No One Has a Right to Health Care

[Uncensored2008]

Yes. Healthcare is a basic need of humans and a civilized people with the means to do so should assure that basic healthcare is available to all regardless of their abililty to pay.

How did our species survive then?

Modern health care is less than 500 years old, in a species that has been on earth 70,000 years. So how is this possible, unless your premise is flawed.

But what actually are basic human needs, are food and shelter. I have little doubt that you would be overjoyed to have Michelle Obama dictate what gruel all peasants may consume, and to put all those not of the party elite in government apartments.

Still it is funny that you start with medical care, which is a product of the mind of another.....

 

[beagle9]

The better choice is to give everyone basic healthcare funded by taxes.

Socialized medicine, in other words.

Yes the far left wants the government to control healthcare, but then again they want the government to control every aspect of your life.

. Probably was the goal of Obamacare over time, and not to mention getting in control of the money that would be involved in Obamacare over time.
Hard to trust Obama and company after what we have seen now.

 

[beagle9]

You apply these same concepts to someone bartering for a life sustaining operation maybe ?

Yes, because you only grasp your want, not the fact that there are limits in supply.

Let's say a brilliant surgeon with astounding dexterity develops a life saving technique. Three people need it, who gets it? Why do they get it? There is only one surgeon who can do it, so who gets it?

All three would get it under my idea or plan.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The better choice is to give everyone basic healthcare funded by taxes.

Socialized medicine, in other words.

Yes the far left wants the government to control healthcare, but then again they want the government to control every aspect of your life.

If government were able to control all healthcare, then they would be able to control every aspect of your life.

So a poor person without affordable healthcare can do what? Use his 'freedom' as some sort of magical cure for his illnesses?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes. Healthcare is a basic need of humans and a civilized people with the means to do so should assure that basic healthcare is available to all regardless of their abililty to pay.

How did our species survive then?

Modern health care is less than 500 years old, in a species that has been on earth 70,000 years. So how is this possible, unless your premise is flawed.

But what actually are basic human needs, are food and shelter. I have little doubt that you would be overjoyed to have Michelle Obama dictate what gruel all peasants may consume, and to put all those not of the party elite in government apartments.

Still it is funny that you start with medical care, which is a product of the mind of another.....

You survived like rabbits survive. You breed like crazy, produce baby after baby and with luck a few survive.

Nice to hear that you want to go back to the healthcare of the 15th century or earlier.

You know, when RWnut says something like that, it's not even surprising anymore.

 

[Contumacious]

The better choice is to give everyone basic healthcare funded by taxes.

Socialized medicine, in other words.

Yes the far left wants the government to control healthcare, but then again they want the government to control every aspect of your life.

If government were able to control all healthcare, then they would be able to control every aspect of your life.

So a poor person without affordable healthcare can do what? Use his 'freedom' as some sort of magical cure for his illnesses?

I have already discussed what can be dome to make health care affordable.

But need I remind you that nobody promised you a rose garden.

.

 

[dblack]

The better choice is to give everyone basic healthcare funded by taxes.

Socialized medicine, in other words.

Yes the far left wants the government to control healthcare, but then again they want the government to control every aspect of your life.

If government were able to control all healthcare, then they would be able to control every aspect of your life.

So a poor person without affordable healthcare can do what? Use his 'freedom' as some sort of magical cure for his illnesses?

That didn't seem to be what he said at all. This discussion isn't about whether we should help poor people get healthcare. It's about whether government is the right tool for the job.

 

[beagle9]

The better choice is to give everyone basic healthcare funded by taxes.

Socialized medicine, in other words.

Yes the far left wants the government to control healthcare, but then again they want the government to control every aspect of your life.

If government were able to control all healthcare, then they would be able to control every aspect of your life.

So a poor person without affordable healthcare can do what? Use his 'freedom' as some sort of magical cure for his illnesses?

I have already discussed what can be dome to make health care affordable.

But need I remind you that nobody promised you a rose garden.

.

. Don't want a rose garden, but if I need a life saving event to happen, then I don't want a situation where I am seen as some sort of ameba by those who are somehow more fortunate than me on that day maybe, and so they would deny me that life saving treatment or event because I was somehow lacking in life ? That's some cold hearted stuff. Nothing more volital than the unintended misfortunes in life, and always remember folks, that you are just a few trips away from being in the same position of a citizen you may be advocating against in these things. How about working together on some of these very important issues in life, and let the rest take care of itself in the free market place.

 

[dblack]

Socialized medicine, in other words.

Yes the far left wants the government to control healthcare, but then again they want the government to control every aspect of your life.

If government were able to control all healthcare, then they would be able to control every aspect of your life.

