PDA

View Full Version : Health care is a Right, how to handle these people?




ClayTrainor
07-02-2009, 06:51 PM
Okay, what's the best way to explain that health care is not a right, and there is a cost to it, regardless of who pays for it.

Here's the email i got.


In a nation as wealth and prosperous as the United States, it is a moral outrage that 48 million people can't afford health care.

I would rather have government bureaucrats in charge of health care than private insurance bureaucrats. The former are accountable to voters; the latter are only accountable to their shareholders.

It is sick that private health insurance conglomerates & pharmaceutical corporations profit from human suffering. Health care is a HUMAN RIGHT, not a damn commodity.

angelatc
07-02-2009, 06:52 PM
It isn't a right - it's a commodity.

"Rights" don't involve rationing. You don't need to redistribute wealth to get rights.

Kludge
07-02-2009, 06:54 PM
Challenge them to prove it's a right?

Right to life?

Right to food?

Right to water?

Right to a job?

Oh wait, you're debating socialists, aren't you?

Sean
07-02-2009, 06:55 PM
My right not to have to pay for his healthcare trumps his right to health care.

MRoCkEd
07-02-2009, 06:56 PM
They have a right to spend other people's money?

Epic
07-02-2009, 06:56 PM
If it were a right, you would legally be able to steal the property of other people. This violates private property and thus the principle of self-ownership.

tangent4ronpaul
07-02-2009, 07:03 PM
I suppose it could be a "right".

The right to purchase Rx medicine without having a gvmt blessed middle man write you a script.

The right to purchase or seek out health care you can afford.

The right to aid others if you know how without a license - if they are comfortable with that.

The right to possess an aspirin on school grounds

stuff like that...

-t

Stary Hickory
07-02-2009, 07:04 PM
In short they feel they have a right to steal...that is the real outrage. Not only that they feel they have a right to ruin healthcare even more than the failed socialist interventionism of the past.

TGGRV
07-02-2009, 07:16 PM
First of all, rights are things that come out of nature: life, liberty and so on.

To answer the underlying issue in this. Healthcare is so expensive in the US because of government regulation. If the government wouldn't force employers to insure their employees, then insurance companies wouldn't have a pool or guaranteed customers, which allows them to artificially inflate their premiums. Then, you have hospitals who see this happening and them having a pool of guaranteed insured customers, which lead them to raise prices so that they get the share of the increased insurance fees and because they'd have customers regardless. This also puts a strain on people who want to hire people due to higher costs, which leads to unemployment.

I'd have another question. Is it moral to force someone to pay your bills? Because the real question is this. General healthcare not only propagates scarcity and time lags, but it is also immoral if you believe that people shouldn't be forced to pay someone else bills.

Do I think the US healthcare needs reform? Yes. Is Obama and his leftists right about the way it should be done? No.

So no, it's not a right. Access to healthcare is a right, providing you pay for it. Government dependence is a problem, not a solution. It's amusing that in Europe parties that are against welfare started to win by pretty big margins.

A right/liberty ends where someone else's rights and liberties begin. If you want me to pay your bill, that's a privilege, not a right because you encroach my rights and liberties, which is immoral.

Also, people who push for socialized medicine forget the basic facts that for example, cancer patients are denied treatment because that treatment isn't cost effective. If you don't want the government to tell you how to dress, why would you let it take away your money and choose how you should get treated?

For disabled people, there are charities. I would like to know how much all these people who push for socialized medicine donate to help the poor who don't afford treatment. And the UN has no authority to define what rights are. They're just a bunch of statists that try to increase government all over the world in order for their inefficient schemes to survive(otherwise people would move where it suits them the best ala rich people moving to Singapore right now lol). It's like getting all the people in my neighborhood and choosing some new rights just for kicks.

To add something, US healthcare has the lowest death rates for all major surgeries, the best patient to equipment ratio and it's the biggest contributor to medical research.


I wrote that on yahoo answers a while ago.

someperson
07-02-2009, 07:25 PM
If the exercise of a "right" requires the violation, directly or indirectly, of another individual's rights, it is not a right.

tangent4ronpaul
07-02-2009, 07:38 PM
If you don't want the government to tell you how to dress,

They do - if you go to a public school.



For disabled people, there are charities. I would like to know how much all these people who push for socialized medicine donate to help the poor who don't afford treatment.

Democrats donate less than any one else to charities.


To add something, US healthcare has the lowest death rates for all major surgeries, the best patient to equipment ratio and it's the biggest contributor to medical research.


We also pay the highest costs for medical care of anywhere in the world, especially for pharmaceuticals.

-t

Bman
07-02-2009, 07:49 PM
I'd ask the person what they personally do to help people who don't have health insurance rather than trying to pass the buck to the government which has no money of their own and has at least 12 trillion in debt.

