Health Care is Not a Right

[reddog6376]

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Go back over what I’ve been saying in this thread. I’m talking about health care as a right…in the philosophical sense. As in: do human beings have a right to be healthy. If so: should the government see to it that this right is provided.[/quote]

Nice back-track. Anything that has to be provided by someone else is not a right. People have the right to treat their own health how ever they see fit. They should also be solely responsible for any cost resulting from their decisions.

Good job to all of you for looking through the Constitution. If the original question was: does the US Constitution list health care as a right…well then it would’ve taken a single post to close this thread. The point, so far as I can tell, was a bit deeper and more philosophical than a single yes or no answer.

Once again, the US constitution does not “grant” rights. It only protects them for gov’t abuse.

[smh23]

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

Once again, the US constitution does not “grant” rights. It only protects them for gov’t abuse.
[/quote]

The Bill of Rights implicitly affirms the existence of myriad rights of US citizens.

Take the Second Amendment, for example: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS shall not be infringed. The amendment itself, as you have rightly argued, is intended to protect people from government infringements. But it explicitly lists arms ownership as a right of American people.

Therefore, we can talk about rights granted by the US Constitution, either explicitly or, more commonly, implicitly.

[reddog6376]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

Once again, the US constitution does not “grant” rights. It only protects them for gov’t abuse.
[/quote]

The Bill of Rights implicitly affirms the existence of myriad rights of US citizens.

Take the Second Amendment, for example: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS shall not be infringed. The amendment itself, as you have rightly argued, is intended to protect people from government infringements. But it explicitly lists arms ownership as a right of American people.

Therefore, we can talk about rights granted by the US Constitution, either explicitly or, more commonly, implicitly.[/quote]

Wow… Are you the product of a US public school? People are “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights”. Among those is the right to bear arms. Many gov’ts around the world severly infringe upon that right (and many others). Our gov’t is expressly forbid from doing that (although that hasn’t really stopped them).

[Wilba]

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Go back over what I’ve been saying in this thread. I’m talking about health care as a right…in the philosophical sense. As in: do human beings have a right to be healthy. If so: should the government see to it that this right is provided.

Good job to all of you for looking through the Constitution. If the original question was: does the US Constitution list health care as a right…well then it would’ve taken a single post to close this thread. The point, so far as I can tell, was a bit deeper and more philosophical than a single yes or no answer.[/quote]

Your point is ridiculous. We are living creatures, some will be healthy and some will not just by genetics and environment. Others will be unhealthy from poor lifestyle choices or just bad luck. I’m certainly not paying for some fat bastard to have a heart operation because they were too lazy or apathetic to take care of themselves. If you want to go ahead but don’t try to convince me that I should through taxation. Clearly there is more to it than that but you are pretending these issues aren’t part of the debate. How about someone that severely injured or killed someone do they have a philosophical right to “be healthy”.

[smh23]

[quote]Wilba wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Go back over what I’ve been saying in this thread. I’m talking about health care as a right…in the philosophical sense. As in: do human beings have a right to be healthy. If so: should the government see to it that this right is provided.

Good job to all of you for looking through the Constitution. If the original question was: does the US Constitution list health care as a right…well then it would’ve taken a single post to close this thread. The point, so far as I can tell, was a bit deeper and more philosophical than a single yes or no answer.[/quote]

Your point is ridiculous. We are living creatures, some will be healthy and some will not just by genetics and environment. Others will be unhealthy from poor lifestyle choices or just bad luck. I’m certainly not paying for some fat bastard to have a heart operation because they were too lazy or apathetic to take care of themselves. If you want to go ahead but don’t try to convince me that I should through taxation. Clearly there is more to it than that but you are pretending these issues aren’t part of the debate. How about someone that severely injured or killed someone do they have a philosophical right to “be healthy”.

[/quote]

The question that we are now getting at it more along the lines of what I was discussing earlier. I don’t want to pay for another’s vices, or laziness, or unhealthy lifestyle either.

That said: we live in an affluent society. We have, over the course of centuries and even millenia, built for ourselves technologies and intellectual disciplines capable of performing incredible feats. The medical field is at the forefront of this…and is so highly specialized that even the mere privilege to practice medicine requires almost a decade of specific vocational training. The question is: if one of our brothers or sisters is in need, should we deny them the help that we have the ability to provide them? Are there certain basic medical functions that we should be willing to provide to our fellow citizens, regardless of their economic status? Should the poorest of the poor be treated on another’s dime?

