Healthcare as a human right?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So, that's just for 'starters'? What then?

Then,price controls.

Awesome.

So what about all of life's other needs? Should government ensure that those are "affordable" as well?

Sorry, go find another thread to whine in about that.

 

[Pooh]

Its already happening dimwit.

Wrong, wingnut.

Nope, he's right child. They do not go into the field for altruistic reasons kid.

Hey look, it's my little assistant! Sure they do, many of them. And don't you freaks worry, doctors will always make good money.

(smile) You in healthcare?

Irrelevant. No, your personal anecodotes don't mean shit.

LOL, you're a twit. I do it for a living boy. It's not irrelevant, you're just ignorant.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Wrong, wingnut.

Nope, he's right child. They do not go into the field for altruistic reasons kid.

Hey look, it's my little assistant! Sure they do, many of them. And don't you freaks worry, doctors will always make good money.

(smile) You in healthcare?

Irrelevant. No, your personal anecodotes don't mean shit.

LOL, you're a twit. I do it for a living boy. It's not irrelevant, you're just ignorant.

Again, your personal anecodotes don't mean shit.

 

[Pooh]

Nope, he's right child. They do not go into the field for altruistic reasons kid.

Hey look, it's my little assistant! Sure they do, many of them. And don't you freaks worry, doctors will always make good money.

(smile) You in healthcare?

Irrelevant. No, your personal anecodotes don't mean shit.

LOL, you're a twit. I do it for a living boy. It's not irrelevant, you're just ignorant.

Again, your personal anecodotes don't mean shit.

And your ignorance does? Moron.

 

[dblack]

So, that's just for 'starters'? What then?

Then,price controls.

Awesome.

So what about all of life's other needs? Should government ensure that those are "affordable" as well?

Sorry, go find another thread to whine in about that.

Oh come on. You can't defend your position any better than that? The question is, where does your desire to have government control things stop? What limits should there be on government in your view? I suppose you think of that as a "slippery slope" argument and dismiss it. But it's a real concern. If we're going to put government in charge of ensuring everyone gets health care, why not food and housing? Should government make sure we have satisfying employment as well?

 

[TRFjr]

Even if health care is a right where is it written that rights are required to be fulfilled at the expense of another

so if rights are required to be fulfilled by the government at taxpayers expense when should I expect by government provided gun?

 

[dblack]

Even if health care is a right where is it written that rights are required to be fulfilled at the expense of another.

That's the problem. A "right" that makes a claim on the involuntary servitude of others contradicts the very concept of a "right".

... so if rights are required to be fulfilled by the government at taxpayers expense when should I expect by government provided gun?

Exactly. Their argument makes no sense and is simply equivocation on the term "right" to make their ambitions seem more palatable.

 

[BrokeLoser]

A right? No.

Something that decent countries make sure it's citizens can affordable access? Yes.

What “decent country” has 40 million illegals on their healthcare tit?
What “decent country” has a population comprised of 100 million with illegal roots?
I’ll bet you’ll pretend you didn’t see this post.

50 million next week? Why shouldn't those we hire to work at our food processing plants be healthy?

“We”?
By all means, if you own a food processing plant, feel free to make sure your pet humans / slaves are healthy...I doubt anyone will stop you.

 

[BS Filter]

Nope.

Yes.

Quote my entire post.

No, because it has no effect on my response. You are wrong. And i am right.

It obviously does have an effect on your response because you edited my post. You're dishonest.

 

[Diver Diva]

Please try to keep your comments grounded in reality, not fantasy.

There are clinics available for people who cannot afford care otherwise. My ex-husband (a cardiologist) donated a considerable amount of his time to one treating heart patients for free.

And no, the government does not know how to provide healthcare. They couldn't even make a website that worked. If you want to see government run healthcare, you need look no farther than the Veterans Administration.

 

[pknopp]

Please try to keep your comments grounded in reality, not fantasy.

There are clinics available for people who cannot afford care otherwise. My ex-husband (a cardiologist) donated a considerable amount of his time to one treating heart patients for free.

And no, the government does not know how to provide healthcare. They couldn't even make a website that worked. If you want to see government run healthcare, you need look no farther than the Veterans Administration.

You think you are going to be able to overturn Medicare?

There are no free clinics anywhere near where millions of people live.

 

[Terri4Trump]

The notion that healthcare is a human right is gaining traction in United States and perhaps we should explore what that entails. The perception does not say that health is a human right and that’s an important distinction. Health is something that is dependent on a complex set of circumstances some under the control of the individual, some not.

A right is something granted to an individual requiring other individuals to honor as morally good and justified in the concept of its benefit to all from the weakest to the strongest. It’s kind of a legal precept of the Golden Rule. But rights and health are two very different things and there is ample confusion in the air surrounding our democracy.

What happens when one person’s right infringes on the right of another person? If one person smokes and that smoke damages the lungs of another person then the right of that other person to health should supersede the right of the person to smoke and it does in our society. But the smoker’s lungs are damaged and the healthcare needed to treat that damage is an infringement on rights of the individual who does not smoke because smoking and not smoking are under the control of both individuals.

So if the nose of one individual is thumbed at personal responsibility for self-gratification, how can that be a human right to force the others to pay for healthcare? Not that most Americans want to restrict the enjoyment and freedom of others; most say to each his own. But if Joe six-pack goes home every day and puts away twelve cans of sixteen ounce Budweisers, how can Joe’s human right to healthcare require someone else to pay for the carnage to his heart and liver?

This is the problem with defining healthcare as a human right. This is why Venezuela, once a rich and honorable country, is a failed state. The expense is prohibitive and healthcare workers expect to be paid not work for peanuts because some central authority dictates it. Healthcare quality will deteriorate quickly if healthcare is declared to be a human right.

There is no Horn of Plenty that exists on its own in the real world. It exists in Venezuela and Cuba and maybe some should go to those places and experience it. They will likely define healthcare differently.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Oh come on. You can't defend your position any better than that? T

Inappropriate, stupid question. I never stated or implied as my position that the government should provide anything else, nor would such a discussion have any bearing on the points i have made. That was you trying to change the subject to more low hanging fruit for yourself,, as you dont have the tools or will to address my actual positions. Very childish.

 

[WillMunny]

No, I don't think it's a human right - nobody is entitled to massive privileges and coddling in life just because they popped out of a womb; if you want advantages in this society, your EARN them.

 

[dblack]

Oh come on. You can't defend your position any better than that? T

Inappropriate, stupid question. I never stated or implied as my position that the government should provide anything else, nor would such a discussion have any bearing on the points i have made. That was you trying to change the subject to more low hanging fruit for yourself,, as you dont have the tools or will to address my actual positions. Very childish.

The question is, where does your desire to have government control things stop? What limits should there be on government in your view? I suppose you think of that as a "slippery slope" argument and dismiss it. But it's a real concern. If we're going to put government in charge of ensuring everyone gets health care, why not food and housing? Should government make sure we have satisfying employment as well?