No One Has a Right to Health Care

[beagle9]

If the US collectively want to decide to extend certain rights to US citizens then they can can't they?
Isn't that what the constitution did?

It's the "collectively want to decide" bit that contains the poison. What you mean by that, is that the majority can force the minority to bend to its will via government. And, yes, that's how government works. But it's not inherently just, and we created the Constitution to contain it - to prevent the majority from abusing minorities willy nilly.

So, you think that nothing should be enshrined as a right unless 100% of the population agrees with it.
That's a high hurdle.

Government should not be able to trod on the rights of some citizens for the benefit of others unless it's 100% agreed

. Most would agree to a common sense plan for insuring all, but even that is fought by the donor class who actually denies the people their right to due process on such matters.

 

[idb]

If the US collectively want to decide to extend certain rights to US citizens then they can can't they?
Isn't that what the constitution did?

It's the "collectively want to decide" bit that contains the poison. What you mean by that, is that the majority can force the minority to bend to its will via government. And, yes, that's how government works. But it's not inherently just, and we created the Constitution to contain it - to prevent the majority from abusing minorities willy nilly.

So, you think that nothing should be enshrined as a right unless 100% of the population agrees with it.
That's a high hurdle.

Government should not be able to trod on the rights of some citizens for the benefit of others unless it's 100% agreed

How did any of the amendments to the constitution get passed then?
Such as the second for example...I wonder if it had 100% approval?

 

[beagle9]

Heck, go take a look on sites that people are begging for help on the internet.. Some cases legit, but many may not be legit. Plenty of stories though.

 

[idb]

Any sovereign country should be able to decide the rights for its own citizens.
If they decide that healthcare is a right then yes, it's a right.
Some countries don't believe that even freedom of speech is a right.

With freedom of speech (or any freedom in this country) you don't have to tax other people to have it. With healthcare, you do.

It's not a right to vote money out of my pocket just because I may have it. That's not a right--that's theft. Theft is the act of taking a persons property against their will.

If the US collectively want to decide to extend certain rights to US citizens then they can can't they?
Isn't that what the constitution did?

There is a difference between rights and entitlements. Entitlements are not a right. Entitlements are forced charity.

A right give you the freedom to pursue something--not pay for something you want. That being said, we all have the right to healthcare in this country. If you want healthcare, buy it.

Why couldn't the US decide to make an entitlement a right?

The same reason it couldn't decide to make it a fundamental law of physics. It's a question of definition. A right is an inalienable freedom, not a perk provided by government

Why couldn't the country decide to enshrine free ice-creams for everyone on every second Sunday a right?

Enshrine? What do you mean by that? We could certainly decide to give everyone free ice cream - until it ran out. But that still wouldn't make it a right.

That seems to be the core of the problem. You seem to think a "right" is just something government promises to do.

A right might involve something the government must provide...sure.
Such as collective security for example.

 

[dblack]

What is a right Ray ? It means something you can't be denide right ?

Nope. The word right is overloaded with lots of definitions, but in the political context a right is an inalienable freedom, a byproduct of free will. And, by convention, when we say something is a "right", we usually mean that it's an inalienable right protected by government.

It really comes down to is a genuine understanding of the concept of inalienable rights, and I've found that to be all too rare - even among those who claim it as a premise. I haven't had much luck, on here at least, explaining the concept to people who didn't already get it. But I'll chase you around that bush if you're game:

The simplest way to describe an inalienable right is that it's a freedom you have if no one else is around. That's why a "right to health care" is nonsense. I suppose you might frame it as a right to take care of your health - but that's not what most people mean. What they mean isn't a freedom at all, it's an obligation on others to give you health care. It's not something you have if no one else is around.

 

[beagle9]

What is a right Ray ? It means something you can't be denide right ?

Nope. The word right is overloaded with lots of definitions, but in the political context a right is an inalienable freedom, a byproduct of free will. And, by convention, when we say something is a "right", we usually mean that it's an inalienable right protected by government.

It really comes down to is a genuine understanding of the concept of inalienable rights, and I've found that to be all too rare - even among those who claim it as a premise. I haven't had much luck, on here at least, explaining the concept to people who didn't already get it. But I'll chase you around that bush if you're game:

The simplest way to describe an inalienable right is that it's a freedom you have if no one else is around. That's why a "right to health care" is nonsense. I suppose you might frame it as a right to take care of your health - but that's not what most people mean. What they mean isn't a freedom at all, it's an obligation on others to give you health care. It's not something you have if no one else is around.

