The liberal mythology of healthcare being a right

[Oddball]

^^^

See what I mean, folx?

They have no argument, so they deflect and try to change the subject.

Stellar job, Gomer.

 

[Toronado3800]

No, you don't have the right to compel anyone to perform any service....Ever.

Any "law" (to use the term loosely) doing such a thing is entirely abhorrent to the concept of what rights are and are not.

So Oddball, do you say when a homeless man shows up at a hospital with a gunshot wound they do have the real option of throwing him out on the street?

 

[Bfgrn]

^^^

See what I mean, folx?

They have no argument, so they deflect and try to change the subject.

Stellar job, Gomer.

What argument could possibly be made to social Darwinists who believe society should be a jungle; survival of the fittest? It would be like yelling at a deaf mute.

The belief that health care is a right comes from respect of all living things and compassion for the human condition we all share. I strongly suspect every one of you right wing barbarians will have an epiphany, when the bell tolls for thee.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Yes... you and those like you who expect something at the expense of others are nutbags... glad you're finally coming clean

No... that was you in the picture. BTW...who expects something at the expense of others? Did you forget that I'm a taxpayer too? No, it's just that you're selfish and don't give a shit about anyone other than your own little world that you've manufactured for yourself.

According to the Constitution he has that RIGHT, and it is INVIOLATE.

 

[dblack]

Still looking for the argument that healthcare is a right.

There isn't one.

Thus, the socialists will distract by bitching about high costs (brought about by and large by their favored political policies), the "unfairness" of the difficulty-cum-impossibility of getting covered for a pre-existing condition (as though it's logical to be able to get automobile collision insurance after you've totalled your car), accuse anyone and everyone who doesn't want medical Marxism of wanting people who have acute medical problems broke, and hating old people and the chiiilllllldrrrreeeennnnnn.

Oddball, do you agree that since the 1950s we have had an effective RIGHT to healthcare, good or bad for the country.

No, not at all. The good will of doctors and hospitals does not constitute a right, effective or otherwise. That fact that our health care institutions are dedicated to helping people first and foremost, and getting their money after they are out of harms way is a voluntary expression of social responsibility. We, as paying customers of doctors and hospitals absorb the cost of those who ultimately can't pay, voluntarily participate in that social responsibility. EMTALA to the contrary, we could choose to patronize doctors who demanded payment in full before rendering emergency services - we might even save a little cash - but who would? Who would want to risk dealing with such a hard-assed attitude?

Even if we assume EMTALA is the 'thin blue line' separating us from death in the alley (an assumption I wholeheartedly deny), it still covers a very narrow circumstance - emergency treatment to stabilize patients in potentially life threatening situation. And patients are still billed, in full, for the services rendered. That's hardly a "right to health care".

 

[Dr Grump]

It is necessary because people need healthcare. It is a good idea because privatised health care doesn't work. Your system has shown that.

It works fine.

You are obvioulsy not really an M.D.

Of course, what the standard is for "works" is something that never gets addressed.

I've never claimed to be an MD

If it works fine, why do so many of you complain about it constantly? How come, since I can remember, it has been a huge political issue?

What is your standard?

 

[Dr Grump]

How are corporations "subjugating" you? Is someone forcing you to work for one?

Being thick as pig shit you obviously can't join the dots...

You don't think multi-million dollar companies like the oil and tobacco companies paying squillions to lobbyists to bend the ear of politicians who are supposed to representing YOU not big business is not a form of subjugation? You probably think it's foreplay.

The thing that cracks me up most about your neocon whackjobs is your whole mantra is all about "my freedom", yet you are more willing to act the sheeple for these lobbyists saying it is freedom of speech. As I have mentioned on another thread recently. Only in USA neocon whackjob land is lobbying called freedom of speech. In other countries it's called at best bribery, at worst corruption...

There are no "dots" to join, numskull. The reason corporations hire lobbyists is to protect themselves from Congress. If they don't funnel money to politicians, they will become the target of punitive regulations. Many of the bills Congress weasels put up for a vote are never intended to become law. They are created strictly for the purpose of shaking cash from corporations. If corporations don't pay, they get socked with expensive regulations or Congressional investigations. Microsoft learned that lesson the hard way. Congress is basically one vast extortion racket and corporations, along with the rest of the tax paying public, are the victims.

