Do you believe health care should be a right?

inalienable right to life


As I have mentioned innumerable times on this forum, under the Anglo Saxon Common Law abortion was LEGAL. This was the basis for Roe v Wade. Mind you I am a pro lifer. Whether anyone likes it or not, the decision was technically correct.


methods to use to pay for health care ... cannot be forced by law


If that is the case, then taxpayers should be paid back for all the health care they provided to Israel and for the subsidies they gave to Fortune 500 companies who have deducted these costs on their 1120 forms all these years.



As Jefferson said government exists to serve the people. In saying this he was quoting Ben Franklin. Both of these Founders imposed taxes in order to create government service. This included free education, creation of police force in Philadelphia, road & waterway building, and other reforms. History clearly shows that Ben Franklin created the still existing Pennsylvania Hospital which was designed to help poor people for free. Because of its tax exempt status, this means taxpayers have subsidized this service. The same is true of other municipal hospitals throughout the country. Therefore, again, contrary to the erroneous ideas of the far right, government subsidization of health through tax dollars care has gone on for over 200 years. Thus, the government's newly created reforms under ACA are perfectly legal and not without precedent. Moreover, the Supreme Court (the most far right court in USA history) has affirmed this and will not change its mind. Call it "force" if you will. But the court calls it "law".

 

If you want to believe spiritual healing works, I suggest you read up on Scientology's claims and how the government and medical profession looks upon it. You might also want to read the news about the preacher who handled a snake and said he could not be harmed by it, only to die because of the snake's venom.

 

No it isn't. It is an inherently flawed and unsustainable system. It will be replaced. In the meantime, insurance companies will need to make up the shortfalls by demanding higher returns on their investments, which will not fair to well for the worker in the end. it is a death spiral.

 

Again, I will quote yet another founding father, Benjamin Franklin, who said "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." As much as you want this country to be purely a democracy, it is a Democratic Republic where the federal government was intended to have limited and enumerated powers. These powers have been misconstrued by the courts, but primarily by people with PhDs, who believe that the piece of paper hanging on their wall gives credence to all of their arguments. No matter how you see it, force is force. Our founders understood that government is nothing but force. I want to clarify that I don't think force should NEVER be used. If I see somebody hurting another person, I think somebody should use force on the aggressor. But you are advocating a system in which you think it is ok for me to force another person to give a homeless person a dollar. Taxation is force, no matter how smart you are or how you interpret it, if you do not pay your taxes, they will put you in jail and use force to take it. Again, I should clarify that not all taxation is bad. I am perfectly fine with the federal government taxing me to pay for things like defense (although it is excessive what they spend on defense, that is something I think we can both agree on), paying for some infrastructure, courts, and maybe have some extra to pay for their little pet projects (which rarely work, but again, the people in Washington want to feel like they're actually helping people, so I'll give them a little to boost their own egos). Aside from that, it is the states that should do the majority of taxation for things like roads and bigger projects like healthcare. That gives every state a chance to experiment, and doesn't force 330 million people to conform to what a few hundred people in Washington DC believe is "right". But the bottom line is, it doesn't matter how you look at it, when the government increases taxes to pay for their dumb projects like healthcare, and it is as poorly implemented and as inefficient as any other government project, it is morally wrong. You still haven't explained why the federal government should run healthcare instead of the states. Will the Federal Government really do a better job than the states? Do you have even a shred of evidence to support that idea? Your response is "because they can" which is not a good reason at all.

Ok, first off, I do think it's great that you help people. But again, that doesn't give you a right to force me or anybody else to help people. Again, to reiterate since you don't seem to understand this concept advocating taxation is advocating the use of force. Advocating more laws for the federal government is encouraging the use of force on millions of people whom you don't know to behave in a way which YOU think is moral, and this is morally and ethically wrong, it is not noble or something to take pride in.

Well the first part is pure economic fallacy. Your assumption is that tax dollars is intelligently invested, but in case you haven't noticed, the government is $17 trillion in debt, and has hundred billion dollar deficits every year, and yet our economy really isn't improving. This idea that government will spend your money well is by far the most irrational argument you make (and you even contradict this idea in the paragraph above). You complain about the way that the government spends money on things like fortune 500 companies and wars, and in LITERALLY THE SAME PARAGRAPH, you say that it's ok for them to take in more money. Do you honestly believe that money is going to stop being funneled to these corporations or used on wars? Michael Moore does the same thing in Capitalism a Love Story. He spends half of the movie complaining about how the businessmen are in bed with the politicians, and then his proposed solution is to give politicians more power. You wanna talk about irrationality, that has got to be the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard, and yet this is what you "leftists" are argue in almost every political argument. I will say, however, that I completely agree that we shouldn't be financing Israel's healthcare or subsidizing big business, but to make that argument and then in the same breath propose a solution that involves giving the Federal Government more money and power is absolutely ludicrous.