So a poor person without affordable healthcare can do what? Use his 'freedom' as some sort of magical cure for his illnesses?

I have already discussed what can be dome to make health care affordable.

But need I remind you that nobody promised you a rose garden.

.

. Don't want a rose garden, but if I need a live saving event to happen, then I don't want a situation where I am seen as some sort of ameba by those who are somehow more fortunate than me on that day maybe, and so they would deny me that life saving treatment or event because I was somehow lacking in life ? That's some cold hearted stuff.

Being 'denied' things we want is part of life. A sad a frustrating part of life. But does that justify taking what we want by force?

 

[beagle9]

The better choice is to give everyone basic healthcare funded by taxes.

Socialized medicine, in other words.

Yes the far left wants the government to control healthcare, but then again they want the government to control every aspect of your life.

If government were able to control all healthcare, then they would be able to control every aspect of your life.

So a poor person without affordable healthcare can do what? Use his 'freedom' as some sort of magical cure for his illnesses?

That didn't seem to be what he said at all. This discussion isn't about whether we should help poor people get healthcare. It's about whether government is the right tool for the job.

. Under a properly run government, it is the best tool for the job when it comes to serving all Americans as not being based upon their class level, but because it serves this nation well when it treats all it's citizens equally, and especially when it comes to such an important thing in life.

 

[beagle9]

Yes the far left wants the government to control healthcare, but then again they want the government to control every aspect of your life.

If government were able to control all healthcare, then they would be able to control every aspect of your life.

So a poor person without affordable healthcare can do what? Use his 'freedom' as some sort of magical cure for his illnesses?

I have already discussed what can be dome to make health care affordable.

But need I remind you that nobody promised you a rose garden.

.

. Don't want a rose garden, but if I need a live saving event to happen, then I don't want a situation where I am seen as some sort of ameba by those who are somehow more fortunate than me on that day maybe, and so they would deny me that life saving treatment or event because I was somehow lacking in life ? That's some cold hearted stuff.

Being 'denied' things we want is part of life. A sad a frustrating part of life. But does that justify taking what we want by force?

. You keep harping on this taking by force, when you are taxed for very important services right now by government. Do you wish to void all government services and the taxes that pays for those services from your life or do you want to fix the problems in government, and use the greatest government set up in the world to serve this nation in some very important ways as it should be ?

 

[dblack]

Socialized medicine, in other words.

Yes the far left wants the government to control healthcare, but then again they want the government to control every aspect of your life.

If government were able to control all healthcare, then they would be able to control every aspect of your life.

So a poor person without affordable healthcare can do what? Use his 'freedom' as some sort of magical cure for his illnesses?

That didn't seem to be what he said at all. This discussion isn't about whether we should help poor people get healthcare. It's about whether government is the right tool for the job.

. Under a properly run government, it is the best tool for the job when it comes to serving all Americans as not being based upon their class level, but because it serves this nation well when it treats all it's citizens equally, and especially when it comes to such an important thing in life.

There are lots of other important things in life. Should government provide us with all of them? Why healthcare and not food? Or housing? Friends? Lovers? Entertainment?

 

[dblack]

If government were able to control all healthcare, then they would be able to control every aspect of your life.

So a poor person without affordable healthcare can do what? Use his 'freedom' as some sort of magical cure for his illnesses?

I have already discussed what can be dome to make health care affordable.

But need I remind you that nobody promised you a rose garden.

.

. Don't want a rose garden, but if I need a live saving event to happen, then I don't want a situation where I am seen as some sort of ameba by those who are somehow more fortunate than me on that day maybe, and so they would deny me that life saving treatment or event because I was somehow lacking in life ? That's some cold hearted stuff.

Being 'denied' things we want is part of life. A sad a frustrating part of life. But does that justify taking what we want by force?

. You keep harping on this taking by force, when you are taxed for very important services right now by government. Do you wish to void all government services and the taxes that pays for those services from your life or do you want to fix the problems in government, and use the greatest government set up in the world to serve this nation in some very important ways as it should be ?

I'm sorry you think of it as "harping". The coercion at the heart of government is a point of fact, one that statists really don't want to acknowledge. But it's real and no amount of sophistry can change that.

I don't wish to void all government services, but before we look to government to solve a problem, we need to understand what that means. It means we think that solving the problem is so important that we're willing to resort to violence if anyone stands in our way. It's my conviction that most of society's problems can, and should, be solved through voluntary means; that resorting to laws, enforced by the police, should be reserved for protecting our freedom, and not for scoring us 'benefits'.

 

[beagle9]

Yes the far left wants the government to control healthcare, but then again they want the government to control every aspect of your life.