. A right is something that goes beyond inalienable these days, and it is not something where someone only has it when no one else is around. Now how do you explain a civil right then ? If you violate someone's civil right that was granted by government (i.e. to deny someone the right to go to the same rest room or to drink from the same fountain or to eat at the same resteraunt), is that a right they who have it excersizes when no one is around ? Good grief. A right when granted under certain terms, is then given a definition that is pertaining to the right in which is granted (you outta breath yet?). That's a big ole Bush isn't it ? LOL. A right if granted to ensure access to healthcare for all Americans, would have a definition given it as well. Now that would be a definition a Philadelphia lawyer would have to write. Animals have rights today (I.e. laws protecting them), in which are used in a court of law if abuse against an animal is found. If a law is created to protect something, isn't the something in which it was created for "covered" under the law, and doesn't that constitute the being, being protected as a right to not be abused or exploited by virtue of the law/right created and given to the being that it was created for?

 

[dblack]

A right is something someone has when no one else is around eh ? Well how do you explain a civil right then ? If you violate someone's civil right that was granted by government (i.e. to deny someone the right to go to the same rest room or to drink from the same fountain or to eat at the same resteraunt), is that a right they who have it excersizes when no one is around ? Good grief.

Yep. Most civil rights laws suffer from the same flawed reasoning. They have nothing to do with rights. They're just grants of privilege, and demands on others to provide the recipients with some service.

I thought you were opposed to the gay cake baker thing? Why?

A right when granted under certain terms, is then given a definition that is pertaining to the right in which is granted (you outta breath yet?). That's a big ole Bush isn't it ? LOL. A right if granted to ensure access to healthcare for all Americans, would have a definition given it as well. Now that would be a definition a Philadelphia lawyer would have to write.

What???

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Any sovereign country should be able to decide the rights for its own citizens.
If they decide that healthcare is a right then yes, it's a right.
Some countries don't believe that even freedom of speech is a right.

With freedom of speech (or any freedom in this country) you don't have to tax other people to have it. With healthcare, you do.

It's not a right to vote money out of my pocket just because I may have it. That's not a right--that's theft. Theft is the act of taking a persons property against their will.

If the US collectively want to decide to extend certain rights to US citizens then they can can't they?
Isn't that what the constitution did?

There is a difference between rights and entitlements. Entitlements are not a right. Entitlements are forced charity.

A right give you the freedom to pursue something--not pay for something you want. That being said, we all have the right to healthcare in this country. If you want healthcare, buy it.

. What is a right Ray ? It means something you can't be denide right ? So if a person's non-ability to pay the high cost of a procedure (I.e. bring in $300.00 dollars or you won't get served), then how is it a right Ray. I have seen horror where people have actually taken their family member back home, because they didn't have healthcare at the time, and didn't have the money to go it alone at the time. The friend was laid off from his job of 25 years, and his wife had never worked. His wife was the patient, and she was denide services based on their ability to pay cash at that moment. They also were denide government assistance at that time as well. Do you know how unbelievable that was to find out the woman couldn't be seen for her therapy after she had had a stroke? Disgusting is what it was, but as long as it's not seen from other folks utopias, then who cares right?

If you can afford healthcare, then you have the right to buy it. If you can't afford it or otherwise don't want to buy an insurance plan, that's your right as well.

A right is when it's not permissible for somebody to stop you from doing something. The government has to allow you the right to speak your mind. It forbids you from threatening people to do them harm. That's because there is a difference between speech and threats. Threats are an announcement that you plan on harming them in some way.

If you cannot afford health treatment, that's not somebody stopping you from getting it, it means you can't afford to get it. Big difference.

If I don't buy you a car tomorrow, that does not mean I'm taking your right away to purchase that car. It means I'm not going to pay for your car. If you want to buy the car, you have the right to buy it provided you have the money to do so.

 

[beagle9]

Any sovereign country should be able to decide the rights for its own citizens.
If they decide that healthcare is a right then yes, it's a right.
Some countries don't believe that even freedom of speech is a right.

With freedom of speech (or any freedom in this country) you don't have to tax other people to have it. With healthcare, you do.

It's not a right to vote money out of my pocket just because I may have it. That's not a right--that's theft. Theft is the act of taking a persons property against their will.

If the US collectively want to decide to extend certain rights to US citizens then they can can't they?
Isn't that what the constitution did?

There is a difference between rights and entitlements. Entitlements are not a right. Entitlements are forced charity.

A right give you the freedom to pursue something--not pay for something you want. That being said, we all have the right to healthcare in this country. If you want healthcare, buy it.

