No One Has a Right to Health Care

[Clementine]

A liberal's tweets, 4 years apart. Some love the idea of freebies and will support anyone who promises them something, but they are shocked and angry when they are expected to pay for anything. This woman thought Obamacare was great till she saw what it would cost her. Oops, it wasn't free or cheap. And she isn't willing to "pay her fair share" to help cover the people that do get it free. Isn't that what the left calls greedy?

 

[Clementine]

Correct. There is a problem, and that problem is people having children they can't provide for. However, that should not make their problem my problem. Child birth is a choice--not an infliction. Nobody has children that didn't perform the act.

If you want to solve a problem, you don't go to the end game, you go right to where the problem started in the first place.

This is why I believe that if you apply for any public assistance, you don't get one dime until you are fixed first. This would be at the expense of the taxpayers, but it's a well worth investment.

If you are a female, then you don't get any assistance until you get your tubes tied. If you are a male, you have to get a vasectomy before you get one dime of my money.

In most cases, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. By allowing poor people going on government assistance to not only have children, but as many children as they desire, it's impossible to reduce or put an end to poverty.

This is the mindset of too many-



I also saw a video posted on Facebook of a tax payer who went off on some welfare recipients. He saw them buying a bunch of groceries with an EBT card, then pay cash for some lotto tickets. The couple walked out to a nice vehicle and the pregnant women was smoking (another expense habit). Anyway, the guy was out of line because you shouldn't approach people the way he did but he had a point. He yelled at the couple, then took some steak out of their cart and said that steak is only for tax payers. I'm sure the guy got in trouble, but he sure let them have it. Thing is, instead of yelling at people in parking lots and risking a fight, he should be writing to congress and maybe starting a petition to change things. The recipients of tax money think they are entitled and will never be convinced that they are wrong to take our money and waste it on cigarettes and beer. And they won't stop having kids because that means more cash.

These people love it when they hear politicians talking about how they are entitled to even more. They want free everything. Housing, food, school, utilities, phones, college and healthcare. They do not expect to actually have to pay for any of that.

Here's another loser who gets money for rent, on top of other stipends, and yet doesn't think he should actually waste the money on rent. When you're talking about the "rights" people think they have, this is the mentality you are dealing with. You cannot reason with these people or get them to understand that they are not entitled or deserving just because they exist.

 

[francoHFW]

After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!! And you complain about the victims? Are you an idiot or an A-hole?

 

[francoHFW]

A liberal's tweets, 4 years apart. Some love the idea of freebies and will support anyone who promises them something, but they are shocked and angry when they are expected to pay for anything. This woman thought Obamacare was great till she saw what it would cost her. Oops, it wasn't free or cheap. And she isn't willing to "pay her fair share" to help cover the people that do get it free. Isn't that what the left calls greedy?

You always have paid for those who get care for free, just in the stupidest, cruelest Pub way, brainwashed functional MORONS.

 

[francoHFW]

So if some Americans have a right to health care and some do not, who should decide and on what basis?

As an American you have a right to life, liberty, property and to pursue happiness.

Under the old Constitution (1787-1935) Taxpayers and producers had no responsibility to provide them to you. You were responsible for procuring the same.

But the Constitution now in effect, FDR's Socialist Manifesto , the government can compel the citizens to do what the government believes is right. No right to judicial review.


.

. How can anyone here or there, stake a claim upon or actually have a right to life, if the person or person's put off available healthcare because at that moment in time (let's say that the person might be in a transitional period of somekind in life), and therefore they may actually put off the very thing that would guarantee his or her life if were avoided, and they did so all because of a lack of healthcare or a lack of money ? How does one have a right to life, but are stereotyped or profiled as some sort of trash or scum because you might have to go around to the ER back door, instead of walking into the front door with an appointment ?

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here, but this seems to be the same mismatch in definitions running through the entire thread. From what I'm reading, those of your supporting a "right" to healthcare, simply have a different idea of what it means for something to be a right. When you say that someone has a right to X, you're saying that someone else (usually government) is obligated to ensure they are empowered to get, or do, X. Does that sound correct to you? Am I missing something?

