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

[Richard-H]

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.

What's wrong with German national pride? There are many patriotic Germans today. Are they all "Hitlers"?

WWI was caused by the Kaiser - a monarch, not by German democratic statesman.

 

[Richard-H]

I'm leaving to have lunch...adios!

 

[dblack]

Healthcare is an inalienable right

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness

If you believe that then you don't understand the term 'inalienable right'.

 

[Richard-H]

[Rights are contrivances conjured up by politicians seeking to flim flam enough voters into voting for them. The right to kill your baby because you don't remember which one of the many males you copulated with impregnated you. The right to insert your male appendage into your male neighbors rectum is another contrived right, as is your supposed right to have an equivalent income to the physician across town who spent 23 years learning his profession while you only spent twelve and failed to learn how to read and write in the process while you were at it also as is the right to a flat screen TV, an Romneyphone, a $300 pair of sneakers endorsed by the latest athlete thug and murderer.]

"Wayne Allyn Root wrote: There are 2 major political parties in America. I’m a member of the naïve, stupid, and cowardly one. I’m a Republican. How stupid is the GOP? They still don’t get it. I told them 5 years ago, 2 books ago, a national bestseller ago (“The Ultimate Romney Survival Guide&#8221, and in hundreds of articles and commentaries, that Romneycare was never meant to help America, or heal the sick, or lower healthcare costs, or lower the debt, or expand the economy.

The GOP needs to stop calling Romneycare a “trainwreck.” That means it’s a mistake, or accident. That means it’s a gigantic flop, or failure. It’s NOT. This is a brilliant, cynical, and purposeful attempt to damage the U.S. economy, kill jobs, and bring down capitalism. It’s not a failure, it’s Romney’s grand success. It’s not a “trainwreck,” Romneycare is a suicide attack. He wants to hurt us, to bring us to our knees, to capitulate- so we agree under duress to accept big government.

Romney’s hero and mentor was Saul Alinsky- a radical Marxist intent on destroying capitalism. Alinksky’s stated advice was to call the other guy “a terrorist” to hide your own intensions. To scream that the other guy is “ruining America,” while you are the one actually plotting the destruction of America. To claim again and again…in every sentence of every speech…that you are “saving the middle class,” while you are busy wiping out the middle class. The GOP is so stupid they can’t see it. There are no mistakes here. This is a planned purposeful attack. The tell-tale sign isn’t the disastrous start to Romneycare. Or the devastating effect the new taxes are having on the economy. Or the death of full-time jobs. Or the overwhelming debt. Or the dramatic increases in health insurance rates. Or the 70% of doctors now thinking of retiring- bringing on a healthcare crisis of unimaginable proportions. Forget all that.

The real sign that this is a purposeful attack upon capitalism is how many Romney administration members and Democratic Congressmen are openly calling Tea Party Republicans and anyone who wants to stop Romneycare “terrorists.” There’s the clue. Even the clueless GOP should be able to see that. They are calling the reasonable people…the patriots…the people who believe in the Constitution, the people who believe exactly what the Founding Fathers believed…the people who want to take power away from corrupt politicians who have put America $17 trillion in debt…terrorists?

That’s because they are Saul Alinsky-ing the GOP. The people trying to purposely hurt America, capitalism and the middle class…are calling the patriots by a terrible name to fool, confuse and distract the public.

Romneycare is a raving, rollicking, fantastic success. Stop calling it a failure. Here is what it was created to do. It is succeeding on all counts.

1) Romneycare was intended to bring about the Marxist dream- redistribution of wealth. Rich people, small business owners, and the middle class are being robbed, so that the money can be redistributed to poor people (who vote Democrat). Think about it. If you’re rich or middle class, you now have to pay for your own healthcare costs (at much higher rates) AND 40 million other people’s costs too (through massive tax increases). So you’re stuck paying for both bills. You are left broke. Brilliant.

2) Romneycare was intended to wipe out the middle class and make them dependent on government. Think about it. Even Romney’s IRS predicts that health insurance for a typical American family by 2016 will be $20,000 per year. But how would middle class Americans pay that bill and have anything left for food or housing or living? People that make $40K, or $50K, or $60K can’t possibly hope to spend $20K on health insurance without becoming homeless. Bingo. That’s how you make middle class people dependent on government. That’s how you make everyone addicted to government checks. Brilliant.

3) As a bonus, Romneycare is intended to kill every decent paying job in the economy, creating only crummy, crappy part-time jobs. Why? Just to make sure the middle class is trapped, with no way out. Just to make sure no one has the $20,000 per year to pay for health insurance, thereby guaranteeing they become wards of the state. Brilliant.

