Why have people come to believe health care is a "right" when it actually isn't?

[dblack]

Reagan thought it was a right.

So what?

Defining what you mean by a right is necessary for an intelligent discussion.

Yep. But what does Reagan have to do with that?

Rights, in a political context, are protected freedoms. When people talk about a "right to health care" what they're really talking about is the "freedom" to force someone else to provide them with health care, which violates actual freedom. It's a self-contradictory conception of rights that is ultimately irrational.

 

[Bfgrn]

So what?

Defining what you mean by a right is necessary for an intelligent discussion.

Yep. But what does Reagan have to do with that?

Rights, in a political context, are protected freedoms. When people talk about a "right to health care" what they're really talking about is the "freedom" to force someone else to provide them with health care, which violates actual freedom. It's a self-contradictory conception of rights that is ultimately irrational.

When a society is based on privilege, and not humanity it is not a civil society. We afford more rights to enemy combatants then we do our own citizens.

You are a flawed thinker.

 

[Politico]

Because we have become a gimme nation.

 

[Bfgrn]

Because we have become a gimme nation.

And the right wing parrots keep mimicking their ignorance.

Politico and friends...

 

[Mac1958]

.

"Rights" is one of many terms that is frequently thrown around FAR too easily. "I have a right to this", "I have a right to that" -- the word's meaning and significance has been diluted as badly as words like "racist", "extreme", "radical" and others. At this point, "right" means nothing more than "something I really want".

However...

If we can get away from simplistic platitudes such as that word, it seems fairly clear to me that a country can ask itself what it gains by providing some fundamental level of health care to its citizens. The argument can pretty easily be made that a healthier populace is good economics, that a healthier populace is smart macro public policy. I believe that.

But we remain mired in this habit of throwing around simplistic terms, diluting them to the point of meaninglessness.

Need more coffee. I have a "right" to as much coffee as I want, you know.



.

 

[Politico]

Because we have become a gimme nation.

And the right wing parrots keep mimicking their ignorance.

Politico and friends...

I am not a a right winger Leftytoon. Is that a rep request?

 

[billyerock1991]

For rights to be a 'divine gift' they would have to proclaimed to us by a real divinity. Since no such creature has revealed itself, rights are nothing more than the ideas and fabrications of men.

its Idiots like you and the right that believe it isn't ... we the people who care about the lives of others where its clearly you and the right don't feel it is a right you on the right feel its base on how much you can pay to save your own personal life ... so much for the right to lifers HUH!!!!

Get a job and don't worry about how others are going to pay for your needs.

what does me getting a job have to do with health care... and what doesn paying for it have to do with you ... you don't work ...you live on welfare... thats right, you get medicaid and your happy cause we the working class pay's for your right to be stupid I forgot ... .. My bad

 

[billyerock1991]

Because we have become a gimme nation.

correction we have become a greedy nation ...

 

[billyerock1991]

.

"Rights" is one of many terms that is frequently thrown around FAR too easily. "I have a right to this", "I have a right to that" -- the word's meaning and significance has been diluted as badly as words like "racist", "extreme", "radical" and others. At this point, "right" means nothing more than "something I really want".

However...

If we can get away from simplistic platitudes such as that word, it seems fairly clear to me that a country can ask itself what it gains by providing some fundamental level of health care to its citizens. The argument can pretty easily be made that a healthier populace is good economics, that a healthier populace is smart macro public policy. I believe that.

But we remain mired in this habit of throwing around simplistic terms, diluting them to the point of meaninglessness.

Need more coffee. I have a "right" to as much coffee as I want, you know.



.

yeah like the right to own a cannon or a machine gun .... that kind of throwing around ... or I have the right to force woman to have a baby they don't want to have ... ... it seems to me when a liberal states what they see is a right as a human being, you on the right come unglued ...

 

[Defiant1]

.

"Rights" is one of many terms that is frequently thrown around FAR too easily. "I have a right to this", "I have a right to that" -- the word's meaning and significance has been diluted as badly as words like "racist", "extreme", "radical" and others. At this point, "right" means nothing more than "something I really want".

However...