How is it living in the 'freeist' country in the world?

 

[bripat9643]

Oddball, do you agree that since the 1950s we have had an effective RIGHT to healthcare, good or bad for the country.

I'll concede that if you concede that the Confederacy had a right to own slaves.

 

[Dr Grump]

No, you don't have the right to compel anyone to perform any service....Ever.

Any "law" (to use the term loosely) doing such a thing is entirely abhorrent to the concept of what rights are and are not.

I know because how dare you encroach on somebody's elses 'freedom'. After all we live in a bubble, not a collective society..

I build my own house, make my own car, build my own road, build my own train and plane, make my own clothes, grow my own food, purify my own water with the purification module I invented, diagnose myself, treat myself, generate my own electricity, put up the power poles and underground cables to generate my electricity....yadda, yadda, yadda...

Man I'm glad our health system is not like yours...

 

[Dr Grump]

^^^

See what I mean, folx?

They have no argument, so they deflect and try to change the subject.

Stellar job, Gomer.

What argument could possibly be made to social Darwinists who believe society should be a jungle; survival of the fittest? It would be like yelling at a deaf mute.

The belief that health care is a right comes from respect of all living things and compassion for the human condition we all share. I strongly suspect every one of you right wing barbarians will have an epiphany, when the bell tolls for thee.

You have to realise with most conservative and liberatarians - especially on the far right - it's all about me, me, me....my freedom, my dime, my rights....(well, except if you're gay or want an abortion)...

 

[Oddball]

^^^
Another one who can't discuss the topic of the nature of rights, so he needs to try and change the subject.

So predictable it's become boring.

 

[bripat9643]

You have to realise with most conservative and liberatarians - especially on the far right - it's all about me, me, me....my freedom, my dime, my rights....(well, except if you're gay or want an abortion)...

With turds like you it's "gimmee, gimmee, gimmee."

 

[bripat9643]

^^^
Another one who can't discuss the topic of the nature of rights, so he needs to try and change the subject.

So predictable it's become boring.

Yep, whenever they're losing a debate, the personal attacks are sure to commence. The history of liberalism is a series of the most offensive personal attacks imaginable.

 

[California Girl]

What you are saying is that everyone should be denied the right of access to the AHA because you don't want to exercise yours? Who the fuck are you to decide that?

I just want the right not to have to pay for your health care. Who are you to expect me to pay for you?

Grampa, the situation we currently have does seem unfair. I have a little money, my neighbor drinks and buys huge tv's sohe does not. When the man needs liver treatment the hospital will likely be unable to collect so you and I eventually flip the bill. Great Eisenhower era system we now have isn't it?

I share your pain. Since the hospital can not refuse him treatment I wish on the front end ppl like him would just be charged/forced to pay for their own health insurance so I did not have that burden.

In a Catholic Hospital, they'd have funded the cost from the Church. But apparently, that's not acceptable for the liberals. They don't want the Church to help Americans, or save people's lives... it's their way or no way.

 

[Listening]

No, you don't have the right to compel anyone to perform any service....Ever.

Any "law" (to use the term loosely) doing such a thing is entirely abhorrent to the concept of what rights are and are not.

So Oddball, do you say when a homeless man shows up at a hospital with a gunshot wound they do have the real option of throwing him out on the street?

They do have the option.

Will they ever do it...unlikely. Even now. So what does Obamacare get you.

The chance that someday, when they decide that gunshot wounds are to expensive, they will go after guns in the name of healthcare costs.

Sounds stupid, but when you have New York City looking to regulate trans fats....you've just started down that path.

 

[Listening]

You have to realise with most conservative and liberatarians - especially on the far right - it's all about me, me, me....my freedom, my dime, my rights....(well, except if you're gay or want an abortion)...

A. It's a gross overgeneralization.

B. It isn't about mine...it's about consistency and not making it up as you go. What "seems" good today...isn't good tomorrow but if the government is doing it, you likely won't change it.

C. The constitution was written to protect my rights, my freedom, my personal property (dimes). You gotta problem with that ?

 

[Bfgrn]

I just want the right not to have to pay for your health care. Who are you to expect me to pay for you?

