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

That is my exactly my position.

They are both unjust, as they involve they require the confiscation of others belongings in order to be supplied.

 

So you're agreeing that the military is unjust then - do you advocate disbanding the military and replacing it with private military contractors?

 

The right of self defense is a natural right so by extension the military is just a group effort to protect natural rights. There is no natural right to steal from others. Your stand is immoral.

 

The military exists by stealing from others.

I consider healthcare equivalent to self-defense, since in realistic terms lack of healthcare is a more likely cause of death than enemy bullets. It's not a "luxury" any more than military or police protection is - it's an essential tool for survival and benefits US national interests as a whole, much like the military does.

 

Yes, I agree that it is unjust to take the belongings of others by force in order to provide ANY service. This includes defense.

And yes, under the governmental system I favor (in which it is illegal to violate the property of others), there would be no "government" military just as there would be no "government" health care.

 

Okay then at least you're consistent (somewhat), though my guess is you still have no problem using public roads and other services as long as they're currently available.

And it's cool - you're consistent, but if you want a private military and police simply because you view those institutions as "theft" then that'd put you in a hyper-fringe segment of the population, who probably have about as much actual following as Communist parties do, so your views will always be fringe and impractical in real life politics. And even the Founders would have been too "socialist" for you.

 

I'm sure I am in a very small minority. But from tiny acorns grow mighty oaks, and every political movement has to start somewhere.

The fundamental idea that it is wrong for any individual to violate the property of another is the only civilized way for people to interact, in my opinion. I take comfort in the knowledge that for most of human history, there must have been a hyper-fringe segment of the population that thought slavery should be abolished.

 

As well as a hyper-fringe segment of the population who think that owning pets is the same as slavery:

 

Well they're just flat-out kooks.

 

Rights are not natural they are constructs of the government and the society one is in, slavery in the US was for the majority considered natural and the condition of certain inferior peoples and then later that changed when the society changed its views for the better. In Soviet Russian they had rights to to food, shelter, education, health care and assured lifelong employment and on paper a fundamental equality of the people in the state but they didn't have some other rights. Its all relative.

The UN is the global institution of nations and its charter and the Declaration of Human Rights is our evolved view of rights for persons in societies the ideals we as a species uphold, this will change perhaps but seems to cover what various peoples view as fundamental rights. So I don't see any natural rights arguement your rights extend to what society grants you and perhaps can get by your use of force such as the Amistade Slave case. Even then their freedom hinged on what rights our nation granted them and what other nations observed.

 

Another false statement, poor people have many avenues for free healthcare, the debate is about insurance not health care. I hate to burst your bubble but everyone to a man or woman with healthcare insurance dies.

 

Sigh, constitutional ignorance is rampant in this country. No wonder people give up essential freedoms for a warm and fuzzy.

 

I'm talking about single payer healthcare, not "universal health insurance" or "Obama Care" - neither of which are universal healthcare.

 

Single payer is just monopoly on insurance. Why do you think the Administration argued for going through health insurance companies during the SCOTUS arguments? Do you have any idea? Their argument is because it would be more efficient.

For those that parrot another government statement that Medicare is run more efficiently than private insurance needs to look into the numbers they use. For instance, they do not include the other department costs that are involved and do not include the costs of buildings, etc. In other words, it is a lie and the Administration knows it. By concentrating money in one department you also get to concentrate inefficiency and waste much less getting to party on the money like what has been in the news recently.

 

Eliminate insurance altogether and extend universal coverage to all. Allow the private sector to run its own healthcare as it sees fit.

 

Why not eliminate simple poverty and let market participants decide what is preferable for them.

What excuse could any rational persons have for staying poor, if they can no longer claim to be in poverty. Let's assume persons can apply for unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines. It should be a simple and market friendly activity in any private sector.