The liberal mythology of healthcare being a right

[midcan5]

There is no such thing as a right, you cannot point to them nor define them, so the question is irrelevant. But there are ways in which a society decides what is best for its well being. The question should be, how do we manage to provide a care that everyone at some point in their lives requires, then comes the hard part, at least for some.

I revised this but this will do. http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...241-answers-to-all-your-questions-on-uhc.html


http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...lthcare/181931-conservatives-and-empathy.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...thcare/194630-u-s-ranks-last-in-study-of.html

 

[Steelplate]

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.

Do you pay a lesser % rate than someone else making more?? Would sort of equate to you going to the grocery store and getting charged $9 for a gallon of milk, while Lazy Bones McGee gets charged $1.50 for the same milk because of a subjective label of him being poor

I am not a selfish person.. I give generously to charities I support... but in my government, I prefer equality in treatment, not a punitive system of forced charity muddled by government waste and red tape

I expect nothing from the expense of others as they are forced to pay more by a government pandering with subjective labels all for the sake of power...

I will, as I have said MANY times, support and embrace a system based on equal treatment by government under law... with all the positives and negatives that come with it

Yeah, well I support a system where we take care of our own. Do we do that in the best manner we could? No. I'd prefer a system where people who are down on their luck have to work for their benefits... perhaps as a co-op with the private sector businesses. Start them out with a low wage job, with some subsidizing from the government to help that person survive on that low paying job... the Company would give that person OJT that would help them stay on as a regular employee, or give them the skills and work record to be marketable in some other workplace.

What you want is a sink or swim society. If you can't make it, starve or live of the kindness of voluntary charity. Sorry.... I think we're better than that. Furthermore, I don't believe we are all that charitable(as a whole).

 

[DiamondDave]

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?

you do understand, gramps, that the government has the right to do things for the general welfare whether those things are "rights" or not. right??

as for whether or not health care is a right. if it isn't, it should be since it goes to basic human dignity. but even if it isn't, it's still the right thing to do since we're the only civilized nation that doesn't take care of its sick.

General welfare of the union... not of individuals at the expense of other individuals.. the language is pretty clear when you look at it Jill.. whether the SC, like other parts of the government, has bastardized it for power gains or not

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

Do you pay a lesser % rate than someone else making more?? Would sort of equate to you going to the grocery store and getting charged $9 for a gallon of milk, while Lazy Bones McGee gets charged $1.50 for the same milk because of a subjective label of him being poor

I am not a selfish person.. I give generously to charities I support... but in my government, I prefer equality in treatment, not a punitive system of forced charity muddled by government waste and red tape

I expect nothing from the expense of others as they are forced to pay more by a government pandering with subjective labels all for the sake of power...

I will, as I have said MANY times, support and embrace a system based on equal treatment by government under law... with all the positives and negatives that come with it

Yeah, well I support a system where we take care of our own. Do we do that in the best manner we could? No. I'd prefer a system where people who are down on their luck have to work for their benefits... perhaps as a co-op with the private sector businesses. Start them out with a low wage job, with some subsidizing from the government to help that person survive on that low paying job... the Company would give that person OJT that would help them stay on as a regular employee, or give them the skills and work record to be marketable in some other workplace.

What you want is a sink or swim society. If you can't make it, starve or live of the kindness of voluntary charity. Sorry.... I think we're better than that. Furthermore, I don't believe we are all that charitable(as a whole).

And you are free to do that ON YOUR OWN.. hence a FREE society... not a FORCED society

What I want is a FREE society... with generous people within it... but even if certain ones are NOT generous, they have the FREEDOM to be that way

 

[Steelplate]

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?

you do understand, gramps, that the government has the right to do things for the general welfare whether those things are "rights" or not. right??

as for whether or not health care is a right. if it isn't, it should be since it goes to basic human dignity. but even if it isn't, it's still the right thing to do since we're the only civilized nation that doesn't take care of its sick.

General welfare of the union... not of individuals at the expense of other individuals.. the language is pretty clear when you look at it Jill.. whether the SC, like other parts of the government, has bastardized it for power gains or not

The people are the Union Dave. As the people go, so does the union.

 

[Steelplate]

Do you pay a lesser % rate than someone else making more?? Would sort of equate to you going to the grocery store and getting charged $9 for a gallon of milk, while Lazy Bones McGee gets charged $1.50 for the same milk because of a subjective label of him being poor

I am not a selfish person.. I give generously to charities I support... but in my government, I prefer equality in treatment, not a punitive system of forced charity muddled by government waste and red tape

I expect nothing from the expense of others as they are forced to pay more by a government pandering with subjective labels all for the sake of power...