. What is a right Ray ? It means something you can't be denide right ? So if a person's non-ability to pay the high cost of a procedure (I.e. bring in $300.00 dollars or you won't get served), then how is it a right Ray. I have seen horror where people have actually taken their family member back home, because they didn't have healthcare at the time, and didn't have the money to go it alone at the time. The friend was laid off from his job of 25 years, and his wife had never worked. His wife was the patient, and she was denide services based on their ability to pay cash at that moment. They also were denide government assistance at that time as well. Do you know how unbelievable that was to find out the woman couldn't be seen for her therapy after she had had a stroke? Disgusting is what it was, but as long as it's not seen from other folks utopias, then who cares right?

If you can afford healthcare, then you have the right to buy it. If you can't afford it or otherwise don't want to buy an insurance plan, that's your right as well.

A right is when it's not permissible for somebody to stop you from doing something. The government has to allow you the right to speak your mind. It forbids you from threatening people to do them harm. That's because there is a difference between speech and threats. Threats are an announcement that you plan on harming them in some way.

If you cannot afford health treatment, that's not somebody stopping you from getting it, it means you can't afford to get it. Big difference.

If I don't buy you a car tomorrow, that does not mean I'm taking your right away to purchase that car. It means I'm not going to pay for your car. If you want to buy the car, you have the right to buy it provided you have the money to do so.

. Oh I have a right as long as it doesn't cost anything, but if someone has to match my contribution to also put a little skin in the game in order to make the nation work better for all, then hell no eh ?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Any sovereign country should be able to decide the rights for its own citizens.
If they decide that healthcare is a right then yes, it's a right.
Some countries don't believe that even freedom of speech is a right.

With freedom of speech (or any freedom in this country) you don't have to tax other people to have it. With healthcare, you do.

It's not a right to vote money out of my pocket just because I may have it. That's not a right--that's theft. Theft is the act of taking a persons property against their will.

If the US collectively want to decide to extend certain rights to US citizens then they can can't they?
Isn't that what the constitution did?

There is a difference between rights and entitlements. Entitlements are not a right. Entitlements are forced charity.

A right give you the freedom to pursue something--not pay for something you want. That being said, we all have the right to healthcare in this country. If you want healthcare, buy it.

Why couldn't the US decide to make an entitlement a right?
Why couldn't the country decide to enshrine free ice-creams for everyone on every second Sunday a right?

Because then what you are saying is that it's a right to take money from other people to give it to you. That's not a right--that's theft. It would be the same as saying I have a right to walk into my neighbors home and take his television set because I can't afford one. You are trying to make a right out of taking other peoples property.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

With freedom of speech (or any freedom in this country) you don't have to tax other people to have it. With healthcare, you do.

It's not a right to vote money out of my pocket just because I may have it. That's not a right--that's theft. Theft is the act of taking a persons property against their will.

If the US collectively want to decide to extend certain rights to US citizens then they can can't they?
Isn't that what the constitution did?

There is a difference between rights and entitlements. Entitlements are not a right. Entitlements are forced charity.

A right give you the freedom to pursue something--not pay for something you want. That being said, we all have the right to healthcare in this country. If you want healthcare, buy it.

. What is a right Ray ? It means something you can't be denide right ? So if a person's non-ability to pay the high cost of a procedure (I.e. bring in $300.00 dollars or you won't get served), then how is it a right Ray. I have seen horror where people have actually taken their family member back home, because they didn't have healthcare at the time, and didn't have the money to go it alone at the time. The friend was laid off from his job of 25 years, and his wife had never worked. His wife was the patient, and she was denide services based on their ability to pay cash at that moment. They also were denide government assistance at that time as well. Do you know how unbelievable that was to find out the woman couldn't be seen for her therapy after she had had a stroke? Disgusting is what it was, but as long as it's not seen from other folks utopias, then who cares right?

If you can afford healthcare, then you have the right to buy it. If you can't afford it or otherwise don't want to buy an insurance plan, that's your right as well.

A right is when it's not permissible for somebody to stop you from doing something. The government has to allow you the right to speak your mind. It forbids you from threatening people to do them harm. That's because there is a difference between speech and threats. Threats are an announcement that you plan on harming them in some way.

If you cannot afford health treatment, that's not somebody stopping you from getting it, it means you can't afford to get it. Big difference.

If I don't buy you a car tomorrow, that does not mean I'm taking your right away to purchase that car. It means I'm not going to pay for your car. If you want to buy the car, you have the right to buy it provided you have the money to do so.