It is a tough question. Perhaps it isn’t a “right” that we have to health care. But it is my opinion that we can and should do what we can for the sick. Not to the point that we all go broke, mind you. But it certainly isn’t an ignoble goal.

[smh23]

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

Once again, the US constitution does not “grant” rights. It only protects them for gov’t abuse.
[/quote]

The Bill of Rights implicitly affirms the existence of myriad rights of US citizens.

Take the Second Amendment, for example: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS shall not be infringed. The amendment itself, as you have rightly argued, is intended to protect people from government infringements. But it explicitly lists arms ownership as a right of American people.

Therefore, we can talk about rights granted by the US Constitution, either explicitly or, more commonly, implicitly.[/quote]

Wow… Are you the product of a US public school? People are “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights”. Among those is the right to bear arms. Many gov’ts around the world severly infringe upon that right (and many others). Our gov’t is expressly forbid from doing that (although that hasn’t really stopped them).
[/quote]

I don’t see what you’re taking issue with. My point was that, though the Bill of Rights is explicitly about mere protection from the abuses of federal government, it implicitly deals with, and therefore affirms the existence of, certain rights endowed to US citizens–a premise which was earlier being attacked.

Your post seems to be in complete agreement with this.

[reddog6376]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Wilba wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Go back over what I’ve been saying in this thread. I’m talking about health care as a right…in the philosophical sense. As in: do human beings have a right to be healthy. If so: should the government see to it that this right is provided.

Good job to all of you for looking through the Constitution. If the original question was: does the US Constitution list health care as a right…well then it would’ve taken a single post to close this thread. The point, so far as I can tell, was a bit deeper and more philosophical than a single yes or no answer.[/quote]

Your point is ridiculous. We are living creatures, some will be healthy and some will not just by genetics and environment. Others will be unhealthy from poor lifestyle choices or just bad luck. I’m certainly not paying for some fat bastard to have a heart operation because they were too lazy or apathetic to take care of themselves. If you want to go ahead but don’t try to convince me that I should through taxation. Clearly there is more to it than that but you are pretending these issues aren’t part of the debate. How about someone that severely injured or killed someone do they have a philosophical right to “be healthy”.

[/quote]

The question that we are now getting at it more along the lines of what I was discussing earlier. I don’t want to pay for another’s vices, or laziness, or unhealthy lifestyle either.

That said: we live in an affluent society. We have, over the course of centuries and even millenia, built for ourselves technologies and intellectual disciplines capable of performing incredible feats. The medical field is at the forefront of this…and is so highly specialized that even the mere privilege to practice medicine requires almost a decade of specific vocational training. The question is: if one of our brothers or sisters is in need, should we deny them the help that we have the ability to provide them? Are there certain basic medical functions that we should be willing to provide to our fellow citizens, regardless of their economic status? Should the poorest of the poor be treated on another’s dime?

It is a tough question. Perhaps it isn’t a “right” that we have to health care. But it is my opinion that we can and should do what we can for the sick. Not to the point that we all go broke, mind you. But it certainly isn’t an ignoble goal.[/quote]

Yes, that’s what charity is for. I hope you donate generously.

[smh23]

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Wilba wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Go back over what I’ve been saying in this thread. I’m talking about health care as a right…in the philosophical sense. As in: do human beings have a right to be healthy. If so: should the government see to it that this right is provided.

Good job to all of you for looking through the Constitution. If the original question was: does the US Constitution list health care as a right…well then it would’ve taken a single post to close this thread. The point, so far as I can tell, was a bit deeper and more philosophical than a single yes or no answer.[/quote]

Your point is ridiculous. We are living creatures, some will be healthy and some will not just by genetics and environment. Others will be unhealthy from poor lifestyle choices or just bad luck. I’m certainly not paying for some fat bastard to have a heart operation because they were too lazy or apathetic to take care of themselves. If you want to go ahead but don’t try to convince me that I should through taxation. Clearly there is more to it than that but you are pretending these issues aren’t part of the debate. How about someone that severely injured or killed someone do they have a philosophical right to “be healthy”.

[/quote]

The question that we are now getting at it more along the lines of what I was discussing earlier. I don’t want to pay for another’s vices, or laziness, or unhealthy lifestyle either.

That said: we live in an affluent society. We have, over the course of centuries and even millenia, built for ourselves technologies and intellectual disciplines capable of performing incredible feats. The medical field is at the forefront of this…and is so highly specialized that even the mere privilege to practice medicine requires almost a decade of specific vocational training. The question is: if one of our brothers or sisters is in need, should we deny them the help that we have the ability to provide them? Are there certain basic medical functions that we should be willing to provide to our fellow citizens, regardless of their economic status? Should the poorest of the poor be treated on another’s dime?

