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

Little-Acorn

Gold Member
Jun 20, 2006
10,025
2,410
290
San Diego, CA
Health care insurance started going downhill in this country during the Great Depression and World War II, despite the numerous technical advances that were made during that period.

Then-President FDR clamped huge restrictions onto many parts of the economy during the Depression (resulting in that depression stretching out further than any ever had in world history), and they became even worse during WWII. One of them was wage and price controls, which became onerous as many able-bodied men joined the armed services to fight in the war.

Attracting talented people to fulfill the jobs they left was tough enough with so many good men joining up, and the govt's wage controls made the situation worse when employers found they couldn't offer higher wages to get people to hire on. Whether this was justifiable, not to say effective, by the war emergency is debatable.

Employers screamed bloody murder as their businesses approached collapse due to unfilled jobs, and while government refused to lift its wage and price controls, they announced the employers could offer benefits in lieu of pay to attract workers. One benefit was a tax exemption for employer-provided health insurance.

This helped somewhat, but with an employer only able to offer a few insurance plans, it locked employees into fairly uncompetetive market unless he changed jobs. And FDR's relatively new policy of "tax withholding" was extended to the employee part of the payments for insurance, further insulating the employee fro the gut-check of having to write weekly or monthly checks to the insurance company.

Employers offered "Cadillac" plans in their efforts to attract workers, and the employees seldom saw the actual cost of those expensive plans, which often paid for routine medications and office visits formerly not covered by real insurance plans. That, plus the lack of competition most insurance companies found themselves facing, removed a lot of their impetus to pare costs. And employees became used to health care which "seemed free", and started thinking of it as something akin to a "right", since it (sort of) appeared to cost nothing.

When the war ended, government did NOT remove the tax exemption for employer-provided health insurance even though the circumstances that made it desirable were now gone. And so health insurance has existed in a strange nether world ever since for most people, with employees of a company locked into the few (or one) insurance plan offered by that company with little likelihood they will ever leave it. At the same time it appeared to cost little or nothing, with even routine services (far beyond the major-event coverage real insurance is for) included and seeming "complimentary".

Fast forward to the 21st century. Now we have self-serving politicians screaming from the rooftops that health care is somehow a "right", though it comes nowhere close to resembling a right to liberty, right to speech, right to self-defense etc. - all of which are based on the fundamental right to be left alone and to associate only voluntarily with others. And most people, used to generations of "free" health care that was caused by that very government long ago, are actually believing it, despite the clear unworkability of the idea, the unnecessary expense and clumsiness of one-size-fits-all (or even three-sizes-fit-all) policies administered from thousand of miles away in Washington.

The cockeyed notion that we somehow have a "right" to have a broken arm set or an infection cleaned and treated by others, came (as so many cockeyed ideas do) from government intrusion into private matters in the first place.

We should be thankful that the government didn't offer tax breaks for food purchased by one's employer. Or by now, the same deluded people would be screaming that they had a "right" to food (some actually believe this one too, after generations of food stamps). Ditto for rent, phone service, etc., all of which have been tainted at one time or another by government programs to make them nearly "free".

Weaning Americans off these destructive addictions to "free" necessities and "rights" that aren't rights and never were, will be painful, as breaking an addiction always is. But it is no less necessary, if we are to survive as sovereign citizens in a free society.
 
Because they are believing an emotional argument instead of a logical one. If people thought about it, they would realize that in order to get health care someone has to provide it to them. Logically, we don't have a right to other people's labor. That would be called slavery. But people don't think about it logically. They think about it emotionally.
 
Because they are believing an emotional argument instead of a logical one. If people thought about it, they would realize that in order to get health care someone has to provide it to them. Logically, we don't have a right to other people's labor. That would be called slavery. But people don't think about it logically. They think about it emotionally.

Then logically, i.e., by what you call logic, education should be available only to those who can afford it.
 
If you repeat a lie long enough - some people will believe it.

I do not consider medical care a right but I still consider the availability of basic medical help at a universal level (which might be paid by the federal sales tax designed to cover only that and non- transferable) to be a necessity of a civilized society.
 
We the people decide what will or will not be a right when we decide what kind of society, or country, we're going to be.

Rights aren't created by the people nor by government. If they were created by the people or government, they could likewise be destroyed by the people or government.

Our rights belong to us as a Divine Gift embedded in Natural law. We the people have the responsibility to protect those rights, but we cannot create them.
 
We the people decide what will or will not be a right when we decide what kind of society, or country, we're going to be.

No we don't. Rights are created by nature, not by government. The belief that rights are whatever the government says they are is inherently servile and totalitarian.
 
Because they are believing an emotional argument instead of a logical one. If people thought about it, they would realize that in order to get health care someone has to provide it to them. Logically, we don't have a right to other people's labor. That would be called slavery. But people don't think about it logically. They think about it emotionally.

Then logically, i.e., by what you call logic, education should be available only to those who can afford it.

