Why We Don't Have Universal Health Care.

[PeterPilot]

Greatly reduced costs through legislation and laws.

For example, if a cure for breast cancer was found, should a woman be afforded that cure free of charge?

I basically agree with your larger point, but would like to expand it. If those who wrote the Constitution accommodated postal service as a legitimate and necessary role and duty of government, why not healthcare? Do the rights of man under a democratic republic also include healthcare?

As a tax payer, I would much rather my tax dollars go to universal healthcare than perpetual illegitimate wars.

 

[dblack]

Yes, I understand that a libertarian doesn't like big gov't and libertarians are all about individual freedoms and rights, but also the free market. But I believe we can also agree that a free market CAN take advantage of the people.

I only propose that as a society, life, liberty, and happiness are core principles, then those areas, like healthcare and medicine that sustain those principles, could become a right.

What does it mean to say that a service, provided by others, is a "right"?

I too agree, that I don't like the gov't becoming involved. So how do we do it? How do we convince big pharma and hospitals to be charitable?

We don't. Any more than we "convince" grocers to be charitable, or car mechanics, or teachers or any other business.

How do we incentivise R&D and medical services to continue to create medical breakthroughs,

We don't. Government isn't there to "incentivise" us. We don't need the meddling bullshit.

while giving the public the right to those medicines and services that help sustain life and liberty?

You really don't seem to understand the concept of rights. Or you just absorbed so much leftist nonsense that you think its something else altogether.

I'm asking how can we do it? To say we can't because it's against a political or economic system that you might believe in isn't a good enough answer IMO.

"We" can do whatever we want. But you can only use the government to force your will on others in very specific circumstances. Government isn't just a tool to get what you want.

At any given time, most middle to upper class Americans can be financially ruined with a medical diagnosis. And to sit back and go, that's your lot in life, sorry about your luck, and maybe ask your local charity, church to help, isn't the ONLY answer we should be giving people.

Agreed. But it's the only answer government should be giving people.

Seriously, I don't know what makes you think you're a "libertarian", but you really don't seem to get it.

 

[dblack]

I basically agree with your larger point, but would like to expand it. If those who wrote the Constitution accommodated postal service as a legitimate and necessary role and duty of government, why not healthcare?

Why not all the rest of our wants and needs?

Do the rights of man under a democratic republic also include healthcare?

No. But I suppose you'd have to define it. I struggle to imagine what a "right to healthcare" is supposed to mean. How much health care? If you don't get enough healthcare, who is violating your rights? The doctors? The hospital? The government?

As a tax payer, I would much rather my tax dollars go to universal healthcare than perpetual illegitimate wars.

And neither would be better yet.

 

[PeterPilot]

Why not all the rest of our wants and needs?

No. But I suppose you'd have to define it. I struggle to imagine what a "right to healthcare" is supposed to mean. How much health care? If you don't get enough healthcare, who is violating your rights? The doctors? The hospital? The government?

And neither would be better yet.

I would say that good health is primary in human wants and needs.

I say again: as a taxpayer and citizen, I would much rather have my tax dollars spent on universal healthcare than on obscene and illegitimate military aggression around the globe. How about you? Do you answer questions too, or just ask questions?

For example, have you ever read the US Constitution? Not trying to change the subject, but have you read the Ninth Amendment? It's only one sentence...

 

[dblack]

I would say that good health is primary in human wants and needs.

So what? Do you think that makes it a "right"? Do you think all our wants and needs are "rights"? And again, what does it mean for a service to be a right? Does it mean others must provide it for you?

I say again: as a taxpayer and citizen, I would much rather have my tax dollars spent on universal healthcare than on obscene and illegitimate military aggression around the globe. How about you?

I'd rather my tax dollars stayed in my pocket, then I can spend them on whatever I want.

Do you answer questions too, or just ask questions?

Both.

For example, have you ever read the US Constitution?

Yes. Is there some particular section you think I missed

Not trying to change the subject, but have you read the Ninth Amendment? It's only one sentence...