It is a tough question. Perhaps it isn’t a “right” that we have to health care. But it is my opinion that we can and should do what we can for the sick. Not to the point that we all go broke, mind you. But it certainly isn’t an ignoble goal.[/quote]

Yes, that’s what charity is for. I hope you donate generously.
[/quote]

And if charity can’t get the job done? Just let them die?

[reddog6376]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

Once again, the US constitution does not “grant” rights. It only protects them for gov’t abuse.
[/quote]

The Bill of Rights implicitly affirms the existence of myriad rights of US citizens.

Take the Second Amendment, for example: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS shall not be infringed. The amendment itself, as you have rightly argued, is intended to protect people from government infringements. But it explicitly lists arms ownership as a right of American people.

Therefore, we can talk about rights granted by the US Constitution, either explicitly or, more commonly, implicitly.[/quote]

Wow… Are you the product of a US public school? People are “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights”. Among those is the right to bear arms. Many gov’ts around the world severly infringe upon that right (and many others). Our gov’t is expressly forbid from doing that (although that hasn’t really stopped them).
[/quote]

I don’t see what you’re taking issue with. My point was that, though the Bill of Rights is explicitly about mere protection from the abuses of federal government, it implicitly deals with, and therefore affirms the existence of, certain rights endowed to US citizens–a premise which was earlier being attacked.

Your post seems to be in complete agreement with this.[/quote]
No, the US Constitution and Declaration of Independace recognizes that all people have these unalienable rights, simply by being born human. Then it deals with how the US Gov’t will not be allowed to infringe upon them. It may seem like splitting hairs, but it is an impoertant point.

[smh23]

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

Once again, the US constitution does not “grant” rights. It only protects them for gov’t abuse.
[/quote]

The Bill of Rights implicitly affirms the existence of myriad rights of US citizens.

Take the Second Amendment, for example: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS shall not be infringed. The amendment itself, as you have rightly argued, is intended to protect people from government infringements. But it explicitly lists arms ownership as a right of American people.

Therefore, we can talk about rights granted by the US Constitution, either explicitly or, more commonly, implicitly.[/quote]

Wow… Are you the product of a US public school? People are “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights”. Among those is the right to bear arms. Many gov’ts around the world severly infringe upon that right (and many others). Our gov’t is expressly forbid from doing that (although that hasn’t really stopped them).
[/quote]

I don’t see what you’re taking issue with. My point was that, though the Bill of Rights is explicitly about mere protection from the abuses of federal government, it implicitly deals with, and therefore affirms the existence of, certain rights endowed to US citizens–a premise which was earlier being attacked.

Your post seems to be in complete agreement with this.[/quote]
No, the US Constitution and Declaration of Independace recognizes that all people have these unalienable rights, simply by being born human. Then it deals with how the US Gov’t will not be allowed to infringe upon them. It may seem like splitting hairs, but it is an impoertant point.
[/quote]

I agree. This was exactly what I was arguing.

[reddog6376]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Wilba wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Go back over what I’ve been saying in this thread. I’m talking about health care as a right…in the philosophical sense. As in: do human beings have a right to be healthy. If so: should the government see to it that this right is provided.

Good job to all of you for looking through the Constitution. If the original question was: does the US Constitution list health care as a right…well then it would’ve taken a single post to close this thread. The point, so far as I can tell, was a bit deeper and more philosophical than a single yes or no answer.[/quote]

Your point is ridiculous. We are living creatures, some will be healthy and some will not just by genetics and environment. Others will be unhealthy from poor lifestyle choices or just bad luck. I’m certainly not paying for some fat bastard to have a heart operation because they were too lazy or apathetic to take care of themselves. If you want to go ahead but don’t try to convince me that I should through taxation. Clearly there is more to it than that but you are pretending these issues aren’t part of the debate. How about someone that severely injured or killed someone do they have a philosophical right to “be healthy”.

[/quote]

The question that we are now getting at it more along the lines of what I was discussing earlier. I don’t want to pay for another’s vices, or laziness, or unhealthy lifestyle either.

