Healthcare--a right or not?

I call it DemSpeak, the use of imaginary facts to make political points and the redefining of common words to confuse. It is closely related to DemCount, the use of imaginary numbers to make political points. Crowd size is an example as is any dem use of statistics or polls.

 

Yeah, and the income tax is 'voluntary'

 

The right has alternative facts. Lol

 

True, we do depend on government to maintain a certain level of order, maintain national security. When you say "And for many things we should be" there is a problem. You see the less responsible you allow folks to be the less accountable folks will be. That will not end well for any society i wish to be a part of. In effect what you are moving toward is servitude.

 

I think keeping people alive and healthy is not too much to ask. You are free to disagree

 

They have to be paid. The point is are they paid by the consumer, an insurance company or the taxpayer or some other arrangement.

 

This manipulation of language is something I've noticed more and more, to the point that they really are speaking a different language. Privilege doesn't mean being allowed to do something, but is rather a term meant to denote social hierarchy, with anybody who is deemed "privileged" to be at the bottom of the social structure. The same is true when they say "That's racist!". It doesn't mean something is racist at all, but is best translated to a strong form of the feminine "whatever" which is another way of saying "shut up and leave me alone".

What's really interesting about this evolving new language of theirs is that conservative ideas all translate into undecipherable gibberish, or so full of negative connotations that you might as well be goose stepping while giving a nazi salute. It makes communication quite problematic even at the best of times.

 

The same rights 99% of people assume other people have. Among them are rights to live and own property without violating the same rights of anyone else.

 

Your health is not my responsibility. Chances are good your health will decline if it is my responsibility. Not because I will do a poor job of it. (i may or i may not) Because you will do a poor job of being responsible for yourself. Oh, You might stay alive and retain your existence. We are good at keeping hearts beating and lungs pumping air. If existence is living then i suppose servitude is a good deal for you.

Are we pre disposed to servitude? Perhaps so.

 

The law does not give you rights. Rights are things you are born with. Things you are required to provide for yourself. The law simply either restricts these rights you have or protects them. It does not give you anything.

 

That is your opinion. People in Canada and the U.K. Have better healthcare outcomes than we do. Healthcare in the US needs to be a right

- - - Updated - - -

Actually the law can define legal rights. And it does

 

Then can we dispose with terms like "free healthcare"? It's free if doctors are willing to work for free, or subsidized through charity, such as the doctors without borders program.

What you want is for tax-payers to subsidize the costs for those who are unable to afford their own healthcare. That's just not going to happen anytime soon, so you might as well start doing something that has a chance of working. There are a lot of people (20 million is a number I've heard bandied about) who can't afford to wait, or they really will start dying in the street.

The MSF (doctors without borders) could be asked, but that means you have to come hat in hand and convince them that you really are just as bad off as villagers in some sub-saharan third world country. It would probably be the first time they have ever required bariatric specialists, but if those 20 million are convincing enough (I'm not sure the "it's a glandular problem" will work), they will go to wherever they are needed.

 

Better? for some perhaps. Depends on who you believe. What would be better is better educational opportunities for the less privileged. If you want a better society education is the way to go.

 

Yes. Let's do both

 

It may codify them. But it can not morally define a right which does not exist. Neither can it morally define who must provide those rights for an individual.

- - - Updated - - -

It may codify them. But it can not morally define a right which does not exist. Neither can it morally define who must provide those rights for an individual.

- - - Updated - - -

It may codify them. But it can not morally define a right which does not exist. Neither can it morally define who must provide those rights for an individual.

 

I could care less about what you think is moral. Legally government can define any right they want. This is simply a fact

 

Those who are capable of contributing to the society from which they derive benefit are required to do so. Were that not the case, you would not have a society.

The US Constitution specifies promotion of the general welfare as a primary reason for the creation of our nation.

It is the communal expression of the ethical mandate expressed in Christianity's corporal works of mercy: "To feed the hungry" being prominent among them.

All advanced nations are self-governed, regulate capitalism, and incorporate such a responsible social welfare component.

If someone has an alternative national paradigm he prefers, it would clarify his alienation if he cited his preferred nation. Somalia, perchance?

 

Actually, I expressed precisely the opposite. I noted that anyone who is unhappy with any law is free to petition for its repeal.

Failing that, it is his decision whether to remain a part of that society.

 

False. Our tax code and social programmes are established by the representatives we elect. That does not mean that everyone likes them, but everyone has the right of redress if he does not.

 

Hitler and the Nazis thought that government control of healthcare was critical. They also banned guns as 7 Obama judges and 3 Clinton judges did this past week. I would be hesitant to argue with the Nazis. Thankfully, they are out of power ,,, though their legacy lives on.

 

But what about what you personally think? Do you think that I or anybody has to pay for someone else' food, just because it is recognized that people have the right to food?

 

Better than the lefts imaginary ones Giggles...

 

Hahahaha

- - - Updated - - -

Of course you do

 

So if I am hungry, you will need to buy me food? How are you going to send me your money? Is Paypal OK?

 

Of course. I benefit greatly from this society that has democratically adopted such ethical practices as are reflected in Christian doctrine, and is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that affirms an ideal of common decency: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

We are interdependent. Even if I jaywalk and am struck by a vehicle, I don't expect the authorities to leave me in the street to die. There but for fortune ....

I would never want to reside in a nation that did not establish such a moral foundation.