EVERYONE deserves proper medical care. EVERYONE deserves not to die because the homeless shelter is full. EVERY CHILD deserves an education. When 1/5th of children are not receiving proper healthcare, home heating, education, housing, proper winter clothing, enough to eat, then there is a problem.

Correct. There is a problem, and that problem is people having children they can't provide for. However, that should not make their problem my problem. Child birth is a choice--not an infliction. Nobody has children that didn't perform the act.

If you want to solve a problem, you don't go to the end game, you go right to where the problem started in the first place.

This is why I believe that if you apply for any public assistance, you don't get one dime until you are fixed first. This would be at the expense of the taxpayers, but it's a well worth investment.

If you are a female, then you don't get any assistance until you get your tubes tied. If you are a male, you have to get a vasectomy before you get one dime of my money.

In most cases, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. By allowing poor people going on government assistance to not only have children, but as many children as they desire, it's impossible to reduce or put an end to poverty.

Seriously?
After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!! And you complain about the victims? Are you an idiot or an A-hole?

 

[beagle9]

We're the only industrialized nation in the world which doesn't provide total health care for all it's citizens. We're also the only one with a thousand insurance companies.

We now have flights to Cuba, Venezuela , Somalia , any paradise you wish

..
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out

Esther La Vista, Dude

So if some Americans have a right to health care and some do not, who should decide and on what basis?

As an American you have a right to life, liberty, property and to pursue happiness.

Under the old Constitution (1787-1935) Taxpayers and producers had no responsibility to provide them to you. You were responsible for procuring the same.

But the Constitution now in effect, FDR's Socialist Manifesto , the government can compel the citizens to do what the government believes is right. No right to judicial review.


.

. How can anyone here or there, stake a claim upon or actually have a right to life, if the person or person's put off available healthcare because at that moment in time (let's say that the person might be in a transitional period of somekind in life), where as they may actually put off the very thing that would guarantee his or her life if it weren't avoided, and they did so all because of a lack of healthcare or a lack of money ? How does one have a right to life, but are stereotyped or profiled as some sort of trash or scum all because one might have to go around to the ER back door, instead of walking into the front door with an appointment ? What is the quality of healthcare in the waiting lines of the ER ? I know of people dying right there in the ER, because the ER didn't know the person or their condition when walk in... How did they have a right to life in such a situation ?

If healthcare is that important to you you must make sure that you eat healthy and exercise. You must stay gainfully employed so that you can afford the healthcare premiums.

You must not let government regulate or interfere with healthcare delivery so that it won't become prohibitively expensive.

But FDR's Socialist Manifesto Rules, Americans have been bamboozled to believe that the government must steal from taxpayers and producers to provide the service.

Welfare State = Government buy the people

In my proposal the government isn't stealing from anyone, but rather it is just giving us our taxpayers money's worth by handling our account instead of the private sector who has extreme profit motive in it's interest, and offers plans that are not worth the money we are forced to give them because the market place is rigged and unfair. We need more and better options, but where not getting them.

 

[beagle9]

A liberal's tweets, 4 years apart. Some love the idea of freebies and will support anyone who promises them something, but they are shocked and angry when they are expected to pay for anything. This woman thought Obamacare was great till she saw what it would cost her. Oops, it wasn't free or cheap. And she isn't willing to "pay her fair share" to help cover the people that do get it free. Isn't that what the left calls greedy?

. Couldn't be that the product she was offered for the money, uh wasn't no good maybe or could it have been ? Have you seen the plans and their cost ? The private sector was no better... If we're not careful, we won't be able to afford anything, and this no matter who is offering us a plan.

 

[kaz]

It's those damn veterans lazing about in hospitals that started this welfare thing. Then to add insult, Washington, that's George, wanted to give some of the officers pensions. Add to that some of the states began taking care of their indigent even to taking care some of the younger kids that couldn't work. Of course, the kids that could work were rented out to employers during the day. A nation that begins like that is on its way to welfare heaven.