That said: we live in an affluent society. We have, over the course of centuries and even millenia, built for ourselves technologies and intellectual disciplines capable of performing incredible feats. The medical field is at the forefront of this…and is so highly specialized that even the mere privilege to practice medicine requires almost a decade of specific vocational training. The question is: if one of our brothers or sisters is in need, should we deny them the help that we have the ability to provide them? Are there certain basic medical functions that we should be willing to provide to our fellow citizens, regardless of their economic status? Should the poorest of the poor be treated on another’s dime?

It is a tough question. Perhaps it isn’t a “right” that we have to health care. But it is my opinion that we can and should do what we can for the sick. Not to the point that we all go broke, mind you. But it certainly isn’t an ignoble goal.[/quote]

Yes, that’s what charity is for. I hope you donate generously.
[/quote]

And if charity can’t get the job done? Just let them die?[/quote]

If they are unwilling to work, then they have voluntarily thrown themselves on the mercy of charity. Most will work when faced with that decision. That will free up the charity for those who truely need it.

[smh23]

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

If they are unwilling to work, then they have voluntarily thrown themselves on the mercy of charity. Most will work when faced with that decision. That will free up the charity for those who truely need it.[/quote]

My concern is more with unskilled single-parent workers whose salaries are so low, and household expenses so high, that they are forced to choose between the basic needs of their children. I have far less pity for those who simply do not work.

[reddog6376]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

If they are unwilling to work, then they have voluntarily thrown themselves on the mercy of charity. Most will work when faced with that decision. That will free up the charity for those who truely need it.[/quote]

My concern is more with unskilled single-parent workers whose salaries are so low, and household expenses so high, that they are forced to choose between the basic needs of their children. I have far less pity for those who simply do not work.[/quote]

Back up a step. Why are they unskilled single parents? The vast majority of the time it is due to poor decisions earlier in life. Decisions they made with the knowledge that the gov’t would come in and bail them out if needed. If they now know that they will be responsible for the results of their decisions, they’ll make better ones. It may take a generation to clear up this mess, but it’s taken us 3-4 generations to create it.

[smh23]

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

If they are unwilling to work, then they have voluntarily thrown themselves on the mercy of charity. Most will work when faced with that decision. That will free up the charity for those who truely need it.[/quote]

My concern is more with unskilled single-parent workers whose salaries are so low, and household expenses so high, that they are forced to choose between the basic needs of their children. I have far less pity for those who simply do not work.[/quote]

Back up a step. Why are they unskilled single parents? The vast majority of the time it is due to poor decisions earlier in life. Decisions they made with the knowledge that the gov’t would come in and bail them out if needed. If they now know that they will be responsible for the results of their decisions, they’ll make better ones. It may take a generation to clear up this mess, but it’s taken us 3-4 generations to create it.[/quote]

Yes. Everyone who is poor is so because they are lazy. And everyone who is rich is so because they are ballin, big-swinging-dick genius superstars.

Guess what? The work that these people do–the low-salaried jobs that they got exclusively because of “bad decisions” in the past–needs to be done. The millionaires that run McDonald’s need the broke, illiterate Mexican woman standing at the drive-thru window serving fries. If everyone went to law school, no one would ever clean the streets. If someone works hard and still can’t afford rent/food/health care, I’m willing to help them.

[Wilba]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

If they are unwilling to work, then they have voluntarily thrown themselves on the mercy of charity. Most will work when faced with that decision. That will free up the charity for those who truely need it.[/quote]

My concern is more with unskilled single-parent workers whose salaries are so low, and household expenses so high, that they are forced to choose between the basic needs of their children. I have far less pity for those who simply do not work.[/quote]

Back up a step. Why are they unskilled single parents? The vast majority of the time it is due to poor decisions earlier in life. Decisions they made with the knowledge that the gov’t would come in and bail them out if needed. If they now know that they will be responsible for the results of their decisions, they’ll make better ones. It may take a generation to clear up this mess, but it’s taken us 3-4 generations to create it.[/quote]

Yes. Everyone who is poor is so because they are lazy. And everyone who is rich is so because they are ballin, big-swinging-dick genius superstars.

Guess what? The work that these people do–the low-salaried jobs that they got exclusively because of “bad decisions” in the past–needs to be done. The millionaires that run McDonald’s need the broke, illiterate Mexican woman standing at the drive-thru window serving fries. If everyone went to law school, no one would ever clean the streets. If someone works hard and still can’t afford rent/food/health care, I’m willing to help them.[/quote]

Please give us your address and phone number so we can have them contact you when they need something.

[smh23]

[quote]Wilba wrote:

Please give us your address and phone number so we can have them contact you when they need something.[/quote]

Unfortunately for you, I already do help them…and so do you! Unless, of course, you don’t pay taxes. In which case you are either in Venezuela or federal prison.

