No One Has a Right to Health Care

[beagle9]

Because then what you are saying is that it's a right to take money from other people to give it to you. That's not a right--that's theft. It would be the same as saying I have a right to walk into my neighbors home and take his television set because I can't afford one. You are trying to make a right out of taking other peoples property.

But what if the nation decided - as a nation - to grant it as a right to everyone?
And agreed to fund it from the general fund?

What I'm saying before we get further into the weeds of ridiculousness is that there's no immutable law of nature...as far as I'm aware...to say that a nation of citizens can't grant themselves any right they choose to.

If the requisite procedures were followed what would stop the US from deciding that everyone of its citizens has the right to healthcare paid for from the general fund?

. Then it could tax all it's citizens from their incomes for around $5.00 dollars a week to be deducted from what ever income they would receive in the nation. Anyone who would cry over that kind of rate for a basic healthcare insurance to be offered by the government to every man woman and child in the nation as a basic right, would flat out amaze me.

Except for the fact you are pulling numbers out of the air. I don't care what you do, unless you make all medical professionals work for minimum wage, you can't get healthcare for five bucks a week. Where did you get that number anyway?

Right now working Americans pay much more for that for just Medicare. Not only is Medicare going broke, but they too can't keep up with the medical bills so they've been underpaying the providers by about 1/3 of what they charge. Medicaid has many states in the red regardless of how many billions they pay into the program, and they too are cheating providers.

Remember too that private insurance takes your premiums and invests that money so the profits offset some of the costs. Government doesn't do that. Government puts your money under a mattress somewhere where it doesn't earn a dime of interest, and they use it as needed. Unlike insurance companies that have detectives overseeing fraud, our government doesn't have anything like that which is why programs are ripped off by the billions every single year.

$5.00 dollars a week is what the deduction would be for each citizen covered.. It has nothing to do with what the private sector or market place does or charges. The $5.00 dollars taken in from 300.000.000.00 citizens, is 1.500.000.000.00 dollars a week. Now many citizens go years as healthy like me, and are in no need of the care, so it takes the pressure off of the burdon of cost that is found within the elderly or those with pre-existing conditions. A plan like this is affordable and would work.

Your figures are way off. You are talking about every man, woman and child putting in this money. Well bad news, we now have over 93 million Americans of working age not working or looking for a job. Then we have to consider the disabled and the elderly. We have to consider the children. There are not that many working adults to put into your program.

It is no different than your sales tax idea, because regardless do you think that people don't have an income if they don't have a job ? They have an income whether it is workman's comp, disability, SSI, or something. If people don't have an income of some sort, then how do they survive ? Anyone could afford $5.00 dollars a week, anyone. Kids are free.

 

[idb]

Why couldn't the US decide to make an entitlement a right?
Why couldn't the country decide to enshrine free ice-creams for everyone on every second Sunday a right?

Because then what you are saying is that it's a right to take money from other people to give it to you. That's not a right--that's theft. It would be the same as saying I have a right to walk into my neighbors home and take his television set because I can't afford one. You are trying to make a right out of taking other peoples property.

But what if the nation decided - as a nation - to grant it as a right to everyone?
And agreed to fund it from the general fund?

What I'm saying before we get further into the weeds of ridiculousness is that there's no immutable law of nature...as far as I'm aware...to say that a nation of citizens can't grant themselves any right they choose to.

If the requisite procedures were followed what would stop the US from deciding that everyone of its citizens has the right to healthcare paid for from the general fund?

What general fund do you speak of? We are over 19 trillion dollars in debt and growing. Instead of discussing how we can possibly repay this debt, we are talking about spending even more and digging ourselves even deeper.

Like I said, once you involve government in our healthcare, it becomes politicized. That means it will be used as a tool for elections and reelections.

And I just want to reiterate that if people (as a huge majority) want this healthcare that you speak of, fine with me. I'm willing to go along with the majority, but we all have to pay for it.

That's why I suggested a consumption tax. We all pay for the care. It doesn't matter whether you're a millionaire, a prostitute, a drug dealer, a carpenter, everybody pays with a consumption tax, the poor, the middle-class, the well to do.

I say 20 cents on every dollar should do it. There would be no class warfare to speak of. The more you buy and the more expensive things you buy, the more you pay into the system.

That's fair.

I use 'general fund' as shorthand for funds derived from taxation or other levies.

