if you believe health care is a civil right you should then......

Discussion in 'Civil Rights' started by beth115, Sep 16, 2015.

  1. beth115

    beth115 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2015
    Messages:
    295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Believe having the right to purchase insurance of your choice is a right. Yet democrats disagree with that. They are hypocrites.
     
  2. Heinrich

    Heinrich Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2015
    Messages:
    1,027
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Having the money to purchase expensive insurance from private enterprise for-profit businesses has nothing to do with a civilized government delivering health care to all citizens regardless of wealth. In this respect, the USA is far behind the European Union, Cuba, Norway, and other countries with national health services.
     
    Guno likes this.
  3. KAMALAYKA

    KAMALAYKA Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,690
    Likes Received:
    1,005
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The logic is simple.

    1.) I have a right to life. (We hold these truths to be self-evident...)

    2.) The government's job is to protect my rights, one of which is life.

    Therefore,

    3.) If I am in danger of losing my life, the government needs to do whatever is in its power to protect my life.

    A national health care plan seems pretty constitutional to me.
     
  4. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,187
    Likes Received:
    62,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I believe you have a right to buy insurance... I also believe you should be able to choose a public option

    I do not believe in the conservatives individual mandate though

    .
     
    Guno likes this.
  5. stepped_in_it

    stepped_in_it Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    May 22, 2015
    Messages:
    515
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yep....."Life, Liberty and the pursuit of.........

    Does the Constitution say HEALTHY life? Pain-free life? How about people who try to take their own life? Are they traitors?
    Citing the Constitution to to legitimize a "national care plan" seems stretching it......a lot!
     
    Ndividual likes this.
  6. KAMALAYKA

    KAMALAYKA Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,690
    Likes Received:
    1,005
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, if someone's illness prevents them from practicing their rights, you can argue that it's the government's job to fix that.

    I believe that the government is supposed to be the people's employee. It's ultimately up to the people to decide what the government does or does not do.

    For example, when Upton Sinclair made us aware of the poor conditions of meat processing plants, the people wanted the government to regulate these places, thus creating the FDA. Technically, the FDA is unconstitutional, but if most people want it, does the Constitution override the will of the people?

    I'm not advocating that we toss the Constitution. However, the Founding Fathers wanted it to be a fluid document that evolves with the needs of the nation. It could be interpreted in light of a current generation's morality and sensibilities.

    The last of the Founding Fathers died in the 1840s. The Constitution had been changed a lot by then, and none protested that fact. Novel interpretations rose. Laws were changed.

    Do you think this is wrong? We ignore the part of the Constitution that states that a slave is to be counted as 3/4 of a man during census. We ignore the part of the Second Ammendment that keeps the military in the hands of the people. Should we go back to slaves and community militias?

    Should we continue to interpret the Constitition as they did in the 19th century, as you advocate?
     
    Guno likes this.
  7. QuarterLessTwain

    QuarterLessTwain Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2015
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A while ago, a friend of mine lost his health care coverage because he was working for a company which stopped giving its employees health care coverage because the company was better off paying the fines than complying with Obamacare, and he couldn't afford Obamacare, because he only makes $90,000 to $100,000 a year. Thanks, Obama!

    Another friend of mine works at a company which cut all of its full-time employees hours to part-time, so that they don't have to give them health care coverage. Thanks, Obama!
     
  8. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63



    The government needs to stop you from smoking?




     
  9. QuarterLessTwain

    QuarterLessTwain Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2015
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They also need to stop people from drinking, eating fried foods or junk food, owning guns, driving cars, walking down the street at night, watching too much TV....
     
  10. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A UKers take on it.

    We have the NHS here, it is not perfect by any means .. but, what it does provide is health care for any person regardless of their financial situation or status (ie. the NHS will care for illegal immigrants in the UK.

    It is one of the things in the UK that I whole heartily support, as does every major political party in the UK and the majority of people would not be adverse to paying a little extra tax in order to keep our health service relatively free at the point of service (57% in favour)

    I personally believe that every 1st world country should have a form of National Health Service . .that is not to say that any person who wishes to pay for private medical insurance should not do so, as far as health care is concerned the US, with Obamacare, have taken a huge step forward IMO.
     
    Guno likes this.
  11. QuarterLessTwain

    QuarterLessTwain Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2015
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I know next to nothing about the UK's system, but according to an article I read several years ago, Canada's system was slightly better than what the USA had before Obama took over — oops, I mean took office; wouldn't want to cast aspersions on our glorious leader — so even though Obamacare is a miserable, expensive failure which has caused a lot of people to lose their healthcare coverage, I still think that a properly implemented national system would be a good idea if it were combined with a properly implemented private system. To the best of my knowledge, Obamacare hasn't helped anyone except Washington Totalitarians — oops, I mean "Democrats" — so I don't see how it's "a huge step forward."
     
