The State wasn't asked.
Are you a 5 year old?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Health Care Is Not A Right!
- Thread starter philly rabbit
- Start date
Are you a 5 year old?
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Um, yes and you can thank Reagan, your God, for that.
I get his point.
There is no 'right' to healthcare, strictly speaking. Reagan basically made it an entitlement in the sense that one is *entitled* under the law to not be denied services when life or limb is threatened.
It's an entitlement most reasonable people can agree with.
it in essence means no right to life
The best way to sell doing the right thing to a sociopathic Republican is to explain that they alone are not paying for the healthcare, but the burden is spread, and when they need it they can cash in too. I get the sense that I can't convince a Republican sociopath that someone else's breathing is worth a single of their hard earned dollars. They also fail to apprehend the cost savings of a healthier population courtesy of intervention before expensive conditions manifest, causing even higher bills and loss of productivity. They won't believe it is a right until they first believe that sharing the burden of care even makes sense. Hard to sell shared sacrifice to people who doubt the legitimacy of a federal government or taxes at all.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
you need to understand the framers mindset before you spout off bullshit you don't understand.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
The right exists because it was made a law.
[FONT="]Republican presidential icon Ronald Reagan imposed his own national healthcare mandate on the country. The mandate is well know today — it requires emergency rooms to treat anyone in need, regardless of their ability to pay — but the fact that Reagan signed it into law is often forgotten.
[/FONT]http://www.salon.com/2012/07/05/reagans_healthcare_mandate/
and I'm completely on board with mandating emergency services for anyone. that doesn't make it a RIGHT though.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
I get his point.
There is no 'right' to healthcare, strictly speaking. Reagan basically made it an entitlement in the sense that one is *entitled* under the law to not be denied services when life or limb is threatened.
It's an entitlement most reasonable people can agree with.
Problem is, it's not a serious argument. It's based on a narrow interpretation of what is a 'right.'
His interpretation has absolutely no bearing on reality. It's just right-wing circle-jerk music.
Obamacare exists because Americans legally and politically demand it to be so.
If the Right doesn't like that .. then what are they waiting on to get rid of it?
Therein it's 'right' to be the law of the land.
If that isn't a 'right' what is?
Darth Omar
Russian asset
The best way to sell doing the right thing to a sociopathic Republican is to explain that they alone are not paying for the healthcare, but the burden is spread, and when they need it they can cash in too. I get the sense that I can't convince a Republican sociopath that someone else's breathing is worth a single of their hard earned dollars. They also fail to apprehend the cost savings of a healthier population courtesy of intervention before expensive conditions manifest, causing even higher bills and loss of productivity. They won't believe it is a right until they first believe that sharing the burden of care even makes sense. Hard to sell shared sacrifice to people who doubt the legitimacy of a federal government or taxes at all.
You were spot on with the first 8 or 10 words before you started spouting socialist nonsense.
The severely injured are treated because it's the right thing to do. A moral society doesn't allow people to die along side the road just because they don't have health insurance. A traveling nurse I work with says the Saudis do that.
It actually has nothing to do with rights or the constitution.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
:0) That could very well be the end of your story brother .. but it most certainly isn't the end of the story of healthcare in this country.
..and, it's not my fault that you know so little about the Constitution and Founders that you claim to know so well.
It's adaptable by future generations as the Founders intended .. thus, it's a living document.
if you wish to define 'living' as being able to AMEND via the amendment process as outline in the constitution, sure call it 'living' then. But if you are defining 'living' as being able to change definitions, meanings, and prescribed authority via judicial fiat, you would be wrong.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Problem is, it's not a serious argument. It's based on a narrow interpretation of what is a 'right.'
His interpretation has absolutely no bearing on reality. It's just right-wing circle-jerk music.
Obamacare exists because Americans legally and politically demand it to be so.
If the Right doesn't like that .. then what are they waiting on to get rid of it?
Therein it's 'right' to be the law of the land.
If that isn't a 'right' what is?
this only means that people have a seriously twisted idea of what a RIGHT is. If a majority of the populace wanted it to be a RIGHT for people to own other people as slaves and could get it pushed through politicallly, does that really make it a RIGHT? On the other side of that, the RIGHT to keep and bear arms is very clearly written, yet NY and Cali make it almost impossible for most people to exercise that right, even politically. So I ask.....how are YOU defining a RIGHT?
Darth Omar
Russian asset
this only means that people have a seriously twisted idea of what a RIGHT is. If a majority of the populace wanted it to be a RIGHT for people to own other people as slaves and could get it pushed through politicallly, does that really make it a RIGHT? On the other side of that, the RIGHT to keep and bear arms is very clearly written, yet NY and Cali make it almost impossible for most people to exercise that right, even politically. So I ask.....how are YOU defining a RIGHT?
He defines it arbitrarily lol.
