Healthcare--a right or not?

So you deem it dead in the water because you don't like it. No other reason.

 

You don't even believe in natural rights. You clamor the word but can't back it up. However, you do run.
I noticed you didn't bother to explain how you can have a natural right to claim a piece of land. Why? Because no one can.

 

You claimed it was -granted- - that is, the state gave actively it to you.
The state not having the capacity to "subdue" a right necessitates that the right already exists; not having the capacity to "subdue" a pre-existing right is not the -grant- of said right.
Again: Please cite the text of the constitution or federal law where the right to free speech is -granted- to the people.

To prevent the government from "subduing" it.

It should, but you refuse to accept it.

 

OK, not sure how it's related to this topic.

 

You're looking at it as a physical ability that can be obtained because the baby Jesus is going to come down from on high and just make it something that happens.

Ethics doesn't work like that. Natural rights are things that we humans have figured out are the way things ought to be. It doesn't mean that's how they are, but rather through a logical examination of what we need to do in order to be civilized.

You don't agree with the non-aggression principle, and that's why you are not civilized. It's not about what is, but what ought to be.

 

she just wants her free (*)(*)(*)(*) and is willing to sacrifice anybody but herself in her attempt to obtain it.

 

Well no country on the planet agrees with the non aggression principle so as far as we know it is simply a theory in search of large scale real world application.

 

I haven't used any esoteric terms in this thread. Standard definitions of all the words are all I assume. So, if you just google the words you have problems with, starting with the word "or" that you seem to be having trouble with just after "moral" in the definition of "right", making sure not to miss "law" which is "a binding custom or practice of a community" and "natural" which is "not man-made", everything should be perfectly intelligible.

 

No government agrees with it. All people agree with it. It's practically impossible to get through life ignoring it for anyone who is not the government.

 

Well we are not talking about a model of a few people hanging out together. We are talking about nations. And your model does not work for any nation on the planet currently

 

Yes, they do, amongst various other things. So? You didn't answer my question. Retiring in a certain style isn't a "right", other than what is provided by social security, and that is always subject to change. Buying a home isn't a "right", either. Why should I, or anyone else, as a taxpayer, pay monies towards someone's medical bills or healthcare when they have assets of their own that could be spent first?

 

That's not true. The non-aggression principle allows for self defense. It just doesn't allow for the initial aggression.

People who are clamoring that I pay for their health care or they'll slap me with a fine do not believe in it, and that means you guys really aren't allowed to participate in the marketplace of good ideas. You're just.... not worthy.

 

Can you name a place I can go where I'm not expected to observe the nonaggression principle? I know at the beach, the mall, the grocery store, the gas station, the restaurant, everyone's houses... you know all the places where I might find other people, everyone expects everyone to observe the non aggression principle. It's like that everywhere I've been. The only people who are not expected to observe the non aggression principle represent a government. Which planet are you talking about?

 

Still waiting for a large scale application of this theory

 

when has a right equate to be provided that right for free?
I have a right to own a gun a right specifically given in the constitution but does that also mean that that right is to be provided for me for free?

 

The only way your principle works on a large scale is by threat of force.

- - - Updated - - -

When we declare it should be such as in primary education

 

so then because I have a constitutional right to own a gun the government has the obligation to provided me a gun?

 

If the government creates that law and declares it a right then yes. Better get working on that

 

The government has an obligation to create a law and declare it a right?
That is so clever,......not.

 

Oh you said not....masterful rebuttal sir!!!! LOL

 

it has already been declared as a right, where you been?
the point that you allow to fly over your head having right isn't the same as having that right provided to you by government other wise the government would be obligated to provide me that gun
So you can insist all you want that health care is a right go ahead but that doesn't mean it has to be provided for free

 

But the government can also declare that a right be provided for free....even to non citizens. Its called the right to a Free and Appropriate Education

 

Here's an application, you're not getting single payer. LOL

 

Yes it should be a right.


Healthcare for all benefits everyone in that it saves us all money. Free healthcare is actually an extremely fiscally conservative policy. It saves far more money than having a bunch of chronically sick people that we end up treating anyways once they're already hopelessly sick and we pay for all that, all of us do, all because we as a rich society refuse to cover some initial health checkup years ago that would have prevented said chronic illnesses from bogging down our system and us paying for it regardless.

 

Masterful....I say again masterful!