Also ask the person what happened to the millionaire population in Maryland after they raised taxes on the millionaires in the state.

slothman
07-02-2009, 07:55 PM
So the people here who think it is not a right don't mind others dying.

What if they can't afford it?
Removing all taxes and fines and so forth still won't allow all people to get health care.
Oh yeah taxes, which you voted for or live in an area of which you agree to the laws, even of your guy lost, are really stealing.

Please try to answer these without invoking the root word "Gov't is worse that private"

P.S. I got "root word" from Slashdot.
The people on that site, including me, use it when the gov't takes away right, mainly the 1st and 2nd Amendments by using "for the children" or "terrorism" to get around the lousy Const.

coyote_sprit
07-02-2009, 07:55 PM
If medical supplies came from an infinite source where no labour had to be done to aquire them and doctors cam from that same source and everyone had access to this source then it might be considered a right. Now assuming you don't live in lala land that can't happen.

Andrew-Austin
07-02-2009, 08:05 PM
Take notes on Robert Lefevre's very enlightening explanation of human rights.

http://mises.org/mp3/lefevre/108.mp3

What everyone should know.

foofighter20x
07-02-2009, 08:14 PM
A right is the ability to demand something. They always come with the burden of a corresponding duty on other persons.

All real rights are thus negative in nature. Why? Because rights require someone NOT to do an act. There is no such thing as a right to demand a positive act; e.g. demanding a person provide you with something that isn't yours unless they have agreed to do so.

You have a right to property, but you have to justly acquire it: you have to work for it, earn it, purchase it. It is not just yours to demand, except when you already have title to it.

Think of a car. You have a right to own property, in the form of a car, but you have no right to go next door and demand free use of your neighbor's car. You have no right to go to the auto shop and demand free repairs. You have to earn money, and pay for these things, provided the other party is willing to provide the good or perform the service.

Same goes for health care, which is a service, just like the auto repair is. You have no right to demand free health care. Why? Because someone else must provide the service without compensation. Is the doctor your personal slave? Does he owe you free health care? If not, why do you seek to enslave him under this "right" to free health care?

Someone might point at education and say we have a right to that, but they would be incorrect. What people have a right to is equal treatment from their government if they are under the same or similar circumstances. If a government provides a free service to area children, then your children have a right to equal treatment from that government, which means they have an equal claim to that free service.

Right now, no one gets free health care except by charitable giving. You might think government employees do, but they in fact receive their health care as a form of compensation, for working for their employer, not as some "right." So, if no one receives free health care except by charity (which is a voluntary provision of it; that is, the person agreed to provide it), how can there really be a "right" to it?

Bossobass
07-02-2009, 08:28 PM
Those who believe it's a right should have no problems donating their paychecks, SUVs, iPods, and everything else they own to 2 billion people who don't even have electricity, let alone health care.

In fact, the 1200 page climate bill allows for Obanana to take your money and stop the 'developing countries' from developing by using their own resources (coal/oil) and put up a windmill or solar panel or some such horse shit. Then they can sell the pollution rights to China so that China can exploit their coal/oil and...

But hey, right after pollution rights, women's rights, black people's rights, handicapped rights, the right to a free speech zone and gay rights is the right to health care. You just have to wait your turn.

As soon as they're done robbing us of the Bill of Rights, we'll get to our health care rights. I think we'll have to borrow the money off of the Eskimos, because, by then, everyone else will have shut off our credit.

Bosso

UnReconstructed
07-02-2009, 08:30 PM
ask them if they were still living in caves if they would have that right and who would provide for them

Golding
07-02-2009, 08:30 PM
I'd begin with the observation that the United States is not as wealthy and prosperous as he makes it out to be. We're tens of trillions of dollars in debt, with an added trillion recently added to it. The government is a bad commodity to balance healthcare one, because when the bill finally becomes too big to ignore, it will be the public utilities that will evaporate first.

The right to healthcare is not a right because it is a service inherent with scarcity. True rights, like speech, information, privacy, self-protection, are unlimited.

He is right that it is a shame that healthcare has become too expensive for people to be treated efficiently. He is wrong that it's preferable to want to resolve that inefficiency with simply receiving the bill from the US government instead of an insurance company. How about going after the reason that medicine is so artificially high, instead? Go after the choke on supply that the AMA is managing. Find ways to make college and professional schools less costly so that new doctors don't enter the field $100,000 in debt and in desperate need to recover the funds. The real solution to healthcare is much more multifaceted than "put it on the shoulders of the government", because once the cumulative weight becomes too big a burden to carry, healthcare will just be one of many markets that drops to oblivion.

paulitics
07-02-2009, 08:33 PM
The reason why health insurance is so expensive, is that in some states you are required to pay the same rate as a 60 year old with the same policy. Sorry, but a 20 year old kid, that has no savings or decent paycheck shouldn't have to pay more than what his health risk is. Yet, this same kid is paying 300.00 per month for car insurance while the 60 year old pays 30.00 per month. Hardly fair.

