I thought I would start a thread after discussing the right to health care in a previous thread. It got me thinking about rights in general. For example, we have the right to bear arms and a right to property but what of health care? Obama says that he considers health care to be a right even though it is not specifically mentioned in the constitution, but if it is a right, should it not be treated as other rights such as the right to bear arms and the right to property? In other words, we have the right to bear arms and own property but the government is not in the business of guaranteeing you these rights so why should health care be treated differently? Of course, the obvious answer would be that your life does not depend upon owning property or owning fire arms as where without health care one could be facing an untimely death. Despite this fact, however, should the government not only see that you have the right to pursue certain rights but, in addition, guarantee that you will have the right no matter if you cannot afford it?
Having said all that, I think another problem arises from this way of thinking. Specifically, if the government should be in the business of insuring health care, this also means the government must see to it that it is affordable. So what problems may arise from insuring health care for everyone and, at the same time, making it affordable? An obvious problem I see is that goods and services for health care will have to decrease from where it is now. Of course, proponents of health care would argue that one could decrease the costs without decreasing the quality of health care, but is this a realistic assertion? I fear what would happen is that the overall quality of health care would decrease which, in turn, would cause some to suffer or even die untimely deaths from such problems as increased waiting times to see physicians and/or decreased quality of professional health care workers from decreased revenue being poured into health care in general. If so, both with universal health care and without universal health care it seems that people will fall through the cracks, so to speak.
Originally posted by whodeySome questions:
I thought I would start a thread after discussing the right to health care in a previous thread. It got me thinking about rights in general. For example, we have the right to bear arms and a right to property but what of health care? Obama says that he considers health care to be a right even though it is not specifically mentioned in the constitution, but ...[text shortened]... nd without universal health care it seems that people will fall through the cracks, so to speak.
1) Where did Obama say that health care was a "right"?;
2) Where did you get the idea that rights have to be specifically mentioned in the Constitution? Have you ever read the Ninth Amendment?;
3) Where did you get the idea that the government isn't in the business of guaranteeing our rights?;
4) You are aware that countries with universal health care have much lower costs and at least equal results to the present US health care system, aren't you?
Originally posted by no1marauder1) Obama said he thought health care should be considered a right in the debate I saw between him and McCain
Some questions:
1) Where did Obama say that health care was a "right"?;
2) Where did you get the idea that rights have to be specifically mentioned in the Constitution? Have you ever read the Ninth Amendment?;
3) Where did you get the idea that the government isn't in the business of guaranteein ...[text shortened]... uch lower costs and at least equal results to the present US health care system, aren't you?
2) I never said that it did not have to be specifically mentioned in the Constitution did I?
3) When I say "guaranteeing", what I mean is paying for you to have access to those rights. Of course the state will defend your right to pursue certain rights but that does not obligate them to fund you to pursue those rights. For example, you have the right to bear arms but if you can't afford them the state is not obligated to go out and by you a gun. The same can be said of property. However, with health care it is not only a right, it will be payed for even if you can't afford it. This particular right to funding separates it from the rest of the pack.
4) Of course ANY other socialized form of health care would probably be cheaper the current socialized form of health care now present in the US. As with other US socialized programs, it is underfunded and spiraling out of control. In fact, I would argue that the current socialized system MUST be changed or else!! This means either doing away with socialized medicine altogether, which is not even considered, or reforming the current system. As for the latter proposition, the fear of course is that the same institution that gave us our present wonderful socialized system of health care will be the same institution that will be proposing universal health care which is by far a more daunting task.
health care should be payed for by the government. or at least part of it. how can a nation strive and progress if its citizens die on the steps of the hospitals because they have no money. i don't understand how a person is expected to pay for his health care when he is sick. he is sick, he cannot work. make him better and he will work(and get taxed), he will be able to raise children that in turn will get to be taxed.
Originally posted by ZahlanziDo I need to write this on a piece of 2 X 4 and batter it across your face so you won't miss it.
health care should be payed for by the government. or at least part of it. how can a nation strive and progress if its citizens die on the steps of the hospitals because they have no money. i don't understand how a person is expected to pay for his health care when he is sick. he is sick, he cannot work. make him better and he will work(and get taxed), he will be able to raise children that in turn will get to be taxed.
Guvamint doesn't pay for health care, they take money off you to pay for your health care. That is if you are a productive individual, if not, if you are a parasite, guvamint then takes money off some one else to pay for your health care.
