No One Has a Right to Health Care

[dblack]

If no one has a right to health care, does that mean "no one" or actually some Americans do have a right? So if some Americans do have a right to health care then who decides and decides on what basis?

We're the only industrialized nation in the world which doesn't provide total health care for all it's citizens. We're also the only one with a thousand insurance companies.

We now have flights to Cuba, Venezuela , Somalia , any paradise you wish

..
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out

Esther La Vista, Dude

So if some Americans have a right to health care and some do not, who should decide and on what basis?

As an American you have a right to life, liberty, property and to pursue happiness.

Under the old Constitution (1787-1935) Taxpayers and producers had no responsibility to provide them to you. You were responsible for procuring the same.

But the Constitution now in effect, FDR's Socialist Manifesto , the government can compel the citizens to do what the government believes is right. No right to judicial review.


.

. How can anyone here or there, stake a claim upon or actually have a right to life, if the person or person's put off available healthcare because at that moment in time (let's say that the person might be in a transitional period of somekind in life), where as they may actually put off the very thing that would guarantee his or her life if it weren't avoided, and they did so all because of a lack of healthcare or a lack of money ? How does one have a right to life, but are stereotyped or profiled as some sort of trash or scum all because one might have to go around to the ER back door, instead of walking into the front door with an appointment ? What is the quality of healthcare in the waiting lines of the ER ? I know of people dying right there in the ER, because the ER didn't know the person or their condition when walk in... How did they have a right to life in such a situation ?

Again, it's the difference in definitions I mentioned in my previous reply. From my perspective, A right is not a guarantee of service. If you die of starvation, or because you couldn't get someone to provide you with health care, no one has violated your rights (unless of course they held you in chains and stopped you from your attempts to take care of yourself.) Isn't it the case that you're looking at rights not as inalienable freedoms but rather obligations of service from others?

Because that's why we're talking past each other. You're saying healthcare should be a right, and we're saying that that makes no sense, because you're talking about health care as a service someone else must provide, and by the definition of rights we're using, a right isn't a claim on the service of someone else. But if you said, "government should provide health care as a public service, like we currently do with roads, schools, etc..." it would at least something we could debate intelligently. We could discuss whether it is, indeed, something government should do. As it is, you're just saying "A should be B", and we're saying "But A isn't B".

 

[Uncensored2008]

Wow, you think we should still be like the 1930's Ray ?

Yet you're trying to turn us into 1917 Moscow....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

In 1798 or so Jefferson began advocating a free Virginia public education program. What is interesting is that Jefferson encountered cries from the upper class, as to why should they have to pay for educating other people's children. This beginning battle for health care for all may be a rerun of those early school years.
Public Education began to win in the 1830's,

The problem is if you want to know what public education was, dig up some clips from Spanky and Our Gang when they were in school. That's what school is supposed to be.

Today, schools have basketball courts that we pay for, football fields, school busses, free and discounted lunches, all teachers are college educated with a union that guarantees them a job regardless of their performance.

I don't think anybody ever pictured that schools like these should be funded by the taxpayers, speaking of which, over half of my property taxes go to support our local schools. That's a big chunk of change.

. Wow, you think we should still be like the 1930's Ray ?

No, but I also feel that if you want your kids educated, you should at the very least pay the lions share for those schools. I mean, if I have to pay for them, can't you at least feed your kid and get them to and from school?????

 

[Uncensored2008]

Huh?

Anyone who works in this nation..

You were spewing Marxist rhetoric, I just highlighted the idiocy of it....

 

[beagle9]

If no one has a right to health care, does that mean "no one" or actually some Americans do have a right? So if some Americans do have a right to health care then who decides and decides on what basis?

It's not a right, it's a benefit for joining our military to fight for our country. It's no different than retirement plans or healthcare after retirement if you worked for a company that had those provisions.

So should all Americans get health care benefits for being an American?

Not for being an American. For serving our country, yes. It was promised to them when they signed up. It's one of several benefits we offer to our solders for giving a part of their life to us. We owe it to them.

. Anyone who works in this nation to make it great, is giving their lives for it... It includes all Americans along with the military as well.

That's the problem, not everybody is working to make our nation great. Having an Obama phone that I pay for through my cell phone bill is not making this nation great. 45 million Americans on food stamps are not making this nation great. Welfare and HUD people are not making this nation great. 93 million Americans of working age that are no longer looking for work are not making this nation great.

Military people are special and they signed up for those benefits. I don't recall anybody giving me free healthcare when I was born here.