Then you are talking about the federal budge which Congress makes out. They don't have enough money now to pay for the things we already have. Where are they going to come up with more?

You do realize that a deficit is the difference between the money coming in and the money going out, don't you? Well we have a deficit and have for a long time. We are spending much more than we take in.

We are broke. What does broke mean? Broke means no money. Broke means in debt. Broke means failure. I can't understand how people could support even more failure.

'Broke'...yeah, sure.
In any case, getting back to my point...I'm simply saying that a country can assign it's citizens any rights it wants.

 

[beagle9]

Why couldn't the US decide to make an entitlement a right?
Why couldn't the country decide to enshrine free ice-creams for everyone on every second Sunday a right?

Because then what you are saying is that it's a right to take money from other people to give it to you. That's not a right--that's theft. It would be the same as saying I have a right to walk into my neighbors home and take his television set because I can't afford one. You are trying to make a right out of taking other peoples property.

But what if the nation decided - as a nation - to grant it as a right to everyone?
And agreed to fund it from the general fund?

What I'm saying before we get further into the weeds of ridiculousness is that there's no immutable law of nature...as far as I'm aware...to say that a nation of citizens can't grant themselves any right they choose to.

If the requisite procedures were followed what would stop the US from deciding that everyone of its citizens has the right to healthcare paid for from the general fund?

What general fund do you speak of? We are over 19 trillion dollars in debt and growing. Instead of discussing how we can possibly repay this debt, we are talking about spending even more and digging ourselves even deeper.

Like I said, once you involve government in our healthcare, it becomes politicized. That means it will be used as a tool for elections and reelections.

And I just want to reiterate that if people (as a huge majority) want this healthcare that you speak of, fine with me. I'm willing to go along with the majority, but we all have to pay for it.

That's why I suggested a consumption tax. We all pay for the care. It doesn't matter whether you're a millionaire, a prostitute, a drug dealer, a carpenter, everybody pays with a consumption tax, the poor, the middle-class, the well to do.

I say 20 cents on every dollar should do it. There would be no class warfare to speak of. The more you buy and the more expensive things you buy, the more you pay into the system.

That's fair.

I use 'general fund' as shorthand for funds derived from taxation or other levies.

Then you are talking about the federal budge which Congress makes out. They don't have enough money now to pay for the things we already have. Where are they going to come up with more?

You do realize that a deficit is the difference between the money coming in and the money going out, don't you? Well we have a deficit and have for a long time. We are spending much more than we take in.

We are broke. What does broke mean? Broke means no money. Broke means in debt. Broke means failure. I can't understand how people could support even more failure.

. How are we broke, when we have more natural resources to back our currency than imaginable. We are the richest nation in the world, with some of the best climates in the world, but we're broke ? Man likes to build fences around money, and then they charge everyone to stay inside the fence. Yet just outside the fence there is a super wealth of natural resources to back this countries wealth or currency for another 200 years or more. Are we being lied to about the potential of this nation by control freaks?

 

[Rustic]

Because then what you are saying is that it's a right to take money from other people to give it to you. That's not a right--that's theft. It would be the same as saying I have a right to walk into my neighbors home and take his television set because I can't afford one. You are trying to make a right out of taking other peoples property.

But what if the nation decided - as a nation - to grant it as a right to everyone?
And agreed to fund it from the general fund?

What I'm saying before we get further into the weeds of ridiculousness is that there's no immutable law of nature...as far as I'm aware...to say that a nation of citizens can't grant themselves any right they choose to.

If the requisite procedures were followed what would stop the US from deciding that everyone of its citizens has the right to healthcare paid for from the general fund?

What general fund do you speak of? We are over 19 trillion dollars in debt and growing. Instead of discussing how we can possibly repay this debt, we are talking about spending even more and digging ourselves even deeper.

Like I said, once you involve government in our healthcare, it becomes politicized. That means it will be used as a tool for elections and reelections.

And I just want to reiterate that if people (as a huge majority) want this healthcare that you speak of, fine with me. I'm willing to go along with the majority, but we all have to pay for it.

That's why I suggested a consumption tax. We all pay for the care. It doesn't matter whether you're a millionaire, a prostitute, a drug dealer, a carpenter, everybody pays with a consumption tax, the poor, the middle-class, the well to do.

