Is health care a right or a privelege?

I'm always a bit wary of rights that other people are forced to pay for. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness? I get those. The right to associate with whomever you want, to worship within the community of your choice, to engage in the political process without fear of reprisal from those who disagree with you? All well and good.

The right to health care? No, sorry, that's out of bounds.

 

Opportunity Costs are the loss of potential gain from other alternatives when one alternative is chosen.

That's probably because they'd already handed over all of their money, and then spent more with their credit cards.

 

The Laws of Nature for survival of the species establishes that the individual with their labor, either individually or collectively, must be able to secure the support and comfort necessary for survival from nature. If that does not occur then the existence of the species is effectively based upon cannibalism and the cannibalism will eventually result in the extinction of the species.

We live in a society that is reliant upon the "commerce" (collective labor) to provide for all that we need for our support and comfort and, based upon the Laws of Nature for survival of the species, we must ensure the "commerce" provides "support and comfort" of every individual member of society based upon the labor they contribute.

That's not a "statutory law" but it is a "Natural Law" that establishes the Natural Right of Property of the Person.

The entire argument for commerce based upon the Natural Right of Property is that as specialists many people (collectively) can produce more than they can as generalists (individually) and so all members benefit from "commerce" because everyone receives more based upon the collective labor. The excess does not need to be divided equally (i.e. socialism) but it must result in every individual having more than they would have as a generalist providing for all of their own needs.

For tens of thousands of years the human race proved that individuals based upon their labor alone as "generalists" could provide for their household. They required no commerce and could secure all they required from nature. With civilization can commerce and both were to improve the life of the individuals members of the human race. Commerce has to promise more to the person that then could secure on their own from nature because if it doesn't then it's time to discard civilization and commerce completely.

Today, in the United States, as a "people" providing labor collectively, we produce about four times more than what is required for every household to have a decent living standard. That leaves 75% of the annual wealth created to be distributed to the "owners of enterprise" and to be used for "incentive" compensation for jobs that require specialized skills.

There's absolutely no logical reason why every household in the United States cannot have a decent living based upon the cumulative labor that's producing almost $20 trillion worth of wealth every years.

 

Instead of having other people "pay for Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" why not simply require the compensation necessary for the person earn those with their labor?

This issue should be "wealth distribution" as opposed to "wealth redistribution" and that's easily solved with a mandatory "minimum compensation package for labor" that covers the basic costs.

While I have numerous reasons to dislike the source there's no argument that the following is true.

No one on this thread can put forward an argument that would establish a Right for a business to profit at the expense of the employee not earning a "living wage" working for the business.

 

So, if we "discard civilization and commerce completely", where are we...? We're right back where we were in the first place, grubbing out a hand-to-mouth existence based on hunting, slash-and-burn agriculture, while living in caves and thatched huts. Surely that is not what you advocate.

"Secure all they required from nature"...? It sounds like an idyllic life in some kind of Utopian "Shangra-La", but try it sometime! You kill what you eat, and if you hunt poorly, or you can't get crops to grow, or, the animals and other people steal them from you, so you starve!

Bottom line -- it's a hard, harsh world, Shiva. Yes, the smart thing for almost eight billion people on this planet to do is to work together. But remember that the operative word in that phrase is "WORK". Socialistic parasites who bring nothing to "the party" but their appetites are never welcome, no matter what kind of "ism" a government consists of, except (sort of) for Communism and Socialism -- and without exception every country ruled by one of those "ism's" decays into overwhelming debt, economic disaster, and chaos. One final word for your deliberation, Shiva... VENEZUELA!

 

Completely untrue. If anything, the laws of nature dictate that the strong will survive while the unfit will get eaten. (Ever hear the phrase "survival of the fittest?"). In nature, a group of animals remains strong through the constant culling of the herd which takes place. That's the way nature works.

