurance (if they want it), would cover pre-existing conditions, and not run insurers out of business, all without forcing people to buy insurance if they don't want it.

Insurance companies are not allowed to punitively raise rates based on medical conditions (this does not mean they can't raise rates on people whom are smoking though). Nor can they turn down people that have pre-existing conditions.

Here is where I would have done something very different from Obamacare.

Unless you are simply switching insurance companies (going off your parent's insurance for your own as an example). YOU not the insurance company are responsible for the medical costs associated with any pre-existing condition you were diagnosed with prior to getting the insurance for 5 years, after that 5 year period, the insurance company has to start covering some of the costs as well. (The insurance company can choose to waive this right if they so choose (on a case by case basis, since they may have to waive this concerning businesses if they are getting the insurance for their employees))

I would also give everyone a 12 month grace period after this law takes effect for people to get private insurance. Anyone whom gets on insurance during this 12 month window will not be hit with the 5 year probationary period.

Then I would make it so low-income people get a subsidy that they are able to use to help pay for their own private insurance...

I would make it so health insurance companies could compete across state lines, AND I would let small businesses get together and jointly purchase health insurance for their employees so they have the purchasing power of a large corporation.

Finally, I would have TORT reform....

This means people are able to get health insurance if they so choose, if they decide not to, fine, but they get stuck with the bill if they end up with a medical issue, not whichever insurance company they join after this issue has cropped up.

What insurance companies choose to cover is up to the insurance company and to some extent the corporations and small businesses (that are jointly purchasing healthcare), and to a lesser extent the customers.

There is one tweek I may add concerning people switching insurance companies due to not covering something, that it can be shown most insurance companies will pay for, that the insurance company they are leaving has to partially reimberse the insurance company the person in question is switching to, when it comes to pre-existing conditions.

 

[eclipsenow]

Almost all of the instances you are providing are instances (one of the bad examples is Obamacare) where people went with DEMOCRACY OVER THE BILL OF RIGHTS and thus proved my case for me...


Obamacare was nothing more than a power grab, so that government has an excuse to dictate people's lives.

In fact, I actually could come up with something that could give everyone insurance (if they want it), would cover pre-existing conditions, and not run insurers out of business, all without forcing people to buy insurance if they don't want it.

Insurance companies are not allowed to punitively raise rates based on medical conditions (this does not mean they can't raise rates on people whom are smoking though). Nor can they turn down people that have pre-existing conditions.

Here is where I would have done something very different from Obamacare.

Unless you are simply switching insurance companies (going off your parent's insurance for your own as an example). YOU not the insurance company are responsible for the medical costs associated with any pre-existing condition you were diagnosed with prior to getting the insurance for 5 years, after that 5 year period, the insurance company has to start covering some of the costs as well. (The insurance company can choose to waive this right if they so choose (on a case by case basis, since they may have to waive this concerning businesses if they are getting the insurance for their employees))

I would also give everyone a 12 month grace period after this law takes effect for people to get private insurance. Anyone whom gets on insurance during this 12 month window will not be hit with the 5 year probationary period.

Then I would make it so low-income people get a subsidy that they are able to use to help pay for their own private insurance...

I would make it so health insurance companies could compete across state lines, AND I would let small businesses get together and jointly purchase health insurance for their employees so they have the purchasing power of a large corporation.

Finally, I would have TORT reform....

This means people are able to get health insurance if they so choose, if they decide not to, fine, but they get stuck with the bill if they end up with a medical issue, not whichever insurance company they join after this issue has cropped up.

What insurance companies choose to cover is up to the insurance company and to some extent the corporations and small businesses (that are jointly purchasing healthcare), and to a lesser extent the customers.

There is one tweek I may add concerning people switching insurance companies due to not covering something, that it can be shown most insurance companies will pay for, that the insurance company they are leaving has to partially reimberse the insurance company the person in question is switching to, when it comes to pre-existing conditions.

You, um, went on a bit of a rant about how you would fix insurance there bud.

But still nothing definitive or concrete that demonstrates where a Bill of Rights guarantees 'rights' any better than Australia's parliamentary system.
* I've provided RBT as an example of how I think Australia's got the balance better in one particular instance.
* I've also provided the fact that I can VOTE ON MY RIGHTS and you can't. You don't have the 'right' to vote on your rights. They are interpreted by a priestly class of aged lawyers removed, by and large, from contact with the real world. What do they know?

 

[GarfieldJL]

You, um, went on a bit of a rant about how you would fix insurance there bud.

But still nothing definitive or concrete that demonstrates where a Bill of Rights guarantees 'rights' any better than Australia's parliamentary system.
* I've provided RBT as an example of how I think Australia's got the balance better in one particular instance.
* I've also provided the fact that I can VOTE ON MY RIGHTS and you can't. You don't have the 'right' to vote on your rights. They are interpreted by a priestly class of aged lawyers removed, by and large, from contact with the real world. What do they know?

The BILL OF RIGHTS can be changed, but it is extremely difficult to do so, and the Founding Fathers made the Constitution extremely hard to change for a reason.

 

[Caesars Ghost]

OH My Goodness!
Democracy instead of the Bill of Rights!
Yes, there's just too darn much freedom going on in America! Why, we who are adamantly opposed to that should be able to vote and impose inequality, discrimination and bigotry! This way we can impose the fact contrary to history that this is a Christian nation. Because God knows we have every right to elect who is free and who is not!
Amen!

 

[GarfieldJL]

OH My Goodness!
Democracy instead of the Bill of Rights!
Yes, there's just too darn much freedom going on in America! Why, we who are adamantly opposed to that should be able to vote and impose inequality, discrimination and bigotry! This way we can impose the fact contrary to history that this is a Christian nation. Because God knows we have every right to elect who is free and who is not!
Amen!

Slavery is illegal in the United States due to a Constitutional Amendment, additionally the Constitution ensures equal protection under the law...

So I'm not sure where your argument is coming from.