LOL, once again a liberal doesn't understand the difference between getting benefits for work (military) and getting handouts when you don't work. Classic. Your ignorance knows no bounds

 

[kaz]

We now have flights to Cuba, Venezuela , Somalia , any paradise you wish

..
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out

Esther La Vista, Dude

So if some Americans have a right to health care and some do not, who should decide and on what basis?

As an American you have a right to life, liberty, property and to pursue happiness.

Under the old Constitution (1787-1935) Taxpayers and producers had no responsibility to provide them to you. You were responsible for procuring the same.

But the Constitution now in effect, FDR's Socialist Manifesto , the government can compel the citizens to do what the government believes is right. No right to judicial review.


.

. How can anyone here or there, stake a claim upon or actually have a right to life, if the person or person's put off available healthcare because at that moment in time (let's say that the person might be in a transitional period of somekind in life), where as they may actually put off the very thing that would guarantee his or her life if it weren't avoided, and they did so all because of a lack of healthcare or a lack of money ? How does one have a right to life, but are stereotyped or profiled as some sort of trash or scum all because one might have to go around to the ER back door, instead of walking into the front door with an appointment ? What is the quality of healthcare in the waiting lines of the ER ? I know of people dying right there in the ER, because the ER didn't know the person or their condition when walk in... How did they have a right to life in such a situation ?

If healthcare is that important to you you must make sure that you eat healthy and exercise. You must stay gainfully employed so that you can afford the healthcare premiums.

You must not let government regulate or interfere with healthcare delivery so that it won't become prohibitively expensive.

But FDR's Socialist Manifesto Rules, Americans have been bamboozled to believe that the government must steal from taxpayers and producers to provide the service.

Welfare State = Government buy the people

In my proposal the government isn't stealing from anyone, but rather it is just giving us our taxpayers money's worth by handling our account instead of the private sector who has extreme profit motive in it's interest, and offers plans that are not worth the money we are forced to give them because the market place is rigged and unfair. We need more and better options, but where not getting them.

And the word "marxist" bothers you why again exactly, Karl?

 

[kaz]

A liberal's tweets, 4 years apart. Some love the idea of freebies and will support anyone who promises them something, but they are shocked and angry when they are expected to pay for anything. This woman thought Obamacare was great till she saw what it would cost her. Oops, it wasn't free or cheap. And she isn't willing to "pay her fair share" to help cover the people that do get it free. Isn't that what the left calls greedy?

. Couldn't be that the product she was offered for the money, uh wasn't no good maybe or could it have been ? Have you seen the plans and their cost ? The private sector was no better... If we're not careful, we won't be able to afford anything, and this no matter who is offering us a plan.

Companies raise prices so that customers can't afford to buy their products. Got it. Any more tips? Wait a second though, I need to get a pen and write that down. OK, got one. Shoot...

 

[beagle9]

Correct. There is a problem, and that problem is people having children they can't provide for. However, that should not make their problem my problem. Child birth is a choice--not an infliction. Nobody has children that didn't perform the act.

If you want to solve a problem, you don't go to the end game, you go right to where the problem started in the first place.

This is why I believe that if you apply for any public assistance, you don't get one dime until you are fixed first. This would be at the expense of the taxpayers, but it's a well worth investment.

If you are a female, then you don't get any assistance until you get your tubes tied. If you are a male, you have to get a vasectomy before you get one dime of my money.

In most cases, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. By allowing poor people going on government assistance to not only have children, but as many children as they desire, it's impossible to reduce or put an end to poverty.