If we can get away from simplistic platitudes such as that word, it seems fairly clear to me that a country can ask itself what it gains by providing some fundamental level of health care to its citizens. The argument can pretty easily be made that a healthier populace is good economics, that a healthier populace is smart macro public policy. I believe that.

But we remain mired in this habit of throwing around simplistic terms, diluting them to the point of meaninglessness.

Need more coffee. I have a "right" to as much coffee as I want, you know.



.

yeah like the right to own a cannon or a machine gun .... that kind of throwing around ... or I have the right to force woman to have a baby they don't want to have ... ... it seems to me when a liberal states what they see is a right as a human being, you on the right come unglued ...

You liberals are always so good at mixing apples and oranges. Yes, conservatives believe we have a right to own "arms."

What we don't believe is that our employer, the government, our neighbors, or anyone else should provide them to us for free.

Let's talk about different "right." Do you believe you have a "right" to eat?

If you do them go down to the grocery store, load your basket, and try to get out of the store without paying for it.

Go to a restaurant, order your meal, then try to leave without paying for it.

Better yet, try to convince your local law enforcement officials to go to your neighbor's house and confiscate some food for you.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Reagan thought it was a right.

Reagan damn near bankrupted us with his socialist EMTALA and he made us a debtor nation.

BUT, I haven't seen anything about ending EMTALA so you rw's can stop worrying about getting your free health care that the rest of us have to pay for.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

.

"Rights" is one of many terms that is frequently thrown around FAR too easily. "I have a right to this", "I have a right to that" -- the word's meaning and significance has been diluted as badly as words like "racist", "extreme", "radical" and others. At this point, "right" means nothing more than "something I really want".

However...

If we can get away from simplistic platitudes such as that word, it seems fairly clear to me that a country can ask itself what it gains by providing some fundamental level of health care to its citizens. The argument can pretty easily be made that a healthier populace is good economics, that a healthier populace is smart macro public policy. I believe that.

But we remain mired in this habit of throwing around simplistic terms, diluting them to the point of meaninglessness.

Need more coffee. I have a "right" to as much coffee as I want, you know.



.

yeah like the right to own a cannon or a machine gun .... that kind of throwing around ... or I have the right to force woman to have a baby they don't want to have ... ... it seems to me when a liberal states what they see is a right as a human being, you on the right come unglued ...

You liberals are always so good at mixing apples and oranges. Yes, conservatives believe we have a right to own "arms."

What we don't believe is that our employer, the government, our neighbors, or anyone else should provide them to us for free.

Let's talk about different "right." Do you believe you have a "right" to eat?

If you do them go down to the grocery store, load your basket, and try to get out of the store without paying for it.

Go to a restaurant, order your meal, then try to leave without paying for it.

Better yet, try to convince your local law enforcement officials to go to your neighbor's house and confiscate some food for you.

Not true. That's exactly what the right believes.

If they didn't, they would buy their own damn insurance instead of depending on EMTALA.

I have yet to hear of any of you sending your SS check back or refusing to drive on govt-maintained roads and highways and when was the last time one of you refused to accept job benefits?

We don't live in a black and white world.

 

[Mac1958]

.

"Rights" is one of many terms that is frequently thrown around FAR too easily. "I have a right to this", "I have a right to that" -- the word's meaning and significance has been diluted as badly as words like "racist", "extreme", "radical" and others. At this point, "right" means nothing more than "something I really want".

However...

If we can get away from simplistic platitudes such as that word, it seems fairly clear to me that a country can ask itself what it gains by providing some fundamental level of health care to its citizens. The argument can pretty easily be made that a healthier populace is good economics, that a healthier populace is smart macro public policy. I believe that.

But we remain mired in this habit of throwing around simplistic terms, diluting them to the point of meaninglessness.

Need more coffee. I have a "right" to as much coffee as I want, you know.



.

yeah like the right to own a cannon or a machine gun .... that kind of throwing around ... or I have the right to force woman to have a baby they don't want to have ... ... it seems to me when a liberal states what they see is a right as a human being, you on the right come unglued ...

Huh? You're so sensitive, was I attacking the left?

And by the way, Billy, since you say things like "you on the right", what is my view on foreign policy? War? Personal income taxation? Gay rights? Abortion?