Epic
07-02-2009, 08:36 PM
"In a nation as wealth and prosperous as the United States, it is a moral outrage that 48 million people can't afford health care.

I would rather have government bureaucrats in charge of health care than private insurance bureaucrats. The former are accountable to voters; the latter are only accountable to their shareholders.

It is sick that private health insurance conglomerates & pharmaceutical corporations profit from human suffering. Health care is a HUMAN RIGHT, not a damn commodity."

An important point to note is that there are no private insurance companies - government runs them completely. Government has said that the customers of insurance companies cannot buy insurance across the state lines. Government has mandated that insurance companies must offer the same insurance to all customers (which leads to men buying pregnancy insurance) and also mandates that insurance companies provide insurance for various medical conditions - which means that everyone must purchase it.

So there are no private insurance companies. Government runs it through and through.

PaulaGem
07-02-2009, 08:40 PM
I think healthcare is a function of the "unalienables" and if the government can afford it it should provide it.

If the government was functioning properly and not letting all of our money get siphoned off by greedy corporations it could afford a minimum universal standard of health care.

We have got to take back government. All of these other issues are side issues compared to restoring the vote and the consent of the governed which this nation is founded upon.

Once this is done, we can argue over things like healthcare, schools, economic safety nets, etc. But unless we get real about REVOLUTION, these other issues will never be properly dealt with because the government that decides them is an illegal one.

PaulaGem
07-02-2009, 08:43 PM
"In a nation as wealth and prosperous as the United States, it is a moral outrage that 48 million people can't afford health care.

I would rather have government bureaucrats in charge of health care than private insurance bureaucrats. The former are accountable to voters; the latter are only accountable to their shareholders.

Not really. The elections are being run on machines that can be reprogrammed on election day with a garage door opener.

It is the political machines and the lobbyists that the politicians answer to, most of them don't care about their constituency at all as long as they are passive and buy into the illusion.

Optatron
07-02-2009, 09:17 PM
the same way you handle people who believe living and property are rights, ignore them if you can, fight them if you must

Vessol
07-02-2009, 09:28 PM
Since when are politicians responsible to their voters? LOL

noxagol
07-03-2009, 03:14 AM
It's like saying you have a right to have your car fixed, even if you can't afford it. No one has the right to the goods and services of others without their permission.

MN Patriot
07-03-2009, 06:15 AM
I challenge the entire notion of "rights".
What is a right? Does it really exist? Or is it a concept that has been created, like the concept of God, ghosts, the soul, etc?
Often you hear people talk about their "God given right".
The reason I ask these questions is because there are people who come up with all kinds of absurd rights, like the right to health care, housing, etc. Maybe the concept of rights needs to be addressed.
One thing we DO have is abilities. We are able to cooperatively trade with one another, or steal from one another. We can respect others, and we have the ability to kill or enslave others. They have the ability to kill or enslave us.

A slave is in a pretty hopeless spot when they cry "you don't have the right to enslave me".

You're my slave, shut up.

That is the direction the left is taking this country.

satchelmcqueen
07-03-2009, 09:07 AM
ive seen people without health care, and most of the time its because they dont even have a job to begin with to even have a chance to get it! not all the time, but usually there is a reason. i shouldnt have to pay their wellfare AND their health care, wait, i guess i do anyway...go sit at the local health dept and count how many lazy asses come in for free care on your money. its sickening.

Optatron
07-03-2009, 09:19 AM
I challenge the entire notion of "rights".
What is a right? Does it really exist? Or is it a concept that has been created, like the concept of God, ghosts, the soul, etc?
Often you hear people talk about their "God given right".
The reason I ask these questions is because there are people who come up with all kinds of absurd rights, like the right to health care, housing, etc. Maybe the concept of rights needs to be addressed.


I fully agree, I don't believe in rights, rights is just a person who would rather not justify because he cannot explain why he is entitled to something.

I don't believe we have right to privacy any more than we have right to property or life (all are only existent if you can defend it, exercise it, and have it respected by others)



One thing we DO have is abilities. We are able to cooperatively trade with one another, or steal from one another. We can respect others, and we have the ability to kill or enslave others. They have the ability to kill or enslave us.

A slave is in a pretty hopeless spot when they cry "you don't have the right to enslave me".

You're my slave, shut up.

That is the direction the left is taking this country.

exactly! talk is cheap!
just because you believe you have the right to life and freedom doesn't mean I have to respect it
and just because I believe it's PREFERABLE to have life than not, doesn't mean I have a "RIGHT" to it.

I don't believe "positive" vs "negative" rights, they're just conveninent excuses to recognize some, deny others.

