Originally posted by sh76
Just as there are rights, there are surely obligations as well.

Parents have an enforceable obligation to provide adequate care for those they choose to bring into the world. This is practically a corollary to the natural right to raise one's children as one sees fit.

Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't take it upon ourselves as a society to provide everyo ...[text shortened]... asonably be expected to have done so with an understanding of the responsibilities that implies.

People enter into legally enforceable contracts to produce something for someone. People reside in an area governed under laws that tax them. However I see your point. These are freely entered agreements.

Originally posted by sh76
You do realize, I assume, that the word "not" you inserted in parentheses and which was not there in my initial point, is precisely the word on which my entire point turned, correct?

I have a right to not be killed or hurt by you.

I have a right to not have my freedoms interfered with by others, including, and especially, government.

I have a right to ...[text shortened]... t that everyone had the right to force society to provide free healthcare and education for him.

None of these rights mean anything absent forcing people to contribute to and subscribe to enforcing them.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Every time someone proposes that business owners give back some of the wealth they expropriate from their workers, they whine it will run them out of business. It's all BS.

It can't *all* be BS.

As company profits are a continuum, there must be some companies on the margin for whom added government mandated healthcare expenses would push them into the red.

If you want to reduce company profit and force business owners to give more of their profits back to society, a higher tax rate (which, by definition, applies only to profits) makes more sense than imposing a fixed cost such as health insurance.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
None of these rights mean anything absent forcing people to contribute to and subscribe to enforcing them.

So what?

Taxation to build an infrastructure to enforce natural rights is a legitimate government function. I never argued against that proposition.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]...there is still no real justification for one part of the population to have health care and the other not to.
You could have saved everyone a lot of time and needless energy by simply stating your position at the onset.
Now, kindly, defend that position.
"To have" is necessarily going to be a major cog in the circular logic which follows, I'm anticipating.[/b]

I would think a contrary position needs to be defended given that humans enter into society to better their own interests. Why would any individual accept that he should be at the mercy of easily treated conditions and diseases and quite possibly die from them when other members of society do not share such a risk?

Originally posted by sh76
It can't *all* be BS.

As company profits are a continuum, there must be some companies on the margin for whom added government mandated healthcare expenses would push them into the red.

If you want to reduce company profit and force business owners to give more of their profits back to society, a higher tax rate (which, by definition, applies only to profits) makes more sense than imposing a fixed cost such as health insurance.

Why "must there be"? Cuz you say so? Employee salaries and benefits normally are a small share of a companies that employ large numbers of people's earnings

I bet the owners of those companies have health care and are willing to pay whatever share of the company's earnings are necessary to do so.

Of course, it's a silly and inefficient system where people get their health insurance through their employment but I remain skeptical that mid-size and larger companies are in such desperate straits that having to expand health insurance to their employees will break them. Profits and executive compensation have risen substantially in the last few decades while worker' salaries and benefits have stagnated or even fallen.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Bernie Sanders vs Ted Cruz CNN Debate The future of Obama Care.


During CNN's Ted Cruz-Bernie Sanders debate on Tuesday, the business owner, who operates several hair salons in Texas, asked Sanders how she can comply with Obamacare without passing on costs to customers or lowering her employees’ wages. She said she has just under 50 employees.
“Let ...[text shortened]... xas-salon-owner-tells-bernie-her-business-cant-afford-obamacare-his-response-stops-viewers-cold/

Yeah... complete health insurance for everyone... what a fairytale.

Well, except in Europe that is.
But hey, we have castles too...

Originally posted by whodey
Here is a thought, instead of the US doing all the dirty work for Europe militarily, like kicking out Gaddafi so Europe could have their oil, perhaps the US could afford adequate health care.

Oh, I forgot, Europe is entitled to it.

Yeah... those little American wars... really helped the folk in the Middle East, didn't they?

Really helped lower oil prices, didn't they?

Really helped create world wide safety, didn't they?

Really helped Europe... didn't they?

You do realise the world doesn't need the US, don't you?

Originally posted by sh76
You do realize, I assume, that the word "not" you inserted in parentheses and which was not there in my initial point, is precisely the word on which my entire point turned, correct?

