No One Has a Right to Health Care

[dblack]

And 20% can't or shouldn't be able to impose their will on the 80% majority

Are you suggesting that a limitation on the power of the majority to impose its will on the minority is the equivalent of the minority imposing its will on the majority???

 

[beagle9]

And 20% can't or shouldn't be able to impose their will on the 80% majority

Are you suggesting that a limitation on the power of the majority to impose its will on the minority is the equivalent of the minority imposing its will on the majority???

. Yes I am, because the feds have given the minority far to much power over the majority these days, and it has led to some very bad things.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Nope. Not religious at all. I'm just a taxpayers who's getting sick and tired of being hosed to take care of other peoples responsibilities.

But I bet you're "pro-life." So explain how a baby is responsible for being born with a heart defect.

(You do know no one's asking you to take them in to live with you, right? Would knowing that help you stop feeling like such a martyr?)

You'd be dead wrong.

I'm pro choice and have no problem with abortion.

And apparently no problem with infants dying of correctable heart defects, as long as you don't have to watch.

As long as I don't have to pay for it.

However if you and those like you should pool your money and pay for it. After all bleeding hearts have to bleed.

Carry on.

Should you have to pay for schools?
How about police?
Why should you have to buy the Navy a new aircraft carrier?

Let those who want it pay for it

It's the role and responsibility of government to provide for the common defense. Nowhere in the Constitution is it written that it's the responsibility of the Federal government to provide for health care. Do we find auto insurance classified as an "entitlement" that someone ELSE has the responsibility to pay for your coverage? Yes or no? If not, then health care has been wrongfully classified as such. In fact ... name just one particular coverage, outside of this healthcare mandate, that is the sole legal responsibility of another to pay and supply FOR you in order that you may have the self assurance that you require.

 

[Bassman007]

No One Has a Right to Health Care
by Jacob G. Hornberger February 3, 2016

Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders says that everyone has a right to health care. Unfortunately, none of his presidential opponents, Democrat or Republican, is going to challenge him on the point. They’re too scared that they’d lose votes by challenging a standard socialist shibboleth in America.

Sanders’ assertion only goes to show how American socialists (i.e., progressives) have warped and perverted the concept of rights within the minds of the American people. The fact is that no one has a right to health care any more than he has a right to a home, a car, food, spouse, or anything else.

The correct concept of rights was enunciated by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, the document that Americans ironically celebrate every Fourth of July. Jefferson observed that people have been endowed with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Disabled vets certainly have the right to health care

 

[beagle9]

But I bet you're "pro-life." So explain how a baby is responsible for being born with a heart defect.

(You do know no one's asking you to take them in to live with you, right? Would knowing that help you stop feeling like such a martyr?)

You'd be dead wrong.

I'm pro choice and have no problem with abortion.

And apparently no problem with infants dying of correctable heart defects, as long as you don't have to watch.

As long as I don't have to pay for it.

However if you and those like you should pool your money and pay for it. After all bleeding hearts have to bleed.

Carry on.

Should you have to pay for schools?
How about police?
Why should you have to buy the Navy a new aircraft carrier?

Let those who want it pay for it

It's the role and responsibility of government to provide for the common defense. Nowhere in the Constitution is it written that it's the responsibility of the Federal government to provide for health care. Do we find auto insurance classified as an "entitlement" that someone ELSE has the responsibility to pay for your coverage? Yes or no? If not, then health care has been wrongfully classified as such. In fact ... name just one particular coverage, outside of this healthcare mandate, that is the sole legal responsibility of another to pay and supply FOR you in order that you may have the self assurance that you require.

. You say that as if it is free ? It's not or would not be free. Everyone would pay into the basic plan. It's just that in the plan offered, the government would have no profit incentive involved... It would give everyone the same plan, and the same options in the basic plan to cover all Americans....
If anyone wants more than that, then they would purchase extra for themselves in the free market place.

 

[Contumacious]

You'd be dead wrong.

I'm pro choice and have no problem with abortion.

And apparently no problem with infants dying of correctable heart defects, as long as you don't have to watch.

As long as I don't have to pay for it.

However if you and those like you should pool your money and pay for it. After all bleeding hearts have to bleed.

Carry on.

Should you have to pay for schools?
How about police?
Why should you have to buy the Navy a new aircraft carrier?

