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

I can translate your own post for you:
"I was exposed as a petty thief that robs the rich and the creative using state apparatus like NHS and I'm mighty pissed about it."

England is going to hell, for leeching hardworking migrated indian college students to feed parasites like you lot.

It is always great to be a taker isn't it? In your 60 year's walk on earth, what have you done for your society? Nothing, none, zilch.

 

America has had a long history of signing agreements, charters (call them what you will) etc,, then either breaking them or going back on their word.

 

Quite irrelevant to this discussion for a couple of reasons.

1. It's off topic.
2. You have no proof.

Now, in your wisdom and your experience, please explain why universal healthcare doesn't work or is unsustainable.

 

Boy, but you sound bitter. I guess working and paying taxes for 42 years, contributing to our economy, becoming a qualified cytologist working in our cervical cancer screening programme, including paying my monthly contribution into our universal healthcare system, counts as leeching and parasitic? What was it someone said? Oh yes, "insult is the last refuge of the inadequate", or words to that effect. You should take note.
"Better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and have all doubt removed". There's another for you to consider.

 

I wouldn't bother mate; you're most likely already considered a communist in his 'mind'!

 

I have disagree, I believe health care should be a humane right in this country. It is in almost all industrial countries. We provide health care to everyone now. Our only problem is we don't provide continued health care for those who need it. I think that could be fixed without the government taking over our health system.

 

In my opinion, bearing true witness to the concept and legal doctrine of employment at will could solve official poverty, as we currently know it. Due Process and the rule of law should be a fundamental right that could enable many people to no longer be in official poverty and therefore, have no excuse for not taking better care of themselves.

 

Pre-existing conditions do exist for about 1% of the American population and addressing this problem never required a government healthcare system.

 

In 1965 with the passage of Medicare it included Medicaid that was to ensure that Americans that required health care but that could not afford it would be provided the healthcare services they needed. That never happened and what many fail to accept is that it was the failure of the government health care program that was the problem. Why was there never a call by Democrats to simply fix Medicare in 2009?

 

Because the gov picking up the problematic cases and private health picking the grapes for profit isn't what's meant by "universal health care".

 

It is a human right. Human rights are dictated by government. It requires taking from others to implement by government force.

It is not a natural right, something you would naturally have without government but something you would trade that is yours to receive.

 

Neither is protection of free speech.

Without the US guaranteeing said right, no one would necessarily have it.

The "rights" issue irrelevant anyway, but I just thought I'd through that out there.

 

That is a government centric view. This is a government "of the people" thus "the people" codified a ban on government interference with speech.

 

Its the Declaration of Human Rights since the right to adequete health care is clearly in that document and we as a major nation with others signed that document in the UN then the case is mute since we as a nation declared it as one of the rights people as humans have - so its not a fiction or myth but cold hard fact. Health care access that is adequete to all is a fundamental human right as declared by the nations that signed that document and since it is a UN document is a statement to the world and all humans on it, from its signing to those in the future.

 

Any alleged right that tramples natural rights is not a right at all but a government edict disguised as a right.

 

Luckily, the right to food, water, shelter, and adequate and affordable healthcare don't trample on any natural rights.

 

No, they just let the unisured die or bankrupt themselves into living on the street because they can't afford treatment. So the insurance companies whose function it is is to insure someone's health, can also sentence someone to death if they don't feel their lives are cost-effective? And you wonder why the world laughs at this totally inept 'system' of healthcare?
Perhaps the sick should have exercised more 'personal responsibility'...

 

The lack of understanding of what rights are is astounding and an indication of the poor education in this country. What you are saying is you have the "right" to other peoples labor. People used to think that in this country before, it was called slavery.

 

No, I understand perfectly what rights are. It is you who has no clue what you are talking about. Nowhere in the rights to food, water, shelter, and healthcare are you forcing someone to supply those four things without compensation. All you're doing is ensuring no one goes without those four things.

 

Such total BS. You have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Rights are those you have individually without government that do not trample other's rights. The progressive ideology is that you have rights to things that others have to produce, in other words, you have the right to trample other's rights and freedoms.

 

Who is "you" in the above sentence, and how does this person go about ensuring that no one goes without those four things.

From a different perspective, what action would a person need to take in order to violate another person's right to, say, food?

 

Nobody is the "you." Well, I suppose society technically is, but I didn't mean to refer to any specific group.

Same as with any right, try to keep them from it. Realistically, I don't see such a thing ever happening. And if it does, just give me a .38 to the temple, 'cause that'll be a good sign the world has officially become Hell.

 

I'm sure you'll successfully debunk what I said, then.

Doesn't contradict what I said.

Rights are anything you decide they are. A "right" is an entirely philosophical concept, there is no set in stone definition of what constitutes a "right."

Entirely irrelevant. I'm not a progressive and abhor progressives.

When are you going to actually address what I said?

 

But if, as you said above, someone must ensure that no one goes without those four things [food, water, shelter, and healthcare], then how does this someone go about accomplishing this without violating the rights of others?

So in order to violate another person's right to, say, food, I would have to keep them from it. Does that mean keep them from my own food? For instance, if someone tries to steal my lunch and I stop them am I violating their right to food?

I know these questions sound silly, but I am really having trouble understanding how someone can exercise his right to, say, food without necessarily violating the rights of others. Or to put it another way, I am having trouble understanding what I action I personally could possibly take that would violate another person's right to food.

 

We already do, so it's a moot point. Legally we are entitled to healthcare as it is - hospitals cannot deny treatment regardless of ability to pay, or insurance.

The Founders never had a problem with slavery. Also, doctors are free to choose their profession, while slaves aren't. If a doctor doesn't want to be legally required to provide services to those who can't pay, he is free to choose another profession. That's about the equivalent of a person voluntarily enlisting in the military, then crying "slavery" when it's time for him to actually get shipped out to Iraq. No one made him join but him - and he's legally required to fight and put his life on the line for my freedoms, even if I'm a lazy-ass who doesn't work or pay any taxes.

We already, as of this very second, do have right to healthcare regardless of ability to pay. So unless you are advocating overturning existing laws, and allowing hospitals to deny treatment, and want doctors to be able demand $10,000 up front for the car wreck victim or just leave him to rot on the operating table - then your point is moot. And that scenario will never happen anyway.

I've known plenty of people who make decent income who just throw their medical bills in the trash every time they arrive simply because they know they don't have to pay it - every time you pay your own bills, you're paying for their care. Under a single-payer system, the private sector healthcare would have more freedom and autonomy from govt.