That dog wouldn’t hunt over in Europe, where people seemingly have the right to demand that other people spend 12 years studying to become a doctor and then provide medical treatment to them.
2 Likes
Yes, back to good ole slavery.
1 Like
How exactly does the government spend money and protect my freedom not to have troops quartered in my home?
1 Like
People in Europe have the right to health care and the government protects that right. The health care provides provide health care.
It maintains, via the military, the freedom and independence of the nation. A freedom that many Americans would not be asked to protect with their lives yet, they benefit from the sacrifice that the few are asked, sometimes told, to make. So all rights do indeed come with a price. Sometimes it’s green. Sometimes it’s red.
Besides all of that, rights should not be dependent upon an individual’s finances.
1 Like
A right to other people’s service at the enforcement of government is not a right. That is slavery.
Again, the military is irrelevant to my question. Does the government buy guns for people (citizens), since it is a right to own one?
3 Likes
In regards to the US Constitution we probably need to agree on what “rights” includes and what it doesn’t include. Your statement could be interpreted in the “right” to equal outcome.
Doesn’t the US Constitution indicate that we all have the right to pursue happiness. And not the “right” to demand happiness.
2 Likes
Negative vs. positive rights.
Negative: require only that others abstain from interfering with another.
Positive: require that others provide that thing.
So, negative rights exist without interfering with
others, while “positive rights” enslave others.
1 Like
You could look at the other way. Europe, unlike the States, has a long history of a ruling minority class and everyone else. They weren’t citizens but subjects. Essentially, it was not much better than slavery. Demanding from those in power certain rights is simply a reaction to all of the exploitation they suffered at their hands for over a thousand years. One can be against the state paying for health care but there is no right or wrong answer. A nation is free to choose it or reject it.
1 Like
Positive rights are the sword of political activists.
Negative rights are the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.
The person from whom the thing is taken loses negative rights so that you can gain positive ones. When I start hearing people stop demanding rights that don’t exist and begin invoking duties, I might start listening.
2 Likes
Hard to reject your government after years of being subjected to their control and you can’t even own a knife… much less a gun.
1 Like
Yep.
Well, the Declaration of Independence named some, and the Constitution’s first 10 Amendments protected some specifics from federal interference.
Yes, positive “rights” can’t be, for that reason.
2 Likes
Yes, something like Stockholm Syndrome, I suppose.
1 Like
You can own guns in Europe.
Or the draft. Or ER services.
Will the government provide health care for babies whose mothers were not allowed abortions?
If one couldn’t read.
No. Not all.
Like ER services. Something that separates a civilized nation from a shithole country. Some might even say a Christian nation.
1 Like
It is not easy to own a gun in most places in Europe.
The draft has constitutional backing.
ER caregivers voluntarily signed up for their profession with a private entity. They are not forced to take a certain salary dictated by the government under a nationalized program - huge difference.
The Declaration of Independence does and pursue is the key word.
Thomas Jefferson and the American Founders included the “pursuit of happiness” in the nation’s founding document because they believed that it was an inherent right of all citizens (and mankind).
2 Likes
I am not convinced if we had a national program that all doctors would be paid the same, or that private doctors / clinics wouldn’t exist. One with credentials could choose to go work for the government (like the Dr at the VA is now), or go private. I think a few South American countries are like this. They have govt health care, and private.
I am not saying it will be this way, just that there are lots of ways one could implement government health care.
I think technically we have the right to demand whatever we want. There just isn’t obligation for anyone to fulfill those demands.
Do you have any idea of the long-term feasiibllity of the private health insurance here? The prognosis is not good. We already pay about twice as much as everyone else and you complain about cost? What kind of hallucinations are you going through?
Around 60k people die each year in the U.S. because they have no healthcare. Is that what you call good?
And the word reform is just another do nothing type of rhetoric. Tinker around the edges, while keeping the status quo. So nothing changes.
We need a systematic change. You can pay far less with often better outcomes.
[quote=“Bauber, post:247, topic:277629”]
while also being taxed to death.
[/quote/]
Funny, can you tell me the highest tax bracket today vs. the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s?
Are you sure you’re not talking about the U.S.?
And in the U.S. the exact same thing happens so the doctors can collect insurance money or you’re forced into medical BK. Y/ou know where they don’t have medical BK’s?
And what is the difference in the U.S. whee health insurance companies charge much more per month and if you lose your job, typically you lose your insurance.
Where do all those cost savings come from? And you sure you weren’t in the U.S.?