I say 20 cents on every dollar should do it. There would be no class warfare to speak of. The more you buy and the more expensive things you buy, the more you pay into the system.

That's fair.

I use 'general fund' as shorthand for funds derived from taxation or other levies.

Then you are talking about the federal budge which Congress makes out. They don't have enough money now to pay for the things we already have. Where are they going to come up with more?

You do realize that a deficit is the difference between the money coming in and the money going out, don't you? Well we have a deficit and have for a long time. We are spending much more than we take in.

We are broke. What does broke mean? Broke means no money. Broke means in debt. Broke means failure. I can't understand how people could support even more failure.

. How are we broke, when we have more natural resources to back our currency than imaginable. We are the richest nation in the world, with some of the best climates in the world, but we're broke ? Man likes to build fences around money, and then they charge everyone to stay inside the fence. Yet just outside the fence there is a super wealth of natural resources to back this countries wealth or currency for another 200 years or more. Are we being lied to about the potential of this nation by control freaks?

225+ trillion in debt, printed paper and IOU's are not wealth...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Because then what you are saying is that it's a right to take money from other people to give it to you. That's not a right--that's theft. It would be the same as saying I have a right to walk into my neighbors home and take his television set because I can't afford one. You are trying to make a right out of taking other peoples property.

But what if the nation decided - as a nation - to grant it as a right to everyone?
And agreed to fund it from the general fund?

What I'm saying before we get further into the weeds of ridiculousness is that there's no immutable law of nature...as far as I'm aware...to say that a nation of citizens can't grant themselves any right they choose to.

If the requisite procedures were followed what would stop the US from deciding that everyone of its citizens has the right to healthcare paid for from the general fund?

What general fund do you speak of? We are over 19 trillion dollars in debt and growing. Instead of discussing how we can possibly repay this debt, we are talking about spending even more and digging ourselves even deeper.

Like I said, once you involve government in our healthcare, it becomes politicized. That means it will be used as a tool for elections and reelections.

And I just want to reiterate that if people (as a huge majority) want this healthcare that you speak of, fine with me. I'm willing to go along with the majority, but we all have to pay for it.

That's why I suggested a consumption tax. We all pay for the care. It doesn't matter whether you're a millionaire, a prostitute, a drug dealer, a carpenter, everybody pays with a consumption tax, the poor, the middle-class, the well to do.

I say 20 cents on every dollar should do it. There would be no class warfare to speak of. The more you buy and the more expensive things you buy, the more you pay into the system.

That's fair.

I use 'general fund' as shorthand for funds derived from taxation or other levies.

Then you are talking about the federal budge which Congress makes out. They don't have enough money now to pay for the things we already have. Where are they going to come up with more?

You do realize that a deficit is the difference between the money coming in and the money going out, don't you? Well we have a deficit and have for a long time. We are spending much more than we take in.

We are broke. What does broke mean? Broke means no money. Broke means in debt. Broke means failure. I can't understand how people could support even more failure.

. How are we broke, when we have more natural resources to back our currency than imaginable. We are the richest nation in the world, with some of the best climates in the world, but we're broke ? Man likes to build fences around money, and then they charge everyone to stay inside the fence. Yet just outside the fence there is a super wealth of natural resources to back this countries wealth or currency for another 200 years or more. Are we being lied to about the potential of this nation by control freaks?

What natural sources are we talking about here? You don't back currency with natural resources. We are in debt, and I defy you to find me anything on the internet that states otherwise.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Because then what you are saying is that it's a right to take money from other people to give it to you. That's not a right--that's theft. It would be the same as saying I have a right to walk into my neighbors home and take his television set because I can't afford one. You are trying to make a right out of taking other peoples property.

But what if the nation decided - as a nation - to grant it as a right to everyone?
And agreed to fund it from the general fund?

What I'm saying before we get further into the weeds of ridiculousness is that there's no immutable law of nature...as far as I'm aware...to say that a nation of citizens can't grant themselves any right they choose to.

If the requisite procedures were followed what would stop the US from deciding that everyone of its citizens has the right to healthcare paid for from the general fund?

What general fund do you speak of? We are over 19 trillion dollars in debt and growing. Instead of discussing how we can possibly repay this debt, we are talking about spending even more and digging ourselves even deeper.

Like I said, once you involve government in our healthcare, it becomes politicized. That means it will be used as a tool for elections and reelections.