. Oh I have a right as long as it doesn't cost anything, but if someone has to match my contribution to also put a little skin in the game in order to make the nation work better for all, then hell no eh ?

Exactly. If you force other people to put their money in for you, it's not your right, it's an entitlement. It's a forced gift of sorts.

 

[dblack]

Oh I have a right as long as it doesn't cost anything, but if someone has to match my contribution to also put a little skin in the game in order to make the nation work better for all, then hell no eh ?

Exactly. Your rights don't give you the power to bully others.

 

[beagle9]

A right is something someone has when no one else is around eh ? Well how do you explain a civil right then ? If you violate someone's civil right that was granted by government (i.e. to deny someone the right to go to the same rest room or to drink from the same fountain or to eat at the same resteraunt), is that a right they who have it excersizes when no one is around ? Good grief.

Yep. Most civil rights laws suffer from the same flawed reasoning. They have nothing to do with rights. They're just grants of privilege, and demands on others to provide the recipients with some service.

I thought you were opposed to the gay cake baker thing? Why?

A right when granted under certain terms, is then given a definition that is pertaining to the right in which is granted (you outta breath yet?). That's a big ole Bush isn't it ? LOL. A right if granted to ensure access to healthcare for all Americans, would have a definition given it as well. Now that would be a definition a Philadelphia lawyer would have to write.

What???

. Wait till I'm done editing before you jump on my post... LOL.... Yes I am against the Baker being forced in that situation, because the customers had other Baker's as an option to do what they wanted for them. It violated his right to his religious beliefs, and that was wrong.

 

[beagle9]

If the US collectively want to decide to extend certain rights to US citizens then they can can't they?
Isn't that what the constitution did?

There is a difference between rights and entitlements. Entitlements are not a right. Entitlements are forced charity.

A right give you the freedom to pursue something--not pay for something you want. That being said, we all have the right to healthcare in this country. If you want healthcare, buy it.

. What is a right Ray ? It means something you can't be denide right ? So if a person's non-ability to pay the high cost of a procedure (I.e. bring in $300.00 dollars or you won't get served), then how is it a right Ray. I have seen horror where people have actually taken their family member back home, because they didn't have healthcare at the time, and didn't have the money to go it alone at the time. The friend was laid off from his job of 25 years, and his wife had never worked. His wife was the patient, and she was denide services based on their ability to pay cash at that moment. They also were denide government assistance at that time as well. Do you know how unbelievable that was to find out the woman couldn't be seen for her therapy after she had had a stroke? Disgusting is what it was, but as long as it's not seen from other folks utopias, then who cares right?

If you can afford healthcare, then you have the right to buy it. If you can't afford it or otherwise don't want to buy an insurance plan, that's your right as well.

A right is when it's not permissible for somebody to stop you from doing something. The government has to allow you the right to speak your mind. It forbids you from threatening people to do them harm. That's because there is a difference between speech and threats. Threats are an announcement that you plan on harming them in some way.

If you cannot afford health treatment, that's not somebody stopping you from getting it, it means you can't afford to get it. Big difference.

If I don't buy you a car tomorrow, that does not mean I'm taking your right away to purchase that car. It means I'm not going to pay for your car. If you want to buy the car, you have the right to buy it provided you have the money to do so.

. Oh I have a right as long as it doesn't cost anything, but if someone has to match my contribution to also put a little skin in the game in order to make the nation work better for all, then hell no eh ?

Exactly. If you force other people to put their money in for you, it's not your right, it's an entitlement. It's a forced gift of sorts.

. Why would anyone be forced to do something good ? They if we're decent good Americans would be willing under the correct terms to join the nation to do something good. Why cry and scream like little babies about it, and especially like it is now being seen in all of this ?

 

[idb]

Any sovereign country should be able to decide the rights for its own citizens.
If they decide that healthcare is a right then yes, it's a right.
Some countries don't believe that even freedom of speech is a right.

With freedom of speech (or any freedom in this country) you don't have to tax other people to have it. With healthcare, you do.

It's not a right to vote money out of my pocket just because I may have it. That's not a right--that's theft. Theft is the act of taking a persons property against their will.

If the US collectively want to decide to extend certain rights to US citizens then they can can't they?
Isn't that what the constitution did?

There is a difference between rights and entitlements. Entitlements are not a right. Entitlements are forced charity.

A right give you the freedom to pursue something--not pay for something you want. That being said, we all have the right to healthcare in this country. If you want healthcare, buy it.

