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

[Redfish]

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.

you make some sense. But you are avoiding the real question. Should the government control medical care and dispense it as some civil servants deem necessary? Will such an arrangement cost more or less than what we have today?

should insurance cover every aspect of medical care? or just major expenses?

What those on the left are really after is a system by which they will get free medical care and the evil rich will pay for it. This whole thing is nothing but the left wing of the govt using class warfare to take over 1/5 of the economy.

Lets face reality and decide if thats what we really want.

 

[Richard-H]

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.

The idea of socialized health care DID NOT come from Marx or Lenin.

The first country to institute socialized health care was GERMANY UNDER Otto von Bismarck. Bismarck was an advent anti-socialist:

Otto von Bismarck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Germany had a tradition of welfare programs in Prussia and Saxony that began as early as the 1840s. In the 1880s his social insurance programs were the first in the world and became the model for other countries and the basis of the modern welfare state.[44] Bismarck introduced old age pensions, accident insurance, medical care and unemployment insurance. He won conservative support by promising to undercut the appeal of Socialists—the Socialists always voted against his proposals, fearing they would reduce the grievances of the industrial workers. His paternalistic programs won the support of German industry because its goals were to win the support of the working classes for the Empire and reduce the outflow of emigrants to America, where wages were higher but welfare did not exist. Politically, he did win over the Centre Party which represented Catholic workers, but Socialists remained hostile."

 

[Redfish]

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.

The idea of socialized health care DID NOT come from Marx or Lenin.

The first country to institute socialized health care was GERMANY UNDER Otto von Bismarck. Bismarck was an advent anti-socialist:

Otto von Bismarck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Germany had a tradition of welfare programs in Prussia and Saxony that began as early as the 1840s. In the 1880s his social insurance programs were the first in the world and became the model for other countries and the basis of the modern welfare state.[44] Bismarck introduced old age pensions, accident insurance, medical care and unemployment insurance. He won conservative support by promising to undercut the appeal of Socialists—the Socialists always voted against his proposals, fearing they would reduce the grievances of the industrial workers. His paternalistic programs won the support of German industry because its goals were to win the support of the working classes for the Empire and reduce the outflow of emigrants to America, where wages were higher but welfare did not exist. Politically, he did win over the Centre Party which represented Catholic workers, but Socialists remained hostile."

From Bismark came Hitler. From Obama comes ?????????

If we fail to learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Before Obamacare, if you had no insurance, where did you go?

Short answer, if you wanted to live, you went to the ER and they would treat you regardless of whether or not you could pay.

It was never a "liberal" policy, it was a humanitarian one.

Unfortunately, hospitals had to pass these costs on to the government, because no way could they afford to foot the bill.

The government would pass this on to the taxpayer, Sound familiar? Yup, that's the premise of Obamacare - shared responsibility.

In a perfect world, we would not have to pay for other people not being responsible - It ain't a perfect world. Therefore, there are no easy solutions.

You will never find a more "Liberal" institution than the IRS. Some people get back more money than they paid in federal taxes via the Earned Income Credit (EIC) - others pay much more than their fair share and are basically penalized for their hard work.

At least with Obamacare, the insurance companies are the one that have to cover the cost (to a much greater extent) and everyone has to be insured in order for that to happen.

 

[Richard-H]

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.

you make some sense. But you are avoiding the real question. Should the government control medical care and dispense it as some civil servants deem necessary? Will such an arrangement cost more or less than what we have today?

should insurance cover every aspect of medical care? or just major expenses?

What those on the left are really after is a system by which they will get free medical care and the evil rich will pay for it. This whole thing is nothing but the left wing of the govt using class warfare to take over 1/5 of the economy.

Lets face reality and decide if thats what we really want.

It's kind of funny that you seem to ask these questions as though socialized health care were a great new experiment. It's not.

The questions you raised have been more than answered by the health care programs that have been working for many years in every industrialized country in the world except the U.S.