I also think that it's amazing how you lawyers can completely redefine a word. The word subsidize is defined as "a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive." And yet you are talking about a tax break granted to businesses based on what they are spending their money on. First off, this is only going to get worse when you give the federal government more power, but what's more is that you call this a subsidy. In the context that you use, you are implying that the federal government allowing you to keep your own money is considered a subsidy. By your definition of subsidy, I am subsidizing you by letting you keep the money that you earned. This is not a subsidy, although I don't blame you for this misconception, Obama and many other prominent liberals have used this argument several times. But for future reference, letting a person keep money that they earned is not a subsidy (although I'm sure you're going to attempt to explain to me how it is, which I welcome, but it doesn't change the fact that a tax break is NOT a subsidy...allowing somebody to keep the money that they earned is NOT a subsidy).

Another thing that I have failed to clarify, but I probably should have, is that I am sure that the ACA will help thousands of Americans. Yes, that is thousands of people, which is a relatively small number. Even if we are talking about hundreds of thousands of people, that is still less than .5% of Americans that it is really helping. What you aren't considering is the millions of Americans, such as my parents who are hard working middle class Americans who have never taken a dollar that they didn't earn from the government, who have seen rising healthcare premiums because of the law. There are millions of Americans who have lost health coverage that they wanted and liked, and have been forced into a healthcare system that somebody thousands of miles away felt was right for them. I use the analogy of trying to kill ants with a shotgun from 50 feet away. Sure, you may hit a few ants, the ACA probably will help several people, but much of what is going out is being wasted. There is also the unforeseen consequences that are caused by this. I'm sure you LOVE the ACA. The job prospects for lawyers haven't been great these last few years, but with a law like this, you guys are going to be in high demand. Lawyers don't actually produce anything of real value (as I said before though, I do believe that they are a necessary evil in this country), they just give opinions and then try to get them validated by somebody higher than them, a judge, at which time they believe that just because one or two or five or ten other people agreed with their opinion, that makes it correct. But I digressed (sorry about that). As far as moral cowardice, I would point to the fact that you are advocating a system in which you believe it is morally right for the federal government to forcibly take from one person and give to another, it doesn't matter what kind of legalese or lawyer framework you look at it through, that is what you want. This is moral cowardice, as you don't believe that the states will willingly adopt your "good system" out of free will, and you therefore must force it on them through the federal government.

Thus the arguments you made above are getting better, but still a pathetically weak position taken by the liberal left.

 

Same thing that was said about Social Security over 70 years ago. The cynics were wrong then and today.

Meanwhile, lives and money are being saved thanks to ACA.


Thank you President Obama!

 

Saying healthcare is a right really means saying that you have the right to someone else's goods and services which would not actually be a natural right because you do not have the right to violate other rights. Assuming of course that you are getting that healthcare for nothing. You do have the right to trade for healthcare of course. In effect barter by script.

Healthcare as a right can only be granted by government under the force of law, otherwise it does not exist.

- - - Updated - - -

LOL, got any more jokes today?

 

Obviously, this is a concession on your part that you have no proof to the contrary and an admission that my statement is correct.

Thank you for the validation.

 

Oh, I think your statement stands pretty well on it's own as a joke.

 

taxation is force

Our Founders created the government and enabled Congress to expand upon its powers via legislative changes where warranted. This is why Amendments can and have been added legally.


states that should do the majority of taxation for things like roads and bigger projects like healthcare


Roads have to be planned and created at Federal level in order to insure uniformity and compatibility. If you build a road in a mountainous area like West Virginia, how else can you insure that vehicles can move along into another state's borders? This has to be decided by the Feds, not by the individual states. Same with health care as in the example of Social Security. I see no evidence whatsoever that the states can do a better job than the Federal government.


dumb projects like healthcare


Again, so many of you cynics condemn health care and object to paying for it when it benefits the poor. But none of you have ever voiced objection when you paid for Europe's health care through the Marshall Plan, for Fortune 500 companies care through your subsidization, for Israel's health care for the past 60 years, and for Iraq's and Afghanistan's coverage today.

