The Free markets simply CANNOT manage affordable healthcare.

Everyone benefits from national defense, each and every day.

 

And we can't ask Mr Jefferson either. So all we got is the paper as written, and 'We the People' today.

 

Some have no choice, they can't afford health insurance. Some 10-15M before the ACA and the number kept growing each year.

 

Thank you for admitting you cannot cite the text of the Constitution or federal law that grants the right to free speech, or any other right, as per your claim

 

You, however, seek to remove that choice from those that do.
Why do you hate the right to choose?

 

Everyone needs food and water and electricity and clothes and shelter.

Need does not = you have the right to it or that others are obligated to provide it.

Government is always about violence first last foremost and always. If you need the nation defended from attack the government is what provides that. If you need a criminal locked up that is what the government is for and does best.

IF you need a house or food or a doctor the government is the worst place to get these things as it can only provide these things through coercive redistribution and it is always of the least quality.

This is why government needs to be kicked out and kept out of health care. People are far better capable of providing and getting the health care they need than the government is and they can do so without violence.

 

Costa Rica doesn't have a military, when has it needed one?

There is little evidence supporting the idea that we need national defense. It's all based on the premise that without it, we would be invaded. Well, maybe, maybe not. Simply put, we pay for national defense to feel safe, not necessarily because we are assured that without it, we would be invaded. All this is factual... this is not opinion on my part.

 

if we don't have the right to eat, drink water then why do we have the right to live? following this logic, why is it against the law to kill people? Clearly, if we don't have the right to drink water or eat food, we don't have the right to life so we have a bit of a contradiction here. If you want to take the right to drink and eat out of the equation, then you have to also consider right to life? murder should not be against the law then.

nonsense, you know better.

Thomas Jefferson on role of government:

'The purpose of government is to maintain a society which secures to every member the inherent and inalienable rights of man, and promotes the safety and happiness of its people. Protecting these rights from violation, therefore, is its primary obligation.'

"To secure these [inalienable] rights [to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed... Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:429

I want you to pay close attention to the underlined above, what do think Thomas Jefferson meant when he believed government should protect rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? Clearly, Thomas Jefferson's belief is that government wasn't created just for national defense but to play a larger role, if required. National defense would fall under the right of 'liberty' but what would fall under 'right to life and pursuit of happiness'? I would say if government's role is to protect right to life, then it would mean guaranteeing everyone access to healthcare when in need and access to food and water, no? or what exactly does right to life mean? in terms of pursuit of happiness, wouldn't assuring people they could access healthcare when in need fall under this? without health, no-one can pursue happiness.

You are not speaking to a liberal, i think government should be limited to national defense, healthcare and then stay out of many other things it tries to regulate. I actually would prefer if private sector could guarantee these basic rights aligned with 'the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness' but it doesn't, why? because the free markets is a survival of the fittest mentality, the weak don't survive. We can be like the animal kingdom and be fine with this 'natural selection' process but we, unlike animals, have a conscience, imagination and self awareness. Since the private sector cannot guarantee these basic rights, government has to play a role and i'm a believer that access to affordable healthcare is a fundamental right in line with Thomas Jefferson's beliefs. I really find it remarkable that people somehow equate 'right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness' as just 'national defense'.

 

You completely dodged and evaded the fact which I stated.

I never said anything about anyone having the right to eat or drink water or have shelter I stated NO ONE is obligated to provide you with these things.

That is the key point which you run from and which contradicts everything you claim.

No sir it is not nonsense it is fact which you know is true and you cannot refute. The government is always about violence even if it is sometimes deferred. The government produces.........nothing, they make.............nothing.........they manufacture .......nothing. They can only take things, goods or services from one or some and give to another than the consequences of not surrendering to the governments demands ARE violent.

That is fact not nonsense and you know it. The proof is that you refuse to allow for anyone to voluntarily trade or donate to others certain goods and services but insist the government provide them. IF it were not violent then you would not be asking for government to provide those goods and services. You only and strictly wish for government to provide those goods and services because they are by definition taking them by force and redistributing them to others. That is an inescapable and irrefutable fact.