None of these countries are considering reversing their health care programs.Just one more point:

The "evil Rich" get rich by taking advantage of the the economically disadvantaged. So having them foot the bill for a national health care program id O.K. by me.

If they don't like it, they can start paying their workers fairly. Then the costs of socialized health care will be redistributed down to the workers.

 

[Redfish]

Before Obamacare, if you had no insurance, where did you go?

Short answer, if you wanted to live, you went to the ER and they would treat you regardless of whether or not you could pay.

It was never a "liberal" policy, it was a humanitarian one.

Unfortunately, hospitals had to pass these costs on to the government, because no way could they afford to foot the bill.

The government would pass this on to the taxpayer, Sound familiar? Yup, that's the premise of Obamacare - shared responsibility.

In a perfect world, we would not have to pay for other people not being responsible - It ain't a perfect world. Therefore, there are no easy solutions.

You will never find a more "Liberal" institution than the IRS. Some people get back more money than they paid in federal taxes via the Earned Income Credit (EIC) - others pay much more than their fair share and are basically penalized for their hard work.

At least with Obamacare, the insurance companies are the one that have to cover the cost (to a much greater extent) and everyone has to be insured in order for that to happen.

LOl, the whole concept of insurance is spreading the risk. An insurance company that pays out more than it takes in will be out of business very quickly.

you4 point at the beginning is correct. before obamacare you went to the ER if you had no insurance and you were treated, those who paid their insurance premiums paid for your treatment. It worked just fine.

ACA is exactly the same, except now we also have to pay for a huge govt beaurocracy that will suck up billions and slow everything down. Its a foolish fix for a problem that did not exist.

 

[Richard-H]

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.

The idea of socialized health care DID NOT come from Marx or Lenin.

The first country to institute socialized health care was GERMANY UNDER Otto von Bismarck. Bismarck was an advent anti-socialist:

Otto von Bismarck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Germany had a tradition of welfare programs in Prussia and Saxony that began as early as the 1840s. In the 1880s his social insurance programs were the first in the world and became the model for other countries and the basis of the modern welfare state.[44] Bismarck introduced old age pensions, accident insurance, medical care and unemployment insurance. He won conservative support by promising to undercut the appeal of Socialists—the Socialists always voted against his proposals, fearing they would reduce the grievances of the industrial workers. His paternalistic programs won the support of German industry because its goals were to win the support of the working classes for the Empire and reduce the outflow of emigrants to America, where wages were higher but welfare did not exist. Politically, he did win over the Centre Party which represented Catholic workers, but Socialists remained hostile."

From Bismark came Hitler. From Obama comes ?????????

If we fail to learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it.

Bismarck had nothing to do with Hitler. First you should consider learning history.

 

[Redfish]

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.

you make some sense. But you are avoiding the real question. Should the government control medical care and dispense it as some civil servants deem necessary? Will such an arrangement cost more or less than what we have today?

should insurance cover every aspect of medical care? or just major expenses?

What those on the left are really after is a system by which they will get free medical care and the evil rich will pay for it. This whole thing is nothing but the left wing of the govt using class warfare to take over 1/5 of the economy.

Lets face reality and decide if thats what we really want.

It's kind of funny that you seem to ask these questions as though socialized health care were a great new experiment. It's not.

The questions you raised have been more than answered by the health care programs that have been working for many years in every industrialized country in the world except the U.S.

None of these countries are considering reversing their health care programs.Just one more point:

The "evil Rich" get rich by taking advantage of the the economically disadvantaged. So having them foot the bill for a national health care program id O.K. by me.

If they don't like it, they can start paying their workers fairly. Then the costs of socialized health care will be redistributed down to the workers.

spoken like a true diciple of Karl Marx, welcome Comrade, get in line and wait until your number is called. If you leave the room to take a piss you forfeit your place in line. If you piss on the floor you forfeit your place in line. Do not piss in Comrade Jone's pocket or you lose your place in line.

you libs never cease to amaze with your naivete.

