Health Care is Not a Right

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I understand what you’re saying but I also understand human nature quite well. And I think that your system can be played just as easily as the US when it comes to those who want to live off the government dole. If someone is rewarded enough for doing nothing that’s exactly what they’ll keep on doing.

I agree with this. I just think we should do our utmost to stop people from playing the system, rather than simply doing away with it.

For example: if you are on food stamps, your license is electronically marked and you are entirely prohibited from buying cigarettes and alcohol. It’s not going to solve the problem, but little things like that can add up.[/quote]

Well, I actually think that’s a step in the right direction. But how about this; instead of simply handing people on welfare free money how about they have to stop in at the local office and sweep floors, rake, shovel snow, wash dishes, or maybe just sit in a room and make a list of what skills they have to offer the work place?

[/quote]

I would fully support such a measure.[/quote]

It’d be cool if we could pick them up at local welfare offices to do housework and such.[/quote]

I think we would benefit tremendously from having them work for free for a while, in some capacity or another (not really for free, because they would be getting food or health services or whatever out of it).

Skills would build, connections would be made, good references acquired. It couldn’t hurt.[/quote]

Wonder if unions or whatever would get upset though. I predict complaints being made that governments are avoiding having to pay a straight living wage and benefits for employees through the use of, well, serfs, to do the work. And the less wage paying jobs, the more welfare needy. The more welfare needy, the more cheap labor. Hmm.

42

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Do you people believe that if a child comes into an emergency room with a bullet in his chest, and he does not have health coverage, and his parents will never be able to pay for medical procedures, he should be turned away?[/quote]

Is this more propaganda from the left? Surely you’re not serious. No one has ever been turned down for emergency care in a US hospital. We are not a third world country.[/quote]

Exactly. And no one ever should be. Which is, in practice, the same as everyone having a right to health care.

Call it what you want: rights, obligations privileges. An affluent society should see to the basic health needs of its citizens. End of story.[/quote]

Really, I think an affluent society should give everyone a pony and I would like a blowjob from Jessica Alba.

End of story.

If could send me some of your Dads money to get that done, hell no, you will fucking send me one third of your paycheck from here on till eternity, or else I will throw you into a cage or simply take what is yours and auction it off.

Please dont resist, I might have to kill you if you do.

[/quote]

Yep, because basic health services are analogous to a pony and a blowjob from Jessica Alba.[/quote]

Yes, because it is.

43

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Says you.
[/quote]

Says the definition of EBT food benefits.

You can get around it by buying someone else food with your EBT card and selling it to them for cash. It isn’t easy though.[/quote]

Yeah, because “it” not being easy has always stopped so many people from getting high.

44

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
ZEB wrote:

When you take money from someone who earned it and give it to someone who did not earn it you harm both the person you took it from and the person that you gave it to.

[/quote]

ZEB, don’t you agree that, if you make a lot of money, you should help out those less fortunate than yourself? Almost to create an equal base for all of us? That way we have the ability to pull from the same amount, monetarily speaking? Obviously, this would be given that those receiving funds are indeed making proper choices in their lives with the money they hvae, and it just so happens that they were not as fortunate as others.[/quote]

You have four basic points to your post:

1-I “should” help someone less fortunate is different than “must” help someone less fortunate. I personally contribute to various charities including my church. While I feel it is my moral obligation to help others in need, it is immoral to force anyone to help others in need. Thus, high taxation is defacto immoral! For example, it is immoral to force a person to pay for another persons health care. Where does it say in the constitution for example that I am responsible for another persons children who live 5 states away? This is not only wrong, it’s border line insane.

2-When you hand someone something for doing nothing you have not created an economic “base” for them as you have suggested. What you have done is create an economic dependency. You’ve encouraged them to do more of what got them the “free” money to begin with. And the many feeble minded liberals who tout this as being something that is “good” need only reflect back on how human beings react when they are rewarded for a given act. Said act is repeated again and again as long as a reward is given to them. Basic Psychology 101.

3- You and I can never be assured that proper choices will be made with money that is “given” to them. It would be almost impossible to track. And most unnecessary if we had a system that forced people to work at something, anything in order to get those very temporary funds. In other words, why try to force someone to spend said funds properly when you can force them to work for it initially. Doesn’t that make more sense? And don’t you think that would stop the generational welfare which has taken hold?