Optatron
07-03-2009, 09:21 AM
ive seen people without health care, and most of the time its because they dont even have a job to begin with to even have a chance to get it! not all the time, but usually there is a reason. i shouldnt have to pay their wellfare AND their health care, wait, i guess i do anyway...go sit at the local health dept and count how many lazy asses come in for free care on your money. its sickening.

you would rather see them get sick and die, correct?

I'll answer it first, YES I WOULD.

heavenlyboy34
07-03-2009, 09:22 AM
I fully agree, I don't believe in rights, rights is just a person who would rather not justify because he cannot explain why he is entitled to something.

I don't believe we have right to privacy any more than we have right to property or life (all are only existent if you can defend it, exercise it, and have it respected by others)



exactly! talk is cheap!
just because you believe you have the right to life and freedom doesn't mean I have to respect it
and just because I believe it's PREFERABLE to have life than not, doesn't mean I have a "RIGHT" to it.

I don't believe "positive" vs "negative" rights, they're just conveninent excuses to recognize some, deny others.

What attracted you to RP if you don't believe in rights? :confused:

Andrew-Austin
07-03-2009, 09:33 AM
I think healthcare is a function of the "unalienables" and if the government can afford it it should provide it.

If the government was functioning properly and not letting all of our money get siphoned off by greedy corporations it could afford a minimum universal standard of health care.

We have got to take back government. All of these other issues are side issues compared to restoring the vote and the consent of the governed which this nation is founded upon.

Once this is done, we can argue over things like healthcare, schools, economic safety nets, etc. But unless we get real about REVOLUTION, these other issues will never be properly dealt with because the government that decides them is an illegal one.

Part of the reason government grows so corrupt to begin with is because of good intentioned people like you demanding handouts/privileges. If you want them to give you the privilege of health care (its most certainly not a right), you must let them have power over you and others. It also sets a slippery slope precedent, to where politicians seek to gain power over even more aspects of our lives so long as there is some "its for the common good" weak excuse to pacify a chunk of the population with.

It is an impossible idea for people, as in all of them, to consent to government, so don't kid yourself with that. The idea that our government derives its powers from the consent of the governed comes from Thomas Jefferson, who was the closest embodiment of an anarchist back in his day. He was just trying to instill a desire for frequent revolutions, but the fact is the US government does not need people's consent as it was not even created with their consent.



I fully agree, I don't believe in rights, rights is just a person who would rather not justify because he cannot explain why he is entitled to something.

And you have obviously done zero reading on the subject, so don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

Working Poor
07-03-2009, 10:18 AM
This whole thing is really depressing. I can't understand the whole insurance thing. Insurance is not necessary except to the companies themselves. It is so fucked up. I hate it.

Optatron
07-03-2009, 10:23 AM
What attracted you to RP if you don't believe in rights? :confused:

why are YOU attracted to RP if you DO believe in rights?

Optatron
07-03-2009, 10:25 AM
And you have obviously done zero reading on the subject, so don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

if they have an answer what are they waiting for?

does the claim or fact you have "rights" mean a person is unable or unwilling to take them from you?

are your rights self enforcing? Or do you need to enforce it with something else?
If you need to enforce it with something else, isn't THAT means the actual matter, not the rights itself?

Can rights exist without others respecting and recognizing it?

I don't buy the "I have God given rights" or "I just have them, it's self evident" crap, saying so doesn't make it so.

ChaosControl
07-03-2009, 10:50 AM
If something has to be given by a another party, it is impossible for it to be a right.
Something can only be a right if it exists when you are alone.

The right to life, the right to commit suicide, the right to take drugs. Basically the right to do whatever you want as long as you don't violate another person's same rights.

If health care is a right, what happens if that person is alone an island. What happens to their health care "right"? Where does it go?

Optatron
07-03-2009, 01:21 PM
If something has to be given by a another party, it is impossible for it to be a right.


Yes, which is why if you need a person to allow you to live rather than pull a trigger and let you die, you don't have the right to live.



Something can only be a right if it exists when you are alone.


so if you're alone without food and water, you have the right to neither, good luck surviving.



The right to life, the right to commit suicide, the right to take drugs. Basically the right to do whatever you want as long as you don't violate another person's same rights.


so every person has the same rights?




If health care is a right, what happens if that person is alone an island. What happens to their health care "right"? Where does it go?

if life is a right, what happens when a person is sick, dying in the middle of the desert or dehydrating to death?

Bman
07-03-2009, 01:26 PM
if life is a right, what happens when a person is sick, dying in the middle of the desert or dehydrating to death?


They obviously have the right to die.

TGGRV
07-03-2009, 01:28 PM
I think healthcare is a function of the "unalienables" and if the government can afford it it should provide it.

If the government was functioning properly and not letting all of our money get siphoned off by greedy corporations it could afford a minimum universal standard of health care.