Why couldn't the US decide to make an entitlement a right?
Why couldn't the country decide to enshrine free ice-creams for everyone on every second Sunday a right?

Because then what you are saying is that it's a right to take money from other people to give it to you. That's not a right--that's theft. It would be the same as saying I have a right to walk into my neighbors home and take his television set because I can't afford one. You are trying to make a right out of taking other peoples property.

But what if the nation decided - as a nation - to grant it as a right to everyone?
And agreed to fund it from the general fund?

What I'm saying before we get further into the weeds of ridiculousness is that there's no immutable law of nature...as far as I'm aware...to say that a nation of citizens can't grant themselves any right they choose to.

If the requisite procedures were followed what would stop the US from deciding that everyone of its citizens has the right to healthcare paid for from the general fund?

 

[beagle9]

Oh I have a right as long as it doesn't cost anything, but if someone has to match my contribution to also put a little skin in the game in order to make the nation work better for all, then hell no eh ?

Exactly. Your rights don't give you the power to bully others.

How in the world did this nation ever get the progress it got over the years ? If we're dealing with the selfish greedy citizens of today, we would be still riding on wagon trails, owning 120 slaves, lying to keep it all going, denying the right for people to become educated, stopping people from being equal even if apply one self, or to get help if need it, and on and on it all goes.

 

[beagle9]

With freedom of speech (or any freedom in this country) you don't have to tax other people to have it. With healthcare, you do.

It's not a right to vote money out of my pocket just because I may have it. That's not a right--that's theft. Theft is the act of taking a persons property against their will.

If the US collectively want to decide to extend certain rights to US citizens then they can can't they?
Isn't that what the constitution did?

There is a difference between rights and entitlements. Entitlements are not a right. Entitlements are forced charity.

A right give you the freedom to pursue something--not pay for something you want. That being said, we all have the right to healthcare in this country. If you want healthcare, buy it.

Why couldn't the US decide to make an entitlement a right?
Why couldn't the country decide to enshrine free ice-creams for everyone on every second Sunday a right?

Because then what you are saying is that it's a right to take money from other people to give it to you. That's not a right--that's theft. It would be the same as saying I have a right to walk into my neighbors home and take his television set because I can't afford one. You are trying to make a right out of taking other peoples property.

But what if the nation decided - as a nation - to grant it as a right to everyone?
And agreed to fund it from the general fund?

What I'm saying before we get further into the weeds of ridiculousness is that there's no immutable law of nature...as far as I'm aware...to say that a nation of citizens can't grant themselves any right they choose to.

If the requisite procedures were followed what would stop the US from deciding that everyone of its citizens has the right to healthcare paid for from the general fund?

. Then it could tax all it's citizens from their incomes for around $5.00 dollars a week to be deducted from what ever income they would receive in the nation. Anyone who would cry over that kind of rate for a basic healthcare insurance to be offered by the government to every man woman and child in the nation as a basic right, would flat out amaze me.

 

[dblack]

How in the world did this nation ever get the progress it got over the years ? If we're dealing with the selfish greedy citizens of today, we would be still riding on wagon trails, owning 120 slaves, lying to keep it all going, denying the right for people to become educated, stopping people from being equal even if apply one self, or to get help if need it, and on and on it all goes.

We abolished slavery by rejecting the idea that any person can lay claim to the labor of another as their right. Think about it.

 

[beagle9]

How in the world did this nation ever get the progress it got over the years ? If we're dealing with the selfish greedy citizens of today, we would be still riding on wagon trails, owning 120 slaves, lying to keep it all going, denying the right for people to become educated, stopping people from being equal even if apply one self, or to get help if need it, and on and on it all goes.

We abolished slavery by rejecting the idea that any person can lay claim to the labor of another as their right. Think about it.

. Then it became a right that a man shall not be another man's property ever again. Yep there's that word "right" again... Funny how that word is just all over the place within the establishing of this nation through out time.

 

[dblack]

How in the world did this nation ever get the progress it got over the years ? If we're dealing with the selfish greedy citizens of today, we would be still riding on wagon trails, owning 120 slaves, lying to keep it all going, denying the right for people to become educated, stopping people from being equal even if apply one self, or to get help if need it, and on and on it all goes.

We abolished slavery by rejecting the idea that any person can lay claim to the labor of another as their right. Think about it.

. Then it became a right that a man shall not be another man's property ever again. Yep there's that word "right" again... Funny how that word is just all over the place within the establishing of this nation through out time.

How is it funny? It's critical in my view. That's why it's so disturbing that so many people don't understand the concept.