Let those who want it pay for it

It's the role and responsibility of government to provide for the common defense. Nowhere in the Constitution is it written that it's the responsibility of the Federal government to provide for health care. Do we find auto insurance classified as an "entitlement" that someone ELSE has the responsibility to pay for your coverage? Yes or no? If not, then health care has been wrongfully classified as such. In fact ... name just one particular coverage, outside of this healthcare mandate, that is the sole legal responsibility of another to pay and supply FOR you in order that you may have the self assurance that you require.

. You say that as if it is free ? It's not or would not be free. Everyone would pay into the basic plan. It's just that in the plan offered, the government would have no profit incentive involved... It would give everyone the same plan, and the same options in the basic plan to cover all Americans....
If anyone wants more than that, then they would purchase extra for themselves in the free market place.

HUH?

There is NO free market place in health care. It has been under government control since the mid 1800's.

.

 

[dblack]

And 20% can't or shouldn't be able to impose their will on the 80% majority

Are you suggesting that a limitation on the power of the majority to impose its will on the minority is the equivalent of the minority imposing its will on the majority???

. Yes I am, because the feds have given the minority far to much power over the majority these days, and it has led to some very bad things.

Can you give me an example? I ask because some people have referred to the court upholding Constitutional limits on government as an example of the minority having too much power, and that strikes me as an insane inversion.

 

[beagle9]

And apparently no problem with infants dying of correctable heart defects, as long as you don't have to watch.

As long as I don't have to pay for it.

However if you and those like you should pool your money and pay for it. After all bleeding hearts have to bleed.

Carry on.

Should you have to pay for schools?
How about police?
Why should you have to buy the Navy a new aircraft carrier?

Let those who want it pay for it

It's the role and responsibility of government to provide for the common defense. Nowhere in the Constitution is it written that it's the responsibility of the Federal government to provide for health care. Do we find auto insurance classified as an "entitlement" that someone ELSE has the responsibility to pay for your coverage? Yes or no? If not, then health care has been wrongfully classified as such. In fact ... name just one particular coverage, outside of this healthcare mandate, that is the sole legal responsibility of another to pay and supply FOR you in order that you may have the self assurance that you require.

. You say that as if it is free ? It's not or would not be free. Everyone would pay into the basic plan. It's just that in the plan offered, the government would have no profit incentive involved... It would give everyone the same plan, and the same options in the basic plan to cover all Americans....
If anyone wants more than that, then they would purchase extra for themselves in the free market place.

HUH?

There is NO free market place in health care. It has been under government control since the mid 1800's.

.

. Follow me here... We're talking about having new idea's or new ways that it could or should work. It is why everyone is trying to come up with a better system of doing things, and not sticking with the way things were. Do you want a system that goes all the way back to the 1800's or would you rather someone trail Blaze a new one that could benefit all ?

 

[beagle9]

And 20% can't or shouldn't be able to impose their will on the 80% majority

Are you suggesting that a limitation on the power of the majority to impose its will on the minority is the equivalent of the minority imposing its will on the majority???

. Yes I am, because the feds have given the minority far to much power over the majority these days, and it has led to some very bad things.

Can you give me an example? I ask because some people have referred to the court upholding Constitutional limits on government as an example of the minority having too much power, and that strikes me as an insane inversion.

. You have to look at the examples of government over ruling the majority that wanted something that was good to remain, (i.e. many traditions that have been a part of this nations identity for years and years), only to be shot down by activist judges, who then compell the government to strong arm the majority afterwards, and to over rule the majority by way of a wrong headed ruling that did not make one bit of sense at all to the majority of citizens in this nation. For a period of time this nation had lost it's mind. Hopefully it's not to late to reverse some of the damage that was done.

 

[dblack]

And 20% can't or shouldn't be able to impose their will on the 80% majority

Are you suggesting that a limitation on the power of the majority to impose its will on the minority is the equivalent of the minority imposing its will on the majority???

. Yes I am, because the feds have given the minority far to much power over the majority these days, and it has led to some very bad things.

Can you give me an example? I ask because some people have referred to the court upholding Constitutional limits on government as an example of the minority having too much power, and that strikes me as an insane inversion.

