Is health care a right or a privelege?

voluntary arrangement. The employer owes the employee nothing above why they agree to.

Perhaps I am entitled to them shoveling my driveway and cutting my lawn as part of the support and comfort they owe me for subsidizing their taxes.

 

This is nothing more than the Marxist meme of: "from each according to ability and to each according to need".

When did Marxist become so popular in America? What has the education system been teaching people for the past 50 years?

 

So you're not entitled to a trial by jury of your peers because it would cost others money?

 

A swing to the right is met by a swing to the left. This has been a particularly hard swing to the right met by a matching one to the left. And the left isn't done yet.

 

Good gawd you really are an extremist! He argued nothing of the sort except to the odd extreme mind.

 

I was specifically referring to the government taking one person's money in order to give it to someone else.

However, I'd be fine with judges and juries operating on a volunteer basis.

 

Slavery was legal as well. Probably should have just said awe shucks and dealt with it huh?

That is literally the opposite of what I said.

 

Not my point. Medicare is essentially price fixing - if you are trying to suggest that doesn't impact the cost of care outside of Medicare/Medicaid simply because a clinic doesn't accept it...then I don't know how to help you. Do you honestly believe that a small private practice is going to leave money on the table and charge significantly less than a large clinic simply because they are not DIRECTLY impacted by Medicare/Medicaid? Come on now...

You can't assume the same circumstances would exist in a system without Government subsidized healthcare. Gaps in the market are ALWAYS filled if the Government gets out of the way.

 

Good - I hope the left isn't done yet.

Keep preaching that Marxism.

 

Where are you pulling this "Support and Comfort" thing from, and why do you seem to believe a person is entitled to it?

Being comfortable is a natural right? Pretty absurd statement honestly.

 

Well ok, I'm happy to know that you oppose granting subsidies and incentives and tax breaks for oil companies and the defense industry.

No, actually I'm not because that is a very nonsensical and uninformed position to take. Tax dollars always constitute a redistribution of wealth and it is appropriate and needed in any nation.

 

Arbitration solves the need of a government based trial by jury.

 

Americans are legally entitled to medical care when needed, but how it is payed for and how much is paid are appropriate topics for discussion.

Trump®Care (still a fantasy) would cause the cost to soar:

 

No, it's a matter of Opportunity Costs. I'm guessing you don't understand Economics.

So, you've never been in a shopping mall?

 

I'm not beholden to any social contracts.

 

The cost of doing one thing, versus the cost of doing something else.

You could have everyone pay for their own education. Problem is there's not enough teachers/tutors to go around, so the cost per hour for teaching/tutoring at home sky-rockets. There's also the issue of things like text-books and libraries, which can be quite expensive, and then there's the matter of properly socializing your child(ren) through extra-curricular activities.

Paying the property tax is far cheaper, especially since lumped in with the property tax is police and safety, and often other benefits, like garbage disposal, sewage and waste water treatment, road maintenance, and such..

You can achieve an Economy of Scale that ostensibly creates the most financially and economically efficient means to provide Education and other services.

 

How about the right to eat three square meals a day? One of those meals each week should be steak and lobster. How 'bout a dessert should accompany each of those meals with a choice of beverage? How 'bout the right to afford comfortable sleeping attire? Satin Pajamas would be nice.How 'bout the right to a pedicure? If our feet are happy....so are we!
When you start talking about rights that are things others must perform and provide for us beyond National safety, I believe you are outside the realm of what American Founders intended.

 

I'm pulling it directly from the definitive authority on the Natural Right "Of Property" of course.

http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr05.txt

In the natural state the individual is responsible for providing for their own support and comfort with their labor. When a person wants to use someone else's labor to provide for their "support and comfort" then that person has the obligation to provide for the support and comfort of the person who's labor they're using.

By the way "support and comfort" are the two necessary requirements for survival of the species. Natural law establishes that for survival of the species each individual member must be able to acquire the "support and comfort" for their being either individually or collectively as a group. Today mankind no longer lives individually in a natural state and instead we live in a communal state created by commerce. Each individual must be able to secure that which they require from the "communal state of mankind" in the world today.

 

Not exactly what Locke said. He said: The earth, and all that is therein, is given to men for the support and comfort of their being.

And this is the part that you just make up. Locke didn't say this.

 

Well it's not technical, your health care cost money it is not free and I don't know why paying through taxes is painless compared to paying for an insurance policy and getting private treatment and I wouldn't like the scam either are you talking treatment to sustain them till they get home or if I need a heart bypass I can simply fly to the UK and get it at your expense?

 

If the OP would read Locke but just a little further on he would find a discussion about money. I.e. the idea of exchanging labor for money - which has nothing to do with providing "support and comfort".

 

A person does have a "right to eat" but they don't have a right to the food.... unless someone else is paying to use their labor as opposed to the person using their labor to obtain the food directly from nature. That's also true of the "right to drink" and the same criteria applies to the beverages they drink. If they raise the grapes and ferment the wine then they have a right to drink the wine. If they use their labor for the benefit of another person then the other person owes them the bottle of wine.

Virtually everything we use and need is performed or provided for by someone else. We live in a society based upon specialization where people are specialized so that it takes everyone to produce what all of the people need and can use. It is not "free" of course because every working person is contributing their labor in exchange for what they need from others.

Everyone from the CEO of a major corporation to the janitor cleaning the bathroom deserves, at the barest of minimums, enough income and benefits to provide for they basic necessary-mandatory expenditures and our economy, based upon everyone from the janitor to the CEO, is producing four-times more than is required for this basic compensation.

 

No. The other person owes them what the two of them agreed would be the pay.

 

That is kinda a broad statement, what kind of healthcare is a right?

If I have a fat face should I have a right to get surgery to make me look more like other people?

If I don't want anymore kids do I have a right to get that taken care of?

And then even more important, is this "right" something that should be paid for by other people?

 

For low income households under Obamacare the household the average taxpayers don't pay anything to fund the subsidies. It's funded by a very small tax of less than 4% of investment incomes of wealthy households on income over $200,000 (single)/ $250,000 (jointly) that are taxed as "unearned income" at about 1/2 the tax rates that American working households pay. The people paying the taxes can certainly afford the small percentage they pay in taxes to subsidize the low income households in America.

All of this crying about the small amount of taxes on huge incomes that the wealthy pay in America by Republicans is really quite pathetic.