Healthcare--a right or not?

Says you. I post what I want. Go cry to a moderator.

 

You debate skills are unmatched....for a first grader. LOL

 

On ignore. Bye.

 

Johnny does according to SCOTUS and Congress. He has the RIGHT to a FREE and APPROPRIATE education. Its called FAPE.

 

No healthcare should be seen as a consumer need, not a right.

Any able bodied adult on Medicaid that does not work should be kicked off of it if they refuse to work.

I'd suggest putting a freeze on giving new Medicaid benefits to new such persons, and then force those who are on it now, to get a job---perhaps at chicken plants raided for illegal aliens, or doing hard construction work building the border wall.

Anyone who won't leave their home areas to find work can do without.

 

Agree. I moved a couple times gor jobs. It's what you do. Too many people want a government nanny to meet their needs.

 

Yes, I missed the word cover because we are not talking about coverage. We are talking about "provision." Every person in North Korea is covered for medical treatment; Few are provided medical treatment.

My medicare will not provide a chiropractor, acupuncture, medical treatment in Mexico, X-ray for lung cancer, next year a CT scan for lung cancer, a coronary calcium scan, and probably in a year or two when the IPAB, aka Death Panel, kicks into high gear a knee replacement for an 75-year or so old.

 

So every human on the face of the earth for all of mankind's time on earth has had the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Then why the hell does our country invade other sovereign nations unprovoked and kill 100's of thousand of those seeking those things?

We have those rights in our country because the gov't is granting them. And they can take them away in a heartbeat if they want and the people allow.

 

Please cite the text of the US Constitution or US federal law that -grants- you the right to free speech.

 

In it's simplest form, it's 1 voice for all, as opposed to 300M each being a judge, jury, and executioner.
I realize, the gov't and the laws have many voices, and it's why there are these debates. But the law of the land carried out by 1 entity is far less chaotic than 300M.

Wouldn't you agree?

Having said that, that is for issues concerning the welfare of the country. I sill think the state and local gov'ts voice and laws are better for the local issues. But it is still the voice of the gov't as opposed to all different individuals claiming to be able to carry out their beliefs.

 

If I have a river that runs through my land, and each person dictates their own personal rights, then I can divert all water running through my property anywhere I like on my property or gather that water up and sell it. Basically do anything I want with that water.
And your land being next down stream, will go dry. If you rely on that water for livelihood, you're screwed. Same with air pollution, if I have all rights to do with on my land.

Now having said, my land, what bestows that piece of property as mine? I can only think of 2 things, the gov't recognizes it and grants me a title to it and allows me to do mostly what I want on it, or I have to defend it from the next person who would like to have that piece of property. Which is might makes right.
I prefer the title and deed and backing of the gov't as opposed to someone bigger, stronger, and more weapons dictating who gets to use that piece of property.

 

I highly recommend that your state does just that. Then, after your state has the lowest healthcare costs in the nation, the rest of the country will want to emulate your model.

 

You know there are able bodied 65 and over people on Medicaid. But they chose to retire. But you think they should have stayed working?

 

The gov't won't take it away, therefore it's granted.
Does NK have free speech, or is it taken away? IE, it's not granted.

Now, what is free speech? Can anyone yell fire in a crowded theater?
Can one rile up a crowd to go out and commit acts of violence?

Unfettered free speech would say yes to those.

 

"trying"? You made it sound like you had a magic way to provide universal healthcare without taking anything from anyone up your sleeve. The thing about Jesus is he had a pretty consistent personality. The idea that he would condone us forcibly expropriating our neighbors to get what we want strikes most of us as totally out of character. Another point on which he was consistently resolute, that most of us recognize and share, was his contempt for hypocrisy. You pack as many bigoted statements as grammatically fit into your post, spurning those who actually do give of their own property to help on the grounds that you don't like their metaphysical beliefs, while calling for the violent expropriation of your fellow man, to accomplish what they have been doing all along of their own free will and with their own money, and lying about it being violent expropriation.

 

That's quite the mental gymnastic you went through there - do you really believe what you just said?
Of course, you had to respond with something like that because you know there is no such -grant- of the right to free speech anywhere in US law.

You'll note that the Constitution -guarantees- the right to free speech, a right that -necessarily- exists outside the text of 1st Amendment - where is the -grant- of that right?

 

I said, able bodied. If someone is too frail or mental to work, I would have more sympathy for such. The young, entitled and lazy adults can work. And for those who have small kids:

 

Whatever makes you feel better. That fact is, talking to you is like talking to a rebellious child who thinks his rebellion is in his own best interest but is mistaken in that belief. It would be in your best interest to recognize that, in our relationship, I'm the teacher and you are the student, not that you're obliged to learn anything, but there is definitely nothing for you to teach me, and if you did read through all my posts in this thread with the intention of understanding what is being said, you would come out of the experience with a better understanding of law than you went in with.

 

yeah, accept our very generous offer or go find a new career.
Very noble of you.

 

You wouldn't recognize Jesus if he was operating on you for free at Bob Jones Hospital for the interminably damned. You already give your "property" to insurance companies whose entire purpose in life is to take money from you to pay themselves and do the least possible for their customers, that is their mission statement. We all pay for someone else until we need it ourselves which is when you get back the value you imagined when you signed up for the policy. As for my racism, I am white and I can call white people anything I want which in regards to Trump supporters reads like a Tourette's Syndrome sufferers submission for short story of the year.

 

Thank you. I try

 

I think some people worry too much about what we pay for with money, especially when they make an issue of it with respect to healthcare but not with so many other public services, and I guess that's what we're talking about here - should healthcare be a public service? Is it something we should all pitch in to support so that it's available to all of us when we need it?

I think so. Why declare access to water a right? It's to keep people alive and not allow them to die for lack of a basic need, isn't it? So we could say the same of food, shelter and medical care. All are vital.

 

The difference is between a voluntary relationship and a relationship coerced by threats of violence.

One is obviously evil, and the fact that you can't remember that from one post to the next makes everything else you say look like screeds of a psychopath.

 

What country does not enforce its laws thru force? These libertarians are nuts

 

Thirdly, the supreme power cannot take from any man any part of his property without his own consent: for the preservation of property being the end of government, and that for which men enter into society, it necessarily supposes and requires, that the people should have property, without which they must be supposed to lose that, by entering into society, which was the end for which they entered into it; too gross an absurdity for any man to own. ~John Locke

Healthcare can be a social provision, based on the wishes of the majority to fund it through taxation. But it is not a natural 'right' in any sense of the word. Socialist healthcare can only take place via forced taxation. And, given the history of Govt run endeavors, why would the citizens want that?

Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. ~Frederic Bastiat