[reddog6376]

No, you want just want to force the rest of us to “help” them…

[orion]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

Once again, the US constitution does not “grant” rights. It only protects them for gov’t abuse.
[/quote]

The Bill of Rights implicitly affirms the existence of myriad rights of US citizens.

Take the Second Amendment, for example: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS shall not be infringed. The amendment itself, as you have rightly argued, is intended to protect people from government infringements. But it explicitly lists arms ownership as a right of American people.

Therefore, we can talk about rights granted by the US Constitution, either explicitly or, more commonly, implicitly.[/quote]

There are no rights granted, they are acknowledged.

There is a difference.

[reddog6376]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

If they are unwilling to work, then they have voluntarily thrown themselves on the mercy of charity. Most will work when faced with that decision. That will free up the charity for those who truely need it.[/quote]

My concern is more with unskilled single-parent workers whose salaries are so low, and household expenses so high, that they are forced to choose between the basic needs of their children. I have far less pity for those who simply do not work.[/quote]

Back up a step. Why are they unskilled single parents? The vast majority of the time it is due to poor decisions earlier in life. Decisions they made with the knowledge that the gov’t would come in and bail them out if needed. If they now know that they will be responsible for the results of their decisions, they’ll make better ones. It may take a generation to clear up this mess, but it’s taken us 3-4 generations to create it.[/quote]

Yes. Everyone who is poor is so because they are lazy. And everyone who is rich is so because they are ballin, big-swinging-dick genius superstars.

Guess what? The work that these people do–the low-salaried jobs that they got exclusively because of “bad decisions” in the past–needs to be done. The millionaires that run McDonald’s need the broke, illiterate Mexican woman standing at the drive-thru window serving fries. If everyone went to law school, no one would ever clean the streets. If someone works hard and still can’t afford rent/food/health care, I’m willing to help them.[/quote]

Most (not all) Americans are poor because they made poor decisions (drug use, lack of education, etc) by either themselves or the generation before them, or they are lazy. The inverse is usually (not always) true too.

Yes, the low end jobs needs to be done, and there will always be plenty of people to do them. As we were talking about people who won’t work, what does people working for a living have to do with this discussion?

I’ve never said we, as a society, shouldn’t help the poor. My point, for about the 4th time, is that it is not the role of the Fed Gov’t.

[kilpaba]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

If they are unwilling to work, then they have voluntarily thrown themselves on the mercy of charity. Most will work when faced with that decision. That will free up the charity for those who truely need it.[/quote]

My concern is more with unskilled single-parent workers whose salaries are so low, and household expenses so high, that they are forced to choose between the basic needs of their children. I have far less pity for those who simply do not work.[/quote]

Back up a step. Why are they unskilled single parents? The vast majority of the time it is due to poor decisions earlier in life. Decisions they made with the knowledge that the gov’t would come in and bail them out if needed. If they now know that they will be responsible for the results of their decisions, they’ll make better ones. It may take a generation to clear up this mess, but it’s taken us 3-4 generations to create it.[/quote]

Yes. Everyone who is poor is so because they are lazy. And everyone who is rich is so because they are ballin, big-swinging-dick genius superstars.

Guess what? The work that these people do–the low-salaried jobs that they got exclusively because of “bad decisions” in the past–needs to be done. The millionaires that run McDonald’s need the broke, illiterate Mexican woman standing at the drive-thru window serving fries. If everyone went to law school, no one would ever clean the streets. If someone works hard and still can’t afford rent/food/health care, I’m willing to help them.[/quote]

Not to be a dick, but this is silly stuff. Of course everyone engaged in the economy has a necessary function, this is true. But it isn’t as if there is an infinite need for lawyers. If everyone became a lawyer? They would be getting paid what the McDonald’s attendant does now. How much would the McDonald’s employee make if no one would do the job? What lawyers and doctors make now. Think people might start cleaning those streets and serving fries then? Of course they would. Wages simply serve as a rough reflection of the supply of labor and the higher the wage, typically the more desire for those jobs and in the long run the lowering of the costs of performing those services by bringing in more qualified employees.

But I concede this might not concern you at all. At the end of the day, does someone’s need for health care justify them stealing money from someone else? If you needed surgery to cure something but had no money and I had a million bucks in my pocket, would you be morally justified beating me and taking it from me to pay your bills? Do you have the right to beat someone and take their money to give it to someone YOU deem needy? Some say yes, some say no. I personally say no.