 

[RKMBrown]

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

Who says anyone "believes" it's a right? No one could be that stupid. However, there are a great many who "claim" it is a right based on a desire to claim that which is not theirs.

 

[Redfish]

The idea of socialized health care DID NOT come from Marx or Lenin.

The first country to institute socialized health care was GERMANY UNDER Otto von Bismarck. Bismarck was an advent anti-socialist:

Otto von Bismarck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Germany had a tradition of welfare programs in Prussia and Saxony that began as early as the 1840s. In the 1880s his social insurance programs were the first in the world and became the model for other countries and the basis of the modern welfare state.[44] Bismarck introduced old age pensions, accident insurance, medical care and unemployment insurance. He won conservative support by promising to undercut the appeal of Socialists—the Socialists always voted against his proposals, fearing they would reduce the grievances of the industrial workers. His paternalistic programs won the support of German industry because its goals were to win the support of the working classes for the Empire and reduce the outflow of emigrants to America, where wages were higher but welfare did not exist. Politically, he did win over the Centre Party which represented Catholic workers, but Socialists remained hostile."

From Bismark came Hitler. From Obama comes ?????????

If we fail to learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it.

Bismarck had nothing to do with Hitler. First you should consider learning history.

and FDR had nothing to do with LBJ, Carter, and Obama? You are the one who needs to study some history.

 

[rightwinger]

Healthcare is an inalienable right

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness

 

[Claudette]

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

Who says anyone "believes" it's a right? No one could be that stupid. However, there are a great many who "claim" it is a right based on a desire to claim that which is not theirs.

Yup. Healthcare isn't a right.

Its another commercial product you pay for. Well some of us pay for.

 

[deltex1]

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.

First they think "free"....then they claim "right". They are full of shit progtards.

 

[Defiant1]

Before Obamacare, if you had no insurance, where did you go?

Short answer, if you wanted to live, you went to the ER and they would treat you regardless of whether or not you could pay.

It was never a "liberal" policy, it was a humanitarian one.

Unfortunately, hospitals had to pass these costs on to the government, because no way could they afford to foot the bill.

The government would pass this on to the taxpayer, Sound familiar? Yup, that's the premise of Obamacare - shared responsibility.

In a perfect world, we would not have to pay for other people not being responsible - It ain't a perfect world. Therefore, there are no easy solutions.

You will never find a more "Liberal" institution than the IRS. Some people get back more money than they paid in federal taxes via the Earned Income Credit (EIC) - others pay much more than their fair share and are basically penalized for their hard work.

At least with Obamacare, the insurance companies are the one that have to cover the cost (to a much greater extent) and everyone has to be insured in order for that to happen.

First, whatever happened to people accepting responsibility and paying their own bills.

Second, hospitals, that are privately owned, pass the costs on to the patients that pay not to the government.

 

[Redfish]

Healthcare is an inalienable right

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness

Life --- you have the right to be born and to live until you die

Liberty ---- you have the right of freedom unless you violate a law made by the government that you vote into power

Pursuit of Happiness ---- you have the right to live your life in a way that makes you happy as long as your pursuit of happiness does not prevent someone else from pursuing their happiness.


Nothing in that statement says that you have the right to free medical care for whatever illness my befall you.

Rights are free ---- medical care must be paid for.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

you make some sense. But you are avoiding the real question. Should the government control medical care and dispense it as some civil servants deem necessary? Will such an arrangement cost more or less than what we have today?

should insurance cover every aspect of medical care? or just major expenses?

What those on the left are really after is a system by which they will get free medical care and the evil rich will pay for it. This whole thing is nothing but the left wing of the govt using class warfare to take over 1/5 of the economy.

Lets face reality and decide if thats what we really want.

It's kind of funny that you seem to ask these questions as though socialized health care were a great new experiment. It's not.