We have got to take back government. All of these other issues are side issues compared to restoring the vote and the consent of the governed which this nation is founded upon.

Once this is done, we can argue over things like healthcare, schools, economic safety nets, etc. But unless we get real about REVOLUTION, these other issues will never be properly dealt with because the government that decides them is an illegal one.
There's no function of rights. Hell, I could say that I have a right to a BMW because it affects my mental sanity and hence my pursuit of happiness.

If the government was functioning properly, they'd be out of healthcare. And coercing people out of their money to pay for others is just as immoral and illegal as the current government.

Healthcare is a service. If imbeciles who say is a right would get over soap opera emotional arguments and start thinking with their brain, maybe they'd realize that.

Optatron
07-03-2009, 01:45 PM
They obviously have the right to die.

so that's all they have?

Optatron
07-03-2009, 01:46 PM
There's no function of rights. Hell, I could say that I have a right to a BMW because it affects my mental sanity and hence my pursuit of happiness.


Yep!

ridiculous!



If the government was functioning properly, they'd be out of healthcare. And coercing people out of their money to pay for others is just as immoral and illegal as the current government.

Healthcare is a service. If imbeciles who say is a right would get over soap opera emotional arguments and start thinking with their brain, maybe they'd realize that.

and if they don't, let them starve, rot and die.

MelissaWV
07-03-2009, 01:47 PM
You have a perfectly fine right to life. A doctor, however, is providing a service. They financed (somehow) their education, gained experience, knowledge, and established some kind of practice. They have bills, and all of their materials that they may employ in saving your life, or bettering it, cost them money.

You have no right to ask for those things without compensating them for the use of those items. You are not, obviously, going to return that blood that was transfused. Your heart transplant is not returnable. There are no refunds, even, on the boob implants you got put in.

Your "right to life" is supported by legislation that is about the only thing close to being fair in the judicial system. If you have been killed, your killer is liable, and the situation is evaluated by a judge/jury/DA. The intent of the killer, the method of the killing, and the general circumstance comes into play. Your "right to life" may be trumped by what you were doing the moment someone else took your life. If you were endangering someone else's life, and obviously about to infringe on their "rights" then you'll find yourself missed much less.

"Rights" do not mean an abdication of responsibility. If that person is dying out in the desert, they do have a right to life. They have a right to whatever they can do to preserve themselves without encroaching on others. Others, in turn, can help the man, but you said he was alone. I suppose the man can demand his "rights" before his Creator, if he meets him once the sun takes its toll. You obviously don't have a right to live forever. You just have a right not to be slain without cause.

A doctor who does not treat you is not slaying you. It is morally terrible, to be sure, that people die every day for whom there are easy cures. If the wealthiest people in the world share those scruples, then they will amass literal armies of physicians to storm the streets and heal the ailing. I won't legislate it to be so, though.

Health care is not a right. It is a benefit that one can get depending on one's circumstance and one's location. There are numerous charities out there that still do provide clinics and referrals. There are doctors who volunteer at care centers. There are a few people who know how to care for basic things in the home, without enlisting the help of doctors (you would be amazed... I once saw someone at an Urgent Care Center because they had a splinter).

I have heard people say that healthcare falls under "life" in the "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" clause, but they never seem to realize that they are suddenly cutting off the liberty of doctors. If the doctors we have now were to be called upon to fix every person alive, we would have a hell of a shortage, no? Doctors do not work peachy keen hours. Nurses are not fanning themselves watching Oprah or whatever, and many work far more than a 40 hour week right now. Has there been a thought as to what would happen to those professionals? How many will become overworked? What will happen when an exhausted doctor or nurse makes a mistake? Will there be compensation made? Will it be in the spirit of the litigation that goes on today?

If healthcare is a right, then where were the rights of our ancestors? Not everyone had healthcare. Not access to it, but it simply did not exist. "Healthcare" was preventive care done in the home. People died. There was sadness, but not some terrible uproar because someone else didn't prevent it. This is generally a pretty new thing.

No, rights are really things that are inherent to humanity -- all of humanity, not just present-day. Life has been devalued by some, but there are very few societies which did not value it on the whole. Liberty, though so very often stomped into the mud, is the basis of many a myth and hero... breaking free of a captor, an oppressor, etc. Though not practiced, it is often admired. The pursuit of happiness is as close to the "meaning of life" as some people seem to get. There are very few societies, if any, that thrived solely on depressing everyone. Even when oppressed, civilizations were often crowned with very merry leaders and fat priests ;) But healthcare? You won't really find it. You will find doctors bartering with patients, or deferring payment in lieu of favors or later claims. Getting better was very rarely ever free.

heavenlyboy34
07-03-2009, 01:51 PM
why are YOU attracted to RP if you don't believe in rights?