And I just want to reiterate that if people (as a huge majority) want this healthcare that you speak of, fine with me. I'm willing to go along with the majority, but we all have to pay for it.

That's why I suggested a consumption tax. We all pay for the care. It doesn't matter whether you're a millionaire, a prostitute, a drug dealer, a carpenter, everybody pays with a consumption tax, the poor, the middle-class, the well to do.

I say 20 cents on every dollar should do it. There would be no class warfare to speak of. The more you buy and the more expensive things you buy, the more you pay into the system.

That's fair.

I use 'general fund' as shorthand for funds derived from taxation or other levies.

Then you are talking about the federal budge which Congress makes out. They don't have enough money now to pay for the things we already have. Where are they going to come up with more?

You do realize that a deficit is the difference between the money coming in and the money going out, don't you? Well we have a deficit and have for a long time. We are spending much more than we take in.

We are broke. What does broke mean? Broke means no money. Broke means in debt. Broke means failure. I can't understand how people could support even more failure.

'Broke'...yeah, sure.
In any case, getting back to my point...I'm simply saying that a country can assign it's citizens any rights it wants.

If it can, then we've opened the door to a dictatorship. If government can take money from one in order to give it to another, then we've lost all concepts of what a right actually is. Because if we can call it a right because it's healthcare, then that right applies to anything anybody wants: a car, a boat, a house, a motorcycle, a propeller airplane.........

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

But what if the nation decided - as a nation - to grant it as a right to everyone?
And agreed to fund it from the general fund?

What I'm saying before we get further into the weeds of ridiculousness is that there's no immutable law of nature...as far as I'm aware...to say that a nation of citizens can't grant themselves any right they choose to.

If the requisite procedures were followed what would stop the US from deciding that everyone of its citizens has the right to healthcare paid for from the general fund?

. Then it could tax all it's citizens from their incomes for around $5.00 dollars a week to be deducted from what ever income they would receive in the nation. Anyone who would cry over that kind of rate for a basic healthcare insurance to be offered by the government to every man woman and child in the nation as a basic right, would flat out amaze me.

Except for the fact you are pulling numbers out of the air. I don't care what you do, unless you make all medical professionals work for minimum wage, you can't get healthcare for five bucks a week. Where did you get that number anyway?

Right now working Americans pay much more for that for just Medicare. Not only is Medicare going broke, but they too can't keep up with the medical bills so they've been underpaying the providers by about 1/3 of what they charge. Medicaid has many states in the red regardless of how many billions they pay into the program, and they too are cheating providers.

Remember too that private insurance takes your premiums and invests that money so the profits offset some of the costs. Government doesn't do that. Government puts your money under a mattress somewhere where it doesn't earn a dime of interest, and they use it as needed. Unlike insurance companies that have detectives overseeing fraud, our government doesn't have anything like that which is why programs are ripped off by the billions every single year.

$5.00 dollars a week is what the deduction would be for each citizen covered.. It has nothing to do with what the private sector or market place does or charges. The $5.00 dollars taken in from 300.000.000.00 citizens, is 1.500.000.000.00 dollars a week. Now many citizens go years as healthy like me, and are in no need of the care, so it takes the pressure off of the burdon of cost that is found within the elderly or those with pre-existing conditions. A plan like this is affordable and would work.

Your figures are way off. You are talking about every man, woman and child putting in this money. Well bad news, we now have over 93 million Americans of working age not working or looking for a job. Then we have to consider the disabled and the elderly. We have to consider the children. There are not that many working adults to put into your program.

It is no different than your sales tax idea, because regardless do you think that people don't have an income if they don't have a job ? They have an income whether it is workman's comp, disability, SSI, or something. If people don't have an income of some sort, then how do they survive ? Anyone could afford $5.00 dollars a week, anyone. Kids are free.

Why should only the working pay for it? And no, it's never going to be five bucks a week. Fifty? Perhaps, but not five.

 

[Rustic]

But what if the nation decided - as a nation - to grant it as a right to everyone?
And agreed to fund it from the general fund?

What I'm saying before we get further into the weeds of ridiculousness is that there's no immutable law of nature...as far as I'm aware...to say that a nation of citizens can't grant themselves any right they choose to.

If the requisite procedures were followed what would stop the US from deciding that everyone of its citizens has the right to healthcare paid for from the general fund?