I will, as I have said MANY times, support and embrace a system based on equal treatment by government under law... with all the positives and negatives that come with it

Yeah, well I support a system where we take care of our own. Do we do that in the best manner we could? No. I'd prefer a system where people who are down on their luck have to work for their benefits... perhaps as a co-op with the private sector businesses. Start them out with a low wage job, with some subsidizing from the government to help that person survive on that low paying job... the Company would give that person OJT that would help them stay on as a regular employee, or give them the skills and work record to be marketable in some other workplace.

What you want is a sink or swim society. If you can't make it, starve or live of the kindness of voluntary charity. Sorry.... I think we're better than that. Furthermore, I don't believe we are all that charitable(as a whole).

And you are free to do that ON YOUR OWN.. hence a FREE society... not a FORCED society

What I want is a FREE society... with generous people within it... but even if certain ones are NOT generous, they have the FREEDOM to be that way

Whatever dude... Once again... I'll vote the way I do.. you're FREE to vote how you want. Good luck.

 

[DiamondDave]

you do understand, gramps, that the government has the right to do things for the general welfare whether those things are "rights" or not. right??

as for whether or not health care is a right. if it isn't, it should be since it goes to basic human dignity. but even if it isn't, it's still the right thing to do since we're the only civilized nation that doesn't take care of its sick.

General welfare of the union... not of individuals at the expense of other individuals.. the language is pretty clear when you look at it Jill.. whether the SC, like other parts of the government, has bastardized it for power gains or not

The people are the Union Dave. As the people go, so does the union.

Sorry.. WRONG ANSWER...

It is a union of states with the states giving the specific powers to the federal government....

Maybe you should educate yourself a little

 

[dblack]

What you want is a sink or swim society. If you can't make it, starve or live of the kindness of voluntary charity. Sorry.... I think we're better than that. Furthermore, I don't believe we are all that charitable(as a whole).

I don't think that's really what's being debated when it comes the PPACA, or the individual mandate. Safety nets for the poor won't be removed if PPACA is repealed. PPACA is about nationalizing health care concerns for all of us - pushing all of us into a centrally mandated solution.

 

[dblack]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/206056-the-liberal-mythology-of-healthcare-being-a-right.html

The liberal mythology of healthcare being a right

In a representative democratic republic if the people believe something is theirs by right, then it is theirs by right.

Fortunately, that's not the case. The Constitution exists as a bulwark against democracy run amok. The whole idea of limited government, in a democracy, is to protect the minority from the overbearing will of the majority.

 

[Inthemiddle]

It isn't a question of whether it's a "right" or not.

We've already declared that medical professionals CANNOT refuse medical treatment based on the inability to pay. You walk into an emergency room, they have to treat you. Period.

So once you've determined "we aren't going to let people die unnecessarily", then it becomes a question of "What's the most effective way of keeping them alive".

I'm half way with you. I think that it becomes an issue of, what's the best way to ensure that providers can be compensated. Health care providers have a right to be compensated for their work. Though, for the record, I'm still against Obama's health care bill.

 

[Oddball]

There is no such thing as a right, you cannot point to them nor define them, so the question is irrelevant. But there are ways in which a society decides what is best for its well being. The question should be, how do we manage to provide a care that everyone at some point in their lives requires, then comes the hard part, at least for some.

There you have it...You are nothing but a plaything of the state...There to be molded, formed, flaked and manipulated as the ruling class sees fit.

Most of us know this state as "communism"....Nice to see midcan't finally come out of the closet.

BTW, comrade, you cannot point to or define "society" anymore than you can "right", you pedantic fool.

 

[G.T.]

There is no such thing as a right, you cannot point to them nor define them, so the question is irrelevant. But there are ways in which a society decides what is best for its well being. The question should be, how do we manage to provide a care that everyone at some point in their lives requires, then comes the hard part, at least for some.

There you have it...You are nothing but a plaything of the state...There to be molded, formed, flaked and manipulated as the ruling class sees fit.

Most of us know this state as "communism"....Nice to see midcan't finally come out of the closet.

BTW, comrade, you cannot point to or define "society" anymore than you can "right", you pedantic fool.

His point was, that if one doesn't believe in any God, than "Rights" are created and defined by human beings. It's not statist, it's reality for those who don't believe in a creator.

 

[Oddball]

There is no such thing as a right, you cannot point to them nor define them, so the question is irrelevant. But there are ways in which a society decides what is best for its well being. The question should be, how do we manage to provide a care that everyone at some point in their lives requires, then comes the hard part, at least for some.

There you have it...You are nothing but a plaything of the state...There to be molded, formed, flaked and manipulated as the ruling class sees fit.

Most of us know this state as "communism"....Nice to see midcan't finally come out of the closet.

BTW, comrade, you cannot point to or define "society" anymore than you can "right", you pedantic fool.

His point was, that if one doesn't believe in any God, than "Rights" are created and defined by human beings. It's not statist, it's reality for those who don't believe in a creator.