This is the mindset of too many-



I also saw a video posted on Facebook of a tax payer who went off on some welfare recipients. He saw them buying a bunch of groceries with an EBT card, then pay cash for some lotto tickets. The couple walked out to a nice vehicle and the pregnant women was smoking (another expense habit). Anyway, the guy was out of line because you shouldn't approach people the way he did but he had a point. He yelled at the couple, then took some steak out of their cart and said that steak is only for tax payers. I'm sure the guy got in trouble, but he sure let them have it. Thing is, instead of yelling at people in parking lots and risking a fight, he should be writing to congress and maybe starting a petition to change things. The recipients of tax money think they are entitled and will never be convinced that they are wrong to take our money and waste it on cigarettes and beer. And they won't stop having kids because that means more cash.

These people love it when they hear politicians talking about how they are entitled to even more. They want free everything. Housing, food, school, utilities, phones, college and healthcare. They do not expect to actually have to pay for any of that.

Here's another loser who gets money for rent, on top of other stipends, and yet doesn't think he should actually waste the money on rent. When you're talking about the "rights" people think they have, this is the mentality you are dealing with. You cannot reason with these people or get them to understand that they are not entitled or deserving just because they exist.

. Judge Judy ? Really.... In fact how do we know if this isn't Hollywood making stuff up, and using all sorts of created scenarios that stereo type many, when only a few are a problem found within the millions of productive society who are out there ?

 

[beagle9]

So if some Americans have a right to health care and some do not, who should decide and on what basis?

As an American you have a right to life, liberty, property and to pursue happiness.

Under the old Constitution (1787-1935) Taxpayers and producers had no responsibility to provide them to you. You were responsible for procuring the same.

But the Constitution now in effect, FDR's Socialist Manifesto , the government can compel the citizens to do what the government believes is right. No right to judicial review.


.

. How can anyone here or there, stake a claim upon or actually have a right to life, if the person or person's put off available healthcare because at that moment in time (let's say that the person might be in a transitional period of somekind in life), where as they may actually put off the very thing that would guarantee his or her life if it weren't avoided, and they did so all because of a lack of healthcare or a lack of money ? How does one have a right to life, but are stereotyped or profiled as some sort of trash or scum all because one might have to go around to the ER back door, instead of walking into the front door with an appointment ? What is the quality of healthcare in the waiting lines of the ER ? I know of people dying right there in the ER, because the ER didn't know the person or their condition when walk in... How did they have a right to life in such a situation ?

If healthcare is that important to you you must make sure that you eat healthy and exercise. You must stay gainfully employed so that you can afford the healthcare premiums.

You must not let government regulate or interfere with healthcare delivery so that it won't become prohibitively expensive.

But FDR's Socialist Manifesto Rules, Americans have been bamboozled to believe that the government must steal from taxpayers and producers to provide the service.

Welfare State = Government buy the people

In my proposal the government isn't stealing from anyone, but rather it is just giving us our taxpayers money's worth by handling our account instead of the private sector who has extreme profit motive in it's interest, and offers plans that are not worth the money we are forced to give them because the market place is rigged and unfair. We need more and better options, but where not getting them.

And the word "marxist" bothers you why again exactly, Karl?

. Call me anything you want, but why don't you contend with the ideas listed by showing the flaws in them or why I'm wrong about things ?

 

[kaz]

As an American you have a right to life, liberty, property and to pursue happiness.

Under the old Constitution (1787-1935) Taxpayers and producers had no responsibility to provide them to you. You were responsible for procuring the same.

But the Constitution now in effect, FDR's Socialist Manifesto , the government can compel the citizens to do what the government believes is right. No right to judicial review.


.

. How can anyone here or there, stake a claim upon or actually have a right to life, if the person or person's put off available healthcare because at that moment in time (let's say that the person might be in a transitional period of somekind in life), where as they may actually put off the very thing that would guarantee his or her life if it weren't avoided, and they did so all because of a lack of healthcare or a lack of money ? How does one have a right to life, but are stereotyped or profiled as some sort of trash or scum all because one might have to go around to the ER back door, instead of walking into the front door with an appointment ? What is the quality of healthcare in the waiting lines of the ER ? I know of people dying right there in the ER, because the ER didn't know the person or their condition when walk in... How did they have a right to life in such a situation ?