No, you're free to provide it for whomever you like.
 
Because they are believing an emotional argument instead of a logical one. If people thought about it, they would realize that in order to get health care someone has to provide it to them. Logically, we don't have a right to other people's labor. That would be called slavery. But people don't think about it logically. They think about it emotionally.

Then logically, i.e., by what you call logic, education should be available only to those who can afford it.

Except you don't need a cent to educate yourself. Information is available for free throughout the country with no need of the government.
 
We the people decide what will or will not be a right when we decide what kind of society, or country, we're going to be.

No we don't. Rights are created by nature, not by government. The belief that rights are whatever the government says they are is inherently servile and totalitarian.

So where has nature listed those rights she created and has given us?
 
We the people decide what will or will not be a right when we decide what kind of society, or country, we're going to be.

No we don't. Rights are created by nature, not by government. The belief that rights are whatever the government says they are is inherently servile and totalitarian.

There are no rights created by nature. That is the biggest crock going.

If nature created rights, then there would be a source to which we could go to that would reveal to us, definitively, what rights nature created.
 
Because they are believing an emotional argument instead of a logical one. If people thought about it, they would realize that in order to get health care someone has to provide it to them. Logically, we don't have a right to other people's labor. That would be called slavery. But people don't think about it logically. They think about it emotionally.

Then logically, i.e., by what you call logic, education should be available only to those who can afford it.

Would you say I have a right to force someone to teach me? If they refuse, are they violating my right to an education?
 
We the people decide what will or will not be a right when we decide what kind of society, or country, we're going to be.

Rights aren't created by the people nor by government. If they were created by the people or government, they could likewise be destroyed by the people or government.

Our rights belong to us as a Divine Gift embedded in Natural law. We the people have the responsibility to protect those rights, but we cannot create them.

For rights to be a 'divine gift' they would have to proclaimed to us by a real divinity. Since no such creature has revealed itself, rights are nothing more than the ideas and fabrications of men.
 
We can't create rights. They are established by natural law. When govt starts yammering about affording people rights that aren't even natural they are only being fiendish and ultimately giving themselves power against the people.
 
We the people decide what will or will not be a right when we decide what kind of society, or country, we're going to be.

Rights aren't created by the people nor by government. If they were created by the people or government, they could likewise be destroyed by the people or government.

Our rights belong to us as a Divine Gift embedded in Natural law. We the people have the responsibility to protect those rights, but we cannot create them.

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

Still with the confusion on natural rights??? Jeez. We've gone over that ad nauseum.
 
We the people decide what will or will not be a right when we decide what kind of society, or country, we're going to be.

No we don't. Rights are created by nature, not by government. The belief that rights are whatever the government says they are is inherently servile and totalitarian.

There are no rights created by nature. That is the biggest crock going.

If nature created rights, then there would be a source to which we could go to that would reveal to us, definitively, what rights nature created.

If man creates right, then your very existence is conditional.
 
We the people decide what will or will not be a right when we decide what kind of society, or country, we're going to be.

No we don't. Rights are created by nature, not by government. The belief that rights are whatever the government says they are is inherently servile and totalitarian.

There are no rights created by nature. That is the biggest crock going.

If nature created rights, then there would be a source to which we could go to that would reveal to us, definitively, what rights nature created.

The rights created by nature are basically all included in one statement: survival of the fittest.

Civilization is man's way of overcoming that basic natural right by creating systems by which those who are not the fittest have equal survival rights.

What we have now reached is a system by which the survival of the unfit is achieved by taking things from the fittest by government mandate i.e. theft.

We can debate whether this is "right" or "wrong", but those terms are in the minds of each individual as to what they mean.

The idea that we should not have to pay for healthcare is an extension of man's attempt to change the laws of nature. The idea that everyone should pay into a collective administered by the government comes from Lenin and Marx. It is the basis of socialism and communism.

If thats what the majority of americans want this country to become, then fine. But lets have an open discussion and vote on it first.
 
There's really important stuff to be said, and to understand, regarding rights and their relationship to the role of government. But unfortunately there's so much deliberate equivocation and fallacious argument thrown into the ring it's impossible to find much of it in these threads.
 
According to the laws of nature, the only inalienable right that anyone has is the right to die.

The inalienable rights listed in the declaration of independence are derived from religious beliefs - they are "endowed by our creator". They are based on western civilization's concept of morality in a civilized society.

As society evolves, life's expectations evolve and our sense of morality evolves. For example: none of the major religions condemned slavery explicitly. Slavery was considered a normal oart of any civilization. Yet in modern times slavery is condemned as being undeniably immoral.

So the same holds true for health care. As society evolves our concept of inalienable rights evolves.

"governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Once a majority of the people determine that health care is a right then it will be a right.

The question should not be whether health care is a right, but given limited medical resources, what level of health care should be considered a right.
 

Forum List

Back
Top