There is a subtle difference between securing rights and protecting rights which is where you go astray. Jefferson did express the role of government is to SECURE rights not to protect them. But when one is securing the rights of SOME by trampling the rights of others then government is not securing rights it is violating them and by definition that is what is happening when government provides services which are the product of the people's labor, like health care.

You twist and pervert what he said and meant.

No body can guarantee anything, neither the private nor government sector which is why government, as Jefferson said, is to meant to secure rights not protect or guarantee them. In the end your life and it's maintenance is on you to protect.

 

i didn't dodge any question.

you clearly stated these things are not rights ("need does not = the right to it"), i provided a strong argument as to why they are basic rights (right to have these things). As far as the other half or your statement ("or that others are obligated to provide it"), a right has to be secured and nothing is free, someone is always obligated to provide the security of a right. You cannot detach these things..

wrong, i addressed your statement.

An extreme position but talk to Thomas Jefferson about this, some of what you state (except the exaggerations) is precisely how founding fathers meant things to work.

You seem to disagree with our founding fathers it seems because the federal government was setup to secure right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and it has to be funded somehow. The private sector simply cannot secure basic rights to it's citizens and this is the very reason the federal government exists. Our founding fathers were brilliant men, really brilliant and what you are essentially saying is that they were wrong is setting up government to begin with?

First of all, you are getting caught up on semantics with this whole 'protect vs secure' issue, small point here. Tell me something, how did Thomas Jefferson envision the federal government was supposed to secure any rights without funding it via taxes? Let me be sure i'm understanding your position, when you say 'trampling' on rights of some to secure rights of others, are you referring to taxes? Please explain what you refer to when you say 'trampling' of rights.

it's pathetic to even state this.

please explain to me what Jefferson intended to accomplish by having the federal government 'secure right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness'. I think your problem is that you disagree with our founding fathers to begin with.

 

I did not imply say or claim you dodged a question I stated you dodged and evaded a fact and you DID and still are.

You are being extremely dishonest I did not clearly or in any other way say that those things are not rights and you are lying to claim I did.

I stated no one is obligated to provide them which i a horse of a different color.

Wrong I can detach them plain and simple. Rights are never something that one has to give or provide to another nor must another secure them. I another person must only abstain from violating your rights and taking them from you and this is not an obligation or an action it is an inaction. Simply live and let live. My rights and the exercise of them take nothing whatsoever from you or anyone else and your rights or exercise of them takes nothing from me or anyone else.

You did not address anything i said in any way and you know it you lied about what I said and tried to argue against things I never stated.

Your vision is not in any way how Jefferson intended things to work which is why it is accurate and not pathetic to state you pervert what he wrote.

Of course the private sector cannot secure the rights of it's citizens because it has no citizens to protect. There is no rule anywhere that says government must violently and through coercion deny rights to some to give rights to others but that is what you are arguing and it is a stupid premise.

Jefferson was right about many things but wrong on others such as slavery so it is not a reflection on him to state that taxation is not needed. It is not. He was no God.

You are going beyond taxation at any rate. You are claiming the very product of some is a right that others can claim and that is abominable.

Even dragging Jefferson into this is stupid as he did not address health care.

If I can build or buy many houses I owe none of them to anyone. If I manufacture or import clothing I do not owe any garment to anyone. If I grow crops i do not owe a spoonful to anyone and if I am a doctor or drug manufacturer I owe no treatment or pill to anyone.

Not only is it a moral issue that government has no business redistributing such things it is a practical issue as well. When government provides housing it creates disasters in the form of ghettos and gang/drug infested projects. When it provides schooling it fails as it has been for the last few decades. When it tries to feed people it ends up distributing garbage cheese that few can stomach. That is precisely the sort of health care it will provide as well.

 

Who is taking away the right to choose? No one.

 

No one needs electricity. Basically food and water is it.

