What Does It Mean to Have a 'Right' to Health Care?

[stjames1_53]

It seems to me that some people want a safe, peaceful and happy country but don't really want to contribute to anything or anyone that they disagree with, don't like or don't think are deserving of assistance. Unfortunately, because such decisions are entirely subjective, a society modelled on those principles will end up with a large number of citizens in name only who aren't the right ethnicity or color or are not humble enough to receive the charity of the bigots. What happens next is a country that is neither safe, peaceful or happy.

what a BS stretch................take your racsist BS card and hit the door. it is always race. You guys always make it about race.
where does our stolen dollars go when we pay taxes? Are you admitting government is useless when it comes to spending money? Are you claiming they can run your healthcare better than you?
You already have 1/3 of Americans paying for government and its fringe policies. How much more are you demanding we pay? All of our money isn't enough to pay for the illegal aliens, the moochers, and criminals. NO gangster in Chicago is going to buy insurance. They don't file taxes or buy insurance, but they sure as hell cost the taxpayers in the emergency rooms. One of our members touts government sponsored healthcare, in GB, as their final solution. They pay 50% in taxes. Are you willing to give up half of your earnings to support the illegals, gangsters, and someone else in another country? (foreign aid)
You have absolutely no right to demand that others pay for your dream of socialized medicine on top of all the other BS programs.
You want healthcare? Fine, take the money from the fine arts and humanities and pay for it.
Most, if not all socialists, never remember there's only so much to go around. Money doesn't grow on trees.
It would seem you have no problem sticking a gun in your neighbors back and relieving them of their hard earned money just because you feel it's the right thing to do. If you earn $200,000 a year, you might still live comfortably on $100,000/yr, but what about the poor guy who earns less that $50,000/yr. You going to take half of his earnings, too? Now, you live on $25,000/yr and tell me how you get ahead....
The final result is force. You'll have to force people to pay for it. At that point, you move from socialism to communism.
Socialism is the tool, communism is the hammer.
You can argue all day for socialism, but it always fails. Communism steps up to fill the void.
If you want to step up to the plate, just send me $25,000. I promise to use it wisely. That's socialism. If I have to relieve you of it by force, that's communism. But you won't send me a damned dime. That's capitalism.
a PS...
http://personalliberty.com/cbo-remin...ate-cant-work/

[DGUtley]

The Constitution grants the Federal government limited powers. Read Article 1 section 8 for the list. The powers are divided into defense and general welfare. The general welfare phrase covers the non defense enumerated powers in article 1 section 8. The federal government has no authority to take wealth from one person to give to another. You are in error.

"General welfare" is meaningless? Why would it then be referenced in the preamble?

General welfare does not mean what you think it means. MV is correct in this respect.

Someone linked this to me from Breitbart: In the American system, a right is the ability to act without the permission of other people. In addition, one may exercise his rights as long as the rights of another person are not violated in the doing. A right is something available equally to all citizens, something that can’t be taken away by government. But it is also something that isn’t granted by government. In the American tradition, a right is something given to individuals by God, not government. And, since a right is something that does not require action by others to be fulfilled, therein lies the rub when it comes to health care.

[stjames1_53]

General welfare does not mean what you think it means. MV is correct in this respect.

At this point, I must point out that if the rest of Americans stop working, how are they going to pay for ALL the government programs?
Currently, we have 1/3 of Americans paying the whole bill................I think we should all quit work and demand the government pay for it all, on it's own.
I'm not a fan of wearing government sponsored shackles. We've already shackled 1/3 of America, the Entitleers. They are hooked on government heroin.......let's get some more hooked, eh?

[DGUtley]

I don't understand why people think it's ok to put more and more on the backs of the wagon-pullers. I mean, other than the voting bloc....

[Chris]

General welfare does not mean what you think it means. MV is correct in this respect.

Someone linked this to me from Breitbart: In the American system, a right is the ability to act without the permission of other people. In addition, one may exercise his rights as long as the rights of another person are not violated in the doing. A right is something available equally to all citizens, something that can’t be taken away by government. But it is also something that isn’t granted by government. In the American tradition, a right is something given to individuals by God, not government. And, since a right is something that does not require action by others to be fulfilled, therein lies the rub when it comes to health care.

