Healthcare--a right or not?

Well, if you can provide universal healthcare without taking anything from anyone, why the hell have you not already done so? What kind of sadistic monster are you, letting everyone suffer like this?

 

I believe in a European healthcare system but mostly because of the savings. I do not see why I has a right for someone else to take care of me and have a right to the money of other people to pay for it.

 

Is it a right to own a slave? If the answer is "no", then healthcare is not a right.

 

Don't you think the baby should have something to say about it? I mean, it is the baby's body we're talking about. Doesn't it seem sensible to you that we each have the exclusive right to control our own respective bodies? Can you think of any more peaceable or more equitable arrangement?

 

We are talking about rights. YOU are talking about natural rights.

- - - Updated - - -

It is not CURRENTLY a right to own a slave. But it once was

 

Wealth that I earned through the sweat of my brow via taxes that are used to pay for stuff that doesn't benefit me at all. Sorry, but your health doesn't benefit me in the slightest.

I didn't take the hippocratic oath, so that has nothing to do with me.

You're correct in saying that I'm not a christian.

Don't say "mere money" because that is just the way we measure our wealth. That money is earned through hard work. If other people want to work hard, then great! I promise to be the last person to get in their way in earning an honest dollar for an honest day's work. I will also be the last person to encourage the state to take a portion of that dollar via the power of the state so that some lazy buttmunch doesn't have to go to work in order to pay for the services of another.

You are correct that I don't care for other people all that much. Sorry, but I'm much more pragmatic about human life than most. It's one of the least valuable things on the planet, as well as being a renewable source of energy. I might not drive a prius, but I do approve of some renewable forms of energy. However, we measure the value of that energy through things called "dollars". If that value is a negative, then it is not valuable, but rather a drain on the productive.

 

I am not opposed in principle to everyone having access to health care. It is not a constitutional right, but if we wish to extend this benefit to our people, we may do so through the legislative process. But if we do so, we must be willing to pay for it, and the burden for paying for it must be assigned to those most able to pay, starting with the 1% paying the most. The 5% should pay the next most, etc.

We cannot expect the federal government to deficit spend for it. It must be fully paid for by the citizens of the country. The benefit should be completely revenue neutral to the government.

 

I think we should get the best system with the best outcomes for the least money. That is socialized medicine. But that does not stop a company from giving you Cadillac insurance that allows you to see private providers if you want. I guess if you are worth it you will get it

 

Is it wrong for you to take a sledge hammer to my rock? I'd say it is. Especially if the rock is a diamond.

Property is only a right if the law grants that right. Else its just a rock or a piece of land and maybe some buildings.

There is no trespass or violation unless the law says so. For if I have a bigger gun, I can take anything you have. I can even take your life.

The concept of right is a human invention. And humans have to enforce any rights they think others should have.

 

There is no such thing as natural rights. Where'd you get such a notion?

And the wars determine who is right, IE, might makes right.

 

AFAIK, a baby can't say anything. They are at the mercy of those who can.
That is why they are deemed the most vulnerable in society.

Your body doesn't even have a right. Unless the society and gov't grant your body some right. Or you give yourself some right.

I think the most equitable arrangement is for society to allow people to be who they are, and for society to help out others in society when they need it.

Every concept you keep bringing up can only be enforced if others agree with you. And then you need an enforcement mechanism to make people conform to what you and others want. IE, in most cases, the law. So the law is granting all rights.
Unless of course you want each person to take what they think is right into their own hands and enforce it. Then it becomes anarchy, for everyone will be basically making their own laws, judgements, and enforcement.

What I have been saying is there is no rights. Except what society, via laws, grants people those rights. In a civil society.

But I've asked this before, what right is there that no one can ever take away?
I can't think of one, without protection via some laws.

 

Natural rights are values that intelligent people who do not believe that might makes right agree to.

Yes, you are correct that ultimately might makes right. the problem lies when you try to explain your position to people who aren't mental slugs. We agree to natural rights because the alternative is the law of the jungle.

 

It's been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that natural law is a fact of life, even though it never needed to be because it's part of our first order experience(in other words, it's freakin obvious to everyone).
Repetitive declarations that might makes right don't make it so.

 

What are these natural rights?
How are they obtained?

Who is we, and how do you know if everyone agrees or anyone agrees.

Funny you mention laws, for it is laws only that can grant any rights. Natural or unnatural.

Where is it written that the only rights are natural rights?

- - - Updated - - -

If I put a loaded gun and point it between your eyes and pull the trigger, what rights do you have?

What is this natural law?

Not 1 single person in this thread has given me this answer. You all say it exists but no one has said what this is.

 

Natural law may exist but so do other legal rights. And every other country on the planet has them too

 

Fortunately, your omniscient highness is not needed to direct us through that little quandary because nature happens to have it so that figuring out what babies want and giving it to them is what mothers spend all their time doing.

 

That's something you can easily learn about since you have an internet connection. That is, if you're interested.

As I wrote, it's something that intelligent people generally agree upon because the law of the jungle is considered barbaric.

hint: If I am stronger than you, is it okay for me to steal what you have? I don't just mean your money, but everything? Can I pull a Genghis Khan and take your wife and daughters? Can I just do whatever I want because I have the physical ability to do it, and you cannot stop me?

Empathy is required for an answer to the next question.

Can you do the same to me if the tables are turned?

 

Yes, the law of the jungle is barbaric.
Without laws enacted by society, enforced by gov't, the natural law you speak of is only the law of the jungle.

It is because we are humans, we decided we want something better. But we need human laws and the enforcement mechanism to carry them out.

But you still haven't told us, what natural law is there, that is absolutely guaranteed and can never be taken away?
It seems you are afraid to say it, or there isn't any.

- - - Updated - - -

I have no omniscient highness.
What is it that nature happens to have figured out. You keep dodging, just say it already.

 

But OURS was founded on liberty.

 

ok, you can pay the same tax rates as me. there you go.
I knew you wanted to pitch in and pay your fair share.
And to show how much you really care, you won't take the subsidy to pay for yours, cuz you're all about helping society and not yourself.

 

Governments enforce natural law? Dayum, dude! You might not have heard of something called the great war, or the second war, or Stalin or Pol Pot, or Castro, or....

Seriously? You think that governments enforce natural law?

We normal moes try to get our governments to do that, but it's a never ending battle, and one which we could use your help when you have the time.

And your enforcement mechanism is the government? Seriously? Do you know anything at all about history? Anything at all?

Something that can never be taken away? I guess death might fit that, except you need life first...

Sorry, no. I don't know anything that fits that bill.

 

I want to pay in exact proportion to those government services I use, for those services that can be measured, and 1/320,000,000th of the cost of those services which I use equally with everybody else.

 

good, you won't mind paying my tax rates and you won't mind foregoing any available healthcare plan subsidies, because you want to pitch in and do your part for society.

 

I'm sure you've had the answer stated in your direction more times than you can remember. Once you point the gun at me, I would have all rights I had up to that point plus the right to do whatever turns out to be necessary to prevent myself from being murdered by you. Since rights are agent-centric, it doesn't make sense to ask what rights are possessed by a dead body.

 

Gov'ts grant life and take life. People run the gov'ts.
So if life can be taken, what grants the natural right to life?

But life can be taken away. It happens everyday.
As you said, there have been countless wars, even world wars. So life is not a natural right, for many men have taken others lives.

The USA even has invaded another country and killed people. Some were innocent babies. So much for their natural right, huh?

But if you think life is a natural right, then why isn't the right to keep that life going a natural right?