4- And be very careful how you use the term “less fortunate than others”. While there are people who are less fortunate, by and large most people create their own heaven or hell right here on earth. For example I know that you worked very hard for the position that you have. Was if fun? Did you sacrifice even a little to get there? Exactly! Success comes from within, not without. That’s why government is the wrong answer as all government can do is enable the poor, thus keeping them in the position that they are in. How in the world does that help anyone long term? It does not.

45

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Do you people believe that if a child comes into an emergency room with a bullet in his chest, and he does not have health coverage, and his parents will never be able to pay for medical procedures, he should be turned away?[/quote]

Is this more propaganda from the left? Surely you’re not serious. No one has ever been turned down for emergency care in a US hospital. We are not a third world country.[/quote]

Exactly. And no one ever should be. Which is, in practice, the same as everyone having a right to health care.

Call it what you want: rights, obligations privileges. An affluent society should see to the basic health needs of its citizens. End of story.[/quote]

I knew where you were going with this when I answered and you didn’t disappoint. There is a very, very large difference between emergency care and taking money away from hard working people to give to others so they can go to the doctor when they have the sniffles.

46

Well, we’re going to need lots more young workers (well raised and adjusted) to shoulder UHC (demographics are a problem). Time to put marriage, child bearing and rearing, back on it’s rightful social pedestal. My progressive mask slipped and the conservative showed through…

47

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I understand what you’re saying but I also understand human nature quite well. And I think that your system can be played just as easily as the US when it comes to those who want to live off the government dole. If someone is rewarded enough for doing nothing that’s exactly what they’ll keep on doing.

I agree with this. I just think we should do our utmost to stop people from playing the system, rather than simply doing away with it.

For example: if you are on food stamps, your license is electronically marked and you are entirely prohibited from buying cigarettes and alcohol. It’s not going to solve the problem, but little things like that can add up.[/quote]

Well, I actually think that’s a step in the right direction. But how about this; instead of simply handing people on welfare free money how about they have to stop in at the local office and sweep floors, rake, shovel snow, wash dishes, or maybe just sit in a room and make a list of what skills they have to offer the work place?

[/quote]

I would fully support such a measure.[/quote]

Now you’re thinking clearly!

Unfortunately we DO NOT have a Chief Executive in the oval office who agrees with us. And I do not think that we will ever see the sort of meaningful change that we both agree is needed as long as democrats hold power. Keep in mind a good portion of their constituency are the very people who feel entitled to government funds for doing nothing.

And that is one reason why I am a republican and vote conservative.

48

“Healthcare is not a right. A right cannot be derived from the services of others.”

Bingo.

An enormously important difference that most people don’t seem to understand about positive and negative rights. It’s crucial to a free society, however, to maintain the distinction.

One of the defining reasons I’m a conservative is just because I believe something is the right and good thing to do doesn’t mean I believe that I should be able to FORCE someone else to into action to do it.

49

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I understand what you’re saying but I also understand human nature quite well. And I think that your system can be played just as easily as the US when it comes to those who want to live off the government dole. If someone is rewarded enough for doing nothing that’s exactly what they’ll keep on doing.

I agree with this. I just think we should do our utmost to stop people from playing the system, rather than simply doing away with it.

For example: if you are on food stamps, your license is electronically marked and you are entirely prohibited from buying cigarettes and alcohol. It’s not going to solve the problem, but little things like that can add up.[/quote]

Well, I actually think that’s a step in the right direction. But how about this; instead of simply handing people on welfare free money how about they have to stop in at the local office and sweep floors, rake, shovel snow, wash dishes, or maybe just sit in a room and make a list of what skills they have to offer the work place?

[/quote]

I would fully support such a measure.[/quote]

Now you’re thinking clearly!

Unfortunately we DO NOT have a Chief Executive in the oval office who agrees with us. And I do not think that we will ever see the sort of meaningful change that we both agree is needed as long as democrats hold power. Keep in mind a good portion of their constituency are the very people who feel entitled to government funds for doing nothing.

And that is one reason why I am a republican and vote conservative.[/quote]

UK government is trying to make the long-term unemployded do manual labour actually

Interesting. But we have a bigger welfare state than you do I believe (But we spend less on healthcare on you despite seeing healthcare as a right - it’s a strange world!)

50

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I understand what you’re saying but I also understand human nature quite well. And I think that your system can be played just as easily as the US when it comes to those who want to live off the government dole. If someone is rewarded enough for doing nothing that’s exactly what they’ll keep on doing.

