Do you have an entitlement to Health Care? (USA)

Simple question:

As a condition of being a living, breathing citizen of the United States of America, are you entitled to medical goods and services?

Why or why not?

 

You are only entitled to what you work and pay for. There is no such thing as a free ride.

 

I say, yes. Everyone is entitled to health care. If there's a real question of resource shortage, and not just some bizarre imbalance in the distribution of currency, then that entitlement might be questionable. Or if it required some sort of tax burden that might actually impoverish even a single human being, that would make it questionable, too. But since neither of those are even remotely the case, then obviously, the people are entitled to health care.

 

So...you figure if I work, and you don't, and you are not disabled in a way that would prevent you from earning an income...I should have to pay for your health care? {because 'free' healthcare is paid for by taxpayers..its not funded by the government you know}

 

You have a right to your life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No one has a right to the goods and services of others.

 

People talk and embrace ''free healthcare'' like it was actually free!! what a joke.

are u kidding me?? all that ''free'' stuff cost money..and when is back by government..they WILL COST MUCH more

U are paying for that ''free'' medicare...

Snap out of it!

 

Yes.

The important stuff, anyway. Broken bones, life-threatening conditions, that sort of thing. Not cosmetic surgery or gastric bypass (at least not in most cases).

I'm not sure that it would actually require taxes, but if it did, I would be fine with that. I think that's kind of a red herring, though -- really, I don't think most people that are against universal health care are against it because of the cost, they're against it because they don't want everyone to have health care because the threat of a lack of health care is a great way to force people into the factories. Or whatever other use the wealthy have for people.

 

Okay. We're paying for it. Same as we pay for the military, because we figure everybody needs it, right?

Only this would cost less and have a more direct benefit to the lives of the American people.

How does the fact that it costs something make it a bad idea? EVERYTHING costs something.

 

Of course you do.

Cant work/pay tax if your dead from an illness.

Although by reading the comments on this forum. The ill and poorly are spat if they havent got corp health policies.

 

I can go along with that. The wealthy will be entitled to nothing and the working class will have health care, if you actually hold true to that. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be an improvement.

 

I agree!

Even if they've contracted for them, no one has a right to the goods and services of others. That's what you meant, right?

 

everyone has the right to purchase health care.

 

------------
So let me be sure I'm getting what your saying here....

Since heart disease is a 'life threatening condition'..let's use that one....

You think since you are not disabled, you should be able to sit on your couch, watching soap-operas all day while consuming twinkies, cheese puffs, and whatever else you want, while drawing an unemployment check because you 'can't find a job' {on my dime too} and when you have a heart attack I should pay for that too??

 

Every American citizen that is a real citizen should be entitled to reasonably priced health care (non of this coming to America and having a baby on the tax payer). If this can not be afforded then the health care should be subsidized much as it is.

I am of the stance that if employers can't pay a wage that allows an employee to have a life and get insurance then there is an issue. Screw the American cheap ass attitude. Prices need to go up!

Hell a flat tax on every dollar made in this country would fix that. Say 2% and I do not care if you only make 100 dollars a week you are going to pay it.

Regulation of the medical and drug industry as well. How much do the drug companies spend on advertising to the general public? Well I will tell you that many of these doctors have no idea WTF they are prescribing and they get kickbacks for prescribing the drugs.

 

Some.

I'm a major believer in having one's basic needs provided freely: that is, even the poorest and laziest individual should be entitled to a minimal amount of sustenance. So, a very basic amount of health care, covering livelihood-threatening health problems that occur independently of lifestyle, should be provided to all poor folk.

Here are a few examples for my proposed system:

-A rich person gets cancer. His life is threatened and he needs an expensive operation. He doesn't get any government funding for it because he has plenty of money already.
-A poor person with an absurdly bad height-weight ratio gets heart disease. He needs a pacemaker, but he can't afford it. He doesn't get any government funding for it because this is his own fault.
-A poor person needs to buy some contraceptive pills if she wants to get laid tonight. She doesn't get any government funding for them because sex is a want, not a need.
-A poor person gets run over by a drunk driver and needs an operation to fix his spine. The government gives him all the money he needs for it because this wasn't his fault and he'll be paralyzed if he doesn't get help.

This system gives security to millions of people and the taxpayer bill would be much lower than that many other government care systems. It could replace Medicare and Medicaid at a much more affordable cost.

 

You do not have a right to someone else's service. This is a simple constitution and common sense matter.

 

Yes. And the unemployment check isn't on your dime, it was on their dime and they already paid it (and probably a lot more).

 

What if you have a contract for someone else's service? Then you have a right to it, don't you?

 

A government mandated one? No thanks. Government has no authority to do that... at least they aren't supposed to.

 

I agree. But that makes capitalism impossible, if the government isn't going to enforce contracts, especially property rights. People will only be able to own what they can control, and without the help of the government that will be considerably less than what a few people are currently able to amass.

So, if we end welfare for the wealthy -- also known as capitalism -- then fine, we don't need heath care for everyone else. But if we're going to keep funding the wealthy at everyone else's expense, they're going to kick in health care or the rest of us have no reason to acknowledge the wealthiest peoples' contract with the government that says they own everything.

It's only fair.

 

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

 

It's different if I can choose to sign a contract with another person... than if the government MAKES me sign it.

I'm not in favor of bailouts either.

 

...a UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE system in America. It is our best option, in the long run.

 

It will cost us more and the quality will become lower

 

Not really. By backing the wealthy's claim to necessary resources, the government facilitates situations of artificial scarcity. People then sign contracts, giving up roughly a third of their lifespan, in order to acquire goods that could acquired easily without government interference on behalf of the wealthy.

Without the government backing up their claim with force and violence, the wealthy couldn't force everyone to work for them.

So what I'm saying is that if we're going to say that there is no entitlement to health care, we should also say that there's no entitlement to property rights, since I think we can all agree that health care is at least as important as property for most human beings. If we choose just one, but not the other, then the government is picking sides. We should have either both, or neither. Most human beings will be better off either way.

I didn't think you would be.