Lord what would this nation do, if it didn't have the confusion that is the poor in this nation to point to, and all in order to hold back progress or make the nation better for all ?

 

[beagle9]

Huh?

Anyone who works in this nation..

You were spewing Marxist rhetoric, I just highlighted the idiocy of it....

Work should have been the key word for you, and not the word anyone.... There you go again with your crazy way or comprehending peoples post here.. LOL

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's not a right, it's a benefit for joining our military to fight for our country. It's no different than retirement plans or healthcare after retirement if you worked for a company that had those provisions.

So should all Americans get health care benefits for being an American?

Not for being an American. For serving our country, yes. It was promised to them when they signed up. It's one of several benefits we offer to our solders for giving a part of their life to us. We owe it to them.

. Anyone who works in this nation to make it great, is giving their lives for it... It includes all Americans along with the military as well.

That's the problem, not everybody is working to make our nation great. Having an Obama phone that I pay for through my cell phone bill is not making this nation great. 45 million Americans on food stamps are not making this nation great. Welfare and HUD people are not making this nation great. 93 million Americans of working age that are no longer looking for work are not making this nation great.

Military people are special and they signed up for those benefits. I don't recall anybody giving me free healthcare when I was born here.

Lord what would this nation do, if it didn't have the confusion that is the poor in this nation to point to in order to hold back progress or make the nation better for all ?

We wouldn't have 19 trillion dollars in debt and growing. My property value would probably be much higher. Wouldn't need all those police, firemen, prisons and courts that we have now.

The nation would be a much better place.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Lord what would this nation do, if it didn't have the confusion that is the poor in this nation to point to in order to hold back progress or make the nation better for all ?

There will always be poor, Comrade.

The poor in 2016 have vastly more than the middle and upper middle did in 1880. Poor is relative. The poor of 2016 have no fear of starvation or exposure. The poor have less than the rich, but all sectors of society are VASTLY better off than a hundred years ago.

The difference between Capitalists like myself, and you Marxists is that as long as all boats are rising, I don't have a huge problem that some have bigger boats. I seek for all to have more, where envy is what motivates you.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Work should have been the key word for you, and not the word anyone.... There you go again with your crazy way or comprehending peoples post here.. LOL

So DMV workers don't work?

 

[beagle9]

We're the only industrialized nation in the world which doesn't provide total health care for all it's citizens. We're also the only one with a thousand insurance companies.

We now have flights to Cuba, Venezuela , Somalia , any paradise you wish

..
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out

Esther La Vista, Dude

So if some Americans have a right to health care and some do not, who should decide and on what basis?

As an American you have a right to life, liberty, property and to pursue happiness.

Under the old Constitution (1787-1935) Taxpayers and producers had no responsibility to provide them to you. You were responsible for procuring the same.

But the Constitution now in effect, FDR's Socialist Manifesto , the government can compel the citizens to do what the government believes is right. No right to judicial review.


.

. How can anyone here or there, stake a claim upon or actually have a right to life, if the person or person's put off available healthcare because at that moment in time (let's say that the person might be in a transitional period of somekind in life), where as they may actually put off the very thing that would guarantee his or her life if it weren't avoided, and they did so all because of a lack of healthcare or a lack of money ? How does one have a right to life, but are stereotyped or profiled as some sort of trash or scum all because one might have to go around to the ER back door, instead of walking into the front door with an appointment ? What is the quality of healthcare in the waiting lines of the ER ? I know of people dying right there in the ER, because the ER didn't know the person or their condition when walk in... How did they have a right to life in such a situation ?

Again, it's the difference in definitions I mentioned in my previous reply. From my perspective, A right is not a guarantee of service. If you die of starvation, or because you couldn't get someone to provide you with health care, no one has violated your rights (unless of course they held you in chains and stopped you from your attempts to take care of yourself.) Isn't it the case that you're looking at rights not as inalienable freedoms but rather obligations of service from others?

Because that's why we're talking past each other. You're saying healthcare should be a right, and we're saying that that makes no sense, because you're talking about health care as a service someone else must provide, and by the definition of rights we're using, a right isn't a claim on the service of someone else. But if you said, "government should provide health care as a public service, like we currently do with roads, schools, etc..." it would at least something we could debate intelligently. We could discuss whether it is, indeed, something government should do. As it is, you're just saying "A should be B", and we're saying "But A isn't B".

. .......

No not a claim on the service, but rather a right to have equal treatment as your next fellow human being has when services are provided. Our nation can guarantee this right to Americans, but it falls short when a person has been put in a situation where as a person who would attempt to provide a service to a person in need, actually kills the person by accident because they didn't know the patient once he or she became desperate enough to come in, where as
they go into an ER from a situation in which they may not have had any control over financially, and therefore they waited to long to come in.