. You have to look at the examples of government over ruling the majority that wanted something that was good to remain, (i.e. many traditions that have been a part of this nations identity for years and years), only to be shot down by activist judges, who then compell the government to strong arm the majority afterwards, and to over rule the majority by way of a wrong headed ruling that did not make one bit of sense at all to the majority of citizens in this nation. For a period of time this nation had lost it's mind. Hopefully it's not to late to reverse some of the damage that was done.

You're talking in fairly vague generalities. Can you cite some specific examples? The kind of thing I'm wary about is the way some people seem to think that government should be allowed to do virtually anything if the majority will supports it. Indeed, the seem to think the purpose of government is to inflict the will of the majority on society as a general goal - and that where I think we're really going off the rails.

 

[beagle9]

And 20% can't or shouldn't be able to impose their will on the 80% majority

Are you suggesting that a limitation on the power of the majority to impose its will on the minority is the equivalent of the minority imposing its will on the majority???

. Yes I am, because the feds have given the minority far to much power over the majority these days, and it has led to some very bad things.

Can you give me an example? I ask because some people have referred to the court upholding Constitutional limits on government as an example of the minority having too much power, and that strikes me as an insane inversion.

. You have to look at the examples of government over ruling the majority that wanted something that was good to remain, (i.e. many traditions that have been a part of this nations identity for years and years), only to be shot down by activist judges, who then compell the government to strong arm the majority afterwards, and to over rule the majority by way of a wrong headed ruling that did not make one bit of sense at all to the majority of citizens in this nation. For a period of time this nation had lost it's mind. Hopefully it's not to late to reverse some of the damage that was done.

You're talking in fairly vague generalities. Can you cite some specific examples? The kind of thing I'm wary about is the way some people seem to think that government should be allowed to do virtually anything if the majority will supports it. Indeed, the seem to think the purpose of government is to inflict the will of the majority on society as a general goal - and that where I think we're really going off the rails.

. I don't need to say more, because all you have to do is watch the Republican debate like I am, and listen to them talk about why it is important to get the replacement for Scalia right.. Need I say more ?

 

[beagle9]

And 20% can't or shouldn't be able to impose their will on the 80% majority

Are you suggesting that a limitation on the power of the majority to impose its will on the minority is the equivalent of the minority imposing its will on the majority???

. Yes I am, because the feds have given the minority far to much power over the majority these days, and it has led to some very bad things.

Can you give me an example? I ask because some people have referred to the court upholding Constitutional limits on government as an example of the minority having too much power, and that strikes me as an insane inversion.

. You have to look at the examples of government over ruling the majority that wanted something that was good to remain, (i.e. many traditions that have been a part of this nations identity for years and years), only to be shot down by activist judges, who then compell the government to strong arm the majority afterwards, and to over rule the majority by way of a wrong headed ruling that did not make one bit of sense at all to the majority of citizens in this nation. For a period of time this nation had lost it's mind. Hopefully it's not to late to reverse some of the damage that was done.

You're talking in fairly vague generalities. Can you cite some specific examples? The kind of thing I'm wary about is the way some people seem to think that government should be allowed to do virtually anything if the majority will supports it. Indeed, the seem to think the purpose of government is to inflict the will of the majority on society as a general goal - and that where I think we're really going off the rails.

. I will say this, it's a two way street, and it all depends on the judges. It cuts both ways, but worse when it works against the traditions of this nation by a few activist. Try and trust more, and don't think that just because a majority of citizens might somehow agree with something, that it would be something bad when it's not. We're not going backwards, we're going forwards.

 

[dblack]

Are you suggesting that a limitation on the power of the majority to impose its will on the minority is the equivalent of the minority imposing its will on the majority???

. Yes I am, because the feds have given the minority far to much power over the majority these days, and it has led to some very bad things.

Can you give me an example? I ask because some people have referred to the court upholding Constitutional limits on government as an example of the minority having too much power, and that strikes me as an insane inversion.

. You have to look at the examples of government over ruling the majority that wanted something that was good to remain, (i.e. many traditions that have been a part of this nations identity for years and years), only to be shot down by activist judges, who then compell the government to strong arm the majority afterwards, and to over rule the majority by way of a wrong headed ruling that did not make one bit of sense at all to the majority of citizens in this nation. For a period of time this nation had lost it's mind. Hopefully it's not to late to reverse some of the damage that was done.