If government were able to control all healthcare, then they would be able to control every aspect of your life.

So a poor person without affordable healthcare can do what? Use his 'freedom' as some sort of magical cure for his illnesses?

That didn't seem to be what he said at all. This discussion isn't about whether we should help poor people get healthcare. It's about whether government is the right tool for the job.

. Under a properly run government, it is the best tool for the job when it comes to serving all Americans as not being based upon their class level, but because it serves this nation well when it treats all it's citizens equally, and especially when it comes to such an important thing in life.

There are lots of other important things in life. Should government provide us with all of them? Why healthcare and not food? Or housing? Friends? Lovers? Entertainment?

. Nope, government should only be moved to fix something that the free markets are failing miserably on in this important area in life, and no more. There are some very important roles that government should play in our society, and most of these roles are usually done well for the most part yet all depending, and a basic healthcare insurance service for all Americans should be part of it now. Free markets have had their chance at serving the citizens of this nation, and it failed in many ways to do so adequately.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So a poor person without affordable healthcare can do what? Use his 'freedom' as some sort of magical cure for his illnesses?

I have already discussed what can be dome to make health care affordable.

But need I remind you that nobody promised you a rose garden.

.

. Don't want a rose garden, but if I need a live saving event to happen, then I don't want a situation where I am seen as some sort of ameba by those who are somehow more fortunate than me on that day maybe, and so they would deny me that life saving treatment or event because I was somehow lacking in life ? That's some cold hearted stuff.

Being 'denied' things we want is part of life. A sad a frustrating part of life. But does that justify taking what we want by force?

. You keep harping on this taking by force, when you are taxed for very important services right now by government. Do you wish to void all government services and the taxes that pays for those services from your life or do you want to fix the problems in government, and use the greatest government set up in the world to serve this nation in some very important ways as it should be ?

I'm sorry you think of it as "harping". The coercion at the heart of government is a point of fact, one that statists really don't want to acknowledge. But it's real and no amount of sophistry can change that.

I don't wish to void all government services, but before we look to government to solve a problem, we need to understand what that means. It means we think that solving the problem is so important that we're willing to resort to violence if anyone stands in our way. It's my conviction that most of society's problems can, and should, be solved through voluntary means; that resorting to laws, enforced by the police, should be reserved for protecting our freedom, and not for scoring us 'benefits'.

Making the costs of the common good voluntary is simply a tax on the generous.

 

[beagle9]

So a poor person without affordable healthcare can do what? Use his 'freedom' as some sort of magical cure for his illnesses?

I have already discussed what can be dome to make health care affordable.

But need I remind you that nobody promised you a rose garden.

.

. Don't want a rose garden, but if I need a live saving event to happen, then I don't want a situation where I am seen as some sort of ameba by those who are somehow more fortunate than me on that day maybe, and so they would deny me that life saving treatment or event because I was somehow lacking in life ? That's some cold hearted stuff.

Being 'denied' things we want is part of life. A sad a frustrating part of life. But does that justify taking what we want by force?

. You keep harping on this taking by force, when you are taxed for very important services right now by government. Do you wish to void all government services and the taxes that pays for those services from your life or do you want to fix the problems in government, and use the greatest government set up in the world to serve this nation in some very important ways as it should be ?

I'm sorry you think of it as "harping". The coercion at the heart of government is a point of fact, one that statists really don't want to acknowledge. But it's real and no amount of sophistry can change that.

I don't wish to void all government services, but before we look to government to solve a problem, we need to understand what that means. It means we think that solving the problem is so important that we're willing to resort to violence if anyone stands in our way. It's my conviction that most of society's problems can, and should, be solved through voluntary means; that resorting to laws, enforced by the police, should be reserved for protecting our freedom, and not for scoring us 'benefits'.

. Not for scoring us benefits, but more about ensuring us with the basics needed in this specific department, and then beyond that we can let the free markets have at it with their offers of added services.

 

[dblack]

I have already discussed what can be dome to make health care affordable.

But need I remind you that nobody promised you a rose garden.

.

. Don't want a rose garden, but if I need a live saving event to happen, then I don't want a situation where I am seen as some sort of ameba by those who are somehow more fortunate than me on that day maybe, and so they would deny me that life saving treatment or event because I was somehow lacking in life ? That's some cold hearted stuff.

Being 'denied' things we want is part of life. A sad a frustrating part of life. But does that justify taking what we want by force?

. You keep harping on this taking by force, when you are taxed for very important services right now by government. Do you wish to void all government services and the taxes that pays for those services from your life or do you want to fix the problems in government, and use the greatest government set up in the world to serve this nation in some very important ways as it should be ?