What general fund do you speak of? We are over 19 trillion dollars in debt and growing. Instead of discussing how we can possibly repay this debt, we are talking about spending even more and digging ourselves even deeper.

Like I said, once you involve government in our healthcare, it becomes politicized. That means it will be used as a tool for elections and reelections.

And I just want to reiterate that if people (as a huge majority) want this healthcare that you speak of, fine with me. I'm willing to go along with the majority, but we all have to pay for it.

That's why I suggested a consumption tax. We all pay for the care. It doesn't matter whether you're a millionaire, a prostitute, a drug dealer, a carpenter, everybody pays with a consumption tax, the poor, the middle-class, the well to do.

I say 20 cents on every dollar should do it. There would be no class warfare to speak of. The more you buy and the more expensive things you buy, the more you pay into the system.

That's fair.

I use 'general fund' as shorthand for funds derived from taxation or other levies.

Then you are talking about the federal budge which Congress makes out. They don't have enough money now to pay for the things we already have. Where are they going to come up with more?

You do realize that a deficit is the difference between the money coming in and the money going out, don't you? Well we have a deficit and have for a long time. We are spending much more than we take in.

We are broke. What does broke mean? Broke means no money. Broke means in debt. Broke means failure. I can't understand how people could support even more failure.

. How are we broke, when we have more natural resources to back our currency than imaginable. We are the richest nation in the world, with some of the best climates in the world, but we're broke ? Man likes to build fences around money, and then they charge everyone to stay inside the fence. Yet just outside the fence there is a super wealth of natural resources to back this countries wealth or currency for another 200 years or more. Are we being lied to about the potential of this nation by control freaks?

What natural sources are we talking about here? You don't back currency with natural resources. We are in debt, and I defy you to find me anything on the internet that states otherwise.

I think he's confused, he may be thinking of al gores lock box economics. That are underwater in Florida...

 

[idb]

But what if the nation decided - as a nation - to grant it as a right to everyone?
And agreed to fund it from the general fund?

What I'm saying before we get further into the weeds of ridiculousness is that there's no immutable law of nature...as far as I'm aware...to say that a nation of citizens can't grant themselves any right they choose to.

If the requisite procedures were followed what would stop the US from deciding that everyone of its citizens has the right to healthcare paid for from the general fund?

What general fund do you speak of? We are over 19 trillion dollars in debt and growing. Instead of discussing how we can possibly repay this debt, we are talking about spending even more and digging ourselves even deeper.

Like I said, once you involve government in our healthcare, it becomes politicized. That means it will be used as a tool for elections and reelections.

And I just want to reiterate that if people (as a huge majority) want this healthcare that you speak of, fine with me. I'm willing to go along with the majority, but we all have to pay for it.

That's why I suggested a consumption tax. We all pay for the care. It doesn't matter whether you're a millionaire, a prostitute, a drug dealer, a carpenter, everybody pays with a consumption tax, the poor, the middle-class, the well to do.

I say 20 cents on every dollar should do it. There would be no class warfare to speak of. The more you buy and the more expensive things you buy, the more you pay into the system.

That's fair.

I use 'general fund' as shorthand for funds derived from taxation or other levies.

Then you are talking about the federal budge which Congress makes out. They don't have enough money now to pay for the things we already have. Where are they going to come up with more?

You do realize that a deficit is the difference between the money coming in and the money going out, don't you? Well we have a deficit and have for a long time. We are spending much more than we take in.

We are broke. What does broke mean? Broke means no money. Broke means in debt. Broke means failure. I can't understand how people could support even more failure.

'Broke'...yeah, sure.
In any case, getting back to my point...I'm simply saying that a country can assign it's citizens any rights it wants.

If it can, then we've opened the door to a dictatorship. If government can take money from one in order to give it to another, then we've lost all concepts of what a right actually is. Because if we can call it a right because it's healthcare, then that right applies to anything anybody wants: a car, a boat, a house, a motorcycle, a propeller airplane.........

Sure...the old 'slippery slope' argument.
Brilliant.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What general fund do you speak of? We are over 19 trillion dollars in debt and growing. Instead of discussing how we can possibly repay this debt, we are talking about spending even more and digging ourselves even deeper.

Like I said, once you involve government in our healthcare, it becomes politicized. That means it will be used as a tool for elections and reelections.