You're talking in fairly vague generalities. Can you cite some specific examples? The kind of thing I'm wary about is the way some people seem to think that government should be allowed to do virtually anything if the majority will supports it. Indeed, the seem to think the purpose of government is to inflict the will of the majority on society as a general goal - and that where I think we're really going off the rails.

. I don't need to say more, because all you have to do is watch the Republican debate like I am, and listen to them talk about why it is important to get the replacement for Scalia right.. Need I say more ?

If you expect me to understand what you're talking about you do.

 

[dblack]

beagle9 - I don't think judges should be swayed by the will of he majority. That's why they aren't elected, and why they have lifetime terms. The most important role of the Supreme Court, in my view, is to deny the will of the majority when it conflicts with the rights of the individual.

 

[beagle9]

beagle9 - I don't think judges should be swayed by the will of he majority. That's why they aren't elected, and why they have lifetime terms. The most important role of the Supreme Court, in my view, is to deny the will of the majority when it conflicts with the rights of the individual.

. If an individual is wrong, then it isn't right for a judge to say he's right and order his will to be enforced upon the majority.

 

[dblack]

beagle9 - I don't think judges should be swayed by the will of he majority. That's why they aren't elected, and why they have lifetime terms. The most important role of the Supreme Court, in my view, is to deny the will of the majority when it conflicts with the rights of the individual.

. If an individual is wrong, then it isn't right for a judge to say he's right and order his will to be enforced upon the majority.

Agreed. Do you see that happening?

 

[beagle9]

beagle9 - I don't think judges should be swayed by the will of he majority. That's why they aren't elected, and why they have lifetime terms. The most important role of the Supreme Court, in my view, is to deny the will of the majority when it conflicts with the rights of the individual.

. If an individual is wrong, then it isn't right for a judge to say he's right and order his will to be enforced upon the majority.

Agreed. Do you see that happening?

. Have seen plenty of decisions over time in which has went that away.... It has caused some terrible outcomes over the years in my opinion. The new generation doesn't realize alot of this, but in alot of ways they are living it, but don't know why. I know why because I was there.

 

[dblack]

beagle9 - I don't think judges should be swayed by the will of he majority. That's why they aren't elected, and why they have lifetime terms. The most important role of the Supreme Court, in my view, is to deny the will of the majority when it conflicts with the rights of the individual.

. If an individual is wrong, then it isn't right for a judge to say he's right and order his will to be enforced upon the majority.

Agreed. Do you see that happening?

. Have seen plenty of decisions over time in which has went that away.... It has caused some terrible outcomes over the years in my opinion. The new generation doesn't realize alot of this, but in alot of ways they are living it, but don't know why. I know why because I was there.

You have any examples? I'm not looking for links, or 'proof' or anything, I'm just trying to understand what types of decisions you think amount to the Court saying that someone is right when they're actually wrong.

 

[beagle9]

beagle9 - I don't think judges should be swayed by the will of he majority. That's why they aren't elected, and why they have lifetime terms. The most important role of the Supreme Court, in my view, is to deny the will of the majority when it conflicts with the rights of the individual.

. If an individual is wrong, then it isn't right for a judge to say he's right and order his will to be enforced upon the majority.

Agreed. Do you see that happening?

. Have seen plenty of decisions over time in which has went that away.... It has caused some terrible outcomes over the years in my opinion. The new generation doesn't realize alot of this, but in alot of ways they are living it, but don't know why. I know why because I was there.

You have any examples? I'm not looking for links, or 'proof' or anything, I'm just trying to understand what types of decisions you think amount to the Court saying that someone is right when they're actually wrong.

. Well most have been concerning local and sometimes national issues, but they are many in which gives the importance as to the make up of the court appointments over time. It's no different upon who we elect for Senators. Governers. Council members, the President and on and on it goes. Judges are no different.

 

[beagle9]

Apple's non-trusting of government is just another example of government's reputation being runied over the years. It is ruined for exactly doing what we are talking about here, and it is why no one wants to work with it in trust anymore. Now I agree with the canidates last night that Apple needs to get in this phone for the critical reasoning of the case. I agree as to why the canidates realize that the government in which they are trying to take over needs to be repaired of the huge damages that it has sustained over the years. We need a government we can trust, and then great things can happen again for the citizens of America, and not just for the corrupt handlers instead. The fight between Apple, the government and now Google is joining Apple in the fight says it all.