The liberal mythology of healthcare being a right

[dblack]

I'm saying that rich folk don't get that way without the help of others. Therefore, their wealth is not an inalienable right. You just said that health care isn't an inalienable right, because it requires the help of someone else to provide it.

Ok, sure. I certainly wouldn't call having someone help you get wealthy a right.

 

[DiamondDave]

Wow... OK... so no one helps a person get wealthy? They do it all by themselves with no help from no one? What a crock... or, maybe not... that makes the wealthys' assets subject to this question too. according to your definition, that is.

If your definition is correct, I say that the wealthy did not get that way in a vacuum.. that means their money is not their "inalienable right" either.

What???

I'm saying that rich folk don't get that way without the help of others. Therefore, their wealth is not an inalienable right. You just said that health care isn't an inalienable right, because it requires the help of someone else to provide it.

Are the employees they have, suppliers they have, etc not compensated??

What the **** is an entitlement junkie giving in compensation?? A smile? A used crack pipe??

 

[Steelplate]

I'm saying that rich folk don't get that way without the help of others. Therefore, their wealth is not an inalienable right. You just said that health care isn't an inalienable right, because it requires the help of someone else to provide it.

Ok, sure. I certainly wouldn't call having someone help you get wealthy a right.

Well, since there's not one wealthy person that DIDN'T get rich on their own..... wealth is not necessarily an inalienable right....correct?

 

[dblack]

I'm saying that rich folk don't get that way without the help of others. Therefore, their wealth is not an inalienable right. You just said that health care isn't an inalienable right, because it requires the help of someone else to provide it.

Ok, sure. I certainly wouldn't call having someone help you get wealthy a right.

Well, since there's not one wealthy person that DIDN'T get rich on their own..... wealth is not necessarily an inalienable right....correct?

Actually, this IS a really good analogy. Because, while I don't think you have a right to have someone help you get wealthy, or help you maintain your wealth, you do have a right to wealth - ie no one should be able to take it from you.

Its the same with health care. While you don't have a right to have someone help you get healthy, or help you maintain your health, you do have a right to health - ie no one should be able to take it from you.

 

[bripat9643]

My position was that men determined which rights were and were not unalienable, not God or happenstance of being born - because Men declared such plain and simply. You're babbling about why they declared them, I'm babbling about who declared them, and under what authority.

'Unalienable' is an adjective - a description of a type of right. You're trying to sell the view that rights are either unalienable, or not, based on simple decree and that's nonsense. They either fit the definition of the description or they don't.

To bring this back to the OP, health care can't be - no matter how much we want it be so - an unalienable right. An unalienable right is one that no one has to give you. Any time no one is around to give you health care, that "right" is alienated. Freedom of speech, for example, is innately unalienable. Unless someone acts to silence you, your freedom is preserved.

You're wasting your time on this idiot. He simply isn't capable of grasping the concept your trying to inculcate. His view is that rights are whatever the law says, and anything that contradicts that view is incomprehensible to him.

 

[bripat9643]

I kind of skipped from the OP to the last page, and as I would have assumed, we seem to be in a Mexican standoff regarding the definition of a "right".

To me this is quite simple, and I work for a medical insurer, so I do have a dog in this hunt besides my own need for healthcare.

Government delivered medical care will become a right when the government starts providing it, and not before.

Like other posters in this thread, you don't understand the concept of "inalienable right." You view rights as whatever the law grants you. That theory isn't being discussed here.

 

[bripat9643]

My position was that men determined which rights were and were not unalienable, not God or happenstance of being born - because Men declared such plain and simply. You're babbling about why they declared them, I'm babbling about who declared them, and under what authority.

'Unalienable' is an adjective - a description of a type of right. You're trying to sell the view that rights are either unalienable, or not, based on simple decree and that's nonsense. They either fit the definition of the description or they don't.

To bring this back to the OP, health care can't be - no matter how much we want it be so - an unalienable right. An unalienable right is one that no one has to give you. Any time no one is around to give you health care, that "right" is alienated. Freedom of speech, for example, is innately unalienable. Unless someone acts to silence you, your freedom is preserved.

I'm not interested in the OP - I jumped into a side conversation.

Unalienable is an adjective.

Adjectives aren't assigned all by themselves.

The very fact that men have the power to do so(take away rights by force - nukes, guns, tanks, etc), and that men are all that's "declared" the certain rights unalienable, means that by definition no rights are unalienable. None.

Men also "declared" the law of gravity. According to you, that means gravity is a human creation.

Men don't "declare" rights. You're born with them, just as your born with qualities like curiosity. The fact that a right is listed on a sheet of paper doesn't mean a human created it any more than Newton created the law of gravity when he wrote it on a sheet of paper.