And I just want to reiterate that if people (as a huge majority) want this healthcare that you speak of, fine with me. I'm willing to go along with the majority, but we all have to pay for it.

That's why I suggested a consumption tax. We all pay for the care. It doesn't matter whether you're a millionaire, a prostitute, a drug dealer, a carpenter, everybody pays with a consumption tax, the poor, the middle-class, the well to do.

I say 20 cents on every dollar should do it. There would be no class warfare to speak of. The more you buy and the more expensive things you buy, the more you pay into the system.

That's fair.

I use 'general fund' as shorthand for funds derived from taxation or other levies.

Then you are talking about the federal budge which Congress makes out. They don't have enough money now to pay for the things we already have. Where are they going to come up with more?

You do realize that a deficit is the difference between the money coming in and the money going out, don't you? Well we have a deficit and have for a long time. We are spending much more than we take in.

We are broke. What does broke mean? Broke means no money. Broke means in debt. Broke means failure. I can't understand how people could support even more failure.

'Broke'...yeah, sure.
In any case, getting back to my point...I'm simply saying that a country can assign it's citizens any rights it wants.

If it can, then we've opened the door to a dictatorship. If government can take money from one in order to give it to another, then we've lost all concepts of what a right actually is. Because if we can call it a right because it's healthcare, then that right applies to anything anybody wants: a car, a boat, a house, a motorcycle, a propeller airplane.........

Sure...the old 'slippery slope' argument.
Brilliant.

If the slippery slope is proven correct, why not use it?

I remember the days when environmentalist only wanted lead out of paint and gasoline. Look at us today.

I remember the days when non-smokers only wanted to prohibit smoking in movie theaters. Today, you can't even smoke outside in some places and inside in many public places.

I remember the days when gays only wanted to be out of the closet. That's all, just let us out of the closet, and we'll be happy. Today, states are forced into recognizing gay marriage against the will of the people. A baker can't even refuse to bake a cake for their wedding.

 

[Rustic]

The scariest words in the English language are 'we are from the government and are here to help", I think a famous career politician who was for Amnesty said that??
Anyway, if you hear those words be prepared to be ass raped over and over again...

 

[idb]

I use 'general fund' as shorthand for funds derived from taxation or other levies.

Then you are talking about the federal budge which Congress makes out. They don't have enough money now to pay for the things we already have. Where are they going to come up with more?

You do realize that a deficit is the difference between the money coming in and the money going out, don't you? Well we have a deficit and have for a long time. We are spending much more than we take in.

We are broke. What does broke mean? Broke means no money. Broke means in debt. Broke means failure. I can't understand how people could support even more failure.

'Broke'...yeah, sure.
In any case, getting back to my point...I'm simply saying that a country can assign it's citizens any rights it wants.

If it can, then we've opened the door to a dictatorship. If government can take money from one in order to give it to another, then we've lost all concepts of what a right actually is. Because if we can call it a right because it's healthcare, then that right applies to anything anybody wants: a car, a boat, a house, a motorcycle, a propeller airplane.........

Sure...the old 'slippery slope' argument.
Brilliant.

If the slippery slope is proven correct, why not use it?

I remember the days when environmentalist only wanted lead out of paint and gasoline. Look at us today.

I remember the days when non-smokers only wanted to prohibit smoking in movie theaters. Today, you can't even smoke outside in some places and inside in many public places.

I remember the days when gays only wanted to be out of the closet. That's all, just let us out of the closet, and we'll be happy. Today, states are forced into recognizing gay marriage against the will of the people. A baker can't even refuse to bake a cake for their wedding.

I'm sure they actually wanted their constitutionally guaranteed rights...all of them, not just a few.
That's not a slippery slope.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Then you are talking about the federal budge which Congress makes out. They don't have enough money now to pay for the things we already have. Where are they going to come up with more?

You do realize that a deficit is the difference between the money coming in and the money going out, don't you? Well we have a deficit and have for a long time. We are spending much more than we take in.

We are broke. What does broke mean? Broke means no money. Broke means in debt. Broke means failure. I can't understand how people could support even more failure.

'Broke'...yeah, sure.
In any case, getting back to my point...I'm simply saying that a country can assign it's citizens any rights it wants.