If healthcare is that important to you you must make sure that you eat healthy and exercise. You must stay gainfully employed so that you can afford the healthcare premiums.

You must not let government regulate or interfere with healthcare delivery so that it won't become prohibitively expensive.

But FDR's Socialist Manifesto Rules, Americans have been bamboozled to believe that the government must steal from taxpayers and producers to provide the service.

Welfare State = Government buy the people

In my proposal the government isn't stealing from anyone, but rather it is just giving us our taxpayers money's worth by handling our account instead of the private sector who has extreme profit motive in it's interest, and offers plans that are not worth the money we are forced to give them because the market place is rigged and unfair. We need more and better options, but where not getting them.

And the word "marxist" bothers you why again exactly, Karl?

. Call me anything you won't, but why don't you contend with the ideas listed by showing the flaws in them or why I'm wrong about things ?

The irony that you don't like Republicans owning your body, then you want government ... to own your body. Government decides what and how much healthcare you get. Wow, nuts

 

[Claudette]

Near as I can tell....it's still not a right.

Not for the poor in red states, but for people with pre-existing, and everyone else, YUP. It's not ACA's fault that it will take time for competition and regulation to bring down costs of the old, corrupt GOP "system".

Oh, Commie Care is the Republicans fault again, huh?

Well......at least you didn't say it was Reagan's fault which is what you usually say.

"The best part about being a Democrat is never having to say you were wrong."
Ray from Cleveland

Overwhelming % of problems with ACA are in red states and areas, dupe. Your problems and the ones in the article are from avoiding it due to to believing Pub propaganda.

The ACA is a small player right now.

That is what the GOP does not get.

It will settle in and become larger.

A larger mess.

I agree. Anything the Govt. sticks its big fat nose in becomes red tape, rules, regulations, long waits. In short a ******* mess that people have to wade through.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A liberal's tweets, 4 years apart. Some love the idea of freebies and will support anyone who promises them something, but they are shocked and angry when they are expected to pay for anything. This woman thought Obamacare was great till she saw what it would cost her. Oops, it wasn't free or cheap. And she isn't willing to "pay her fair share" to help cover the people that do get it free. Isn't that what the left calls greedy?

. Couldn't be that the product she was offered for the money, uh wasn't no good maybe or could it have been ? Have you seen the plans and their cost ? The private sector was no better... If we're not careful, we won't be able to afford anything, and this no matter who is offering us a plan.

The problem is that now employers have an out and some are taking it. Then those Commie Care plans are not affordable or barely affordable. Who wants to go through life working just to keep a roof over your head, food on the table, and have a healthcare plan even if it's a crap plan (which most of Commie Care plants are.)?

Remember for anything decent, it's around the cost of an apartment, a mortgage, a car payment on a very expensive car. This isn't a solution, it's a disaster.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Correct. There is a problem, and that problem is people having children they can't provide for. However, that should not make their problem my problem. Child birth is a choice--not an infliction. Nobody has children that didn't perform the act.

If you want to solve a problem, you don't go to the end game, you go right to where the problem started in the first place.

This is why I believe that if you apply for any public assistance, you don't get one dime until you are fixed first. This would be at the expense of the taxpayers, but it's a well worth investment.

If you are a female, then you don't get any assistance until you get your tubes tied. If you are a male, you have to get a vasectomy before you get one dime of my money.

In most cases, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. By allowing poor people going on government assistance to not only have children, but as many children as they desire, it's impossible to reduce or put an end to poverty.

This is the mindset of too many-



I also saw a video posted on Facebook of a tax payer who went off on some welfare recipients. He saw them buying a bunch of groceries with an EBT card, then pay cash for some lotto tickets. The couple walked out to a nice vehicle and the pregnant women was smoking (another expense habit). Anyway, the guy was out of line because you shouldn't approach people the way he did but he had a point. He yelled at the couple, then took some steak out of their cart and said that steak is only for tax payers. I'm sure the guy got in trouble, but he sure let them have it. Thing is, instead of yelling at people in parking lots and risking a fight, he should be writing to congress and maybe starting a petition to change things. The recipients of tax money think they are entitled and will never be convinced that they are wrong to take our money and waste it on cigarettes and beer. And they won't stop having kids because that means more cash.