Grampa, the situation we currently have does seem unfair. I have a little money, my neighbor drinks and buys huge tv's sohe does not. When the man needs liver treatment the hospital will likely be unable to collect so you and I eventually flip the bill. Great Eisenhower era system we now have isn't it?

I share your pain. Since the hospital can not refuse him treatment I wish on the front end ppl like him would just be charged/forced to pay for their own health insurance so I did not have that burden.

In a Catholic Hospital, they'd have funded the cost from the Church. But apparently, that's not acceptable for the liberals. They don't want the Church to help Americans, or save people's lives... it's their way or no way.

Conservatives always drag out the polarized black or white argument. What you are really saying with that tactic is what you accuse liberals of; it's your way or no way.

I never criticize charity, charitable people or groups. But we tried a charity only society, it failed. So besides charity, there needs to be government programs to protect the least among us.

When JFK's brother-in law Sargent Shriver accepted LBJ's challenge and took on the 'War on Poverty' (a JFK program) the first thing he discovered was rather startling and disturbing. Half of the Americans living in poverty were children. Another large segment were elderly and another segment were mentally and/or physically disabled. So a HUGE segment of the poor fit the TRUE definition of a dependent. So there is an obligation as a civil society to make sure those real dependents are not trampled on or extinguished.


We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
President John F. Kennedy

 

[GuyPinestra]

Grampa, the situation we currently have does seem unfair. I have a little money, my neighbor drinks and buys huge tv's sohe does not. When the man needs liver treatment the hospital will likely be unable to collect so you and I eventually flip the bill. Great Eisenhower era system we now have isn't it?

I share your pain. Since the hospital can not refuse him treatment I wish on the front end ppl like him would just be charged/forced to pay for their own health insurance so I did not have that burden.

In a Catholic Hospital, they'd have funded the cost from the Church. But apparently, that's not acceptable for the liberals. They don't want the Church to help Americans, or save people's lives... it's their way or no way.

Conservatives always drag out the polarized black or white argument. What you are really saying with that tactic is what you accuse liberals of; it's your way or no way.

I never criticize charity, charitable people or groups. But we tried a charity only society, it failed. So besides charity, there needs to be government programs to protect the least among us.

When JFK's brother-in law Sargent Shriver accepted LBJ's challenge and took on the 'War on Poverty' (a JFK program) the first thing he discovered was rather startling and disturbing. Half of the Americans living in poverty were children. Another large segment were elderly and another segment were mentally and/or physically disabled. So a HUGE segment of the poor fit the TRUE definition of a dependent. So there is an obligation as a civil society to make sure those real dependents are not trampled on or extinguished.


We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
President John F. Kennedy

Yep, it sure would be nice if you libs would live in the spirit of charity with YOUR OWN money, instead of trying to be charitable with someone else's... Why is it that you libs give less by half or more than conservatives do? Your creed of charity should begin out of your OWN pocket.

Try it, it'll make you feel better...

 

[IndependntLogic]

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?

There are very few "rights" that are guaranteed by anything other than political governments. Politicians living in a country that was under threat of war, where there was no such thing as a policeman and where more than 1/3 of the population hunted for their food, decided that owning a gun was a "right". Cool.
Politiians in other countries have decided this is not a "right" and guess what? There are just as many examples of that working out just fine and dandy, as there are of it not working out.
Basically, politicians decide which rights they want to prioritize for the right to be government. In most countries, access to health care or insurance is what people want prioritized. In this one, there are enough people who feel it's more important that we outspend every other country in the world combined on defense, than it is that for us to make sure a single mom making $35K a year, can get medical treatment for her kids.
To me, it seems like a LOT of our priorities could be better but oh well, there it is.

So it's not whether the general welfare of the citizenry including health care is a right. It's just a matter that enough people believe other things are more important.

Sad that.

 

[Toronado3800]

Oddball, do you agree that since the 1950s we have had an effective RIGHT to healthcare, good or bad for the country.

I'll concede that if you concede that the Confederacy had a right to own slaves.

Well yup. I will loudly say if someone conservatively or liberally read the constitution in 1850 the Confederacy had the legal right to have slaves.

Thank goodness that got changed. Wonder if the compromising founding fathers would have done if they knew the deaths giving in would cause.