People like you have had over 60 years to voice these objections. But you conveniently waited until now. This notwithstanding the majority vote which called for creation of HCR as per the DNC convention of August, 2008. Furthermore, the USA is a member of the UN which has determined that access to good health care is a right.


encouraging the use of force on millions of people whom you don't know to behave in a way which YOU think is moral, and this is morally and ethically wrong


You are entitled to your opinion. But the Congress, the majority of voters, and the courts have ruled otherwise. This makes YOU wrong.


government is $17 trillion in debt


We have discussed this on other threads. There is a simple solution offered by President Obama but rejected by Republicans in Congress - simply close all tax shelters and loopholes.

Again, right wingers have had plenty of opportunity to object to deficits. But during the Nixon, Reagan, and Bush years they applauded the deficits. Then when a Democrat was in the White House, they decided to blame liberals for a problem created by the Republicans.


subsidy


By allowing Fortune 500 companies to take deductions such as medical insurance on their 1120 forms it is an indirect subsidy. Remove this exemption from their tax returns and each of those employees would have to pay their own way like everybody did up to now.



thousands of people [saved], which is a relatively small number


A few years ago right wingers said Terri Schiavo's life was worth saving despite the cost and despite her wishes. Talk about using force! At any rate we no longer see anyone saying that lives have been lost due to lack of health care.

By the way, I am not a lawyer as I did not practice law after I got my degree. I am in semi retirement due to illness and disability. Therefore, you need not make any such recriminatory accusations against me. True, I do benefit from ACA. But I paid my taxes which benefited Fortune 500 companies, Israel, Afghanistan, and Iraq. My tax dollars benefited elite suburbanites and foreigners. Therefore, it is my right to get a piece of the pie that my dollars helped pay for. This is not welfare as so many right wing cynics call it. The others I mentioned have been getting a free ride all along. People like me paid our way. Therefore, we are entitled to get back what we paid for whether you cynics like it or not.


moral cowardice


A splendid way to describe those who praised deficit spending under Republicans and for those who advocate spending money on health care for elitists at home and those abroad who have not paid one cent out of their pockets to benefit anyone here. Further, it is a great way to describe those who would deny people like me who paid their way all these years only to have the door slammed in their faces when they ask to get back what they paid for. "Force" is when you cause 45,000 to die every year from lack of health care insurance. In fact, it is more than "force", it is a holocaust that so many of you from he far right take great delight in.

Bottom line is the ACA is saving lives and it is here to stay notwithstanding your pathetically puny right wing delusionalist arguments. Sad news for you, good news for all else.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, thank you for conceding that you have no valid counter argument to the truths I have discussed here.

 

Lets look at this practically if someone gets sick lets say with something bad and contagious ,lets say airborne ebola popped up in NYC, and some poor person doesn't get help lets say a valet at a fancy hotel then how many people will get this plague before he gets help? 5, 10, 50 pr hundreds?

Also what about simple mercy why is okay for a poor person to suffer due to lack of a doctor in advanced nations, seems to me this violates their duty to heal and our societies view that human life matters and should be respected with care.

So why should it be a right I will make a case on two grounds:

1. Society interest healthy people are more fit to work, are more productive and if we go to war are more fit to serve in combat this helping the body politic.

2. As a simple mercy society should try to ease suffering of those who are sick, I'm not saying unlimited care, but at least care we know works and is practical to offer and if life is going to end to make ones end dignified.

 

Alright...I'm done debating with you. You literally cherry pick things that I'm saying and use them in out of context counterarguments that are aimed at nothing more than attacking the right. I really feel bad for you. I've tried several times to find places where I felt we agreed, and I've asked some questions I was hoping you could answer, but you don't address those issues which you know you are wrong on. Anyways, I hope someday you learn how to debate, but I'm not going to debate with somebody whose goal is to simply slander the right. I hope you learn to debate with people on this site as Americans, and what's more, as humans. I am not a Republican or conservative, but you seem to be debating with the whole party. For the third time, I agree with you that the government shouldn't be subsidizing fortune 500 companies. You're desire to hurt the right, and your insistence on not actually addressing my arguments tell me you have a lot to learn. Good luck though.

Also, you seriously need to learn how to use box quotes so that you aren't taking people's words completely out of context in order to say something bad about the right...

 

Good bye



Meantime, the UN has decided access to good health care is a right. The US is a member of that august body and we as patriotic, peace loving Americans agree with it.

The ACA is here to stay and it will save money and lives, contrary to the whimperings of the deluded far right.



Thank you Mr Obama!

 

We have stupid rights like Freedom of Religion and the Right to Bear Arms while important rights like Health Care, a Right to a Home, Adequete Food, a Job and Education we don't bother with I for one think the - Right to Health Care which assures hopefully avoiding suffering and makes one more productive as a member of the society is actually more important. A hard Right reducing a vital human need over softer Rights which do not.