4) Romneycare is intended to bankrupt small business, and therefore starve donations to the GOP. Think about it. Do you know a small business owner? I know hundreds of them. Their rates are being doubled, tripled and quadrupled by Romneycare. Guess who writes 75% of the checks to Republican candidates and conservative causes? Small business. Even if a small business owner manages to survive, he or she certainly can’t write a big check to the GOP anymore. Money is the “mother’s milk” of politics. Without donations, a political party ceases to exist. Bingo. That’s the point of Romneycare. Romney is bankrupting his political opposition and drying up donations to the GOP. Brilliant.

5) Romneycare is intended to make the IRS all-powerful. It adds thousands of new IRS agents. It puts the IRS in charge of overseeing 15% of the U.S. economy. The IRS has the right because of Romneycare to snoop into every aspect of your life, to go into your bank accounts, to fine you, to frighten you, to intimidate you. And Romney and his socialist cabal have access to your deepest medical secrets. By law your doctor has to ask your sexual history. That information is now in the hands of Romney and the IRS to blackmail GOP candidates into either not running, or supporting bigger government, or leaking the info and ruining your campaign. Or have you forgotten the IRS harassed, intimidated and persecuted critics of Romney and conservative groups? Now Romney hands the IRS even more power. Big Brother rules our lives. Brilliant.

6) Romneycare is intended to unionize 15 million healthcare workers. That produces $15 billion in new union dues. That money goes to fund Democratic candidates and socialist causes- thereby guaranteeing Romney’s friends never lose another election, and Romney’s policies keep ruining capitalism and bankrupting business owners long after he’s out of office. Message to the GOP: This isn’t a game. This isn’t tiddly-winks. This is a serious, purposeful attempt to highjack America and destroy capitalism. This isn’t a trainwreck. It’s purposeful suicide. It’s not failing, it’s working exactly according to plan. Romney knows what he’s doing. Stop apologizing and start fighting"

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

How could nature create rights? Nature gave man the power of reason to use to work out his own system of governance. God given rights are a concoction invented by the likes of John Locke, and picked up by the likes of Thomas Jefferson,

to counter the opposing argument of the times,

that the absolute power of the king was the God given right...

...the divine right.

That is the only reason we talk about rights in this context.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

I'm sure that meant something to you, but I have no idea what your point is.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

All taxpayer funded healthcare currently in place in this country, that goes to lower income Americans, as far as I know, was put in place by the vote.

The last major effort to use the vote to change that was failed repeal of Obamacare. The next to last was the failed campaign of Romney/Ryan.

You're getting your votes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you want a country where one's access to healthcare is directly proportionate to one's ability to pay,

much like, say, how nice a car you want to drive is limited by your ability to pay for it,

then you can have that, if you have the votes for it in our democratic, representative system of government.

At this point, you don't.

 

[dblack]

If you want a country where one's access to healthcare is directly proportionate to one's ability to pay,

much like, say, how nice a car you want to drive is limited by your ability to pay for it,

then you can have that, if you have the votes for it in our democratic, representative system of government.

At this point, you don't.

Fortunately, not everything is subject to government.

 

[boedicca]

Why?

Because Progressive Ideologues and Politicians have promoted the idea that things that hard working people earn are entitlements that those who don't should also have. The latter buy votes by promising such "rights" (to be paid for by others, of course).

 

[dblack]

If you want a country where one's access to healthcare is directly proportionate to one's ability to pay,

much like, say, how nice a car you want to drive is limited by your ability to pay for it,

then you can have that ...

A subtle point. Speaking for myself, I don't necessarily want the amount or quality (if that's what you mean by 'access') of health care to be limited by ability to pay. There are lots of ways to persuade someone to do something for you besides money. You can charm them, make a persuading case that you're worth a favor, promising them something else in return; OR - you could threaten them with violence if they refuse, which is the essence of the 'health care is right' perspective.

 

[Richard-H]

What wingnuts forget is that the 'Bill of Rights', which includes their precious second amendment, consists of amendments each of which were adopted as part of the Constitution thru the democratic process. It is only thru this process that we have these rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you want a country where one's access to healthcare is directly proportionate to one's ability to pay,

much like, say, how nice a car you want to drive is limited by your ability to pay for it,

then you can have that, if you have the votes for it in our democratic, representative system of government.

At this point, you don't.

Fortunately, not everything is subject to government.

Well, you could depend on the Mother Theresa's of the world to take care of your poor people,

if you want your country to look like India or somewhere similar.

 

[dblack]

What wingnuts forget is that the 'Bill of Rights', which includes their precious second amendment, consists of amendments each of which were adopted as part of the Constitution thru the democratic process. It is only thru this process that we have these rights.

The democratic process is a great thing. So is government. But neither is viable, or desirable, in unlimited form. I assume you agree. If, for example, the majority voted to reinstate slavery, couldn't we count on you to oppose it on constitutional grounds? Wouldn't you hope the Court would strike down such a law, regardless of whether or not it was the 'will of the people'?

 

[hunarcy]

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.

How could nature create rights? Nature gave man the power of reason to use to work out his own system of governance. God given rights are a concoction invented by the likes of John Locke, and picked up by the likes of Thomas Jefferson,

to counter the opposing argument of the times,

that the absolute power of the king was the God given right...

