No One Has a Right to Health Care

[beagle9]

The access to quality healthcare should be every Americans right, and it should not be that certain individuals are expected to go to the back door of the ER instead of going to the front door of preventive care like everyone else does. We still have work to do in this nation, and healthcare should remain on the list until fixed.

 

[dblack]

The access to quality healthcare should be every Americans right, and it should not be that certain individuals are expected to go to the back door of the ER instead of going to the front door of preventive care like everyone else does. We still have work to do in this nation, and healthcare should remain on the list until fixed.

So, for you a right is just something that "ought to be". Is that right? That's what I keep getting out of this mindset. That a right is just some goodie that the government declares everyone should have. Does that capture 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.

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.

. Do you understand the reasoning by which a law/right is formed in order to combat bad behaviours and abuse. There was bad behaviour and abuse that was dumping thousands upon the federal governments shoulders, and then when the feds were forced to help these people, then somehow they are the bad guy's for it ? How many bad companies were working illegals, and then having the government subsidize their employee's by having the government give them government assistance as a way to make the whole proposition worth the while of the illegals and their interest and/or time? The gamers in this nation are something to behold.

 

[beagle9]

The access to quality healthcare should be every Americans right, and it should not be that certain individuals are expected to go to the back door of the ER instead of going to the front door of preventive care like everyone else does. We still have work to do in this nation, and healthcare should remain on the list until fixed.

So, for you a right is just something that "ought to be". Is that right? That's what I keep getting out of this mindset. That a right is just some goodie that the government declares everyone should have. Does that capture it?

. Nope, those are your ideas or interpretation of my words, but you either can't comprehend my words or you just try and post something like that in order to try and make others think that this is what is going on here. Not sure how to help you if your not following along or comprehending the post correctly.

 

[dblack]

Do you understand the reasoning by which a law/right is formed in order to combat bad behaviours and abuse.

"law/right" - to you they are the same thing, eh? See, that's the problem I'm trying to point out. They're not. In many (very important) ways, they are the opposite.

 

[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.

. Like I said before, do you ride down a wagon trail when you leave your home or do you ride down streets with culverts, ditches, drainage, sidewalks, lamp post etc? Do you think a street is more important than human life ?

What I think is that there are things we tax people for that benefit most if not all of society. I'm against taxing people for things that "some" may not have for whatever reason.

This is an old argument on any forum. When we talk about providing people with things, some often bring up police, fire, schools, roads, bridges and so on. With the exception of schools, these are things that benefit most or all of society so all of society pays. This is not to mention that very few if anybody would object to these entities existing in their world.

Schools don't "benefit most or all of society"?
Interesting perspective.

No, it doesn't. It benefits the child and perhaps the child's parents, but not society.

 

[RandallFlagg]

I would suggest that we all re-read the Declaration of Independence....it pretty much spells out what "rights" we have. Funny, I don't see "Healthcare" anywhere....

 

[beagle9]

Do you understand the reasoning by which a law/right is formed in order to combat bad behaviours and abuse.

"law/right" - to you they are the same thing, eh? See, that's the problem I'm trying to point out. They're not. In many (very important) ways, they are the opposite.

. Can't have a right without a law to protect that right. They go hand in hand.

 

[beagle9]

I would suggest that we all re-read the Declaration of Independence....it pretty much spells out what "rights" we have. Funny, I don't see "Healthcare" anywhere....

coming in late are we ? This has been articulated nicely here a few times, but oh well if you missed the memo. LOL

 

[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.

. Like I said before, do you ride down a wagon trail when you leave your home or do you ride down streets with culverts, ditches, drainage, sidewalks, lamp post etc? Do you think a street is more important than human life ?

What I think is that there are things we tax people for that benefit most if not all of society. I'm against taxing people for things that "some" may not have for whatever reason.

This is an old argument on any forum. When we talk about providing people with things, some often bring up police, fire, schools, roads, bridges and so on. With the exception of schools, these are things that benefit most or all of society so all of society pays. This is not to mention that very few if anybody would object to these entities existing in their world.

Schools don't "benefit most or all of society"?
Interesting perspective.

No, it doesn't. It benefits the child and perhaps the child's parents, but not society.

. Ultimately society benefits, even if it's not immediate.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Except for the fact you are pulling numbers out of the air. I don't care what you do, unless you make all medical professionals work for minimum wage, you can't get healthcare for five bucks a week. Where did you get that number anyway?

Right now working Americans pay much more for that for just Medicare. Not only is Medicare going broke, but they too can't keep up with the medical bills so they've been underpaying the providers by about 1/3 of what they charge. Medicaid has many states in the red regardless of how many billions they pay into the program, and they too are cheating providers.