It's my favorite amendment. What's your point?

 

[PeterPilot]

So what? Do you think that makes it a "right"? Do you think all our wants and needs are "rights"? And again, what does it mean for a service to be a right? Does it mean others must provide it for you?

I'd rather my tax dollars stayed in my pocket, then I can spend them on whatever I want.

Both.

Yes. Is there some particular section you think I missed

It's my favorite amendment. What's your point?

If it is your favorite amendment, you should not have to ask what my point is. It makes me suspect you have not read it, or do not understand what it means. Neither is a good sign.

 

[dblack]

If it is your favorite amendment, you should not have to ask what my point is. It makes me suspect you have not read it, or do not understand what it means. Neither is a good sign.

You can suspect whatever you want. You still haven't explained what a "right" to a service is supposed to mean. The rights protected under the Constitution, referenced in the Ninth, are liberties. They're not claims on the service of others. Depending on how you're defining it, a "right" to healthcare doesn't sound like a liberty. It's better described as the power to force others to provide you with healthcare.

 

[LibertyKid]

What does it mean to say that a service, provided by others, is a "right"?

We don't. Any more than we "convince" grocers to be charitable, or car mechanics, or teachers or any other business.

We don't. Government isn't there to "incentivise" us. We don't need the meddling bullshit.

You really don't seem to understand the concept of rights. Or you just absorbed so much leftist nonsense that you think its something else altogether.

"We" can do whatever we want. But you can only use the government to force your will on others in very specific circumstances. Government isn't just a tool to get what you want.

Agreed. But it's the only answer government should be giving people.

Seriously, I don't know what makes you think you're a "libertarian", but you really don't seem to get it.

First, I think you're making a bigger deal in trying to prove I'm not a libertarian, that's not the point. I relate and agree on many points of libertarianism, but not everything.

Second, I'm trying to make the point that as a society, we can agree that certain aspects of our rights can change and or evolve at some point with healthcare being one of them.

I think we could all agree that finding a cure for any type of cancer is not just a remarkable breakthrough, but that the treatment of it should be afforded to all that need it because of the our desire for life, liberty, and happiness. I think such breakthroughs in medicine and attainment for all individuals can be obtained by separating our healthcare from being a profit center to becoming a betterment of society center, and can be done through minimal gov't intervention if we see healthcare as a moral right verses one's capacity to afford it and take profits out it.

This is a very complicated topic and many nuances around it. For example, if one drinks themselves to the point of needing a liver, is that done out of charity? I don't know. Or the person who is next on "My 600 pound life", are their procedures cost free if self inflicted. I don't know.

But there are some medical advancements, like a cure for cancer, that could be made available because it is the morally right thing to for the people.

 

[PeterPilot]

You can suspect whatever you want. You still haven't explained what a "right" to a service is supposed to mean. The rights protected under the Constitution, referenced in the Ninth, are liberties. They're not claims on the service of others. Depending on how you're defining it, a "right" to healthcare doesn't sound like a liberty. It's better described as the power to force others to provide you with healthcare.

James Madison and those who wrote the document were much better with the English language than you seem to be. They used the word liberty many times in many documents, and while Roget shows that the 2 words might be considered synonyms, there are many other words to denote either. In the case of the Ninth they used the word right, and they used the next amendment, the Tenth, they used the word power. Thus they distinguished between the rights of the people, and the enumerated powers granted the government by the people. Are you able to distinguish between the two? Many books have been written about the rights of the people and the powers of the government created by the people. Some say that we the people surrendered several of our rights in granting powers to the government. Liberty grants power, NOT power grants liberty.

Are you with me so far?

 

[dblack]

First, I think you're making a bigger deal in trying to prove I'm not a libertarian, that's not the point.

Fair enough. I'll shut up about that. It's just odd to see a self-described "libertarian" promoting socialist ideas.