I'm sorry you think of it as "harping". The coercion at the heart of government is a point of fact, one that statists really don't want to acknowledge. But it's real and no amount of sophistry can change that.

I don't wish to void all government services, but before we look to government to solve a problem, we need to understand what that means. It means we think that solving the problem is so important that we're willing to resort to violence if anyone stands in our way. It's my conviction that most of society's problems can, and should, be solved through voluntary means; that resorting to laws, enforced by the police, should be reserved for protecting our freedom, and not for scoring us 'benefits'.

. Not for scoring us benefits, but more about ensuring us with the basics needed in this specific department, and then beyond that we can let the free markets have at it with their offers of added services.

Ensuring us with the basics needed is scoring us benefits. And you say it's only this "specific department" that you want government to control, but what about when they come after the food supply? If the corporatists instigate inflation and shortages in the food supply, the way they've done with healthcare, will you advocate that government take over the food supply as well?

 

[beagle9]

. Don't want a rose garden, but if I need a live saving event to happen, then I don't want a situation where I am seen as some sort of ameba by those who are somehow more fortunate than me on that day maybe, and so they would deny me that life saving treatment or event because I was somehow lacking in life ? That's some cold hearted stuff.

Being 'denied' things we want is part of life. A sad a frustrating part of life. But does that justify taking what we want by force?

. You keep harping on this taking by force, when you are taxed for very important services right now by government. Do you wish to void all government services and the taxes that pays for those services from your life or do you want to fix the problems in government, and use the greatest government set up in the world to serve this nation in some very important ways as it should be ?

I'm sorry you think of it as "harping". The coercion at the heart of government is a point of fact, one that statists really don't want to acknowledge. But it's real and no amount of sophistry can change that.

I don't wish to void all government services, but before we look to government to solve a problem, we need to understand what that means. It means we think that solving the problem is so important that we're willing to resort to violence if anyone stands in our way. It's my conviction that most of society's problems can, and should, be solved through voluntary means; that resorting to laws, enforced by the police, should be reserved for protecting our freedom, and not for scoring us 'benefits'.

. Not for scoring us benefits, but more about ensuring us with the basics needed in this specific department, and then beyond that we can let the free markets have at it with their offers of added services.

Ensuring us with the basics needed is scoring us benefits. And you say it's only this "specific department" that you want government to control, but what about when they come after the food supply? If the corporatists instigate inflation and shortages of food, the way they've done with healthcare, will you advocate that government take over the food supply as well?

. Take back the government, and then the boogey man is no longer your greatest fear any longer... This is the problem you see, "the corporations" have already taken over government, so the things you fear are inevitable anyway.

 

[dblack]

Take back the government, and then the boogey man is no longer your greatest fear any longer... This is the problem you see, "the corporations" have already taken over government, so the things you fear are inevitable anyway.

Corporatism doesn't means corporations controlling government. It's government that distributes privileges rather than protects our rights.

 

[beagle9]

. Don't want a rose garden, but if I need a live saving event to happen, then I don't want a situation where I am seen as some sort of ameba by those who are somehow more fortunate than me on that day maybe, and so they would deny me that life saving treatment or event because I was somehow lacking in life ? That's some cold hearted stuff.

Being 'denied' things we want is part of life. A sad a frustrating part of life. But does that justify taking what we want by force?

. You keep harping on this taking by force, when you are taxed for very important services right now by government. Do you wish to void all government services and the taxes that pays for those services from your life or do you want to fix the problems in government, and use the greatest government set up in the world to serve this nation in some very important ways as it should be ?

I'm sorry you think of it as "harping". The coercion at the heart of government is a point of fact, one that statists really don't want to acknowledge. But it's real and no amount of sophistry can change that.

I don't wish to void all government services, but before we look to government to solve a problem, we need to understand what that means. It means we think that solving the problem is so important that we're willing to resort to violence if anyone stands in our way. It's my conviction that most of society's problems can, and should, be solved through voluntary means; that resorting to laws, enforced by the police, should be reserved for protecting our freedom, and not for scoring us 'benefits'.

. Not for scoring us benefits, but more about ensuring us with the basics needed in this specific department, and then beyond that we can let the free markets have at it with their offers of added services.

Ensuring us with the basics needed is scoring us benefits. And you say it's only this "specific department" that you want government to control, but what about when they come after the food supply? If the corporatists instigate inflation and shortages in the food supply, the way they've done with healthcare, will you advocate that government take over the food supply as well?

. Is your roads, schools, street lamps, sidewalks, public parks, national gaurd, farmers market, library, law enforcement etc. not benefits you enjoy for being an American ?