Is healthcare a right? why or why not?

[rOckNrOllsCar11]

Lets try it it like this:
Where X = whatever right you care to name
What right do you have to expect me to pay for you to exercise your right to X?

But ok with paying for the rights of Iraq? Have Americans become so self important that our own matter lest? Why this backwards grandiosity? Are you saying they are more important than me?
And remember, you are paying for the congresses health plans, senates health plans, the presidents health plan and so on and so forth. Is that ok with you. Government are to serve the people. They are supposed to work for us, not the other way round. But where there is power, there's corruption.

and your wrong, government exists to INSURE the rights AND wrongs of its people. Otherwise, they'd have no power.

 

[M14 Shooter]

But ok with paying for the rights of Iraq?

Don't change the subject; answer the question.

 

[rOckNrOllsCar11]

Don't change the subject; answer the question.

I'm not changing the subject, I'm simply offering a bigger picture to your argument. You're not addressing the apparent belief that politicians have that they have a RIGHT to health care on our tax dollars and we don't so in actuality perhaps you should apply your question to them, not me.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm not changing the subject, I'm simply offering a bigger picture to your argument.

No, you're trying to find a way to not answer the question. Don't do that.

Where X = whatever right you care to name
What right do you have to expect me to pay for you to exercise your right to X?

 

[rOckNrOllsCar11]

Fine, if it satisfies you I will.

By example.

I use tobacco. Congress expanded health care for children at the expense of my habit and guess what. That's ok w/ me.

So now it's your turn. Apply your lil riddle to my perspectives.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Fine, if it satisfies you I will.

By example.

I use tobacco. Congress expanded health care for children at the expense of my habit and guess what. That's ok w/ me.

So now it's your turn. Apply your lil riddle to my perspectives.

That doesnt answer my question.
Not even remotely.
In fact, given you answer, I'm not evern sure you understand my question.

 

[mattskramer]

No, you're trying to find a way to not answer the question. Don't do that.

Where X = whatever right you care to name
What right do you have to expect me to pay for you to exercise your right to X?

I think that I see your point but I think that people should be required to pay taxes to some things for the “common good”. DO you really think that all government social services should end – unemployment insurance, food stamps, earned income tax credits, Medicare, Medicaid, farm subsidies, etc? Can you think of anything that you would want the government to do to help those who fall onto hard times?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think that I see your point but I think that people should be required to pay taxes to some things for the “common good”.

And I agree. There are a lot of things the government does "for the common good" that doesnt have anything to do with providing someone with the means to exercise his rights.

DO you really think that all government social services should end – unemployment insurance, food stamps, earned income tax credits, Medicare, Medicaid, farm subsidies, etc?

All of these things mean I am paying someone to exercise their right to X.
What right do you/they have to expect me to pay for you to exercise your right to X?

Can you think of anything that you would want the government to do to help those who fall onto hard times?

The government does not exist to provide people with the means to exercise thrit rights. If you disagree, then you need to answer my question.

 

[rOckNrOllsCar11]

ok...than clarify you question. Perhaps I'm not understanding your question entirely. It seems to me your just asking if tomorrow a national health plan went into effect should I be able to choose met-life or Blue Cross or whatever. ummm, if thats the case, it's still called Medicaid which your tax dollars go to. Do you oppose that?

Bottom line, you're making me debate an assumed notions. At least my answers show where I stand unlike you and your faces.

 

[M14 Shooter]

ok...than clarify you question. Perhaps I'm not understanding your question entirely.

I'm now sure how I can be more clear.

Perhaps an example:
X = the right to own property
I have the right to own property.
What right do I have to expect you to pay for that property?

(You may substitue for X any right you care to choose)

 

[Shogun]

dont worry about debating ole salad shooter...



He'll block you as soon as you debate him into a corner.

 

[rOckNrOllsCar11]

Bottom line: Your question is a riddle. It can go either way. If the answer is yes, than your rights are somehow disregarded, if I say no, I sound like a selfish prick. Either way, theres really no answer when you put it like that.

I just feel if your applying this to something that isn't even a part of reality why can't you with what is? (government 'right' to health care, throwing money at a hopeless country such as Iraq)

In these cases, I would say no. Unfortunately, we can't choose to which causes our tax dollars go to unless you think voting works, lol, naw seriously though.

Where not talking about property though, thats a luxury, health care shouldn't be.

If we take the route of actually being able to choose where individually our tax dollars go than our government would prolly be smaller. But can you image for example, 23 states out of 50 oppose their tax dollars going to Iraqs right to rights. That would be seen almost as treasonous.

I get your point but its a riddle with a double edged sword.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Bottom line: Your question is a riddle. It can go either way. If the answer is yes, than your rights are somehow disregarded, if I say no, I sound like a selfish prick. Either way, theres really no answer when you put it like that.

