The liberal mythology of healthcare being a right

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Stupid, stupid argument.

It's not at all. In fact its the basic argument that scotus will be hearing. You know, that lawsuit about constitutionality that is coming up.

 

[Wry Catcher]

And by the way FORCING ME TO BUY INSURANCE does NOTHING to expand my so called right to medical care that I couldn't have already done on my own WITHOUT being forced to.

Only if you can afford health insurance. The cost of insurance has snowballed over two + decades and the benefits have shrunk. Citizens through no fault of there own lose their health insurance when they lose their job and if they have an existing condition they are shit out of luck.

Yet, anyone who shows up at a hospital with a medical emergency will receive treatment - hence, health care is a right. The fact is we - the taxpayers - will pay for the medical care of bums, and that means you don't have to buy insurance which makes you and other callous conservatives bums.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Forget about whether health care is a "right." Let's focus on what is needed to maintain and improve the strength and power of our society.

 

[dblack]

Forget about whether health care is a "right." Let's focus on what is needed to maintain and improve the strength and power of our society.

No.

 

[dblack]

But I'll ask this, if health care is a right, would you also say that food, clothing, shelter - or any other necessity of life is also a right?

To this question, I'd also like to add another, that the "health care is a right" people need to answer - how much health care?

 

[Wiseacre]

You do not want to bring up waivers, it is the most easily debunked myth of the Healthcare law, I will give you an opportunity to look up exactly what the waivers were before I make you look foolish.

As to healthcare being a right, most Americans would say we have a right to the opportunity to affordably obtain the basics of life such as water, food and shelter and yet some such as you say we have no right to be able to afford healthcare. Is this the case? We have no right to be treated for no other reason than we cannot afford it? That we are to allow treatment and medicine to become an ever increasing luxury in the richest country in world? This is the coldest form of social Darwinism and it does not suit us.

I'd say you're right that most Americans think we have a right to the opportunity, but not necessarily the right to obtain it. I think we each have the right to what we earn but not we we want or even what we need. You may need food, water, shelter, and healthcare, but the rest of us are not obligated to provide it for you. We may elect to help you, we may decide to give you any of these things, but you don't have a right to expect any of it.

 

[occupied]

As to healthcare being a right, most Americans would say we have a right to the opportunity to affordably obtain the basics of life such as water, food and shelter and yet some such as you say we have no right to be able to afford healthcare. Is this the case? We have no right to be treated for no other reason than we cannot afford it? That we are to allow treatment and medicine to become an ever increasing luxury in the richest country in world? This is the coldest form of social Darwinism and it does not suit us.

???

Not quite sure what you're getting at here.

But I'll ask this, if health care is a right, would you also say that food, clothing, shelter - or any other necessity of life is also a right?

I am saying that the opportunity to affordably obtain the necessities of life on an everyday income is a right.

 

[ladyliberal]

I'm not sure I understand your logic. If you are saying that declining health care is a right then I agree (in general). However, the ACA doesn't force anyone to seek health care.

If, however, you are suggesting that the ACA spends public monies, collected via taxation, on health care regardless of whether the person taxed desires it, then this is quite similar to other public services. The government already spends public monies on education, invasion of foreign countries, etc. regardless of whether all individuals taxed take direct advantage of these programs.

Thirdly, perhaps you are suggesting that the individual insurance mandate is a violation of your rights. If so, I'm not sure why you conflate a right to health care with a right not to purchase health insurance. Having health insurance makes it positively easier to obtain health care, facilitating rather than impeding a right to health care. Having health insurance does not force one to obtain health care.

One might argue that an individual mandate might force one to spend money to obtain health insurance that then did not cover a procedure one desired. In this unlikely event, one might find it more difficult to obtain the particular procedure due to the expense of the health insurance. However even then the individual would be no worse off than if they had been taxed rather than mandated to obtain the health insurance. Not regarding taxes as an inherent violation of my rights, I could then hardly regard the mandate as one either.