I have a right to not be killed or hurt by you.

I have a right to not have my freedoms interfered with by others, including, and especially, government.

I have a right to ...[text shortened]... t that everyone had the right to force society to provide free healthcare and education for him.

Nor finance armies or tax breaks for the rich.

Society decides what's best for society.
And if people vote to be buggered by banks instead of healthcare... good for them.

But don't come away with that Randian rubbish about what logically can be argued should be exempt from market pressures.

I'll just up you dialectic materialism and you'll end up objectively weeping into your snot rag.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I would think a contrary position needs to be defended given that humans enter into society to better their own interests. Why would any individual accept that he should be at the mercy of easily treated conditions and diseases and quite possibly die from them when other members of society do not share such a risk?

Oh.
You mean it's not fair?

There are two players in the NBA, both shorter than most of the women I ever dated, literally one inch shorter than the average male height in America.
And yet despite being in a sport which is dominated by men who, on average, are eleven inches taller than either of them, they both have found success.

Life, like the NBA, is what you make of it.
No one asked either of these two men if they had accepted their fate as "too short for professional basketball" just as no one is forced to accept a fate which puts heath and/or medical care out of their reach.

The difference here, however, is that you wish to see a universal level playing field in an arena which only exists because of competition.

Health, like stature, is not a right.
Rights are things which cannot be taken away from a person, no matter what.
Your Utopian society requires the state to vouchsafe a person's health, regardless the level of their own commitment thereof.

You won't agree, I am sure, but such is life.

Originally posted by sh76
So what?

Taxation to build an infrastructure to enforce natural rights is a legitimate government function. I never argued against that proposition.

My point being that all rights (that are being enforced) involve forcing someone to do something.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
My point being that all rights (that are being enforced) involve forcing someone to do something.

The right is inherent; it doesn't depend on enforcement. That something isn't enforced doesn't make it a non-right and that something is enforced doesn't make it a right.

Originally posted by sh76
The right is inherent; it doesn't depend on enforcement. That something isn't enforced doesn't make it a non-right and that something is enforced doesn't make it a right.

An "inherent" right that is not enforced is worthless. Japanese-Americans in WW2 had inherent rights, but it didn't do them much good.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
.....Health, like stature, is not a right. Rights are things which cannot be taken away from a person, no matter what. Your Utopian society requires the state to vouchsafe a person's health, regardless the level of their own commitment thereof.

You won't agree, I am sure, but such is life.

I must admit I am a bit of a novice when it comes to natural rights theory, so the notion that there are rights that can not be taken away from anyone seems an Utopian idea also, given the lived experience of exploited peoples across this world.

Ultimately I believe rights or privileges (and I view the terms as being interchangeable) have to be agreed upon, have to be negotiated, have to be asserted and are not constant over time.

The way I hear it argued, and I might be wrong, is that there is some sort of boundary past which claims for equity will fail as they are not founded on natural rights. For my money, given the history of civilized peoples and how they have consented to live together in a society, the notion of rights is more arbitrary than absolute. That's my adjusted $3.57.

Originally posted by kmax87
I must admit I am a bit of a novice when it comes to natural rights theory, so the notion that there are rights that can not be taken away from anyone seems an Utopian idea also, given the lived experience of exploited peoples across this world.

Ultimately I believe rights or privileges (and I view the terms as being interchangeable) have to be agreed upo ...[text shortened]... er in a society, the notion of rights is more arbitrary than absolute. That's my adjusted $3.57.

Another thing to consider, in my opinion, is the underlying unspoken issue... and it's not universal health care.
Health care providers and insurance companies are, currently, the floral shop and the formal dress boutique, respectively, with every beau in town looking to throw their money and efforts at getting a corsage on that girl.
We've swathed the whole scam up in the loveliest of wraps, calling it Love/Health, but the reality is, it's neither.
It's nothing more than an opportunity for the florist and the boutique owner to prop up the allure of the debutante just long enough to secure the currency from her hapless suitor.

The problem isn't providing health care as we've been supplying the world's best for Congress since, well, ever.
The problem is how health care providers and insurance companies are structured for obscene profits.
Restructure those two industries and watch the problem disappear.