 

IM[not so Humble]O, the fact that we are guaranteed the "right to health, welfare, and the pursuit of happiness" DOES NOT mean the government MUST provide us with any of the things needed to reach those goals.

It just means we have the right to PURSUE them, to take individual responsibility for ourselves and our actions and NOT depend upon others to do it for us!

 

And if one can't, I'm now legally disabled according to five doctors and several others like physical therapists so with that in mind expecting me to get care without help is damned unlikely. There is tradition here in Colonial America the taxes paid to the churches (early colonies) helped pay for care if one couldn't work they provided for the person at the expense of the government and taxpaying people. Athens in ancient times also made provisions for the poor enough money to buy food while charity met other needs. I don't see any issue with Medicaid and other benefits if one needs them.

 

Are you really going to say that we have "stupid rights like Freedom of Religion and the Right to bear arms"? Do you also think free speech is dumb? These are not dumb rights by any means. The second one we can debate (although I think I'll win), but the first one is pretty universally accepted as an awesome right that we should not take for granted. You say these things like "important" rights "adequate food" (whatever that means). I'm sure they are important for somebody who is unwilling to take responsibility for their own life, but here in America, we are the land of the free and home of the brave. I've already clearly explained why a right to healthcare makes no sense (as it requires the use of force on somebody in order to guarentee that right), and I will continue this logic with the next 4 examples that are part of FDR's "new bill of rights" which is much more like a bill of slavery if you really look at it.

First is adequate housing. This "right" is completely ridiculous because what do you define as adequate? If I told you to live in a single room of a small building with 3 other roommates, is that adequate? Also, does this imply that you have the right to

1) force somebody to build a house for you, if none are currently available
or
2) Force somebody off of their land if none of that is available

Again, this is another preposterous right that doesn't mean anything. I am terrified of the day when government gives people a "right" to a home, as that would be an end to our Republic.

Next we had the right to adequate food. This is similar to adequate housing, my first question is what is adequate? My second is, where is the food coming from? If I have a right to food, then I have a right to force somebody to provide me with food. If I don't have that right, then I have the right to force somebody else to pay for my food with is an inherent violation of that persons God given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

We now look at jobs, this is one of the most insidious "rights" that people now believe they are entitled to. This right is insidious because it inherently creates slavery in one way or another. Suppose you are not producing as much as your employer is paying you. While you do have a right to a job, I'm assuming this also implies the right to a "well paying" job (again, whatever that arbitrarily means to you). What kind of job do you have a right to? Do you have a right to force somebody to hire you? What if no jobs are available, can you force somebody to create a job, even at a loss, and hire you because it is your right to be employed? If you are a bad employee, does the employer have a right to fire you? There are all of these very similar problems that you don't tend to think about when you talk about rights. If FDR really did get his way, then which rights would supercede others? I have a 5th amendment right that says I shall not be deprived of life, liberty, or property but your "rights" that you are referring to would take away almost all of those rights. I would no longer have a right to my own life because I would be forced to live for YOUR sake. I wouldn't have the right to liberty, because I would be forced to concede to YOUR right to food, a home, healthcare and a job. I would no longer have a right to property because it would be just as much your right to take it as it is my right to own it.

A big fallacy that I'm sure is going through your mind as you mention these "rights" is that they are free. Let me just clarify, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Right now I am going to college, and it is almost completely "free" for me, but you and many other taxpayers are paying for it. Do I think this is fair? Absolutely not, but it is the way the system works. Just a few days ago, I was talking to a kid telling me how great it is in Europe where you can go to college for "free". What he didn't think about is the fact that the money to pay for college came from taxpayers, who were forced to pay for any individuals education whether they wanted to or not. Even if somebody wanted a career that didn't require college, they were required to pay for somebody else's college education, or waste 4 years for an education they didn't need. Wanna know how to lower college tuition, it's simple, just take away all federal financial aid. You're probably thinking that only the rich will get an education, but the first thing that would happen is that colleges would be forced to figure out a way to lower tuition rates. The reason tuition is so high is because of simple supply and demand. If you give lots of students access to dirt cheap money for college, that is going to push the demand curve to the right, and the price is going to increase. This is why college tuition has seen a 1000% hike in the last 20 years (and the federal government just keeps on loaning). Take the federal loans away, and colleges will now need to figure out how to lower rates to allow more students in. Students that want to get in will need scholarships or loans, both of which will become more accessible, but kids will have more apprehensions about loans that they will have to pay a higher rate of interest on. Fortune 500 companies, and most other companies NEED college educated employees, so they will pay large sums of money to give kids educations. This would also increase the employment of college graduates, as they will be harder to come by. For people who don't have a college degree, the market (and smart people) will adapt. People will figure out how to educate themselves, and demonstrate their skills in order to get a job. Now adays, you can get an entire undergraduate education from MIT for free on MITopencourseware. There is khan academy for basic science and math skills, and you can take free college courses on courseRA. Educational resources like this would significantly improve with demand, and we would have a MUCH more educated society.