 

[dblack]

As to healthcare being a right, most Americans would say we have a right to the opportunity to affordably obtain the basics of life such as water, food and shelter and yet some such as you say we have no right to be able to afford healthcare. Is this the case? We have no right to be treated for no other reason than we cannot afford it? That we are to allow treatment and medicine to become an ever increasing luxury in the richest country in world? This is the coldest form of social Darwinism and it does not suit us.

???

Not quite sure what you're getting at here.

But I'll ask this, if health care is a right, would you also say that food, clothing, shelter - or any other necessity of life is also a right?

I am saying that the opportunity to affordably obtain the necessities of life on an everyday income is a right.

And that doesn't strike you as impossibly vague? What, exactly, is the "opportunity to affordably obtain" ???

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

And by the way FORCING ME TO BUY INSURANCE does NOTHING to expand my so called right to medical care that I couldn't have already done on my own WITHOUT being forced to.

Only if you can afford health insurance. The cost of insurance has snowballed over two + decades and the benefits have shrunk. Citizens through no fault of there own lose their health insurance when they lose their job and if they have an existing condition they are shit out of luck.

Yet, anyone who shows up at a hospital with a medical emergency will receive treatment - hence, health care is a right. The fact is we - the taxpayers - will pay for the medical care of bums, and that means you don't have to buy insurance which makes you and other callous conservatives bums.

You answered your own objection. This law changes nothing except for two things.

1 its forcing people to exercise a so called right

2 its going to drive up costs by FORCING companies to cover everything

Then your so called solution for the poor just makes them poorer because now they have to pay for something they couldn't afford to begin with.


Obama took an imperfect system and made it 10 fold worse with a few minor exceptions contained within the bill.

 

[dblack]

I'm not sure I understand your logic. If you are saying that declining health care is a right then I agree (in general). However, the ACA doesn't force anyone to seek health care.

If, however, you are suggesting that the ACA spends public monies, collected via taxation, on health care regardless of whether the person taxed desires it, then this is quite similar to other public services. The government already spends public monies on education, invasion of foreign countries, etc. regardless of whether all individuals taxed take direct advantage of these programs.

Thirdly, perhaps you are suggesting that the individual insurance mandate is a violation of your rights. If so, I'm not sure why you conflate a right to health care with a right not to purchase health insurance. Having health insurance makes it positively easier to obtain health care, facilitating rather than impeding a right to health care. Having health insurance does not force one to obtain health care.

One might argue that an individual mandate might force one to spend money to obtain health insurance that then did not cover a procedure one desired. In this unlikely event, one might find it more difficult to obtain the particular procedure due to the expense of the health insurance. However even then the individual would be no worse off than if they had been taxed rather than mandated to obtain the health insurance. Not regarding taxes as an inherent violation of my rights, I could then hardly regard the mandate as one either.

What Grampa is arguing for is the right to be left the fuck alone. The invididual mandate makes a criminal out of anyone who refuses to hand over their paycheck to Aetna. The day corporations can lobby government to cram their product down my throat (while picking my pocket) will be the day I starting think long and hard about how to fight back.

 

[Chris]

For the sake of this post let's pretend you're right (which you're not).

Every right I can think of involves 2 paths. One to exercise it and one to deny it. Obamacare does the exact opposite. It FORCES you to exercise this so called right. So in essence it oppresses an individuals personal rights to decide for themselves.

You've all been claiming that healthcare is a right so exactly how does this law aid me in EXERCISING my rights? It doesn't, it FORCES me to take a path I may not want to take.

Where is my RIGHT to choose if Obama doesn't offer me a waiver like all his rich friends?

Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance.

Taking care of the sick is the right thing to do.

If you can't see that, I feel sorry for you.

 

[occupied]

You do not want to bring up waivers, it is the most easily debunked myth of the Healthcare law, I will give you an opportunity to look up exactly what the waivers were before I make you look foolish.

As to healthcare being a right, most Americans would say we have a right to the opportunity to affordably obtain the basics of life such as water, food and shelter and yet some such as you say we have no right to be able to afford healthcare. Is this the case? We have no right to be treated for no other reason than we cannot afford it? That we are to allow treatment and medicine to become an ever increasing luxury in the richest country in world? This is the coldest form of social Darwinism and it does not suit us.