Let me answer for you: You clearly have no idea, but that doesn't stop your silly attacks. You constantly exhibit very shallow, binary, black & white thought processes, not everyone is a simplistic partisan ideologue like you. Take a deep breath and think things through, at least once in a while.

.

 

[Defiant1]

yeah like the right to own a cannon or a machine gun .... that kind of throwing around ... or I have the right to force woman to have a baby they don't want to have ... ... it seems to me when a liberal states what they see is a right as a human being, you on the right come unglued ...

You liberals are always so good at mixing apples and oranges. Yes, conservatives believe we have a right to own "arms."

What we don't believe is that our employer, the government, our neighbors, or anyone else should provide them to us for free.

Let's talk about different "right." Do you believe you have a "right" to eat?

If you do them go down to the grocery store, load your basket, and try to get out of the store without paying for it.

Go to a restaurant, order your meal, then try to leave without paying for it.

Better yet, try to convince your local law enforcement officials to go to your neighbor's house and confiscate some food for you.

Not true. That's exactly what the right believes.

If they didn't, they would buy their own damn insurance instead of depending on EMTALA.

I have yet to hear of any of you sending your SS check back or refusing to drive on govt-maintained roads and highways and when was the last time one of you refused to accept job benefits?

We don't live in a black and white world.

I just love when you libtards parrot the "you didn't build that" crap.

 

[Flopper]

So what?

Defining what you mean by a right is necessary for an intelligent discussion.

Yep. But what does Reagan have to do with that?

Rights, in a political context, are protected freedoms. When people talk about a "right to health care" what they're really talking about is the "freedom" to force someone else to provide them with health care, which violates actual freedom. It's a self-contradictory conception of rights that is ultimately irrational.

In what sense did Reagan see healthcare as a right, constitutional, human right, moral...
When I speak of healthcare as a right, I mean moral, not constitutional. I think that is what most believe when they say healthcare is a right. At best, you can say healthcare is implied in the constitution, but I think that's pretty weak.

 

[Katzndogz]

You have a right to medical care insofar as no one can deny you care if you can pay for it. Just like going to the grocery store. We have a right to individual ownership of firearms, but that doesn't mean the government has to buy you a gun if you can't afford to buy one on your own.

 

[billyerock1991]

.

"Rights" is one of many terms that is frequently thrown around FAR too easily. "I have a right to this", "I have a right to that" -- the word's meaning and significance has been diluted as badly as words like "racist", "extreme", "radical" and others. At this point, "right" means nothing more than "something I really want".

However...

If we can get away from simplistic platitudes such as that word, it seems fairly clear to me that a country can ask itself what it gains by providing some fundamental level of health care to its citizens. The argument can pretty easily be made that a healthier populace is good economics, that a healthier populace is smart macro public policy. I believe that.

But we remain mired in this habit of throwing around simplistic terms, diluting them to the point of meaninglessness.

Need more coffee. I have a "right" to as much coffee as I want, you know.



.

yeah like the right to own a cannon or a machine gun .... that kind of throwing around ... or I have the right to force woman to have a baby they don't want to have ... ... it seems to me when a liberal states what they see is a right as a human being, you on the right come unglued ...

Huh? You're so sensitive, was I attacking the left?

And by the way, Billy, since you say things like "you on the right", what is my view on foreign policy? War? Personal income taxation? Gay rights? Abortion?

Let me answer for you: You clearly have no idea, but that doesn't stop your silly attacks. You constantly exhibit very shallow, binary, black & white thought processes, not everyone is a simplistic partisan ideologue like you. Take a deep breath and think things through, at least once in a while.

.

suck to be you

 

[billyerock1991]

heres what I know about Mac1958 you talk like a republican, then when confronted you're soooooooooooo mysterious person to us with all these alternative thinking, at least that's what you would like us to believe ... you'll tell us your a independent, of even worse, a libertarian !!!! either way Mac1958 if you walk like a duck and you talk like a duck then you must be a republican ... we know what your about and its not the mysterious poster like you want us to believe... I clearly know what your about ... today your a liberal tomorrow you a republican, in the past your were a libertarian ... we know what you're about clearly....

 

[Truthmatters]

if two children are sick and you only allow one to have the medication to stay alive you have killed a child.

You people are monsters

 

[Truthmatters]

fucking sociopaths.