The left operates under 'rights by fiat'. That's dangerous territory in a republic. They either don't get that or they just reject it.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
if you wish to define 'living' as being able to AMEND via the amendment process as outline in the constitution, sure call it 'living' then. But if you are defining 'living' as being able to change definitions, meanings, and prescribed authority via judicial fiat, you would be wrong.
That is the very definition of a living document my friend, and everything healthcare fits within that definition without changing the fundamental tenets of the Constitution.
The libertarian argument that everything must fit in the minds of men dead for hundreds of years is decidedly unintellectual.
Read Thomas Jefferson more closely.
I get his point.
There is no 'right' to healthcare, strictly speaking. Reagan basically made it an entitlement in the sense that one is *entitled* under the law to not be denied services when life or limb is threatened.
It's an entitlement most reasonable people can agree with.
There is no right that allows an entity to take one's home for lack of paying medical bills.
You are playing silly semantic word games that you don't even understand.
Entitlements are payed for during the recipients working life.
By what standard is there no "right" to healthcare? Does it not exist as a right simply because it is not directly enumerated in the Constitution, despite being indirectly enumerated multiple times? No. Th Constitution is not the origin of rights. It just records a few of them.
Healthcare is a natural right as society exists today. As it was at the time of the founders. Then it was such a given that a Dr. would present services that it didn't need to be written down.
By the way Reagan made it a right.
Do you honestly believe that a law cannot be made granting a right?
Honestly, it is like explaining things to a pre-teenager.
GazzaQueen
Verified User
In America, I have the right to demand you fools pay for my medical care haha. Don't forget the kids!
It is not, and under the constitution, it was never meant to be. The monster in the room will continue to grow and it's hunger for tax dollars will never cease because health care is supposed to be a right of the people.
When the Constitution was drafted, small pox, diphtheria and yellow fever were rampant. One treatment for small pox was a concoction of “rub, sage, mint, rosemary, wormwood, and lavender,” combined in “white-wine vinegar. Other remedies included bleeding the patient so that "good blood" could replace the "bad blood". Newspapers, not doctors, were the most common way to communicate cures. There was no notion of germ theory. People died young and birth mortality was high.
So, don't gives us any bullshit comparison of the 18th century to the 21st century on this issue. It doesn't fly.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
what it meant at the time of ratification, means the very same now. so no, my friend, you would be incorrect.That is the very definition of a living document my friend, and everything healthcare fits within that definition without changing the fundamental tenets of the Constitution.
The libertarian argument that everything must fit in the minds of men dead for hundreds of years is decidedly unintellectual.
Read Thomas Jefferson more closely.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
a car crashes and burns up.
Before it burns up a by stander manages to pull a small girl from then car.
she is bleeding and will bleed out without care.
does this society owe her care or should she bleed out in the street?
there is only one answer if you are not an evil fucking piece of shit
Typical left wing bullshit.
Offering only two options? Society doesn't owe her anything.
Does she need care? Should she get it? Yes.
Is it OWED to her by someone else? Of course not. Should someone have their rights infringed so she gets care? No
You make child like arguments yet think you are smart. Dangerous combination
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
this only means that people have a seriously twisted idea of what a RIGHT is. If a majority of the populace wanted it to be a RIGHT for people to own other people as slaves and could get it pushed through politicallly, does that really make it a RIGHT? On the other side of that, the RIGHT to keep and bear arms is very clearly written, yet NY and Cali make it almost impossible for most people to exercise that right, even politically. So I ask.....how are YOU defining a RIGHT?
Again, I disagree. It means that people don't have your narrow libertarian view of what is a right.
Let's use your argument. People DID own other people as slaves for hundreds of years .. and they did so because it was their 'right' to do so.
You can't own people as slaves here anymore because it has been legally judged that you no longer have that 'right.'
The argument that healthcare isn't some narrowly defined 'right' is a completely useless argument because it exists and it's not going away.
Rights are determined by what you can DEMAND .. not by what is fair, honest, civil, or by what Jesus would do.
If you can't DEMAND them, they aren't your right.
nobody has a RIGHT to the products or services of another. end of story. and the 'living' document theory is crap.
Actually, they do, and the courts have upheld it time and again. You continue to prove what a Constitutional ignoramus you are.
Haven't carried that sawed off shotgun into the courthouse, have you, 2A PUSSY?
It actually has nothing to do with rights or the constitution.
Exactly.
It has nothing to do with the Constitution or the word right in a constitutional context but it most certainly is a right, a human right. As you pointed out, Saudi Arabia doesn't respect human rights, which is another reason we should have nothing to do with them.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
They were also wise enough to know that they could not even conceive of what future societies would look like, or what the needs would be. That's why they created a living document, knowing it would need to be changed often in the future.
Jefferson though the Constitution should be rewritten every 19 years.
Healthcare not being a 'right' isn't really a serious argument.
No such thing as a living document you stupid fucking coon
Find one quote of a founder calling it a living document. Just one