If it can, then we've opened the door to a dictatorship. If government can take money from one in order to give it to another, then we've lost all concepts of what a right actually is. Because if we can call it a right because it's healthcare, then that right applies to anything anybody wants: a car, a boat, a house, a motorcycle, a propeller airplane.........

Sure...the old 'slippery slope' argument.
Brilliant.

If the slippery slope is proven correct, why not use it?

I remember the days when environmentalist only wanted lead out of paint and gasoline. Look at us today.

I remember the days when non-smokers only wanted to prohibit smoking in movie theaters. Today, you can't even smoke outside in some places and inside in many public places.

I remember the days when gays only wanted to be out of the closet. That's all, just let us out of the closet, and we'll be happy. Today, states are forced into recognizing gay marriage against the will of the people. A baker can't even refuse to bake a cake for their wedding.

I'm sure they actually wanted their constitutionally guaranteed rights...all of them, not just a few.
That's not a slippery slope.

The Constitution makes no mention of sexuality, marriage, pollution or bad habits. What Constitutional rights are you talking about?

 

[idb]

'Broke'...yeah, sure.
In any case, getting back to my point...I'm simply saying that a country can assign it's citizens any rights it wants.

If it can, then we've opened the door to a dictatorship. If government can take money from one in order to give it to another, then we've lost all concepts of what a right actually is. Because if we can call it a right because it's healthcare, then that right applies to anything anybody wants: a car, a boat, a house, a motorcycle, a propeller airplane.........

Sure...the old 'slippery slope' argument.
Brilliant.

If the slippery slope is proven correct, why not use it?

I remember the days when environmentalist only wanted lead out of paint and gasoline. Look at us today.

I remember the days when non-smokers only wanted to prohibit smoking in movie theaters. Today, you can't even smoke outside in some places and inside in many public places.

I remember the days when gays only wanted to be out of the closet. That's all, just let us out of the closet, and we'll be happy. Today, states are forced into recognizing gay marriage against the will of the people. A baker can't even refuse to bake a cake for their wedding.

I'm sure they actually wanted their constitutionally guaranteed rights...all of them, not just a few.
That's not a slippery slope.

The Constitution makes no mention of sexuality, marriage, pollution or bad habits. What Constitutional rights are you talking about?

The ones that homo-sexuals have under the constitution - as confirmed by the SCOTUS.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If it can, then we've opened the door to a dictatorship. If government can take money from one in order to give it to another, then we've lost all concepts of what a right actually is. Because if we can call it a right because it's healthcare, then that right applies to anything anybody wants: a car, a boat, a house, a motorcycle, a propeller airplane.........

Sure...the old 'slippery slope' argument.
Brilliant.

If the slippery slope is proven correct, why not use it?

I remember the days when environmentalist only wanted lead out of paint and gasoline. Look at us today.

I remember the days when non-smokers only wanted to prohibit smoking in movie theaters. Today, you can't even smoke outside in some places and inside in many public places.

I remember the days when gays only wanted to be out of the closet. That's all, just let us out of the closet, and we'll be happy. Today, states are forced into recognizing gay marriage against the will of the people. A baker can't even refuse to bake a cake for their wedding.

I'm sure they actually wanted their constitutionally guaranteed rights...all of them, not just a few.
That's not a slippery slope.

The Constitution makes no mention of sexuality, marriage, pollution or bad habits. What Constitutional rights are you talking about?

The ones that homo-sexuals have under the constitution - as confirmed by the SCOTUS.

Yes, which is political and not constitutional.

But regardless of what the SC ruled, you cannot dismiss that issues are on a slippery slope. If we continue down this road that healthcare is a right, then nothing is excluded from being a right.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

 

[idb]

Sure...the old 'slippery slope' argument.
Brilliant.

If the slippery slope is proven correct, why not use it?

I remember the days when environmentalist only wanted lead out of paint and gasoline. Look at us today.

I remember the days when non-smokers only wanted to prohibit smoking in movie theaters. Today, you can't even smoke outside in some places and inside in many public places.

I remember the days when gays only wanted to be out of the closet. That's all, just let us out of the closet, and we'll be happy. Today, states are forced into recognizing gay marriage against the will of the people. A baker can't even refuse to bake a cake for their wedding.

I'm sure they actually wanted their constitutionally guaranteed rights...all of them, not just a few.
That's not a slippery slope.

The Constitution makes no mention of sexuality, marriage, pollution or bad habits. What Constitutional rights are you talking about?