It's best that all are covered, and preventive care becomes the norm... More lives will be saved, and less abuse will become the norm for all involved.

 

[beagle9]

Now as a right, I think basic services should have to be provided a patient. For example: If I were to take my child to a service provider, and that child needed basic care to treat a flu or condition that could lead to the child's death if were not treated, then that care provider by law should not be allowed to deny services to that child regardless of the situation in which the financial requirements of the family might not be met at that time. Now after treatment then the service provider can begin the process of securing the funds through the proper channels in which qualify's the family to get the financial help that is needed, and the service provider paid..

 

[beagle9]

Wow, you think we should still be like the 1930's Ray ?

Yet you're trying to turn us into 1917 Moscow....

. Go play somewhere else... Ray don't need your help..

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Now as a right, I think basic services should have to be provided a patient. For example: If I were to take my child to a service provider, and that child needed basic care to treat a flu or condition that could lead to the child's death if were not treated, then that care provider by law should not be allowed to deny services to that child regardless of the situation in which the financial requirements of the family might not be met at that time. Now after treatment then the service provider can begin the process of securing the funds through the proper channels in which qualify's the family to get the financial help that is needed, and the service provider paid..

Yes, it's called the SCHIP's program.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

145 IQ, Masters in History. You, masters in RW propaganda.

Your Masters are in food stamp scamming and getting HUD homes. Who are you trying to kid????

Retired teacher and businessman, brainwashed functional moron.

Yeah, you sure write like one.

I hate typing. On the other hand, I'm always right and never lie, or repeat them.Pubs and dupes never stop.

O.K.

Now, that's funny.

 

[francoHFW]

Now as a right, I think basic services should have to be provided a patient. For example: If I were to take my child to a service provider, and that child needed basic care to treat a flu or condition that could lead to the child's death if were not treated, then that care provider by law should not be allowed to deny services to that child regardless of the situation in which the financial requirements of the family might not be met at that time. Now after treatment then the service provider can begin the process of securing the funds through the proper channels in which qualify's the family to get the financial help that is needed, and the service provider paid..

The SC agrees. It's just a question of who pays for it. ACA is the smartest way so far...

 

[dblack]

We now have flights to Cuba, Venezuela , Somalia , any paradise you wish

..
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out

Esther La Vista, Dude

So if some Americans have a right to health care and some do not, who should decide and on what basis?

As an American you have a right to life, liberty, property and to pursue happiness.

Under the old Constitution (1787-1935) Taxpayers and producers had no responsibility to provide them to you. You were responsible for procuring the same.

But the Constitution now in effect, FDR's Socialist Manifesto , the government can compel the citizens to do what the government believes is right. No right to judicial review.


.

. How can anyone here or there, stake a claim upon or actually have a right to life, if the person or person's put off available healthcare because at that moment in time (let's say that the person might be in a transitional period of somekind in life), where as they may actually put off the very thing that would guarantee his or her life if it weren't avoided, and they did so all because of a lack of healthcare or a lack of money ? How does one have a right to life, but are stereotyped or profiled as some sort of trash or scum all because one might have to go around to the ER back door, instead of walking into the front door with an appointment ? What is the quality of healthcare in the waiting lines of the ER ? I know of people dying right there in the ER, because the ER didn't know the person or their condition when walk in... How did they have a right to life in such a situation ?

Again, it's the difference in definitions I mentioned in my previous reply. From my perspective, A right is not a guarantee of service. If you die of starvation, or because you couldn't get someone to provide you with health care, no one has violated your rights (unless of course they held you in chains and stopped you from your attempts to take care of yourself.) Isn't it the case that you're looking at rights not as inalienable freedoms but rather obligations of service from others?

Because that's why we're talking past each other. You're saying healthcare should be a right, and we're saying that that makes no sense, because you're talking about health care as a service someone else must provide, and by the definition of rights we're using, a right isn't a claim on the service of someone else. But if you said, "government should provide health care as a public service, like we currently do with roads, schools, etc..." it would at least something we could debate intelligently. We could discuss whether it is, indeed, something government should do. As it is, you're just saying "A should be B", and we're saying "But A isn't B".

. .......

No not a claim on the service, but rather a right to have equal treatment as your next fellow human being has when services are provided. Our nation can guarantee this right to Americans, but it falls short when a person has been put in a situation where as a person who would attempt to provide a service to a person in need, actually kills the person by accident because they didn't know the patient once he or she became desperate enough to come in, where as
they go into an ER from a situation in which they may not have had any control over financially, and therefore they waited to long to come in.