Remember too that private insurance takes your premiums and invests that money so the profits offset some of the costs. Government doesn't do that. Government puts your money under a mattress somewhere where it doesn't earn a dime of interest, and they use it as needed. Unlike insurance companies that have detectives overseeing fraud, our government doesn't have anything like that which is why programs are ripped off by the billions every single year.

 

[dblack]

Do you understand the reasoning by which a law/right is formed in order to combat bad behaviours and abuse.

"law/right" - to you they are the same thing, eh? See, that's the problem I'm trying to point out. They're not. In many (very important) ways, they are the opposite.

. Can't have a right without a law to protect the right. They go hand in hand.

Well, as I've tried to point out, that's where your conception of "right" differs - radically - from mine. Again, there's not much point in arguing about it. We're just talking about different things. If you want to use the word "right" to mean, "goodies granted by government", fine. But if you're going to do that, we need a different word to refer to inalienable freedoms. Because they're not the same things.

 

[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.

. Like I said before, do you ride down a wagon trail when you leave your home or do you ride down streets with culverts, ditches, drainage, sidewalks, lamp post etc? Do you think a street is more important than human life ?

What I think is that there are things we tax people for that benefit most if not all of society. I'm against taxing people for things that "some" may not have for whatever reason.

This is an old argument on any forum. When we talk about providing people with things, some often bring up police, fire, schools, roads, bridges and so on. With the exception of schools, these are things that benefit most or all of society so all of society pays. This is not to mention that very few if anybody would object to these entities existing in their world.

Schools don't "benefit most or all of society"?
Interesting perspective.

No, it doesn't. It benefits the child and perhaps the child's parents, but not society.

Really?!!!
An educated population has no value to society?
The benefits are only personal?
You're the only person I've ever heard with that view.

 

[beagle9]

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.

Except for the fact you are pulling numbers out of the air. I don't care what you do, unless you make all medical professionals work for minimum wage, you can't get healthcare for five bucks a week. Where did you get that number anyway?

Right now working Americans pay much more for that for just Medicare. Not only is Medicare going broke, but they too can't keep up with the medical bills so they've been underpaying the providers by about 1/3 of what they charge. Medicaid has many states in the red regardless of how many billions they pay into the program, and they too are cheating providers.

Remember too that private insurance takes your premiums and invests that money so the profits offset some of the costs. Government doesn't do that. Government puts your money under a mattress somewhere where it doesn't earn a dime of interest, and they use it as needed. Unlike insurance companies that have detectives overseeing fraud, our government doesn't have anything like that which is why programs are ripped off by the billions every single year.

$5.00 dollars a week is what the deduction would be for each citizen covered.. It has nothing to do with what the private sector or market place does or charges. The $5.00 dollars taken in from 300.000.000.00 citizens, is 1.500.000.000.00 dollars a week. Now many citizens go years as healthy like me, and are in no need of the care, so it takes the pressure off of the burdon of cost that is found within the elderly or those with pre-existing conditions. A plan like this is affordable and would work.

 

[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.

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?

What general fund do you speak of? We are over 19 trillion dollars in debt and growing. Instead of discussing how we can possibly repay this debt, we are talking about spending even more and digging ourselves even deeper.

Like I said, once you involve government in our healthcare, it becomes politicized. That means it will be used as a tool for elections and reelections.

And I just want to reiterate that if people (as a huge majority) want this healthcare that you speak of, fine with me. I'm willing to go along with the majority, but we all have to pay for it.

That's why I suggested a consumption tax. We all pay for the care. It doesn't matter whether you're a millionaire, a prostitute, a drug dealer, a carpenter, everybody pays with a consumption tax, the poor, the middle-class, the well to do.

I say 20 cents on every dollar should do it. There would be no class warfare to speak of. The more you buy and the more expensive things you buy, the more you pay into the system.

That's fair.

 

[beagle9]

Do you understand the reasoning by which a law/right is formed in order to combat bad behaviours and abuse.

"law/right" - to you they are the same thing, eh? See, that's the problem I'm trying to point out. They're not. In many (very important) ways, they are the opposite.

. Can't have a right without a law to protect the right. They go hand in hand.

Well, as I've tried to point out, that's where your conception of "right" differs - radically - from mine. Again, there's not much point in arguing about it. We're just talking about different things. If you want to use the word "right" to mean, "goodies granted by government", fine. But if you're going to do that, we need a different word to refer to inalienable freedoms. Because they're not the same things.

