if you believe health care is a civil right you should then......

I invite you to stop being unreasonable at any moment.

so you can't be reasonable.

How dishonest

Further if you don't want me addressing you don't post in the public forum

 

A right to something doesn't automatically assume an override of ownership rights. As noted, your right to something merely means that you cannot be legally barred from having/recieving/exercising it, nor can a third party likewise bar you from it. You have the right to the doctor of your choice (part of your freedom of association rights). This means that the government cannot bar you from any given doctor, nor create a law that specifies which doctor you use. Nor could I prevent you from going to any given doctor, or force you to use a certain one. What is not part of this right, is any forcing of the doctor to see you. The doctor still possesses his private property right as well as freedom of association rights, as well as ownership rights as they may apply. It's that things of certain rights end where certain others begin. And for the record, not just to you but anyone else reading the post, insurance companies do not force a person to go to onlly certain doctors. I can certainly go to any doctor that my insurance will refuse to compensate. Just because they will not compensate, it doesn't mean that they violate my right to see the doctor of my choosing.

 

that is not what a right to something means. If I had a right to a firearm the government would have to provide it to me. However if I had the right to own a fire arm should I choose to the government does not have to provide me something.

no you don't if you did the government would have to provide you a doctor of your choice.

You have the right to seek medical attention if you wish.

That's incorrect. When you say that you have the right to something then the government is beholden to provide that something for you. You have a right to life to liberty and the pursuit of happiness those are the government's duties to provide to you.

You do not have the right to a doctor.

 

It may seem insane to you, but if you look at some of the underlying costs to health care, you might see why. First off is the high cost of education just to become a doctor, and unlike most other fields, there are not to many scholarships and grants that can get you all the way through. So there are student loans these medical professionals need to pay. Then we look at how lawsuit happy this nation has gotten. So liability insurance has become a must for medical professionals now, and that isn't cheep. Then we look at how specialized the medical field has become. Even if you aren't put under, a major operation willl typically have a separate anesthesiologist. So now you have two sets(at least) of schooling and insurance to pay. On top of all that, they have to pay someone to deal with the insurance companies, to ensure that they get paid. So there is a whole other person whose pay and benefits have to be calculated into the doctor's charges on top of his/her other staff, such as receptionist and nurses. Yes, all of this is spread out across all the doctor's patients, but they still add up. Equipment costs, utilities, supplies, building insurance, health insurance for the workers, etc.

 

That what all rights are, the ability to have these things, physical or not. When we have a right to something we are noting what the government cannot ban.

 

What we are running into here is a common problem when rights are discussed, the definition of rights. At this point I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on the definition, although we probably align on many of the practical applications.

 

What we really running into is it semantics argument.

If you go by Common parlance to say I have the right to something means you're guaranteed that something.

I admit it's completely semantic.