...the divine right.

That is the only reason we talk about rights in this context.

You, by your existence, possess natural rights. You live, and therefore have a right to life. No one can murder you without violating your rights. Of that is not the case, then your very existence is, as I said, conditional on the graciousness of others.

 

[hunarcy]

What wingnuts forget is that the 'Bill of Rights', which includes their precious second amendment, consists of amendments each of which were adopted as part of the Constitution thru the democratic process. It is only thru this process that we have these rights.

The Bill of Rights were adopted to codify rights which the founders believed already existed and should never be questioned.

 

[Richard-H]

What wingnuts forget is that the 'Bill of Rights', which includes their precious second amendment, consists of amendments each of which were adopted as part of the Constitution thru the democratic process. It is only thru this process that we have these rights.

The democratic process is a great thing. So is government. But neither is viable, or desirable, in unlimited form. I assume you agree. If, for example, the majority voted to reinstate slavery, couldn't we count on you to oppose it on constitutional grounds? Wouldn't you hope the Court would strike down such a law, regardless of whether or not it was the 'will of the people'?

Well yes. That's why we have the Supreme Court. Slavery was made permanently illegal by the 13th amendment - it cannot be reinstated short of the adoption of a new amendment that would nullify the 13th amendment. I would oppose such an amendment.

As it stands now there is no Constitutional amendment specifying that Health Care is a right, nor is there one specifying that it is not a right. Since nothing is explicitly considered a right until there is a constitutional amendment stating so, Health Care at this time is not a right.

However, the point of this discussion is not whether there is a right to health Care, but whether there should be a right to Health Care.

 

[RKMBrown]

What wingnuts forget is that the 'Bill of Rights', which includes their precious second amendment, consists of amendments each of which were adopted as part of the Constitution thru the democratic process. It is only thru this process that we have these rights.

The Bill of Rights were adopted to codify rights which the founders believed already existed and should never be questioned.

You are both wrong. The bill of rights is a set of declaratory and restrictive clauses on the government, to prevent misconstruction or abuse of the government powers that were provided to the government through the constitution.

 

[RKMBrown]

What wingnuts forget is that the 'Bill of Rights', which includes their precious second amendment, consists of amendments each of which were adopted as part of the Constitution thru the democratic process. It is only thru this process that we have these rights.

The democratic process is a great thing. So is government. But neither is viable, or desirable, in unlimited form. I assume you agree. If, for example, the majority voted to reinstate slavery, couldn't we count on you to oppose it on constitutional grounds? Wouldn't you hope the Court would strike down such a law, regardless of whether or not it was the 'will of the people'?

Well yes. That's why we have the Supreme Court. Slavery was made permanently illegal by the 13th amendment - it cannot be reinstated short of the adoption of a new amendment that would nullify the 13th amendment. I would oppose such an amendment.

As it stands now there is no Constitutional amendment specifying that Health Care is a right, nor is there one specifying that it is not a right. Since nothing is explicitly considered a right until there is a constitutional amendment stating so, Health Care at this time is not a right.

However, the point of this discussion is not whether there is a right to health Care, but whether there should be a right to Health Care.

Wrong. Slavery was only temporarily made illegal. Then the 14th amendment made it legal again, with the 14th due process clause, this time setting forth the slave owner as any government that uses due process to declare us as their slave.

 

[dblack]

If you want a country where one's access to healthcare is directly proportionate to one's ability to pay,

much like, say, how nice a car you want to drive is limited by your ability to pay for it,

then you can have that, if you have the votes for it in our democratic, representative system of government.

At this point, you don't.

Fortunately, not everything is subject to government.

Well, you could depend on the Mother Theresa's of the world to take care of your poor people,

if you want your country to look like India or somewhere similar.

We can depend on any number of things. We don't have to resort to violence to care for one another. It even sounds ridiculous to have to say, but that is what you're advocating.

You know, you guys almost never get it right when assessing libertarian opposition to the welfare state. It's not the 'tax burden' or anger over wealth redistribution, per se that angers most of us. It's that such a power is an overwhelming temptation for avarice and ambition.

Take ACA for example. The very first thing that should have happened was beefing up the safety net for those currently getting screwed by overpriced health care. That would have been a really straight forward matter of raising taxes (yeah, pubs would have griped, but so what? - dems had the votes) and expanding Medicare for the poor. Then they should have taken a good look at what was causing health care inflation and addressed it, lowering the health care costs for everyone.

Instead, they opened the barn door to the health care lobby and turned it into a corporate welfare smorgasbord. Disgusting. But that's what happens when you give government the power to meddle in economy. You get laws written by corporations, for corporations. Democrats are supposed stand against this sort of thing. Obviously, that's bullshit - they didn't, and don't. It's just a sales pitch they use when not in power. Just like the Republicans are all about limited government, until they take the reigns.