 

[bripat9643]

Wow... OK... so no one helps a person get wealthy? They do it all by themselves with no help from no one? What a crock... or, maybe not... that makes the wealthys' assets subject to this question too. according to your definition, that is.

If your definition is correct, I say that the wealthy did not get that way in a vacuum.. that means their money is not their "inalienable right" either.

What???

I'm saying that rich folk don't get that way without the help of others. Therefore, their wealth is not an inalienable right. You just said that health care isn't an inalienable right, because it requires the help of someone else to provide it.

Are all liberals as stupid as you?

 

[bripat9643]

I'm saying that rich folk don't get that way without the help of others. Therefore, their wealth is not an inalienable right. You just said that health care isn't an inalienable right, because it requires the help of someone else to provide it.

Ok, sure. I certainly wouldn't call having someone help you get wealthy a right.

Well, since there's not one wealthy person that DIDN'T get rich on their own..... wealth is not necessarily an inalienable right....correct?

Getting wealth isn't a right, but keeping what you have recieved through voluntary exchange is a right. Government has no authority to take your property.

 

[bripat9643]

You're wasting your time on this idiot. He simply isn't capable of grasping the concept your trying to inculcate. His view is that rights are whatever the law says, and anything that contradicts that view is incomprehensible to him.

No, you're just an ass hole who is incapable of comprehending my "view."

I comprehend it just fine. It's the simplistic view of an imbecile.

 

[dblack]

You're wasting your time on this idiot. He simply isn't capable of grasping the concept your trying to inculcate. His view is that rights are whatever the law says, and anything that contradicts that view is incomprehensible to him.

No, it's a subtle issue, and loaded with bullshit rhetoric from all sides. Not many people have a clear understanding of it, and I'd say that even about those defending the view I agree with.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm saying that rich folk don't get that way without the help of others. Therefore, their wealth is not an inalienable right. You just said that health care isn't an inalienable right, because it requires the help of someone else to provide it.

Are all liberals as stupid as you?

why do you try your very best to make it as detestable as possible to engage in conversation with you? what the **** are you even here fopr, to ridicule people and act like a dickhead? seriously. is your avatar you?

I'm here to defeat liberalism. You have had a certain point of view explained to you several times now, and rather than address it you simply dismiss it.

There's no point in debating a moron like you, so instead you will recieve your well deserved ridicule.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

You're wasting your time on this idiot. He simply isn't capable of grasping the concept your trying to inculcate. His view is that rights are whatever the law says, and anything that contradicts that view is incomprehensible to him.

No, you're just an ass hole who is incapable of comprehending my "view."

I comprehend it just fine. It's the simplistic view of an imbecile.

DOH!!!!!!!!!!!!



GT's ok... he's just an entitlement minded kinda guy.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm not interested in the OP - I jumped into a side conversation.

Unalienable is an adjective.

Adjectives aren't assigned all by themselves.

The very fact that men have the power to do so(take away rights by force - nukes, guns, tanks, etc), and that men are all that's "declared" the certain rights unalienable, means that by definition no rights are unalienable. None.

Men also "declared" the law of gravity. According to you, that means gravity is a human creation.

Men don't "declare" rights. You're born with them, just as your born with qualities like curiosity. The fact that a right is listed on a sheet of paper doesn't mean a human created it any more than Newton created the law of gravity when he wrote it on a sheet of paper.

A right is not something that physically exists, it's an idea. Jesus christ. Gravity = / rights. They are not comparable.

Does evolution exist? Yet, you can't touch it, see it or smell it. The same goes for gravity, actually. Evolution operates according to certain immutable fundamental principles. Rights work in a similar fashion. They are a property of a living organism called man.

 

[bripat9643]

A right is not something that physically exists, it's an idea. Jesus christ. Gravity = / rights. They are not comparable.

Does evolution exist? Yet, you can't touch it, see it or smell it. The same goes for gravity, actually. Evolution operates according to certain immutable fundamental principles. Rights work in a similar fashion. They are a property of a living organism called man.

Another logic fail.

sheesh.

Should I explain, or will you just be a dick still in return? See, I've no interest in playing a ******* cherade of who calls the best names and ignores the conversation itself completely, like you do.

You are comparing components of Science, to an idea. That's non-comparible.

Typical liberal argument. When someone offers an analogy, you say the two things are not the same. Of course, if they were the same, it wouldn't be an analogy. It would be the exact same thing.

They are comparable. You simply don't want to let any idea that doesn't conform to your comfortable prejudices to intrude into your thoughts.

Discussing anything with you is a waste of time.