Let's debunk one of liberals' belief — healthcare should be a fundamental right

I don't mind putting my hand in my pocket so I, my family and my neighbour can enjoy universal healthcare.

We in Australia have stronger values.

 

If you have no objection then it is not force. If someone does then it is force. Let's pretend you and I are walking down the street and you see a guy that you think is a scam artist asking for money, but I don't believe he is and I just KNOW in my heart he is sincere...let's say I ask you to give him money and you say "no" and I pull out a set of handcuffs and a Glock 9mm and said hand over your wallet or else I will lock you up in a basement or shoot you. Then I take 1/3 of your money and hand it to the guy you believe will buy booze with it.

Is that theft? Did I do the right thing?

The government distributes according to numbers, not need. There are some truly poor people who are in need, who cannot work, or have disabilities of the like that make work difficult who could use individual assistance and care, but they are lumped in with people who are lazy and think the world owes them something.

I grew up in the ghetto of Detroit. I'd say 90% of the people on my street were on some sort of assistance as most of the housing was "project" housing. Most of the people were able-bodied and made bad choices. The others needed MORE assistance than what a one-size-fits-all policy could or can give them.

What those people needed was community assistance. One family had a son whose heart stopped 12 times as a child and they (and he) needed help figuring out what to do with and for him. They needed special job training for him, they needed emotional support. You can't get that from the government. The government didn't know that Clarence would take his entire welfare check down to the liquor store, or that Tracy's father left her as a child so she keeps running to men for attention and that's why she has 5 kids. It doesn't and can't know this. Community groups, nonprofits, churches, and neighbors do.

Give people back that money and they will give it and give in ways that make sense.

 

I like this post a lot. ^_^

Simple: we ignore the heady philosophical components (yes, taxation may in fact be considered as theft. I don't care, because taxation is necessary in a modern society) and focus on down-to-earth pragmatism.

 

I don't mind putting my hand in my pocket so that my neighbors can go to the doctor. I mind you or someone else putting their hand in my pocket so that some people get some form of really (*)(*)(*)(*)ty insurance that helps large corporations.

 

Pragmatism isn't an answer the question. If the material value in question isn't produced, how do you secure the right to that material value?

 

you keep saying that, but offer no reason at all as to why it wouldnt be produced. until you do Im not giving you another answer.

 

It may be considered theft? How do you describe money that you didn't earn, that someone else did earn, suddenly taken from that person at the pain of death or imprisonment?

 

the govt taxing you is not quite the same as someone robbing you with a gun, you cant vote that robber out in 4 years for someone who might give you 5 dollars instead, its not nearly as coercive as being robbed, and you get something out of it too its also in your interests, being robbed is not

its true that govt is imperfect and there are flaws, but you only make the case for improving and expanding govt assistance not ending it in favour of charity. if youre white and christian who do you think, statistically speaking, most of the money you give to charity goes to ? white christians, so what about poor mexican atheists do they not deserve help ? thats why govt is better than charity. and govt can help clarence with programmes to get him off alcohol, retrained, and into a job, they have resources that charities can only dream of and when deployed correctly can impact peoples lives in a massive way. its better that govt does these things they are better placed than anyone else.

 

taxation

 

Taxation. It's part of the underlying social contract. Don't like it? Move to somewhere where you won't get taxed, either by rejecting society as a whole or moving to a society that doesn't do taxation like, uh, Somalia?

 

It's not just hypothetical, Charlie. It's a real phenomenon. There is an enormous risk of a doctor shortage as we speak. That sounds to me like a real world problem resulting in a lack of sufficient production of healthcare services and it's bad enough to make rationing seem like a necessary step in the right direction.

 

Can I refuse to pay or choose how much to pay without someone with guns showing up to take me to court and then jail?

The income tax is codified and I might get a deduction here and there, but I still have to pay for things that I find to be inefficient in most cases and morally reprehensible in others. I get things I don't want out of it, unconstitutional things, and I don't think the argument of: well, you get free feel ups from the TSA, wars overseas, and free FBI surveillance of your email and home as a consolation.

Woopdedoo.

How the hell do I make that case? It is poorly run--not because of how much money we put into it (we put a HUGE amount of our budget towards it) but because of how much we put into it and the culture we have created because of it.

I would ask that you spend a day in East Detroit of south of 8 Mile road (we'll give you a gun and a bat) and tell me if you think that only requires MORE money to fix.

80% of my charity money actually goes to black people living in Detroit. I set up a (tiny) scholarship and donate to local churches for their food pantry.

Have no idea what you're talking about. White people who give to charity don't get to say: Oh, hello, can you only designate this money to white Christians?

Nope.

It never helped him once get off alcohol because it was never a condition. There were job training programs. There were alcohol programs. I think maybe you have no idea because you've never lived in a dirt poor neighborhood or were a part of American programs.

You have to KNOW someone to help them. Large scale programs get to know no one. I'm guessing from the "behaviour" versus behavior that you're from the UK or Oz and I can tell you that we have different culture and different problems here that our government has wasted 40 years of money to create WITH their welfare program.

It now needs the personal touch.