What? I believe in rights...You're not making any sense. :confused:

Optatron
07-03-2009, 01:53 PM
What? I believe in rights...You're not making any sense. :confused:

I corrected myself, why do you believe in rights, and support RP? But

NO, you believe in SOME RIGHTS, and some you call PRIVELEGES which only socialists believe in.

I believe in no RIGHTS, only responsibility, and action. Which requires freedom (you may call it libertinism)

heavenlyboy34
07-03-2009, 01:54 PM
no, you believe in SOME RIGHTS, and some you call PRIVELEGES which only socialists believe in.

I believe in no RIGHTS, only responsibility, and action. Which requires freedom (you may call it libertinism)


I've never said anything to that effect. You must be thinking of Theo.

Optatron
07-03-2009, 01:57 PM
I've never said anything to that effect. You must be thinking of Theo.

ok, so how many rights do you believe in, sorry i mistaken you.

Guitarzan
07-03-2009, 01:59 PM
One of the best explainations I've heard regarding the "right to healthcare" argument was by Tom Mullen on the C4L site, here's an exerpt:


Let us start by examining the position of the Democrats. They assert that every human being has a right to health care, and that it is the government's job to provide for those who cannot afford it. There are three key terms here: right, health care, and provide. Let's define the first two.

Right: that which an individual is entitled to without the consent of or compensation to anyone else. For example, people have a right to life. That is, they do not need anyone's permission, nor are they obligated to compensate anyone in order to live. It is appropriate for an individual to demand, rather than ask for, their right to life to be respected.

Health care: a service which primarily consists of the labor of health care providers. For example, a physician exerts his mind and body, utilizing his education and experience, to attempt to diagnose and treat a patient's illness or injury. That physician's labor is "health care."

Let us now restate the argument made by the Democrats, using these definitions in place of the terms themselves.

"Every individual is entitled to the labor of health care providers without compensating them or obtaining their consent. It is appropriate for individuals to demand, rather than ask, that health care providers treat them for free."

Gibberish.

Optatron
07-03-2009, 02:40 PM
You have a perfectly fine right to life. A doctor, however, is providing a service. They financed (somehow) their education, gained experience, knowledge, and established some kind of practice. They have bills, and all of their materials that they may employ in saving your life, or bettering it, cost them money.


Exactly, so do the police and protection services, so if you can't afford them, good luck when thugs meet you.




You have no right to ask for those things without compensating them for the use of those items. You are not, obviously, going to return that blood that was transfused. Your heart transplant is not returnable. There are no refunds, even, on the boob implants you got put in.


So if living costs other people, you don't get to live!




Your "right to life" is supported by legislation that is about the only thing close to being fair in the judicial system. If you have been killed, your killer is liable, and the situation is evaluated by a judge/jury/DA. The intent of the killer, the method of the killing, and the general circumstance comes into play. Your "right to life" may be trumped by what you were doing the moment someone else took your life. If you were endangering someone else's life, and obviously about to infringe on their "rights" then you'll find yourself missed much less.


Well said!




"Rights" do not mean an abdication of responsibility. If that person is dying out in the desert, they do have a right to life. They have a right to whatever they can do to preserve themselves without encroaching on others.


And if they fail, they fail.



Others, in turn, can help the man, but you said he was alone. I suppose the man can demand his "rights" before his Creator, if he meets him once the sun takes its toll. You obviously don't have a right to live forever. You just have a right not to be slain without cause.


Why do you have a right not to be slain?




A doctor who does not treat you is not slaying you. It is morally terrible, to be sure, that people die every day for whom there are easy cures. If the wealthiest people in the world share those scruples, then they will amass literal armies of physicians to storm the streets and heal the ailing. I won't legislate it to be so, though.


A person who is watching you die and chooses not to call an ambulance isn't slaying you either.



Health care is not a right. It is a benefit that one can get depending on one's circumstance and one's location. There are numerous charities out there that still do provide clinics and referrals. There are doctors who volunteer at care centers. There are a few people who know how to care for basic things in the home, without enlisting the help of doctors (you would be amazed... I once saw someone at an Urgent Care Center because they had a splinter).

I have heard people say that healthcare falls under "life" in the "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" clause, but they never seem to realize that they are suddenly cutting off the liberty of doctors.


some people infringe on others just by being alive, not even until they seek medical services.




If the doctors we have now were to be called upon to fix every person alive, we would have a hell of a shortage, no? Doctors do not work peachy keen hours. Nurses are not fanning themselves watching Oprah or whatever, and many work far more than a 40 hour week right now. Has there been a thought as to what would happen to those professionals? How many will become overworked? What will happen when an exhausted doctor or nurse makes a mistake? Will there be compensation made? Will it be in the spirit of the litigation that goes on today?

If healthcare is a right, then where were the rights of our ancestors?