  12. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I didn't say it was perfect, but it is a huge step in the right direction, instead of people just slating it why not work to improve it .. but that of course would require some people to move away from their ideology of big business knows best, despite the reality that by far most of them are in it only for themselves.

    Case of point being the failure of the major pharmaceutical companies to finance, or even support, the VasGel research as it would mean a large cut in their sales of condoms and contraceptive pill, same thing goes for the price they charge for the more reliable contraception, its nothing to do with manufacturing costs, its all about attempting to ensure they have a steady stream of customers who have to buy their product on a daily basis.
     
  13. gamewell45

    gamewell45 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Messages:
    24,711
    Likes Received:
    3,547
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I believe that ACA gives people the right to choose the insurance of their choice (and there is choice) in the first place. If you don't like what ACA offers, then you can choose what your employer offers. I chose what my employer offered.
     
  14. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63



    By that logic cheeseburgers and coca-cola would be illegal.




     
  15. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not necessarily, in order for your comment to be true you would first have to prove that a persons obesity is caused by the items mentioned, and as there are people who are obese without having had a life of cheese burgers and coca-cola to ban them would just be a case of assuming the premise. ie assuming it was cheeseburgers anbd coca-cola causing the problem.
     
  16. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63



    A cheeseburger is a risk to your life, regardless of your weight. Talk to the American Heart Association if you want more info. But if you're still skeptical, then use cigarettes as an example. There isn't much uncertainty with those.

    If "the government needs to do whatever is in its power" to respond to any danger to our lives we're talking about a police state.

    (good-bye Harley-Davidson)




     
  17. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    With the advent of vaping I would have no problem with any government making cigarettes illegal.

    A cheesburger may increase the risk to your life, that does not equate to what the poster you responded actually said - "3.) If I am in danger of losing my life, the government needs to do whatever is in its power to protect my life." I take that to mean an immediate danger, not just increasing a risk .. perhaps I have read the intention of the comment incorrectly.
     
  18. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63



    Take it as you like. I took it as a whiny demand for someone else to take responsibility for his life.

    We're in a similar place on cigarettes. Seems the nation is moving the wrong way though. Some folks seem to believe that burning marijuana is less likely to give you cancer than burning tobacco.





     
  19. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    As is your prerogative, though I suspect even you would want someone to help if your life were in danger.

    As far as I am aware there is no clear evidence to link smoking marijuana to lung cancer, by all accounts it is still being researched .. that is not say I endorse smoking it.

    http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/abo...s/does-smoking-cannabis-cause-cancer#evidence
     
  20. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63


    Cancer is damaged cells that don't die fast enough. A very easy way to cause cell damage is with free radicals, which are created generously by incomplete combustion. Lung cancer and other respiratory problems abound in third world nations where cooking fires are poorly ventilated and people live in smoldering fumes.

    ln first world countries, we don't have as much opportunity to choke on cooking fires so people need to pick-up grasses, dry them, burn them slowly at a low heat and hold them between their lips to get adequate tar into their lungs. It doesn't matter which grasses you accomplish that with, slow burning any hydrocarbon will give you all the poison you need. You could do it with hay or oak chips if you like.

    Well, there is greater effect with unfiltered cigarettes, which allow more partially combusted hydrocarbons to flow into your lungs. And it helps if you breathe more deeply, like pot-heads trying to get a better buzz. But yea, there's no proof that your next joint will be the one that kills you. You're playing Russian roulette with a ten thousand chamber gun, it could take years before you find your bullet. Puff away.




     
  21. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't smoke tobacco (gave up 4 months ago) or marijuana, so no I won't be puffing away.

    As to the rest of your comment you are just jumping to conclusions, I'll wait to formulate my opinion on what the official research into marijuana and lung related cancer finds. BTW in the lab they have found that marijuana actually kills cancer cells.
     
  22. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63


    A lot of things kill cells. Most of them cause cancer.




     
  23. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
  24. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63


    You think it's "jumping to conclusions" to say that burning hydrocarbons produces free radicals, that free radicals cause cell cancer, but you believe marijuana "cures cancer"? (from the junk blog links you provided)

    Inhaling smoke causes cancer. Whether you're in a lab or not. The process is tragically well established. If you don't want to believe it don't. Puff away. I don't give a damn.



     
  25. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hmm so science daily is a "junk blog", even though the article is based on research carried out by Harvard University that shows "Delta-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), inhibits EGF-induced growth and migration in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expressing non-small cell lung cancer cell lines.", and as far as I can see there is nothing that links lung cancer to smoking marijuana.

    One of the ideas concerning lung cancer and marijuana is that it is not the marijuana that causes lung cancer but the tobacco it is mixed with ergo if you are a person who smokes marijuana do so without using tobacco, and as I have already pointed out to you I don't smoke tobacco or marijuana.
     

Share This Page