 

What underlying social contract? Please explain why this is an underlying social contract in your estimation. Moreover, I don't have to move if I don't like it. I live in a Republic where I can work for change to this system from a progressive to consumption or flat tax.

You live in Germany now, yes?

 

No one has a "fundamental right" to another's labor.

 

I cannot find this disagreeable at all, it is in keeping with the Constitution:

"Propose a new amendment to the Constitution making healthcare, food, water, and shelter official rights."

What are you going to do, deprive people of the right to buy healthcare, food, water, and shelter, because they have no right to it?

Any good liberal judge can find Obamacare unconstitutional even with an amendment to the constitution that says, "healthcare, food, water, and shelter are official rights."

Just because something is a right does not determine how you pay for it, or say the gubermint must subsidize the fair market value of richer people's homes.

The gestapo communist manifesto gubermint told me I could not build an 800 square foot house on my own 2.5 acres, exactly the same size as grandpa's first house, because it would violate the Real Estate "principle of regression," and I was threatened with massive daily fines if I did so. So if I wanted a home on my own land I had to become a slave to vile disgusting Vampire Usurers wont to sneak into homes on the invite of one for a National Treasure Sweepstakes blood bank in the attic, and got more debt than I wanted. It is the basic principle of the lasy fair gestapo communist manifesto gubermint system, from each according to their inability to each according to their subsidized silver spooned inheritance.

First, we certainly have the right to buy healthcare, food, water, and shelter, and if forced to pay taxes for safety nets, it is a fundimental right to get them.

Second, we certainly have the right to amend the Constitution to hang all the rich beneficiaries of the discriminatory zoning laws by the neck until dead, or to just redistribute all of their illegitimate silver spoon inherited wealth.

 

They're about to explain how this is some underlying social contract. I'm on pins and needles.

 

not here theres not, and that is very easily fixed, the govt can give subsidies to universities to train more doctors thats not a tough problem to solve, as long as doctors make decent money people will want to be doctors. cuba has more doctors than the usa, how do you explain that.

 

I would think the big picture is obvious. This is largely a country of professing christians. If God had declared healthcare a right, it would have been provided throughout all of history.

The world took a huge leap in technology which vastly increased food production, safe water and healthcare under a system that did not establish these things as rights. What was established was liberty and property rights.

Now, after a long history of abuse by secularist(liberals, progressives, marxist,), we are failing to prosper as before. Before healthcare can prosper to all, it has to be treated for what it is: a luxury no different than a TV or car.

More important than any individual getting treatment is that he be free. This liberty comes at a price yet with it comes great reward for the country as a whole. Under a free market and liberty(not it being a right but a product), healthcare has and would innovate and become attainable by the masses with far better access and costs. Not everyone got a flat screen at first or a car for that matter, but how many do not have them now?

 

The progressive left's idea of a "social contract" only requires one signator....Big Papa Fed.

 

yes, by voting for someone else

its not up to you how its spent, so if you find some things it is spent on reprehensible thats just tough Im afraid, you have three choices; move to another country where you like how they spend their tax, dont pay and risk going to jail, or vote for somebody else

of course it requires more money to fix, you cant seriously look at a place like that and not agree, build houses schools hospitals roads colleges parks community centres clinics then go back and see what you think of the place I guarantee it would be much better. under investment is the problem in places like that.

well you would be the exception to the rule, which is why I said statistically. and what about mexicans ? or gay people ? veterans ? people with special needs ? govt has to look after all these people and much more, thats why they need your tax.

they do that by what charities they give to, church based charities for example, that operate in their own area, which, if they are white and affluent (giving to charity would suggest they are) and live in america means most people there will be white

so cause the programmes didnt work you should scrap them ? not improve and expand them instead ? if somethings broke throw it in the bin is your outlook ? I prefer to fix things

they dont have to be large scale programmes you also get local govt, govt is good it is supposed to be for of and by the people its not your enemy. I know youre from america with your brainwashed views of welfare btw.

people work in govt too

 

Easily fixed? Where would this money magically come from to pay for medical school?

Some of the worst doctors I've had went overseas to get their medical degrees because it was cheaper. It's cheaper for a reason. Compare Johns Hopkins, Stanford, or Harvard Medical to any of Cuba's schools and you'll see why people come to New York City for heart and brain surgery.

 

there is an underlying social contract in every democracy. it basically says obey the law and pay your taxes and we (the govt) will provide you with a certain basic standard of living and ensure your freedom/safety. surely youre aware of that you seem quite intelligent.

 

you dont have to pay for rights, if that amendment was made you then have universal healthcare as nobody could be denied it cause they couldnt or didnt pay, as it would be their right anyway

 

no individual does, but the govt does, and its up to the govt how it spends that. thats not up to you, you have no say in that. most of your labour you can keep but a small bit, if you earn enough, the govt is gonna take and spend how it sees fit, thats the way of the world. thats the price for all society and govt did for you to allow you to realise your earning potential in the first place.

 

see to me you just spout drivel that only someone who grew up in america would think. on some issues you are brainwashed over there, its more important than any individual getting treatment that he be free ? seriously ? free to die of cancer ? is being treated itself not freedom ?