It's best that all are covered, and preventive care becomes the norm... More lives will be saved, and less abuse will become the norm for all involved.

Well, you're still missing my point. But I suppose that horse died long ago.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

We're the only industrialized nation in the world which doesn't provide total health care for all it's citizens. We're also the only one with a thousand insurance companies.

We now have flights to Cuba, Venezuela , Somalia , any paradise you wish

..
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out

Esther La Vista, Dude

So if some Americans have a right to health care and some do not, who should decide and on what basis?

As an American you have a right to life, liberty, property and to pursue happiness.

Under the old Constitution (1787-1935) Taxpayers and producers had no responsibility to provide them to you. You were responsible for procuring the same.

But the Constitution now in effect, FDR's Socialist Manifesto , the government can compel the citizens to do what the government believes is right. No right to judicial review.


.

. How can anyone here or there, stake a claim upon or actually have a right to life, if the person or person's put off available healthcare because at that moment in time (let's say that the person might be in a transitional period of somekind in life), and therefore they may actually put off the very thing that would guarantee his or her life if were avoided, and they did so all because of a lack of healthcare or a lack of money ? How does one have a right to life, but are stereotyped or profiled as some sort of trash or scum because you might have to go around to the ER back door, instead of walking into the front door with an appointment ?

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here, but this seems to be the same mismatch in definitions running through the entire thread. From what I'm reading, those of your supporting a "right" to healthcare, simply have a different idea of what it means for something to be a right. When you say that someone has a right to X, you're saying that someone else (usually government) is obligated to ensure they are empowered to get, or do, X. Does that sound correct to you? Am I missing something?

EVERYONE deserves proper medical care. EVERYONE deserves not to die because the homeless shelter is full. EVERY CHILD deserves an education. When 1/5th of children are not receiving proper healthcare, home heating, education, housing, proper winter clothing, enough to eat, then there is a problem. The Child doesn't have a choice. There is the rub. Being PRO-LIFE doesn't stop after the birth. This also means that every American deserves the right to a job that is life sustaining for not only themselves but for the children as well.

I don't know of a time in the history of of the US that there has ever had faced these problems. The problems have always been here but it's always been a minority that suffered and the Free White Protestant Males didn't have to face it therefore it didn't exist. Well, we have to face it now. I am part Irish. Part of my history is the signs "No Dogs, No ******* and Especially no Irish"

 

[dblack]

We now have flights to Cuba, Venezuela , Somalia , any paradise you wish

..
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out

Esther La Vista, Dude

So if some Americans have a right to health care and some do not, who should decide and on what basis?

As an American you have a right to life, liberty, property and to pursue happiness.

Under the old Constitution (1787-1935) Taxpayers and producers had no responsibility to provide them to you. You were responsible for procuring the same.

But the Constitution now in effect, FDR's Socialist Manifesto , the government can compel the citizens to do what the government believes is right. No right to judicial review.


.

. How can anyone here or there, stake a claim upon or actually have a right to life, if the person or person's put off available healthcare because at that moment in time (let's say that the person might be in a transitional period of somekind in life), and therefore they may actually put off the very thing that would guarantee his or her life if were avoided, and they did so all because of a lack of healthcare or a lack of money ? How does one have a right to life, but are stereotyped or profiled as some sort of trash or scum because you might have to go around to the ER back door, instead of walking into the front door with an appointment ?

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here, but this seems to be the same mismatch in definitions running through the entire thread. From what I'm reading, those of your supporting a "right" to healthcare, simply have a different idea of what it means for something to be a right. When you say that someone has a right to X, you're saying that someone else (usually government) is obligated to ensure they are empowered to get, or do, X. Does that sound correct to you? Am I missing something?

EVERYONE deserves proper medical care. EVERYONE deserves not to die because the homeless shelter is full. EVERY CHILD deserves an education. When 1/5th of children are not receiving proper healthcare, home heating, education, housing, proper winter clothing, enough to eat, then there is a problem. The Child doesn't have a choice. There is the rub. Being PRO-LIFE doesn't stop after the birth. This also means that every American deserves the right to a job that is life sustaining for not only themselves but for the children as well.

I don't know of a time in the history of of the US that there has ever had faced these problems. The problems have always been here but it's always been a minority that suffered and the Free White Protestant Males didn't have to face it therefore it didn't exist. Well, we have to face it now. I am part Irish. Part of my history is the signs "No Dogs, No ******* and Especially no Irish"

Uh... ok.