Moving that idea to the human side of the equation, if you're unwilling or unable to pull your weight within the society, either the society has to decide to carry you, or you end up being a statistic. Now, there are people who have a legitimate need to be carried, and there are people who attempt to appear to need to be carried. Because of the fact that we have finite resources, we must be able to distinguish between these two sets of people. We should take care of the people with the legitimate need while leaving those who are capable of seeing to their own needs to fend for themselves. This sums up my feelings on welfare, food subsidies, health care, etc. etc. Yes, there should be a safety net, but that net cannot be made too large, lest the system start to fail. That $20 trillion worth of wealth you speak of? That's generated by a whole lot of mom and pop operations, a whole lot of people slogging through the grind day in and day out, a whole lot of people working to better the situation for themselves and their families. That's the true American dream, not getting other people to pay for the goods and services that you require.

Well, that's my humble opinion anyway.

 

...............must provide for himself or die.

 

..........other than a voluntary agreement.
POST FAIL.

 

I Googled "Natural Right of Property of the Person", and I found no results. Is this a phrase you made up? What does it mean, exactly? And why the capitalization?

 

Every one of us should have the right to give (or not give) as much or as little of their property to any other citizen as he wishes under whatever conditions he wishes.

If Joe offers to give Bob $25 (or $10, or $2) if Bob will sweep the floors of Joe's shop, and if Bob agrees to the arrangement, it is nobody's business but Joe and Bob's. And Joe owes Bob nothing more than the agreed-to $25.

 

John Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter V, (The Natural Right) "Of Property"
http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr05.txt

Originally published in 1690 Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government also included this challenge from the author:

http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr00.txt

In the 327 years since it's publication no one has been able to provide a legitimate rebuttal to the systematic arguments presented by Locke for the Natural Rights of the Person that he builds in a step-by-step basis in his Second Treatise of Civil Government.

 

So nothing really to do with public education, any more than any other alternative that is chosen. Check.

So, not begging at all, but being coerced. Check.

 

False. Locke's Proviso, which he claimed justified property in land, has been proved incoherent, self-contradictory, and ahistorical: no one ever appropriated land as their private property until there already wasn't as much and as good for the next fellow.

 

By that "logic," pain doesn't exist either.

 

That text file doesn't contain the phrase "Natural Right of Property of the Person".

 

so Locke states that a man has the right to use someone else's labor for his own benefit, against that man's will where ?

 

Um...'cuz it sounded 'ficial?

 

It's not a right, but it imo it is part part of protecting your citizens and a part of national security. Anyways single payer is more efficient. Why have a middle man called insurance for something like healthcare that only increases costs even more.Whether someone lives or dies should not be based off profit and that much is obvious.

Other countries have single payer but can still buy insurance to cover extras.

 

Why have a middle man for anything?
Let the gov do everything.

 

Your point to my actual comment not taking what I said out of context is?...

 

It's not the government's job to create efficiency or save costs. Was that difficult?

 

I guess it is difficult. Still didn't respond to my comment. I never said it was the governments job to create efficiency or save costs. It is the governments job to protect its people and healthcare could easily be placed in this box for national security though. Becoming a citizen and getting these benefits should be much more difficult than it is now though.

 

you spoke of costs and savings by government eliminating the middle man.
Of course all of those new unemployed people will really feel the savings, as well as the government which loses a huge tax base.

Additionally, many of the middle men would vanish if government would get the hell out of the market and stop generating business costs for the providers.


National security ?
Were we insecure prior to government entering the healthcare market ? Seriously ?

 

Elaborate please. Even if there were less insurance jobs, its not like health insurance for above basic coverage would not be a thing even with single payer basic coverage which covers necessary surgeries, etc. What do you mean they would lose a huge tax base?

Maybe, but middlemen themselves aren't the only issues. It's also big pharma and the huge costs of medicine. Its a different time now. I don't know which era you want to go back to where the health industry was kept completely unregulated (I also think that is completely insane) but they didn't have the issues we had back then.

Yes, seriously. It's the same concept as the police, and emergency systems, except that you are no longer charged (after the fact) for basic healthcare and emergency costs which sometimes today the average person could not pay back in their lifetime.

Just so you know, I think the ACA was a terrible idea and only served to make the whole insurance clusterfuck worse. Though yes, it made coverage affordable for the lower class. It was originally, a republican idea.We should have gone straight to single payer.

 

Reality seems to disagree with you.