. How is it freebies if we're paying for it ?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Except for the fact you are pulling numbers out of the air. I don't care what you do, unless you make all medical professionals work for minimum wage, you can't get healthcare for five bucks a week. Where did you get that number anyway?

Right now working Americans pay much more for that for just Medicare. Not only is Medicare going broke, but they too can't keep up with the medical bills so they've been underpaying the providers by about 1/3 of what they charge. Medicaid has many states in the red regardless of how many billions they pay into the program, and they too are cheating providers.

Remember too that private insurance takes your premiums and invests that money so the profits offset some of the costs. Government doesn't do that. Government puts your money under a mattress somewhere where it doesn't earn a dime of interest, and they use it as needed. Unlike insurance companies that have detectives overseeing fraud, our government doesn't have anything like that which is why programs are ripped off by the billions every single year.

$5.00 dollars a week is what the deduction would be for each citizen covered.. It has nothing to do with what the private sector or market place does or charges. The $5.00 dollars taken in from 300.000.000.00 citizens, is 1.500.000.000.00 dollars a week. Now many citizens go years as healthy like me, and are in no need of the care, so it takes the pressure off of the burdon of cost that is found within the elderly or those with pre-existing conditions. A plan like this is affordable and would work.

Your figures are way off. You are talking about every man, woman and child putting in this money. Well bad news, we now have over 93 million Americans of working age not working or looking for a job. Then we have to consider the disabled and the elderly. We have to consider the children. There are not that many working adults to put into your program.

 

[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?

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?

What general fund do you speak of? We are over 19 trillion dollars in debt and growing. Instead of discussing how we can possibly repay this debt, we are talking about spending even more and digging ourselves even deeper.

Like I said, once you involve government in our healthcare, it becomes politicized. That means it will be used as a tool for elections and reelections.

And I just want to reiterate that if people (as a huge majority) want this healthcare that you speak of, fine with me. I'm willing to go along with the majority, but we all have to pay for it.

That's why I suggested a consumption tax. We all pay for the care. It doesn't matter whether you're a millionaire, a prostitute, a drug dealer, a carpenter, everybody pays with a consumption tax, the poor, the middle-class, the well to do.

I say 20 cents on every dollar should do it. There would be no class warfare to speak of. The more you buy and the more expensive things you buy, the more you pay into the system.

That's fair.

I use 'general fund' as shorthand for funds derived from taxation or other levies.

 

[dblack]

Do you understand the reasoning by which a law/right is formed in order to combat bad behaviours and abuse.

"law/right" - to you they are the same thing, eh? See, that's the problem I'm trying to point out. They're not. In many (very important) ways, they are the opposite.

. Can't have a right without a law to protect the right. They go hand in hand.

Well, as I've tried to point out, that's where your conception of "right" differs - radically - from mine. Again, there's not much point in arguing about it. We're just talking about different things. If you want to use the word "right" to mean, "goodies granted by government", fine. But if you're going to do that, we need a different word to refer to inalienable freedoms. Because they're not the same things.

Actually - I take that back. It's not OK for you to simply co-opt a word and redefine it. That's Orwellian corruption and it's bullshit. The reason the statists want to redefine "rights" is because it is generally accepted that the government is responsible for protecting our rights. But they want government to serve their desire to bully others, so they try to trojan it in by changing the definition of rights to include bullying others. ****.That.Shit.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

What general fund do you speak of? We are over 19 trillion dollars in debt and growing. Instead of discussing how we can possibly repay this debt, we are talking about spending even more and digging ourselves even deeper.

Like I said, once you involve government in our healthcare, it becomes politicized. That means it will be used as a tool for elections and reelections.

And I just want to reiterate that if people (as a huge majority) want this healthcare that you speak of, fine with me. I'm willing to go along with the majority, but we all have to pay for it.

That's why I suggested a consumption tax. We all pay for the care. It doesn't matter whether you're a millionaire, a prostitute, a drug dealer, a carpenter, everybody pays with a consumption tax, the poor, the middle-class, the well to do.

I say 20 cents on every dollar should do it. There would be no class warfare to speak of. The more you buy and the more expensive things you buy, the more you pay into the system.

That's fair.

I use 'general fund' as shorthand for funds derived from taxation or other levies.

Then you are talking about the federal budge which Congress makes out. They don't have enough money now to pay for the things we already have. Where are they going to come up with more?

You do realize that a deficit is the difference between the money coming in and the money going out, don't you? Well we have a deficit and have for a long time. We are spending much more than we take in.

We are broke. What does broke mean? Broke means no money. Broke means in debt. Broke means failure. I can't understand how people could support even more failure.