That shoudl tell you something, shouldn't it?
Especially the "If the answer is yes, than your rights are somehow disregarded" part?

I just feel if your applying this to something that isn't even a part of reality why can't you with what is?

Um...
If you do not have the right to expect me to pay for your property, how then can you expect to have the right to excpect me to pay for your health care?

I get your point but its a riddle with a double edged sword.

Its not a riddle. Its a question.

IF you believe that I have the right to expect you to pay for me to exercise your right to X, then your belief is valid, regardless of X.

IF you believe that I do NOT have the right to expect you to pay for me to exercise your right to X, then your belief is valid, regardless of X.

Whats NOT valid is arguing that you believe I have the right to expect you to pay for me to exercise my right to X, but only simetimes, depending on if you think the right to X is important enough, etc.

 

[rOckNrOllsCar11]

You act like your gonna pay for the whole thing. It's a simple redirection of money. Consider the b.s. our taxes go to now.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You act like your gonna pay for the whole thing. It's a simple redirection of money. Consider the b.s. our taxes go to now.

How does that matter?

In supporting federal health care, I am saying that I have the right to expect you to pay for me to exercise my right to have health care.

If that's a valid position, then it is equally valid for me to say that I have the right to expect you to pay for me to exercise ALL my rights.

You agree with that? That I have the right to expect you to pay for me to exercise ALL my rights?

 

[rOckNrOllsCar11]

How does that matter?

In supporting federal health care, I am saying that I have the right to expect you to pay for me to exercise my right to have health care.

If that's a valid position, then it is equally valid for me to say that I have the right to expect you to pay for me to exercise ALL my rights.

You agree with that? That I have the right to expect you to pay for me to exercise ALL my rights?

Something tells me that you don't need anyone to pay for your health care. In fact, you seem to have no understanding of poverty in general. Trust me, it's not just a PBS special. And the problem is only growing.

What rights do you need someone to pay for exactly cuz your argument is become more and more baseless. I think you just bait people into pointless conversations. Perhaps you do have a future in politics after all.

 

[mattskramer]

All of these things mean I am paying someone to exercise their right to X.
What right do you/they have to expect me to pay for you to exercise your right to X?


The government does not exist to provide people with the means to exercise thrit rights. If you disagree, then you need to answer my question.

My answer to your question is that sometimes people fall onto hard times, often through nothing that they could have reasonable expected: a crooked employer gets into trouble, lays you off, and goes bankrupt. While you struggle to save and find another job you take a chance and let your health insurance lapse out of sheer necessity. Suddenly, while uninsured, you get severely sick. I guess that it is just too bad. Go die in the street. I should not be obligated to give you one red cent. Some people are born with severe mental and physical handicaps. To make things worse, those handicapped people might be born to very poor families without the money or resources to care for such needy people. I guess that it just too bad. We should not expect you to help pay, in the slightest, for such people to exercise their right to X (survival).

 

[Annie]

My answer to your question is that sometimes people fall onto hard times, often through nothing that they could have reasonable expected: a crooked employer gets into trouble, lays you off, and goes bankrupt. While you struggle to save and find another job you take a chance and let your health insurance lapse out of sheer necessity. Suddenly, while uninsured, you get severely sick. I guess that it is just too bad. Go die in the street. I should not be obligated to give you one red cent. Some people are born with severe mental and physical handicaps. To make things worse, those handicapped people might be born to very poor families without the money or resources to care for such needy people. I guess that it just too bad. We should not expect you to help pay, in the slightest, for such people to exercise their right to X (survival).

Where are these people 'dying in the street'? Today in IL, if a family makes $53k and hasn't health insurance, they have access to free health care. Governor Blogo thinks that's insufficient. He wants to add over 250k more people, above that $53k. I'm sorry, but from where I sit, the government, state or fed should not be doing this.

 

[Diuretic]

My answer to your question is that sometimes people fall onto hard times, often through nothing that they could have reasonable expected: a crooked employer gets into trouble, lays you off, and goes bankrupt. While you struggle to save and find another job you take a chance and let your health insurance lapse out of sheer necessity. Suddenly, while uninsured, you get severely sick. I guess that it is just too bad. Go die in the street. I should not be obligated to give you one red cent. Some people are born with severe mental and physical handicaps. To make things worse, those handicapped people might be born to very poor families without the money or resources to care for such needy people. I guess that it just too bad. We should not expect you to help pay, in the slightest, for such people to exercise their right to X (survival).

You're not obligated. The question is does the government have an obligation?

 

[mattskramer]

You're not obligated. The question is does the government have an obligation?

Well. I think that government is obligated but the only way that government can help is through money that it receives from taxpayers. Therefore, indirectly, people would be obligated to help.