The ones that homo-sexuals have under the constitution - as confirmed by the SCOTUS.

Yes, which is political and not constitutional.

But regardless of what the SC ruled, you cannot dismiss that issues are on a slippery slope. If we continue down this road that healthcare is a right, then nothing is excluded from being a right.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

Why does it matter?
If it's collectively agreed on...isn't that democracy?

 

[kaz]

Any sovereign country should be able to decide the rights for its own citizens.
If they decide that healthcare is a right then yes, it's a right.
Some countries don't believe that even freedom of speech is a right.

Government decides what our rights are? You have no idea what the US Constitution is

Funny, I didn't see 'government' mentioned in my statement.

"Any sovereign country should be able to decide the rights for its own citizens"

You can go ahead and play five year old word games, but explain how that statement does not refer to "government"

I'll leave you to carry on with your paranoid 'government vs the people' line if you like.

OK, so in the US we the people decided healthcare is not a right. It's not in the Constitution that defines our government. By the 10th amendment, that means the people forbade it to the federal government.

Somehow I sense another word game coming on...

 

[kaz]

If the slippery slope is proven correct, why not use it?

I remember the days when environmentalist only wanted lead out of paint and gasoline. Look at us today.

I remember the days when non-smokers only wanted to prohibit smoking in movie theaters. Today, you can't even smoke outside in some places and inside in many public places.

I remember the days when gays only wanted to be out of the closet. That's all, just let us out of the closet, and we'll be happy. Today, states are forced into recognizing gay marriage against the will of the people. A baker can't even refuse to bake a cake for their wedding.

I'm sure they actually wanted their constitutionally guaranteed rights...all of them, not just a few.
That's not a slippery slope.

The Constitution makes no mention of sexuality, marriage, pollution or bad habits. What Constitutional rights are you talking about?

The ones that homo-sexuals have under the constitution - as confirmed by the SCOTUS.

Yes, which is political and not constitutional.

But regardless of what the SC ruled, you cannot dismiss that issues are on a slippery slope. If we continue down this road that healthcare is a right, then nothing is excluded from being a right.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

Why does it matter?
If it's collectively agreed on...isn't that democracy?

Wow, a word game. who saw that coming?

So now 50% of the people + 1 can change the Constitution on the fly? Funny, the Constitution says it takes 2/3 of each house and 3/4 of the state legislatures.

And BTW, we never voted on "healthcare." Politicians did. Government...

 

[kaz]

If the US collectively want to decide to extend certain rights to US citizens then they can can't they?
Isn't that what the constitution did?

It's the "collectively want to decide" bit that contains the poison. What you mean by that, is that the majority can force the minority to bend to its will via government. And, yes, that's how government works. But it's not inherently just, and we created the Constitution to contain it - to prevent the majority from abusing minorities willy nilly.

So, you think that nothing should be enshrined as a right unless 100% of the population agrees with it.
That's a high hurdle.

Government should not be able to trod on the rights of some citizens for the benefit of others unless it's 100% agreed

. Most would agree to a common sense plan for insuring all, but even that is fought by the donor class who actually denies the people their right to due process on such matters.

It's common sense to give people shit for doing nothing? Is that your philosophy with your kids or do you think that doing nothing for money is actually a bad idea?

How do people do getting off welfare when they get on it? Do you know? Do you care?

 

[kaz]

If the US collectively want to decide to extend certain rights to US citizens then they can can't they?
Isn't that what the constitution did?

It's the "collectively want to decide" bit that contains the poison. What you mean by that, is that the majority can force the minority to bend to its will via government. And, yes, that's how government works. But it's not inherently just, and we created the Constitution to contain it - to prevent the majority from abusing minorities willy nilly.

So, you think that nothing should be enshrined as a right unless 100% of the population agrees with it.
That's a high hurdle.

Government should not be able to trod on the rights of some citizens for the benefit of others unless it's 100% agreed

How did any of the amendments to the constitution get passed then?
Such as the second for example...I wonder if it had 100% approval?

Begging the question. None of the amendments to the Constitution authorized taking money from one person and giving it to another. So your question is irrelevant to the point I made.

A question. So if people elect government, so to you anything government decides they can do was authorized by the people, then why did we bother to have a Constitution in the first place? What can't they do? Abortion? Our whole Constitution was in the end only to prevent government from banning abortions?