Healthcare--a right or not?

Yes. My taxes will pay for it. For more efficient for the government to do it.....don't you agree?

 

Hey look, a bunch of disjointed statements, the veracity of each being inversely proportional to its relevance, concluding nothing.

 

That those who benefit from our society incur a moral responsibility to contribute to it is a principle that this society has democratically established.

If anyone finds that burden untenable, he is free to seek redress, break the law, and/or find another society more to his tastes.

 

If you are upset with the United States for sharing a moral foundation with all other advanced nations, what nation do you prefer?

(A real one, please. Aynrandistan is a fantasy.)

 

If you don't like the topic, feel free to start a new thread.

 

If you have nothing to add....you are free to leave

 

I'm not your guy, buddy.

 

We'll see what a republican congress with Trump in the oval office can do about the welfare state. The problem is that with or without Trump, basic math says it will end anyway. That's a good thing.

 

On that we agree. Lol

 

Well thank you for your honesty and sharing your personal thoughts with me. I am not saying that I disagree with you on any of these principles. I am just bothered by the leeches/free-loaders, basically people who are healthy in body and mind but choose not to work because they are lazy.

I agree that we should take care of the disabled and truly needy.

 

The topic is "Healthcare -- a right or not?"

Healthcare is a specified right under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which the United States is a signatory.

If you are upset by that, which nation's policy do you prefer?

 

With or without the welfare of the nation, basic sense says that Trump will end anyway.

 

So government can define anything the majority wants to be a right as a right? Are you sure you want to go down that road?

Maybe you forgot the purpose of this republic. To protrct the rights of the minority from mob rule.

 

And I agree with you that the leeches/freeloaders - whether corporate executives or homeless wretches - that prey upon society must be weeded out, without napalming the vegetable patch.


.

 

Yep. As long as it is constitutional. Anything

 

Do you truly think the left shares your problem with the leeches/free-loaders? I'm just not seeing it. What I see is a giant vote buying scheme designed to keep poor people dependent upon the welfare state.

I lived in a very liberal city at one point, and they didn't really care about the poor. They instituted rent control laws, which resulted in rents becoming increasingly expensive. They are very well aware that rent control pushes rents sky high. They had free food for the homeless, and this in a city that has virtually no employment opportunities for the homeless. It's like living next to a freeway and putting food out for stray dogs. They push for raising the minimum wage, even though they know that this makes more people unable to get employment because they simply aren't worth a "living wage".

Everything they do seems to be at odds with what they say. If a liberal says they want people to wear green on st. patrick's day, they would immediately make it a law that green colored clothes are not to be sold within the city limits.

I think they want poor people to remain poor. That's the only logical conclusion I can reach based on simple empirical evidence. Wherever you find democrats, you find wealth inequality. This is by design.

By letting the federal government do it? Do you really think they believe the government is the most efficient way to do this? They aren't that stupid! They know exactly how inefficient the federal government is, and state governments aren't far behind.

They don't want to help the disabled and truly needy. They want to keep them disabled and needy.

 

Healthcare providers are doctors and hospitals, in case you didn't know.

Insurance companies do provide a valuable service, in case you didn't know that, either.

 

In this here country we have the best of rights.The Right of Freedom,
Liberty and the American way.Meaning a bill of rights.
No right of Free Healthcare.
Or free Housing.
Free Education yes.But Property taxes pay it.
Free Legal advice or counsel.
Free baloney sandwiches when jailed.
Free use of public air.
Free water at some places.
Free assistance if needed { Medicair or Salvation Army or soup kitchens.|
It is very important for Americans to read the Great book by Jack London.
- The People of the Abyss { 1903 }
I Gar Own Tee ... one living in the United States will never again dare complain
about conditions in America after reading.

 

That is the thread title, but you're not asking about it. You just keep asking people about their feelings.

I'll go ahead and address what you keep alluding to and not saying, though. We've already been over the distinction between legal and moral rights. That declaration is just that, a declaration. Its statements wouldn't even amount to legal rights if it were legally binding. For that, you need a legal structure that actually effects the outcome of everyone actually getting healthcare for the asking. Healthcare is, in fact, not a legal right in the US.

Making healthcare a legal right is unsustainable and morally unjustifiable, it's a bad idea. If you want universal healthcare, you should focus on technological innovation and freedom of exchange. They are what will make healthcare so abundant everyone can afford it anyway.

 

Does this Declaration over-ride US laws though?

Serious inquiry.

 

And to find out if it's constitutional, the test is literally to make the law and see if it sticks.

Yes, if the US government does not declare the law written by the US government to be illegal, it is "constitutional".

 

Yep it is. Ain't that great

 

technically, all laws are Constitutional until the Federal courts say otherwise.

 

People deserve an equal chance in life to the extent that is feasible (but not necessarily equal results). This is logical in the sense that it gives people the opportunity to realize their potential that could benefit all of us, and it's also fair. No rights can be enjoyed without a basic level of health, and so all rights are subordinate to it. So I would say that things like access to basic needs: Having food, water, shelter, healthcare, and enough education to get by and the opportunity to go further, are absolute. But we all should contribute towards it to the extent that we can and not get a free ride.

Healthcare is something that most of us cannot predict our need for ahead of time, but when we have a need it, that need is absolute (demand is inflexible). So it is not subject to traditional notions of supply and demand. Thus, profit is not as useful of a tool in providing healthcare as other sectors of the economy. Profits can help in healthcare innovation, but absolutely do not in healthcare delivery. For the above reasons, healthcare is something that is best done by the government, provided to everybody with everybody contributing to its finance.

 

free healthcare is not a "right", but since its the most efficient and cost effective system, we should do it.