These people love it when they hear politicians talking about how they are entitled to even more. They want free everything. Housing, food, school, utilities, phones, college and healthcare. They do not expect to actually have to pay for any of that.

Here's another loser who gets money for rent, on top of other stipends, and yet doesn't think he should actually waste the money on rent. When you're talking about the "rights" people think they have, this is the mentality you are dealing with. You cannot reason with these people or get them to understand that they are not entitled or deserving just because they exist.

The story you just posted is something I've experienced many times at my grocery store. The thing is, if you look at them while they're doing it, they just turn towards you and smile.

I evicted a couple from one of my apartments a few years ago. She was on food stamps; $250.00 a month. But they had a large dog, three cats, internet and cable service not to mention their Obama phone.

While we're paying for their food, they are paying for pet food. Then they wonder why we are so heartless.

In Maine, they started their own program to get food stamps. If you are childless and physically capable of holding down a job, you must meet their requirements which is have a part-time job, or do volunteer work for 24 hours a month, or be enrolled in a vocational program to prepare yourself for work. Guess what? Most of their recipients dropped out of the food stamp program. Seems they weren't that hunger after all---at least not hungry enough to do something to stay on the program.

 

[Campbell]

145 IQ, Masters in History. You, masters in RW propaganda.

Your Masters are in food stamp scamming and getting HUD homes. Who are you trying to kid????

Yours is constantly cutting tax rates for the rich, continuing to spend trillions on the military even though we're already more powerful than the next eight most powerful combined and the last time anyone actually surrendered to us was in August, 1945. The national debt belongs to Republicans......they are the ones who cut tax rates, continued to increase spending and borrowed the shortfall from foreign banks.

Then maybe you should look at a federal deficit chart and see when the deficit decreased; it was after the Republicans took leadership of Congress. And remember since that time, it's the Republicans who fought against DumBama and all his spending sprees.

And while you're at it, see what the Republicans did last time they had a major tax change. That's right, they increased taxes on the rich.

You either can't read or you're stupid. I select the latter. Look closely and let this sink in a bit. It's amazing what ending a war or two will do for spending:

 

[Uncensored2008]

In my proposal the government isn't stealing from anyone, but rather it is just giving us our taxpayers money's worth by handling our account instead of the private sector who has extreme profit motive in it's interest, and offers plans that are not worth the money we are forced to give them because the market place is rigged and unfair. We need more and better options, but where not getting them.

That's because you personally think you will get some of the booty.

You seek to have government take from others and give to you. Your motive is personal profit.

The difference between you and Capitalists is that Capitalists offer value in return for what they want. You use government of offer a bullet or prison if we don't give you what you want.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Call me anything you want, but why don't you contend with the ideas listed by showing the flaws in them or why I'm wrong about things ?

I've done that many times in this thread, Comrade.

 

[Rustic]

145 IQ, Masters in History. You, masters in RW propaganda.

Your Masters are in food stamp scamming and getting HUD homes. Who are you trying to kid????

Yours is constantly cutting tax rates for the rich, continuing to spend trillions on the military even though we're already more powerful than the next eight most powerful combined and the last time anyone actually surrendered to us was in August, 1945. The national debt belongs to Republicans......they are the ones who cut tax rates, continued to increase spending and borrowed the shortfall from foreign banks.

Then maybe you should look at a federal deficit chart and see when the deficit decreased; it was after the Republicans took leadership of Congress. And remember since that time, it's the Republicans who fought against DumBama and all his spending sprees.

And while you're at it, see what the Republicans did last time they had a major tax change. That's right, they increased taxes on the rich.

You either can't read or you're stupid. I select the latter. Look closely and let this sink in a bit. It's amazing what ending a war or two will do for spending:

Nothing like a government performed enema, obamacare. Huh?