I'd say you're right that most Americans think we have a right to the opportunity, but not necessarily the right to obtain it. I think we each have the right to what we earn but not we we want or even what we need. You may need food, water, shelter, and healthcare, but the rest of us are not obligated to provide it for you. We may elect to help you, we may decide to give you any of these things, but you don't have a right to expect any of it.

This is exactly why I usually avoid discussions on this subject, conservatives always act as if they are in the privileged class and the rabble are begging at their door. Quit acting like the aristocracy, ANYONE can conceivably find themselves buried under a mountain of medical debt, even such highborn lords and ladies such as yourselves and if by some chance you are so wealthy that you could pay for a bypass or chemo out of pocket then you have no concept of the spot the rabble find themselves in. This costs even people with insurance vast sums, those without just die.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

For the sake of this post let's pretend you're right (which you're not).

Every right I can think of involves 2 paths. One to exercise it and one to deny it. Obamacare does the exact opposite. It FORCES you to exercise this so called right. So in essence it oppresses an individuals personal rights to decide for themselves.

You've all been claiming that healthcare is a right so exactly how does this law aid me in EXERCISING my rights? It doesn't, it FORCES me to take a path I may not want to take.

Where is my RIGHT to choose if Obama doesn't offer me a waiver like all his rich friends?

Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance.

Taking care of the sick is the right thing to do.

If you can't see that, I feel sorry for you.

Your post has NOTHING to do with my position or the OP.

Try again but try to be relevant this time.

 

[DiamondDave]

You do not want to bring up waivers, it is the most easily debunked myth of the Healthcare law, I will give you an opportunity to look up exactly what the waivers were before I make you look foolish.

As to healthcare being a right, most Americans would say we have a right to the opportunity to affordably obtain the basics of life such as water, food and shelter and yet some such as you say we have no right to be able to afford healthcare. Is this the case? We have no right to be treated for no other reason than we cannot afford it? That we are to allow treatment and medicine to become an ever increasing luxury in the richest country in world? This is the coldest form of social Darwinism and it does not suit us.

A need or even a want is not a right...

You may NEED food... you do not have the right to it at the expense of anyone else/.... though many are generous enough to provide thru donation, volunteerism, etc...

Nobody should be turned away from life saving medical care... but that does not mean that they are not to be billed for it, or billed for all other medical care services...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You've all been claiming that healthcare is a right so exactly how does this law aid me in EXERCISING my rights? It doesn't, it FORCES me to take a path I may not want to take.

Actually not.

You have three options:

One: Buy health insurance, which you already have anyway.

Two: Pay a penalty:

The penalty will be paid as a federal tax liability on income tax returns and is enforced by the Treasury.

The advantage to paying the penalty is you can still buy insurance at some future date should you need it, even with a pre-existing condition.

Or, three, you can buy no insurance and pay no penalty:

Individuals that fail to pay the penalty will not be subject to criminal penalties, liens or levies.

Given these facts, therefore, one can clearly see no one is being ‘forced’ to buy insurance. The worst-case scenario is you lose part or all of an income tax return.

The IM is in essence a bluff, the government is betting enough consumers won’t call the bluff and buy insurance, the tiny percentage who actually decide to go without won’t have an adverse effect on the insurance pool.

And the primary focus of the ACA is to get low income individuals into an insurance program, in some cases a state’s Medicaid, for example.

As a legal aside, because the ACA authorizes no criminal or civil penalties, it doesn’t meet the Lopez/Morrison standard, and is consequently Constitutional.

So enjoy not having medical insurance to your heart’s content.

Source for the cited above:

https://www.bcbsri.com/BCBSRIWeb/pdf/Individual_Mandate_Fact_Sheet.pdf

The invididual mandate makes a criminal out of anyone who refuses to hand over their paycheck to Aetna.

Incorrect. See: “Individuals that fail to pay the penalty will not be subject to criminal penalties, liens or levies.”