Here's the thing. If we're going to use your definition of "rights", then we need another word for things like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, etc... - because they're simply not the same sort of things.

And that's what you're not getting. It's really the sloppy language I'm opposed to. For most of you, it's incidental. You're not thinking about the underlying concepts of rights, or the political philosophy involved. But I think the people leading this campaign know exactly what they're doing, and are deliberately trying to undermine individual rights in favor of corporatist privilege.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We now have flights to Cuba, Venezuela , Somalia , any paradise you wish

..
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out

Esther La Vista, Dude

So if some Americans have a right to health care and some do not, who should decide and on what basis?

As an American you have a right to life, liberty, property and to pursue happiness.

Under the old Constitution (1787-1935) Taxpayers and producers had no responsibility to provide them to you. You were responsible for procuring the same.

But the Constitution now in effect, FDR's Socialist Manifesto , the government can compel the citizens to do what the government believes is right. No right to judicial review.


.

. How can anyone here or there, stake a claim upon or actually have a right to life, if the person or person's put off available healthcare because at that moment in time (let's say that the person might be in a transitional period of somekind in life), and therefore they may actually put off the very thing that would guarantee his or her life if were avoided, and they did so all because of a lack of healthcare or a lack of money ? How does one have a right to life, but are stereotyped or profiled as some sort of trash or scum because you might have to go around to the ER back door, instead of walking into the front door with an appointment ?

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here, but this seems to be the same mismatch in definitions running through the entire thread. From what I'm reading, those of your supporting a "right" to healthcare, simply have a different idea of what it means for something to be a right. When you say that someone has a right to X, you're saying that someone else (usually government) is obligated to ensure they are empowered to get, or do, X. Does that sound correct to you? Am I missing something?

EVERYONE deserves proper medical care. EVERYONE deserves not to die because the homeless shelter is full. EVERY CHILD deserves an education. When 1/5th of children are not receiving proper healthcare, home heating, education, housing, proper winter clothing, enough to eat, then there is a problem.

Correct. There is a problem, and that problem is people having children they can't provide for. However, that should not make their problem my problem. Child birth is a choice--not an infliction. Nobody has children that didn't perform the act.

If you want to solve a problem, you don't go to the end game, you go right to where the problem started in the first place.

This is why I believe that if you apply for any public assistance, you don't get one dime until you are fixed first. This would be at the expense of the taxpayers, but it's a well worth investment.

If you are a female, then you don't get any assistance until you get your tubes tied. If you are a male, you have to get a vasectomy before you get one dime of my money.

In most cases, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. By allowing poor people going on government assistance to not only have children, but as many children as they desire, it's impossible to reduce or put an end to poverty.

 

[Contumacious]

If no one has a right to health care, does that mean "no one" or actually some Americans do have a right? So if some Americans do have a right to health care then who decides and decides on what basis?

We're the only industrialized nation in the world which doesn't provide total health care for all it's citizens. We're also the only one with a thousand insurance companies.

We now have flights to Cuba, Venezuela , Somalia , any paradise you wish

..
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out

Esther La Vista, Dude

So if some Americans have a right to health care and some do not, who should decide and on what basis?

As an American you have a right to life, liberty, property and to pursue happiness.

Under the old Constitution (1787-1935) Taxpayers and producers had no responsibility to provide them to you. You were responsible for procuring the same.

But the Constitution now in effect, FDR's Socialist Manifesto , the government can compel the citizens to do what the government believes is right. No right to judicial review.


.

. How can anyone here or there, stake a claim upon or actually have a right to life, if the person or person's put off available healthcare because at that moment in time (let's say that the person might be in a transitional period of somekind in life), where as they may actually put off the very thing that would guarantee his or her life if it weren't avoided, and they did so all because of a lack of healthcare or a lack of money ? How does one have a right to life, but are stereotyped or profiled as some sort of trash or scum all because one might have to go around to the ER back door, instead of walking into the front door with an appointment ? What is the quality of healthcare in the waiting lines of the ER ? I know of people dying right there in the ER, because the ER didn't know the person or their condition when walk in... How did they have a right to life in such a situation ?

If healthcare is that important to you you must make sure that you eat healthy and exercise. You must stay gainfully employed so that you can afford the healthcare premiums.

You must not let government regulate or interfere with healthcare delivery so that it won't become prohibitively expensive.

But FDR's Socialist Manifesto Rules, Americans have been bamboozled to believe that the government must steal from taxpayers and producers to provide the service.

Welfare State = Government buy the people