Good question, so if people died in the 2nd World war, where was their right to life?



Not everyone had healthcare. Not access to it, but it simply did not exist.


Not everybody was allowed to live, it just simply wasn't recognized.



"Healthcare" was preventive care done in the home. People died. There was sadness, but not some terrible uproar because someone else didn't prevent it. This is generally a pretty new thing.

No, rights are really things that are inherent to humanity -- all of humanity, not just present-day.


By this logic, black people don't have it since it's not been a consistent case for them. Unless you don't count them into humanity.



Life has been devalued by some, but there are very few societies which did not value it on the whole.

Liberty, though so very often stomped into the mud, is the basis of many a myth and hero... breaking free of a captor, an oppressor, etc. Though not practiced, it is often admired. The pursuit of happiness is as close to the "meaning of life" as some people seem to get. There are very few societies, if any, that thrived solely on depressing everyone. Even when oppressed, civilizations were often crowned with very merry leaders and fat priests ;) But healthcare? You won't really find it. You will find doctors bartering with patients, or deferring payment in lieu of favors or later claims. Getting better was very rarely ever free.

Optatron
07-03-2009, 02:41 PM
One of the best explainations I've heard regarding the "right to healthcare" argument was by Tom Mullen on the C4L site, here's an exerpt:


Let us start by examining the position of the Democrats. They assert that every human being has a right to health care, and that it is the government's job to provide for those who cannot afford it. There are three key terms here: right, health care, and provide. Let's define the first two.

Right: that which an individual is entitled to without the consent of or compensation to anyone else. For example, people have a right to life. That is, they do not need anyone's permission, nor are they obligated to compensate anyone in order to live. It is appropriate for an individual to demand, rather than ask for, their right to life to be respected.

Health care: a service which primarily consists of the labor of health care providers. For example, a physician exerts his mind and body, utilizing his education and experience, to attempt to diagnose and treat a patient's illness or injury. That physician's labor is "health care."

Let us now restate the argument made by the Democrats, using these definitions in place of the terms themselves.

"Every individual is entitled to the labor of health care providers without compensating them or obtaining their consent. It is appropriate for individuals to demand, rather than ask, that health care providers treat them for free."

Gibberish.

the same can be said about food, protection, and driving on the road.

heavenlyboy34
07-03-2009, 02:43 PM
ok, so how many rights do you believe in, sorry i mistaken you.

All those rights that are implied in the statement "each person has absolute freedom (provided that one does no harm to another)". :cool:

Optatron
07-03-2009, 02:51 PM
All those rights that are implied in the statement "each person has absolute freedom (provided that one does no harm to another)". :cool:

how do you define harm?
physical only?

does the fact I'm capable of earning more money so you have less, mean i harmed you?

SimpleName
07-03-2009, 02:52 PM
If the exercise of a "right" requires the violation, directly or indirectly, of another individual's rights, it is not a right.

Definitely. Very simple and will get the point across quickly.

Brett
07-03-2009, 03:43 PM
1/3 of the 47 million could afford healthcare, but they would prefer to just pay the medical bills.
1/3 of the 47 million could afford healthcare, but would rather spend their money elsewhere.
1/3 of the 47 million actually can't afford it, and are an accident away from bankruptcy.

That myth aside, it's not a right. Check the bill of rights, or the constitution. No where to be seen.

Optatron
07-03-2009, 03:46 PM
Definitely. Very simple and will get the point across quickly.

o rly?

so if i have a choice not to save your life even if all i had to do was to press a button, you have no right to life?

MelissaWV
07-03-2009, 04:06 PM
Exactly, so do the police and protection services, so if you can't afford them, good luck when thugs meet you.

You get the protection you pay for, or haven't you noticed? We pay for the police, yet still pay for extra alarm systems, safety mechanisms, self-defense classes, etc. We still have Neighborhood Watch. Companies still pay private firms to protect their assets. There is insurance out there for the goods that are being transported for corporate purposes. It's about being proactive versus reactive. This is actually an excellent point by you!

Health insurance is about being proactive. It's a benefit, an extra, a boon. You get to find out ahead of time what's wrong with you, before you've even had a symptom.

Emergency care is about being reactive. My leg is broken. I go to the hospital. I have no insurance. Are they going to not set my leg? Actually, they will set my leg and send me a bill. If I cannot pay it, I seek charity assistance, and negotiate the price of the service down with the hospital. Health insurance would pay for that, too, but that's a wash. The point is, the bill gets paid one way or another, or else the doctor decides that the service and materials were all gifts.


So if living costs other people, you don't get to live! ... And if they fail, they fail. If it costs other people WHO DO NOT WANT TO GIVE YOU THEIR HOME OR THEIR MONEY, then yes, you don't get to live. What's funny is that when this strawman argument is put forth, it seems as if the universal healthcare crowd will also fix homelessness. There are people who would be very happy to have a free house right now. Will you let them move in with you, with no repayment? Hmm. I doubt you are volunteering for that. How about if the Government forced you to give up your "spare" room in your home for them? Sounds peachy? Didn't think so.