 

So everyone should move back into caves? Thanks for revealing the lefts idea of progress.

 

The free market doesn't even come into play in healthcare. The patient has no clue what the products available are, or which one could work better than another. The doctor is the one who decides in that case. Then the cost of a treatment is determined by the Dr. / hospital / insurance provider without the patient ever knowing. There is nothing free market about health care. That's why it needs to be regulated by the gov. Patients don't have a clue what is going on and therefore can not make rational decisions.

 

no, i did not.

your statement:
Everyone needs food and water and electricity and clothes and shelter.
Need does not = you have the right to it or that others are obligated to provide it.

clearly, you claim these things are not rights, if you meant something else, you should've been more clear.

but then what was government set up to do?

irrelevant, my point is government was set up to secure rights, that's all.

I didn't lie and prove it above by using your own words, and i tackled all your points

I didn't pervert anything Jefferson said, i simply used 'protect' instead of 'secure' but these two are used interchangeably in lots of literature regarding constitution and role of government, to claim i perverted things by mixing these two words is a joke, so petty.

The government is expected to secure rights by enforcing laws, laws that are largely enacted by people that we elected into office. If you think some of these laws are just means for the government to violate rights, keep in mind, WE THE PEOPLE, elect legislators and the president.

He certainly isn't if you pool together Adams, Franklin, Hamilton, Washington, Madison, these were some impressive, intellectual people that thought all this out more than you could ever do yourself. They knew that government would in one shape or another secure rights by resorting to enforcement of laws.

So based on what you say here, do you have a problem with government offering national defense? using your logic, the government is violently forcing people to pay taxes (products of their labor) to fund a military. If you have a problem with people paying taxes to fund healthcare, you have a problem with everything government does. Tell me, what is the difference between taxes for healthcare vs taxes for national defense?

he addressed securing life, liberty and pursuit of happiness' and thus very relevant to the discussion of healthcare being a right that should be secured.

it depends on laws. The government was agreed to by the American citizens when it was created and all the laws enacted have been done so by elected officials we have appointed. We elect the legislators, we elect the president and we, collectively, have formed the government. If the government one day decides that you need to provide a service, then it's because the people have consented to it.
Now, as far as providing healthcare to people, doctors are PAID.. they are not being forced to care for anyone, they are paid. If a doctor refuses to care for someone, they can, they just may lose their job.There is absolutely no F difference between an privately insured person going into a hospital, getting care or someone under single payer getting care. In one instance, private insurance pays and in the other, government (tax payers) pays. The doctor is paid and has the freedom to not provide a service if not paid. Your whole argument makes no sense, it all gets back to you being against having to pay taxes.

facts don't quite point to this. The Countries with the best healthcare rankings are Countries where government plays a larger role than in this Country, you may want to do research on this. Once again, i would be fine if private sector settles all of this but we know it doesn't. Why did president Reagan (a conservative) sign into law the law that requires hospitals to care for uninsured? because hospitals were turning back people and they were dying, even babies. Why did ACA come to be? because the private sector discriminated against people with pre-existing conditions and imposed things like lifetime limits. The private sector is more efficient but it's downfall is that it simply doesn't care about a life, it's about $$. Government was created, in part, to address this flaw.

 

Thanks for showing how things fly right over your head.
So you think electricity is a basic human right? We die without it, like food and water.
Maybe you should stick to the Travon Martin threads.

President 2017 ranking 2009 2000
Abraham Lincoln 1 1 1
George Washington 2 2 3
Franklin D. Roosevelt 3 3 2
Theodore Roosevelt 4 4 4
Dwight D. Eisenhower 5 8 9
Harry S. Truman 6 5 5
Thomas Jefferson 7 7 7
John F. Kennedy 8 6 8
Ronald Reagan 9 10 11
Lyndon Baines Johnson 10 11 10
Woodrow Wilson 11 9 6
Barack Obama 12 N/A N/A
James Monroe 13 14 14
https://qz.com/914825/presidents-da...history-as-ranked-by-presidential-historians/

Just to show you sig line is also completely incompetent.