Second, I'm trying to make the point that as a society, we can agree that certain aspects of our rights can change and or evolve at some point with healthcare being one of them.

Ok, but please define it? My understanding of rights is that they are freedoms government isn't allowed to violate. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, etc ... It means government can't pass laws limiting your freedom without a damn good reason.

What you're describing is a claim, an obligation on others to provide you with healthcare.

I think we could all agree that finding a cure for any type of cancer is not just a remarkable breakthrough, but that the treatment of it should be afforded to all that need it because of the our desire for life, liberty, and happiness.

No. I don't think I could agree to that. That argument can be used to justify government taking over pretty much everything.

This is a very complicated topic and many nuances around it. For example, if one drinks themselves to the point of needing a liver, is that done out of charity? I don't know. Or the person who is next on "My 600 pound life", are their procedures cost free if self inflicted. I don't know.

That's exactly the problem. If you make government responsible for health care, these questions will be answered by politicians, and every election will be a referendum on whether grandma lives or dies.

But there are some medical advancements, like a cure for cancer, that could be made available because it is the morally right thing to for the people.

Why? Should we adopt this same perspective for all our needs? Or just for a cure for cancer?

 

[dblack]

James Madison and those who wrote the document were much better with the English language than you seem to be. They used the word liberty many times in many documents, and while Roget shows that the 2 words might be considered synonyms, there are many other words to denote either. In the case of the Ninth they used the word right, and they used the next amendment, the Tenth, they used the word power.

Yeah. They used different words because they were talking about different things.

Thus they distinguished between the rights of the people, and the enumerated powers granted the government by the people. Are you able to distinguish between the two?

Are you? It's not clear you are.

Many books have been written about the rights of the people and the powers of the government created by the people.

Yep.

Some say that we the people surrendered several of our rights in granting powers to the government.

Yep.

Liberty grants power, NOT power grants liberty.

Are you with me so far?

No. What does that mean to you?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Because we're not a socialist country.

Our taxes get pooled to pay for our military to protect us from external threats, why can't our taxes therefore be pooled to pay for internal threats like sickness and injury?

Serving military get socialized health care why can't the rest of us?

 

[dblack]

Our taxes get pooled to pay for our military to protect us from external threats, why can't our taxes therefore be pooled to pay for internal threats like sickness and injury?

Because, in a free society, the purpose government isn't to solve all of our problems. It's there for a very specific class of problems that have to do with conflict resolution - problems that potentially require the use of violence to resolve. The rest is up to us to deal with on our own, voluntarily.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Because, in a free society, the purpose government isn't to solve all of our problems. It's there for a very specific class of problems that have to do with conflict resolution - problems that potentially require the use of violence to resolve. The rest is up to us to deal with on our own, voluntarily.

In a free democracy the people can structure society as they see fit, government is the servant of the people, if people want to live under a nationalized health system then that's their right - in a true democracy.

Where did you read that the government get to decide what the government should do? I mean they do to a huge degree (because the US is not a democracy) but the people alone have the right to decide surely.

The US is not a democracy nor are people free.

 

[Concerned American]

Serving military get socialized health care why can't the rest of us?

You can. Go back to England.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You can. Go back to England.

Why? I like living here, I enjoy the first amendment, nothing like that in Britain (it has no written constitution), well not so much since Brexit.

 

[Concerned American]

Why? I like living here

Then why are you trying to make it into a country that you left and just admitted you don't like?

 

[dblack]

In a free democracy the people can structure society as they see fit, government is the servant of the people, if people want to live under a nationalized health system then that's their right - in a true democracy.

Which is why we don't have a "true democracy". It's limited for a reason. We don't need government to dictate how we do health care, and people should be free to deal with their health care as they wish, regardless of the will of the majority.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Then why are you trying to make it into a country that you left and just admitted you don't like?

Really? where did I advocate getting rid of the constitution?

 

[Concerned American]

Really? where did I advocate getting rid of the constitution?

Deflecting from your socialist ideas does nothing to support your OP.