Let's debunk one of liberals' belief — healthcare should be a fundamental right

Such histrionics about a basic humanitarian provision for the populace is only seen from American drama queens.

 

Well, I'm not too sure that healthcare and education should NOT be a right and be free. It seems more important that healthcare be a right than voting be a right.

But I would not leave it to liberals to put healthcare and education in place. To my sense, Conservatism (not ConservaTIVES) is based on freedom, and Liberalism (not LiberALS) is based on fear.

Fear is never a good foundation on which to build anything, rights and their implementation included.

 

Your elitist and self-concerned attitude emasculates your put-on opinion about America.

And by the way, history comes from the Tigris-Euphrates valley, not Europe.
Europe is nothing more than an earlier and undeveloped America. America is not better than Europe for that reason however, nor is it inferior.

 

But you shouldn't steal money that people have legally earned up to now. You should legislate so that they can no longer legally earn THAT MUCH money FROM NOW ON, and then go from there to fund healthcare.

In other words, it isn't fair to take what people have earned if they've done it legally. But there are people who have WAY too much money compared to others. Going forward, that huge discrepancy should be made impossible.

 

What a load of crap.

It doesn't matter where you live or what system you live under, the degree to which healthcare will be provided depends on the degree to which policy-makers (who imagine themselves as the set-upon provider class) are willing to sit in a cart as it takes them to the guillotine. That's the way it has always been. That's the way is always will be. King Louis psuedo-intellectual wishing and hoping for ALL of it goes only so far.

 

Ah. Well the same holds for the freedom of the press. It's first a freedom, so as long as the government doesn't get in the way it's a freedom that isn't being violated. If the government were to decide to tax each newspaper at $10.00, then it would be infringing upon the freedom of the press, just as it would be infringing upon the freedom of religion to charge you a $10.00 tax for going to church.

The 2nd amendment is very particularly worded. You have the right to bear arms - you do not have a right to someone else's goods (desert eagle). Just the same, though, any government tax or fee is an infringement upon your right to bear arms, because the government is placing an artificial barrier to you exercising your right.

The 'right to healthcare' is very different, because people are trying to assert a right to someone else's goods and services. Just as no government can justly charge me a tax for going church, for expressing my views at a coffee shop, etc., if I were to say that I have a right to healthcare, I would be saying that I have an intrinsic right to goods/services, and you can't charge/tax someone for an intrinsic right/freedom (i.e., freedom of religin/going to church service).

The Founders were very specific, and they never said that you have the intrinsic right to a good or service. I'd challenge anyone to find otherwise in the Constitution.

 

I would simple note that this establishes a "right" and not an "entitlement" and we already have these rights. A person can provide for their own healthcare. A person can provide food for themself. A person can provide for their own shelter. These are all unenumerated Rights protected by the 9th Amendment.

A "Right" is that which a person can do for themself without infringing upon the Rights of others and it is not an entitlement that imposes an obligation upon someone else.

 

Well, no, it does matter. For something to be forcibly taken from you, you have to be against it being taken from you and try to keep it from being taken from you.

So if they have no problem with the government taking their money for UHC then it can't really be considered "forcibly taken."

 

You are a funny little man. Do you actually believe I could give a flying (*)(*)(*)(*) if you put me on your little ignore list? Do you think I care if I irritate you? You clearly suffer from the typical libertarian delusion of believing that anybody outside of the fold cares what you think. I don't post here for you. I post here mostly because work is very slow right now and I'm bored. Once work picks up again, you won't have to put me on your precious little ignore list because I won't be posting at all. I am under no illusion that I am going to change anybody's mind on anything, especially not that of a true believer such as yourself. If I am posting for anybody, I would say it is for the young person out there who might be thinking about experimenting with libertarianism. Maybe I can save them from wasting a several years of their life, as I did, in pursuit of false gods. Maybe I can show them how you guys operate, show them how libertarianism is in all ways, shapes, and forms just another religion, founded on a contradictory and logically fallacious base, dismissive of reality, and yearning for an Eden that has never and never will exist. Your posts, I think, are a great example. I ask to point to real world examples where libertarian principles have been put into place and have produced the results of which you approve, and what's your response? "I could, but..." "Every day, I make dozens of perfectly falsifiable claims." I trust the young reader out there will see that despite all your bluster, you don't offer a single example. If you put forth dozens, it would seem that it would be very easy to copy and paste just one of them into this thread right now and prove me wrong. Maybe you will now, but I doubt it. I am guessing you will once again just try to focus the discussion on me to avoid answering the question. I am under no illusion that you will ever see, little less understand, how this is a cognitive defense mechanism that you put up to protect your worldview. I hope, however, that the young reader will start to see the pattern and understand a little more about how the world works. So, by all means, put me on your ignore list. I will continue (at least until work gets busy) pointing out to the young reader how none of your posts actually say anything, despite what you might think. I trust that most people will see that.

