Healthcare--a right or not?

the freeloading whine bags want to pay less than you, for the same services.

 

Why must they be "dealt with" and who defines "effectively"?

 

Nope, and you still haven't said it either.
So can you say what it is or not?

 

Yes, it is possible to abridge somebody of their rights. Very astute.
What's your point ?

 

Tell that to the electric company when they cut off your heat for not paying your bill.

 

I'm in the top tax bracket. And I think we need socialized medicine in this country.

 

You have to admit that this has been a most illuminating conversation. It's like we're down to the ninth circle of hell trying to explain that maybe this might not exactly be the best place to plan for an extended vacation.

 

We say they must be dealt with and we define effectiveness. Democracy son

 

thanks for the laugh.

 

You're more than welcome. Have a wonderful night

 

No one has said what this alleged natural right is, until you with your last post to me.
Max can not bring himself to say what this natural right is.

Now why do you think this is a natural right, life it is, yes?

If you think it's a natural right, why isn't the right to sustain it a right?

I'm gonna guess this will go unanswered.

 

goodnight Paul Bunyan.

 

Good night sponge bobs friend. Lol

 

One of the reasons Medicare premiums are cheap is that you usually pay into if for many decades before you ever use it. If you're using it AS you're paying in, it would be a lot more expensive.

My idea is mediCAID option (for those who want but cannot find satisfactory coverage elsewhere) costing those who can afford it a premium based on their income. This premium should be determined such that it actually pays for itself. This would leave commercial insurers free to offer whatever they want and you can take it or leave it.

 

I don't see health care in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

 

Put insurance companies out of business and go single payer. Healthcare costs drop dramatically and quality of care goes up

 

You have the right to do whatever you want, limited only by your own capabilities, and force or threat of force applied to you by others.

 

You don't see education there either except that's also a right

 

I've never said that you don't have a right to sustain your right to life.

I understand that this might be what you're doing. Maybe you have some terminal illness that you can't afford to pay for the treatment, or more likely, you're arguing in favor of other people being able to do that.

The problem is that you are arguing against another natural right which is the right to personal property. The right of this hypothetical person to live off of my property goes against the idea of the right to personal property.

Your rights end where mine begin.

 

Except in every country on earth your last statement is untrue legally

 

Isn't that might makes right?

 

That's an ad populum fallacy

 

Death is not preventable, only delayable. The only questions are how long a life is someone entitled to at the expense of others? and how much is the upper limit we will spend to preserve a person's life?

 

And factually correct

 

No, my only point is, there is no natural right. Not even life. But you seem to think so.
I believe the only rights anyone is granted is by society, via laws. Or might. What else is there to any right, natural or man made?

So if you believe in this natural right, then the right to sustain it should be a part of it. What things are required to sustain life?

Wait, now you're adding in another natural right? There is no natural right to property. None.
Only laws grant a right to a piece of land. And that is mostly an European concept, originally.

Native Americans, USA, never believed in land being owned by individuals, and I think they believe that to this day.

My right ends where yours begins if you have a bigger gun, or a law granting you those rights and the enforcement mechanism to carry the laws out.