 

[Steelplate]

I'm not sure I understand your logic. If you are saying that declining health care is a right then I agree (in general). However, the ACA doesn't force anyone to seek health care.

If, however, you are suggesting that the ACA spends public monies, collected via taxation, on health care regardless of whether the person taxed desires it, then this is quite similar to other public services. The government already spends public monies on education, invasion of foreign countries, etc. regardless of whether all individuals taxed take direct advantage of these programs.

Thirdly, perhaps you are suggesting that the individual insurance mandate is a violation of your rights. If so, I'm not sure why you conflate a right to health care with a right not to purchase health insurance. Having health insurance makes it positively easier to obtain health care, facilitating rather than impeding a right to health care. Having health insurance does not force one to obtain health care.

One might argue that an individual mandate might force one to spend money to obtain health insurance that then did not cover a procedure one desired. In this unlikely event, one might find it more difficult to obtain the particular procedure due to the expense of the health insurance. However even then the individual would be no worse off than if they had been taxed rather than mandated to obtain the health insurance. Not regarding taxes as an inherent violation of my rights, I could then hardly regard the mandate as one either.

What Grampa is arguing for is the right to be left the fuck alone. The invididual mandate makes a criminal out of anyone who refuses to hand over their paycheck to Aetna. The day corporations can lobby government to cram their product down my throat (while picking my pocket) will be the day I starting think long and hard about how to fight back.

Hey.... you guys were the ones that didn't want a Public Option.

 

[occupied]

You do not want to bring up waivers, it is the most easily debunked myth of the Healthcare law, I will give you an opportunity to look up exactly what the waivers were before I make you look foolish.

As to healthcare being a right, most Americans would say we have a right to the opportunity to affordably obtain the basics of life such as water, food and shelter and yet some such as you say we have no right to be able to afford healthcare. Is this the case? We have no right to be treated for no other reason than we cannot afford it? That we are to allow treatment and medicine to become an ever increasing luxury in the richest country in world? This is the coldest form of social Darwinism and it does not suit us.

A need or even a want is not a right...

You may NEED food... you do not have the right to it at the expense of anyone else/.... though many are generous enough to provide thru donation, volunteerism, etc...

Nobody should be turned away from life saving medical care... but that does not mean that they are not to be billed for it, or billed for all other medical care services...

Social Darwinism.

 

[The T]

Healthcare has always been a responsibility. Had it been a right? It would have been written into the Constitutiojn. And in effect it was...it was a social issue for the States to legislate for themselvesw via the 9th/10th Amendments.

And that is all. What Obama and the Statists have done is run roughshod over the States to decide for themselves.

And YES I know Massechussetts did it for themselves with Mitt and another architect named Teddy Kennedy...doesn't mean it's right for the rest of the States.

Massechussetts is now paying for thier folly since Romeny's departure.

Life goes on and so does the defense for the remaining States to get rid of Obamacare...and decide for themselves.

 

[Steelplate]

You do not want to bring up waivers, it is the most easily debunked myth of the Healthcare law, I will give you an opportunity to look up exactly what the waivers were before I make you look foolish.

As to healthcare being a right, most Americans would say we have a right to the opportunity to affordably obtain the basics of life such as water, food and shelter and yet some such as you say we have no right to be able to afford healthcare. Is this the case? We have no right to be treated for no other reason than we cannot afford it? That we are to allow treatment and medicine to become an ever increasing luxury in the richest country in world? This is the coldest form of social Darwinism and it does not suit us.

A need or even a want is not a right...

You may NEED food... you do not have the right to it at the expense of anyone else/.... though many are generous enough to provide thru donation, volunteerism, etc...

Nobody should be turned away from life saving medical care... but that does not mean that they are not to be billed for it, or billed for all other medical care services...

Even if it bankrupts them and forces them into the streets? This is your vision of America?

Go to some banana Republic and view the end result of your vision. But, I guess it's OK because you feel very secure in your status...Fuck everyone else. The Conservative Mantra.