Keep the faith, brother.

 

Yes of course, if someone is voluntarily contributing to the health care of another, then nothing is being taken from him. He is giving freely.

 

Unfortunately, you're wrong. The Democratic Party is based on fear (so is the GOP). The (alleged, anyway) philosophies behind the parties are not. Conservatism is about preserving tradition while accepting gradual societal change. Liberalism is actually divided into three sub-philosophies:

~ Progressivism, the endless quest to progress as a society no matter what.
~ Libertarianism/Classical Liberalism, which holds to the concept of maximum freedom for the maximum amount of people.
~ Modern Liberalism, the ideal that bridges the gap between Libertarianism/Classical Liberalism and Progressivism. Modern Liberalism holds to such ideas like social welfare and the universal human right to adequate, affordable healthcare. ML is also based, like Libertarianism/CL, on maximum freedom for the maximum amount of people, but like Progressivism accepts a quicker societal progression than conservatives would be comfortable with.

 

I...I...I actually agree with that, and am impressed to see you say it.

 

The young person out there to whom you alluded might be interested to know more about these contradictions. What are they?

 

Well, get to work then. I've got like eighteen hundred posts you need to refute.

 

Again just for emphasis - the 'rights' argument is a moot point, because it merely means whatever someone "thinks" they're entitled to (by God or someone).

So just ignore the concept of "rights" altogether and implement single payer care, because it works, and takes the strain of bankruptcy and non-payers off the private healthcare system. No one has any argument against it anyway, other than the idea that it's "theft by more taxation" - but unless they're fiscal anarchists, who believe in no taxation (meaning no military, no police, etc) - their argument is a moot point - since all forms of taxation and govt funded programs and "theft" every bit as much - the burden's therefore on them to describe why they draw the line at single-payer healthcare versus other government programs - if all they're going to do is repeat the same dogmatic one-liners about "theft/slavery/taxation/coersion/etc" - then that's more or less saying that they have nothing. What works is all that really matters when it boils down to it, and I've made a case multiple times why single payer healthcare benefits both the private sector and the public, so it's really a no-brainer.

 

Have you considered the argument that federal single payer care is not permitted under the constitution?

 

Depending on how you interpret it.

 

I don't hear any complaints...wait.......nope, nothing.

 

How do you feel about paying taxes? Are you being 'robbed' to use roads, public libraries, petrol etc.?

 

And they do it so well!

 

I would rather have the pittance I pay monthly for my UHC and feel good about it, than be royally shafted by some insurance company which does nothing but get in the way of me and my treatment. The amount Americans have to fork out for their healthcare insurance-(including the numerous get-out clauses)-is nothing less than daylight robbery.

 

Well if nobody is complaining in Australia, then they must be happy with the arrangement, in which case I don't understand why a law was necessary. People obviously would have contributed voluntarily to universal health care without any legislation.

 

Taxes are robbery. They are one person forcibly taking what belongs to another. I regard taxes as extremely uncool and dickish.

 

See, this here? This is why I think the government ought to allow people to form free, independent (but still loyal to the U.S.) communities within the U.S. to practice whatever sort of governance they wish.

 

How could you possibly interpret the constitution to justify federal single payer health care?