Or that homeless person might be directed to something like Habitat for Humanity, or to someone who voluntarily gives up room in their home, or to a shelter which is usually run by a church or a volunteer organization... I like this option much better, don't you?


Why do you have a right not to be slain? ... A person who is watching you die and chooses not to call an ambulance isn't slaying you either.

If I didn't think you were being sarcastic, I'd say you'd seen the light. No one should have some kind of legal obligation to stand around and call the ambulance for me. It may place them in danger, or may get them killed. They do not know why I am injured or what the real story is. For all they know, I'm only injured because I have a gun and was chasing someone who defended themselves. What is to prevent me from shooting the person calling 9-1-1? It'd be very kind of them to call an ambulance, but they shouldn't go to jail if they don't.

"Right not to be slain" is what most people mean when they say "right to life," and please also notice that I included reasoning in with this. If you are engaged in endangering someone else's life, you can certainly expect that they are going to endanger yours right back. You don't have a "right to live forever and ever" and if you were already dying, what is done to prolong your life is a SERVICE and isn't a God-given right, or else you wouldn't be dying already. It all becomes very circular.


some people infringe on others just by being alive, not even until they seek medical services. ... Good question, so if people died in the 2nd World war, where was their right to life? ... Not everybody was allowed to live, it just simply wasn't recognized. ... By this logic, black people don't have it since it's not been a consistent case for them. Unless you don't count them into humanity.

It's not about "having it," as if the Government can give it to a group or take it away. In fact, we recognize in hindsight that it was pretty damned awful to decide that a given group of people were lessers and did not get equal protection under the law. A slave that defended themselves was not at all the same as a Master that defended themselves. The same applied to a large number of groups, and your use of "black people" is just an attempt to paint a picture that isn't remotely relevant.

People do die. That much should be clear. Some of them die naturally, and some are slain. When they are killed, there is recourse afforded, though sorting out recourse in war is a bit difficult. You can be sure those soldiers' families received something, though it probably wasn't nearly enough to compensate for the loss of a loved one.

I notice that you skipped over several concerns in your rush to muck about further with nonsensical responses about race and other unrelated topics. Where are all these universally caring doctors to come from, without compromising quality and qualification? Who is going to pay for it all? When you answer that one, remember that you are robbing one group to pay for another group's care, and that second group contains a percentage of people who are ultimately very much responsible for their woes.

Why is charity such a foreign concept? Even the woman crying at the Obama rally was getting a great deal of help from charities. She was whining because her fiancee pays $515 a month or so for her care. How much are those treatments? How much do the rest of us already pay in insurance premiums? Has she tried fundraisers? People are generally pretty sympathetic. She volunteers for a living, but claims she cannot work. Why not?

Why is there some strange "right to healthcare" but not a "right to mobility"? I think being able to get from Point A to Point B is my right! How can I get a job or buy groceries without it? Yet I'm not issued a car. I'm not even issued a Metro Pass, am I? No. I might find help at some point, but I guess I should get up and whine that the free bus pass and my own two legs are not good enough. That is what people are doing here. There are clinics and medical services of many kinds out there. There are programs from the drug companies themselves to provide low/no cost medication. The hospitals work with people who have ridiculous bills. That might be a rusty Honda, but people want a free Cadillac instead.

Hogwash.

heavenlyboy34
07-03-2009, 04:09 PM
how do you define harm?
physical only?

does the fact I'm capable of earning more money so you have less, mean i harmed you?

harm

 http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/H00/H0094100) /hɑrm/ http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html) Show Spelled Pronunciation [hahrm] http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html) Show IPA Use harm in a Sentence (http://ask.reference.com/web?q=Use+harm+in+a+Sentence&qsrc=2892&o=101993)

–noun 1. physical injury or mental damage; hurt: to do him bodily harm.

There's no logical connection between one person earning money and another person not earning money.

TGGRV
07-03-2009, 04:15 PM
Melissa is a smart cookie. Me likey.

axiomata
07-03-2009, 04:23 PM
Can you have a right to an economic good?

gb13
07-03-2009, 04:44 PM
Democrats donate less than any one else to charities.

Can you provide a source for this? I'd love to use that in an argument.. Thnx.:cool:

mediahasyou
07-03-2009, 04:49 PM
If the exercise of a "right" requires the violation, directly or indirectly, of another individual's rights, it is not a right.

this.

CountryboyRonPaul
07-03-2009, 04:57 PM
If a right is something that is provided for you, then I want the government to start buying me weapons.

Healthcare IS a right, but it's not a privilege.

Tell them to stop confusing the two.