I agree with this. I just think we should do our utmost to stop people from playing the system, rather than simply doing away with it.

For example: if you are on food stamps, your license is electronically marked and you are entirely prohibited from buying cigarettes and alcohol. It’s not going to solve the problem, but little things like that can add up.[/quote]

Well, I actually think that’s a step in the right direction. But how about this; instead of simply handing people on welfare free money how about they have to stop in at the local office and sweep floors, rake, shovel snow, wash dishes, or maybe just sit in a room and make a list of what skills they have to offer the work place?

I am certainly not for seeing kids starve and would be very reticent to abruptly take the money away. But I do think if the recipient had to actually do something for that money they would both appreciate it more and also maybe find some work that they actually like doing better, however menial.

Certainly that is reasonable. We have to find a way to break this entitlement mentality. [/quote]

You mean make them get a job and earn their money?? Exactly what I’ve been saying.

51

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Says you.
[/quote]

Says the definition of EBT food benefits.

You can get around it by buying someone else food with your EBT card and selling it to them for cash. It isn’t easy though.[/quote]

Allow me to simplify it for you. If you make $100/mo and food costs you $50/mo. Then I give you an EBT card worth $50/mo. You now have an extra $50/mo cash that you dont have to spend on food that you can now spend on crack. Money (or it’s substitute) is fungible. You get it now?

52

It may not be a “right.” What is a right? Who decides that it is a right? Is it written somewhere in absolute terms that one thing is a “right” and one is not?

Rights or no rights, I believe that we should see to the health of our brothers and sisters to the extent that we can without incurring unreasonable personal financial loss. My life and health and survival come first for me. But if I make a good living, and a relatively small piece of that living is shaved off, and that piece goes to keeping someone alive somewhere else, then I’m ok with it.

53

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Says you.
[/quote]

Says the definition of EBT food benefits.

You can get around it by buying someone else food with your EBT card and selling it to them for cash. It isn’t easy though.[/quote]

Allow me to simplify it for you. If you make $100/mo and food costs you $50/mo. Then I give you an EBT card worth $50/mo. You now have an extra $50/mo cash that you dont have to spend on food that you can now spend on crack. Money (or it’s substitute) is fungible. You get it now?[/quote]

Remember the part, in the original post that you were quoting, where I said that I think people’s Driver’s Licenses should be electronically flagged if they are receiving food stamps so that they can’t buy alcohol and tobacco, even with cash?

54

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Do you people believe that if a child comes into an emergency room with a bullet in his chest, and he does not have health coverage, and his parents will never be able to pay for medical procedures, he should be turned away?[/quote]

Is this more propaganda from the left? Surely you’re not serious. No one has ever been turned down for emergency care in a US hospital. We are not a third world country.[/quote]

Exactly. And no one ever should be. Which is, in practice, the same as everyone having a right to health care.

Call it what you want: rights, obligations privileges. An affluent society should see to the basic health needs of its citizens. End of story.[/quote]

Why not their food needs? Surely food is more important?

55

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Says you.
[/quote]

Says the definition of EBT food benefits.

You can get around it by buying someone else food with your EBT card and selling it to them for cash. It isn’t easy though.[/quote]

Allow me to simplify it for you. If you make $100/mo and food costs you $50/mo. Then I give you an EBT card worth $50/mo. You now have an extra $50/mo cash that you dont have to spend on food that you can now spend on crack. Money (or it’s substitute) is fungible. You get it now?[/quote]

Remember the part, in the original post that you were quoting, where I said that I think people’s Driver’s Licenses should be electronically flagged if they are receiving food stamps so that they can’t buy alcohol and tobacco, even with cash?[/quote]

People “cant buy” crack currently. It doesn’t seem to deter them. Try a dose of reality.

56

[quote]smh23 wrote:
It may not be a “right.” What is a right? Who decides that it is a right? Is it written somewhere in absolute terms that one thing is a “right” and one is not?

Rights or no rights, I believe that we should see to the health of our brothers and sisters to the extent that we can without incurring unreasonable personal financial loss. My life and health and survival come first for me. But if I make a good living, and a relatively small piece of that living is shaved off, and that piece goes to keeping someone alive somewhere else, then I’m ok with it.[/quote]

Seriously? Here’s a good test. If someone else has to do something or give you something in order for you to exercise you “right”, then it isn’t a right.