The questions you raised have been more than answered by the health care programs that have been working for many years in every industrialized country in the world except the U.S.

None of these countries are considering reversing their health care programs.Just one more point:

The "evil Rich" get rich by taking advantage of the the economically disadvantaged. So having them foot the bill for a national health care program id O.K. by me.

If they don't like it, they can start paying their workers fairly. Then the costs of socialized health care will be redistributed down to the workers.

How do the evil rich take advantage of the economically disadvantaged? Whips chains guns?

 

[Richard-H]

From Bismark came Hitler. From Obama comes ?????????

If we fail to learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it.

Bismarck had nothing to do with Hitler. First you should consider learning history.

and FDR had nothing to do with LBJ, Carter, and Obama? You are the one who needs to study some history.

Don't be silly. Hitler's politics were born out of German nationalist's support for the Kaiser and the continuation of WWI. Bismarck was a German statesman that worked within the framework of Democracy. He had nothing in common with Hitler other than being German.

FDR, LBJ, Carter and Obama all ascribe to very similar political philosophies and are members of the same political party.

 

[Redfish]

Bismarck had nothing to do with Hitler. First you should consider learning history.

and FDR had nothing to do with LBJ, Carter, and Obama? You are the one who needs to study some history.

Don't be silly. Hitler's politics were born out of German nationalist's support for the Kaiser and the continuation of WWI. Bismarck was a German statesman that worked within the framework of Democracy. He had nothing in common with Hitler other than being German.

FDR, LBJ, Carter and Obama all ascribe to very similar political philosophies and are members of the same political party.

OK, dude. Bismark was a wonderful person who did not start the german nationalistic pride that begat Hitler, Sure. Now go finish your fruit loops.

 

[Richard-H]

you make some sense. But you are avoiding the real question. Should the government control medical care and dispense it as some civil servants deem necessary? Will such an arrangement cost more or less than what we have today?

should insurance cover every aspect of medical care? or just major expenses?

What those on the left are really after is a system by which they will get free medical care and the evil rich will pay for it. This whole thing is nothing but the left wing of the govt using class warfare to take over 1/5 of the economy.

Lets face reality and decide if thats what we really want.

It's kind of funny that you seem to ask these questions as though socialized health care were a great new experiment. It's not.

The questions you raised have been more than answered by the health care programs that have been working for many years in every industrialized country in the world except the U.S.

None of these countries are considering reversing their health care programs.Just one more point:

The "evil Rich" get rich by taking advantage of the the economically disadvantaged. So having them foot the bill for a national health care program id O.K. by me.

If they don't like it, they can start paying their workers fairly. Then the costs of socialized health care will be redistributed down to the workers.

How do the evil rich take advantage of the economically disadvantaged? Whips chains guns?

No. That's not allowed anymore. Thanks to many years of labor activism.

Nowadays, the hold workers pay to a minimum through the concept of "market-value". That means that workers are paid at the lowest level that the most desperate workers are willing to work for. The lower the pay and the less jobs available the more desperate workers become and a downwards wage spiral ensues.

If workers were paid according to the value of their work, income would be much more evenly distributed and that would mean lower profits.

 

[RKMBrown]

Healthcare is an inalienable right

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness

Life --- you have the right to be born and to live until you die

Liberty ---- you have the right of freedom unless you violate a law made by the government that you vote into power

Pursuit of Happiness ---- you have the right to live your life in a way that makes you happy as long as your pursuit of happiness does not prevent someone else from pursuing their happiness.


Nothing in that statement says that you have the right to free medical care for whatever illness my befall you.

Rights are free ---- medical care must be paid for.

Actually, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were explicitly taken away by the 14th amendment, as long as government shows due process of course.

One could argue life includes the right to purchase / barter / self administer health care. Thus when they apply due process to take your health care money away from you, which is what Obama Care is from a rights perspective. Thus what OCA is really doing is regulating your right to life, not health care.