A "right" is the sovereignty to act with out the permission of others. It's not "You have a right to life" more correct is "You have a right to live". It's not "You have a right to property" more correct is "You have a right to acquire property." The role of guvamint is to protect rights, unfortunately they far outstrip criminals in the abuse of them.
Health care is not a right.
Employment is not a right.
Employment under certain terms and conditions is not a right.
A decent working wage for those that don't work, is not a right.
Originally posted by WajomaAaahh, there we have it Ladies and Germs, the true unmasked nature of the libertarian, laid bare for all to see. The disgruntled misanthrope barely managing to keep a lid on his anger. Pray that they never get a handle on power because the weak and downtrodden will only have a swift kicking to look forward too!
Do I need to write this on a piece of 2 X 4 and batter it across your face so you won't miss it.
Originally posted by kmax87Come and put your hand in my pocket instead of getting some one else to do your dirty work, then you'll find out about anger and 2 X 4's.
Aaahh, there we have it Ladies and Germs, the true unmasked nature of the libertarian, laid bare for all to see. The disgruntled misanthrope barely managing to keep a lid on his anger. Pray that they never get a handle on power because the weak and downtrodden will only have a swift kicking to look forward too!
In the mean time this is an anonymous message board my post above was perhaps an error, Zahlanzi would be much more receptive to reality if I wrote the message on a piece of paper then purreed it in a blender with half a cup of hydrochloric acid and poured the mix directly into her brain through a hole drilled in her forehead.
Originally posted by WajomaWithout government, your ability to amass wealth would be severely limited. So you have no bitch if the majority in society feel that some social goals are desirable enough for you and most others to pay for. Even the most primitive societies take care of their sick.
Do I need to write this on a piece of 2 X 4 and batter it across your face so you won't miss it.
Guvamint doesn't pay for health care, they take money off you to pay for your health care. That is if you are a productive individual, if not, if you are a parasite, guvamint then takes money off some one else to pay for your health care.
A "right" is the s ...[text shortened]... is not a right.
A decent working wage for those that don't work, is not a right.
Originally posted by whodeyThere's nothing particularly "daunting" about universal health care; most countries at a decent stage of economic development have it.
1) Obama said he thought health care should be considered a right in the debate I saw between him and McCain
2) I never said that it did not have to be specifically mentioned in the Constitution did I?
3) When I say "guaranteeing", what I mean is paying for you to have access to those rights. Of course the state will defend your right to pursue ce ...[text shortened]... stitution that will be proposing universal health care which is by far a more daunting task.
Originally posted by no1marauderNever said anything about having no gummint No1. Just that it has no business being in the business of health care.
Without government, your ability to amass wealth would be severely limited. So you have no bitch if the majority in society feel that some social goals are desirable enough for you and most others to pay for. Even the most primitive societies take care of their sick.
Specifically mentioned the role of gummint in the post you replied to, so looks like you're just shooting from the hip, means my position is quite safe...right in front of you.
Originally posted by WajomaGovernment MUST guarantee your natural rights.
Never said anything about having no gummint No1. Just that it has no business being in the business of health care.
Specifically mentioned the role of gummint in the post you replied to, so looks like you're just shooting from the hip, means my position is quite safe...right in front of you.
Government MAY, if the majority of the governed wish it to, do other things that the majority believe are socially desirable so long as no one's natural rights are violated.
You have "right" to bear arms and own property by the government, but that does not mean the government is required to provide you a gun and some land. You have the "right" to access them, to buy them. Same with health care, you should have the right to access it, but it does not mean that the government should be required to provide it.
Originally posted by WajomaIf you believe the last statements so strongly I suggest you campaign for the US to withdraw it's signature from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Do I need to write this on a piece of 2 X 4 and batter it across your face so you won't miss it.
Guvamint doesn't pay for health care, they take money off you to pay for your health care. That is if you are a productive individual, if not, if you are a parasite, guvamint then takes money off some one else to pay for your health care.
A "right" is the s ...[text shortened]... is not a right.
A decent working wage for those that don't work, is not a right.
Actually the last one isn't covered by the declaration of rights, so I guess for that one you could advocate that people who can't afford food and shelter be given food and shelter rather than money to spend on beer and crack.
How does a government fund protecting individuals' rights if taxation is an initiation of force?
Originally posted by Dace AceHow can someone access healthcare if they're being discriminated against on economic grounds?
You have "right" to bear arms and own property by the government, but that does not mean the government is required to provide you a gun and some land. You have the "right" to access them, to buy them. Same with health care, you should have the right to access it, but it does not mean that the government should be required to provide it.