Healthcare--a right or not?

Actually the constitution doesn't say what you CAN do, it says what the government CAN'T do. It does not give you the right to free speech, only says that the government cannot take it away. That implies that you had it allready.

- - - Updated - - -

Otherwise known as "mob rule".

 

And if there is a country that doesn't allow it?
Can something be taken away that one never had?

 

Enforced seems to be the wrong word. Rights are not enforced (you cannot be "forced" to vote, for example). They are either asserted, not asserted (either by choice or inability of the holder, or by external force or threat of force by another), or protected.

 

Some people are more accepting of the "might" as long as it agrees with them.

 

IS that ALL for profit insurance, or only health insurance?

 

If there is a law and one wants it to be followed, it has to be enforced.
Else, the law is mute and pointless.
And if one wants to take your right to vote away, they can't per the law. See some of the voter ID laws that have gone to far.

Just because the law gives one some right, doesn't mean one has to accept or participate in said right.

 

IT was in my first post in this thread... Humanity survived tens of thousands of years without this "right".

 

I believe we've already covered this. Natural rights are those things we have without neighbors. Introduce a neighbor into the mix, and we have the need to pass laws in order to protect those natural rights.

They aren't like physical laws which are there and nothing can be done about them. They are ideals based upon our ability to live as free men, independent of society. That last one is really important to the conversation because you are using society as a reason why natural laws do not exist.

That's up to the individual. You don't have the right to immortality, but you do have the right to try to stay alive as long as YOU can. Don't look at me, but rather your ability to stay alive. You might be killed by a bear, but I don't have the right to take your life from you.

and alternately, you don't have the right to demand that I keep you alive. That's all up to you as a free man.

Then I can kill you without feeling remorse.

I told you before, this requires empathy, and it appears you have none.

 

Hows that VA working out for you?

 

How would anyone agree with might, if the other person has more might?

What other means of rights does anyone have? AFAIK, it's might or societal laws.

 

Fantastic. Specially in my city. Excellent really

 

Yes, factually correct.

If you want to go that route, we can. You've already made it clear that you don't respect my right to personal property and will use violence to take mine for your own ends.

That's where civilization breaks down, and war begins.

It you want to go that route, we can.

 

Actually that is where civilization begins. Your natural law never works in a society. Without force there is no society.

 

Those with political power profit, and not always by their honest skills and work output. Socialist systems breed corruption orders of magnitude higher than what we have here. And the bigger our government gets, the easier it is for the corrupt to hide within it.

 

That's what taxes do... they lower your income.

 

What good would a single payer system be if providers can opt out? Wouldn't this make some citizens have to go longer distances for treatment if the closer provider "opted out"?

 

We didn't, you may have with another. But you are speaking purely philosophical. When you want to start passing laws to keep something, then it's not a natural right, it is a legal right. Or a fight of might makes right.

Why don't you have a right to take my life? Based on what? Some natural law that doesn't exist? It is either by respect or law you won't take my life and I won't take yours. Not because of some natural instinct. Remember, we are animals, and the laws of the jungle apply.

Absolutely. Many do. Countries certainly do. Our own country invaded another sovereign nation unprovoked, and took 100's of thousand of innocent lives. So much for their natural right to life.

It appears I have way more empathy than you, I want people to be able to get access to healthcare and live a healthy and sustained life.
You only want people with money to be able to have that right.
In the end, you only think money is a right, if you have it, you can buy all the rights you want. If you don't have money, you don't care about them and want them to essentially die earlier than needed. Some empathy you have.

We have the technology, we have great wealth in this country. Why should anyone not be able to see a doctor because they don't have money? So much for their right to life.
But hallelujah, you have yours so the hell with anyone else. Yes, you sure have more empathy than I.

Good nite.

 

Health care insurance is different though. IT isn't (mostly) charged based on risk like other insurances are (some charge extra for smokers, and some offer discounts for maintaining healthy weight). Personally I think it should be. Much, if not most need for medical care is due to voluntary lifestyle choices. Why should the person who makes risky lifestyle choices pay the same as someone who makes safer choices?

 

The only difference is instead of whipping you they fine you into the poor house and call it a tax. Anytime anyone forces you to pay for the benifit of any one not yourself it is slavery! Slave labor made money for their owners who spent it how they liked and government takes the fruits of your labor and spends it as they like. I do not see any difference except maybe the degree. Slaves were given food and clothing, those on welfare are given food, housing, and money for clothing until they get on their feet and start working like the good government slaves they are...able to once again join the slave labor force.

 

Providers would want to be in the system to get paid. They just might offer extra services to private oayers

 

All insurances operate that way.
You drive risky, speeding tickets, owi, etc, you pay more.

You build a house in a flood zone, you pay more or you may not get any insurance.

 

Absolutely false!

 

Wait, you've seriously been asking people to enumerate the rights a person has at a given time such as the moment at which you point a gun at their head to pull the trigger? Do you even know what the word means? Here:

Right: a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.

You can have all kinds of entitlements. If you see that you're holding a winning lottery ticket, you're entitled to some money. If you order something on eBay, you're entitled to it. If I pledge to give you a dollar, you're entitled to a dollar from me. If the government pledges to give you some of the money they stole from other people, you're entitled to that money. If you live in a world full of people of average intelligence who experience empathy, you're entitled to your body and any other property you can justly acquire.

All of those entitlements are constituted in the minds of everyone involved, including you. That is the extent of the reality of law. Tripe written by congress is law only because we believe it to be. No kind of right amounts to a guarantee of any kind. A title(proof of ownership which is an exclusive right to control) to your house does not guarantee that no one will burn it down. A law against murder does not guarantee that nobody will murder anyone. A right to own property doesn't guarantee a government won't relieve you of it, including your body as part of one of their social improvement projects.

 

What exactly are these things we have without neighbors?

What makes these things yours and yours only?

 

But you'll vote for a government that will?