57

[quote]smh23 wrote:
It may not be a “right.” What is a right? Who decides that it is a right? Is it written somewhere in absolute terms that one thing is a “right” and one is not?

Rights or no rights, I believe that we should see to the health of our brothers and sisters to the extent that we can without incurring unreasonable personal financial loss. My life and health and survival come first for me. But if I make a good living, and a relatively small piece of that living is shaved off, and that piece goes to keeping someone alive somewhere else, then I’m ok with it.[/quote]

I agree that it is our responsible to look after our brothers and sisters. I also believe it is unconstitutional for our Fed Gov’t to do this for us.

58

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Says you.
[/quote]

Says the definition of EBT food benefits.

You can get around it by buying someone else food with your EBT card and selling it to them for cash. It isn’t easy though.[/quote]

Yeah, because “it” not being easy has always stopped so many people from getting high.

[/quote]

My mom works in downtown los angeles giving EBT to those that qualify and people being released from jail, a big issue they have is that they sell their cards then go back and say they lost the card they end up getting a new card and cash. Every once in a while employees are fired because they are caught buying the cards from people recently released fom prison at a cheaper price.

59

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Do you people believe that if a child comes into an emergency room with a bullet in his chest, and he does not have health coverage, and his parents will never be able to pay for medical procedures, he should be turned away?[/quote]

Is this more propaganda from the left? Surely you’re not serious. No one has ever been turned down for emergency care in a US hospital. We are not a third world country.[/quote]

Exactly. And no one ever should be. Which is, in practice, the same as everyone having a right to health care.

Call it what you want: rights, obligations privileges. An affluent society should see to the basic health needs of its citizens. End of story.[/quote]

Really, I think an affluent society should give everyone a pony and I would like a blowjob from Jessica Alba.

End of story.

If could send me some of your Dads money to get that done, hell no, you will fucking send me one third of your paycheck from here on till eternity, or else I will throw you into a cage or simply take what is yours and auction it off.

Please dont resist, I might have to kill you if you do.

[/quote]

Yep, because basic health services are analogous to a pony and a blowjob from Jessica Alba.[/quote]

I just don’t want to have to pay for someone else’s pony ride, or their blow job. I don’t think that’s asking too much do you?

60

[quote]ZEB wrote:
honest_lifter wrote:
ZEB wrote:

When you take money from someone who earned it and give it to someone who did not earn it you harm both the person you took it from and the person that you gave it to.

ZEB, don’t you agree that, if you make a lot of money, you should help out those less fortunate than yourself? Almost to create an equal base for all of us? That way we have the ability to pull from the same amount, monetarily speaking? Obviously, this would be given that those receiving funds are indeed making proper choices in their lives with the money they hvae, and it just so happens that they were not as fortunate as others.[/quote]

You have four basic points to your post:

1-I “should” help someone less fortunate is different than “must” help someone less fortunate. I personally contribute to various charities including my church. While I feel it is my moral obligation to help others in need, it is immoral to force anyone to help others in need. Thus, high taxation is defacto immoral! For example, it is immoral to force a person to pay for another persons health care. Where does it say in the constitution for example that I am responsible for another persons children who live 5 states away? This is not only wrong, it’s border line insane.

2-When you hand someone something for doing nothing you have not created an economic “base” for them as you have suggested. What you have done is create an economic dependency. You’ve encouraged them to do more of what got them the “free” money to begin with. And the many feeble minded liberals who tout this as being something that is “good” need only reflect back on how human beings react when they are rewarded for a given act. Said act is repeated again and again as long as a reward is given to them. Basic Psychology 101.

3- You and I can never be assured that proper choices will be made with money that is “given” to them. It would be almost impossible to track. And most unnecessary if we had a system that forced people to work at something, anything in order to get those very temporary funds. In other words, why try to force someone to spend said funds properly when you can force them to work for it initially. Doesn’t that make more sense? And don’t you think that would stop the generational welfare which has taken hold?

4- And be very careful how you use the term “less fortunate than others”. While there are people who are less fortunate, by and large most people create their own heaven or hell right here on earth. For example I know that you worked very hard for the position that you have. Was if fun? Did you sacrifice even a little to get there? Exactly! Success comes from within, not without. That’s why government is the wrong answer as all government can do is enable the poor, thus keeping them in the position that they are in. How in the world does that help anyone long term? It does not.[/quote]