 

Do you mention the fact that a bunch of doctors told you that you were disabled in every post? Seriously, take responsibility for your own life. I'm not going to feel guilty for any success I have. Do you ever take the time to think about what you should be thankful for? Let's see, you have access to the internet, you have the right to say whatever you want on that internet, you probably have electricity, a microwave, a refrigerator, a stove, etc. I'm not sure if you can walk, but you don't seem like a complete idiot. You can speak English and probably do basic mathematics. I'd say you're life is pretty great and I don't even know you. If you want to keep going around telling people how hard your life is, and how everybody owes you something for your hardships, and everybody should pity you, that is your prerogative. But one thing that you should consider is that most of the people who you tell your problems to don't really care. People have enough problems of their own. They may tell you that they care in a moment, but as soon as they walk away, they are going to be back in their own world thinking about themselves, just like you think about yourself. See, I would have respect for the "poor" people (like you) of America if they were advocating a government that gave money to people who REALLY need it in this world. In places like Africa or Asia where "rich" means having running water and electricity. Places where many people don't have shoes, and walk long distances just to get water. But you don't care about them. You don't care about them until you have your needs met. As long as you are first in line for the government's "free money" then you don't care where the rest of it goes. However I'd be willing to bet if they took it away and gave it to those in this world that REALLY needed it, you would have a much different opinion.

 

I'm a Socialist and proud I believe in the government providing for everyone a sensible level of support fit or not, so no one has to worry about fundamental needs such as those I mentioned. Softer rights not vital to ones ability to live are good but secondary to the higher rights from want if one is cold, hungry and sick what good is the right to freedom of religion will your god figure help you no the society will. The government. And it should be the parent of all the mother protecting her children as in citizens.

 

The problem with socialists is that they do not understand motivation or rights. First, being cold or hungry is a motivation to improve your lot. Coddle people and they have no reason to improve. Second, government can only provide your "level of support" by violating other's rights through force.

 

I only got this far into your post before I added you to my ignore list... sorry.

 

What you call force I can a fair redistribution of wealth aiming to the center, there is still room for poor and the wealthy in Socialist models Norway has a very high standard of living and a wealthy class, but also those not so fortunate.

And being cold and hungry when one is with few options is just allowing cruelty I see no reason every citizen can't be provided for at a level that can be seen as humane. If we can build bombs and build expensive highway projects we can pay for a better general safety net for all.

 

The key word that you used, and socialists simply do not consider, is force. They will talk about the government "providing for all" without taking into consideration where these provisions come from. They are not the ones who have to take the money from somebody, either today or in the future, when the time comes to pay the bills. They do not understand what the root and purpose of money really is, and they refuse to take responsibility for almost anything.

 

Interesting theory, so what are you doing to help the "less fortunate"? Anybody can shirk responsibility and say "oh the government should do it," but the real leaders of today, and all of history, were people that took action on what they believed in. Do you help those that are less fortunate? Have you seen what it truly means to be less fortunate? Maybe you should go to a country like Mexico, and see how poor people live there. I think it will make you think twice about calling any American "poor".

You can, again, say that a family of 4 is barely surviving on 20k a year, but why does a family that make only 20k a year have 2 kids? Unless you believe in immaculate conception, they made the choice to have children, and they must now take responsibility for the choices they have made in their life. You can continue whining on here about all of your ailments, or you can take responsibility for your life, realize that nobody cares more about you then yourself, and figure out a way to remedy the situation. It's all choices that we make, I'm just afraid we've lost the responsibility that comes with our freedom. In my opinion, individual responsibility is a very small price to pay for my liberty.

 

Care for the citizens is the highest duty of government, charity and such shouldn't be even on the table if the leaders do their jobs. As for support just attach a benefit for each person say $2000 per adult and $750 per child annually and assure basic clothing, housing, food, public transportation, education and health care with other needs are just met. For the family noted a modest two bedroom apartment would suffice for housing unfurnished. If they want more they can work for it and pay taxes to the government which need to be high enough to fund the system.

 

Good Lord, the roll of government is not to care for everyone. Who would need parents in that case?