 

Yes you did evade and still are.

You do not have the right to the product of another person's labor.

The government is meant to secure certain rights not to provide them or anything else.

Just because we elect leaders who right the laws does not mean that we approve of all they do. Or that all they do is done by consent of the people.

Income tax for example was not created by the will of the people.

Losing one's job is not the consequence of breaking the law when one breaks the law the government uses force on you. You are not simply fired.

The evidence does not argue that other countries have better health care.

No matter how you try to evade the facts those are the facts.

 

LOL! Tell anyone in a hospital they do not need electricity......but thanks for demonstrating how backward thinking lefties really are.

Since you cannot defend your ridiculous statement you decide to attack my sig? Typical.

 

saying that i evaded a point to discredit my argument is petty and a lazy way to debate. I showed you by using your own words that you did, clearly, state that some of these things weren't rights.

securing, protecting, providing and guaranteeing all go together. You keep going off on a tangent with these nonsensical arguments, tangled up in semantics. Tell me, how is the government supposed to secure right to liberty, life and pursuit of happiness without providing a military for national defense? Securing = providing in this context.

Our government is a representative democracy. I get quite frankly tired of these ideological debates about government being some sort of entity that assumed power by force. Everyone that has any basic knowledge of US civics knows that the people agreed to a government when constitution was ratified, Americans gave explicit consent. Everyone that has been born ever since, has the choice to seek citizenship elsewhere if he/she doesn't agree with the Country's laws and benefits the country offers. The federal government enforces laws that legislators create, legislators WE ELECT. There is no other way to put it other than the Federal government is our creation and what it enforces are laws that represent us. The fact that not everyone agrees with the government is a pointless discussion.

Taxes are the only way to fund the Federal government, which is, again, OUR CREATION, something we wanted. Without taxes, there would be no government as then you would be violating the rights of federal government employees by asking them to work for free. Once again, WE, gave consent to a government and so WE have consented to taxes. There is no other way to put it unless you think our founding fathers expected government to work for free.

the evidence does point to Countries with single payer/nationalized care having much better outcomes when it comes to healthcare. Look at the latest WHO rankings of healthcare system, US ranks #37 and the Countries at the top are mostly Countries with nationalized insurance or nationalized care, evidence is not only there, it's plentiful.

I have addressed your points head on. You stated certain things weren't rights, i disagreed and then provided my arguments as to why healthcare should be a fundamental right when looked at in the context of government 'securing right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness'. When you went of on all these tangents about semantics, government being a violent entity trampling on rights, i systematically tackled every single one of these points and hit them hard. Now if you will just continue to divert, go off on tangents and claim i'm evading (you are the one evading actually), then we can just agree to disagree, it's waste of my time to debate in such petty ways.

 

It is a factual way to argue and debate and yes you are dodging and evading and lying to cover it up and that is fact which is why you have lost any credibility and have been shown to be incapable of intelligent thought.

No the evidence does not show that single payer or foreign nations have superior health care

You have run like a coward from my points and gone in circles and that is proven fact.

You failed to provide any logical or intelligent reason why the product of anyone's labor is or should be a right it is not and morally never should be.


It is beyond proven and irrefutable the free market works better which destroys the very premise of your op.

BTW our government is a republic

 

There's a lot more to national defense than the capacity to repel an invasion.
All this is factual... this is not opinion on my part.

 

LOL, You are part of the group that doesn't want people who are poor, really sick, or down on their luck to even go to the hospital. Talk about backwards thinking.
Also, you are part of the group that doesn't want a pregnant woman to abort a fetus they don't want, and then not feed the when the mom can't afford to.

 

Ahh yes, here comes the desperate tactic of defining people who disagree with you. Lefties have became so pathetic that they cannot defend their own position so they must attack those who disagree with them

Well, the pathetic tactics aside, explain why anyone deserves free healthcare....

 

It is you. You were not attacked. What position did i not defend?

You have the sig that us a lie and i proved it