I know damned well what he means...The "rights" are all held by the ruling class, to be dealt out to the proles in the way they best see fit...This is a state where gubmint (i.e. "society") is God.

He's a closeted communist....Simple as that.

 

[G.T.]

There you have it...You are nothing but a plaything of the state...There to be molded, formed, flaked and manipulated as the ruling class sees fit.

Most of us know this state as "communism"....Nice to see midcan't finally come out of the closet.

BTW, comrade, you cannot point to or define "society" anymore than you can "right", you pedantic fool.

His point was, that if one doesn't believe in any God, than "Rights" are created and defined by human beings. It's not statist, it's reality for those who don't believe in a creator.

I know damned well what he means...The "rights" are all held by the ruling class, to be dealt out to the proles in the way they best see fit...This is a state where gubmint (i.e. "society") is God.

He's a closeted communist....Simple as that.

^ That's an irrational emotionalistic response, not one that addressed the post.

If God isn't real, than the "certain unalienable rights" were not endowed upon us by "our creator," but by the authors who put the words to paper. That's just reality for an atheist, not an appeal to any authority <--you read that into the phrase on your own because you cannot accept that some people simply don't believe in God.

Belief in God is not a prerequisit to believing in Freedom & Liberty. That's irrational/illogical.

 

[dblack]

If God isn't real, than the "certain unalienable rights" were not endowed upon us by "our creator," but by the authors who put the words to paper. That's just reality for an atheist, not an appeal to any authority <--you read that into the phrase on your own because you cannot accept that some people simply don't believe in God.

Belief in God is not a prerequisit to believing in Freedom & Liberty. That's irrational/illogical.

I think that view is obtusely literal. The idea of god-given rights isn't a religious concept. It's a statement that rights are a consequence of existence, they are freedoms you have by default and can only be take from you by other people interfering - by others actively violating your rights. We establish government to protect those rights, not 'create' them.

 

[G.T.]

If God isn't real, than the "certain unalienable rights" were not endowed upon us by "our creator," but by the authors who put the words to paper. That's just reality for an atheist, not an appeal to any authority <--you read that into the phrase on your own because you cannot accept that some people simply don't believe in God.

Belief in God is not a prerequisit to believing in Freedom & Liberty. That's irrational/illogical.

I think that view is obtusely literal. The idea of god-given rights isn't a religious concept. It's a statement that rights are a consequence of existence, they are freedoms you have by default and can only be take from you by other people interfering - by others actively violating your rights. We establish government to protect those rights, not 'create' them.

by stating that "there is no God" it also means you're saying that MEN came to the conclusion of the said rights that are unalienable - OBVIOUSLY.

 

[dblack]

If God isn't real, than the "certain unalienable rights" were not endowed upon us by "our creator," but by the authors who put the words to paper. That's just reality for an atheist, not an appeal to any authority <--you read that into the phrase on your own because you cannot accept that some people simply don't believe in God.

Belief in God is not a prerequisit to believing in Freedom & Liberty. That's irrational/illogical.

I think that view is obtusely literal. The idea of god-given rights isn't a religious concept. It's a statement that rights are a consequence of existence, they are freedoms you have by default and can only be take from you by other people interfering - by others actively violating your rights. We establish government to protect those rights, not 'create' them.

by stating that "there is no God" it also means you're saying that MEN came to the conclusion of the said rights that are unalienable - OBVIOUSLY.

Not sure what you're getting at.

 

[G.T.]

I think that view is obtusely literal. The idea of god-given rights isn't a religious concept. It's a statement that rights are a consequence of existence, they are freedoms you have by default and can only be take from you by other people interfering - by others actively violating your rights. We establish government to protect those rights, not 'create' them.

by stating that "there is no God" it also means you're saying that MEN came to the conclusion of the said rights that are unalienable - OBVIOUSLY.

Not sure what you're getting at.

My original point was - that the unalienable rights according to an atheist are NECESSARILY made up by human beings.

 

[bripat9643]

His point was, that if one doesn't believe in any God, than "Rights" are created and defined by human beings. It's not statist, it's reality for those who don't believe in a creator.

That's also wrong. Rights are part of your nature as a human being. Just as there are natural principles involved in growing a bacteria culture, there are also principles for developing a healthy society. Those principles are called "rights."

 

[G.T.]

His point was, that if one doesn't believe in any God, than "Rights" are created and defined by human beings. It's not statist, it's reality for those who don't believe in a creator.

That's also wrong. Rights are part of your nature as a human being. Just as there are natural principles involved in growing a bacteria culture, there are also principles for developing a healthy society. Those principles are called "rights."

According to what? If it's according to you, or any humans - than it's a human concept not a divine one.

If it's according to God - than it's merely inapplicable to an atheist.