Freedom to act and act responsibly--no harm, suffer consequences--not freedom from as a teen might think.

[DGUtley]

Freedom to act and act responsibly--no harm, suffer consequences--not freedom from as a teen might think.

My younger sister, a big lib, (well, both are actually) was all excited b/c she got 'my obamacare' she said. She's an architect by degree but stayed home to take care of her kids and her husband (a union carpenter) retired b/c 'he had his 30 in'. She was so excited about the subsidy she got. I reminded her that she'd never ever again breathe a free breath of air again as long as she was dependent on the government to subsidize her and her children's health insurance. Her response: you just don't want to pay for me to get it.

[patrickt]

I'm not impressed by your appeal to emotion. If such a thing were really to happen, wouldn't it have been your refusal to part with your few cents as well which caused their death?

Emotion is all the liberals have. They have to play on it. It's like a man playing a guitar with one string because it's all he has.

[patrickt]

Let them die in agony if it might cost you a few cents to treat them.

Let's see. 122,000,000 people paying a few cents, say 5 each, would bring in $6,100,000. For paying for everyone health care, that won't go far unless we do what Cuba has done and enslave doctors and nurses and make them work for $20 a month.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway.../#3a30468561cb
https://www.reference.com/government...7a9265390f4bdb

Liberals get emotional but they don't do the math. Our national healthcare bill was around $3,200,000,000,000. A few pennies from each taxpayer just won't cut it.
https://www.cms.gov/research-statist...highlights.pdf

[Mister D]

Those Nordic societies are not nearly as ethnically homogeneous as you think they are. They have also been the recipients of immigration over the decades.

For instance Norway:
In the last decades, Norway has become home to increasing numbers of immigrants, foreign workers, and asylum-seekers from various parts of the world. Norway had a steady influx of immigrants from South Asia (mostly Pakistanis and Sri Lankans), East Asia (mainly the Chinese), and Southeast Asia (e.g. Filipinos), Eastern Europe (e.g. Russians and Poles), Southern Europe (Greeks, Albanians and people from former Yugoslavia etc.), and Middle East countries (especially Iraqis and Palestinians), as well as Somalis, Turks, Moroccans, and some Latin Americans. After ten Eastern European and Baltic countries joined the EU in 2004, there has also been a substantial influx of people from Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
Immigrants constituted 13% of the population at the start of 2015, and an additional 2,6% were born in Norway by immigrant parents[6] (up from 8,3% and 1,5% in 2006[7]). The same year, 19% of births in Norway were to immigrant parents.[6] In 2006, non-Western immigrants constituted 75% of the total number of immigrants. They contribute much of the population growth. Among people of African descent in Oslo, almost 60% are younger than 30, compared to 20% of those of North American background.[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Norway

I said relatively homogeneous, Dr. Who. Are you so desperate now that you would argue that Norway isn't relatively homogeneous? Your own citation shows that 86.2% of the population is ethnic Norwegian and approximately 1/4th of immigrants are of European descent. And, yes, Norway has been the recipient of immigration and, like most other Europeans, Norwegians don't like it.

[resister]

what a BS stretch................take your racsist BS card and hit the door. it is always race. You guys always make it about race.
where does our stolen dollars go when we pay taxes? Are you admitting government is useless when it comes to spending money? Are you claiming they can run your healthcare better than you?
You already have 1/3 of Americans paying for government and its fringe policies. How much more are you demanding we pay? All of our money isn't enough to pay for the illegal aliens, the moochers, and criminals. NO gangster in Chicago is going to buy insurance. They don't file taxes or buy insurance, but they sure as hell cost the taxpayers in the emergency rooms. One of our members touts government sponsored healthcare, in GB, as their final solution. They pay 50% in taxes. Are you willing to give up half of your earnings to support the illegals, gangsters, and someone else in another country? (foreign aid)
You have absolutely no right to demand that others pay for your dream of socialized medicine on top of all the other BS programs.
You want healthcare? Fine, take the money from the fine arts and humanities and pay for it.
Most, if not all socialists, never remember there's only so much to go around. Money doesn't grow on trees.
It would seem you have no problem sticking a gun in your neighbors back and relieving them of their hard earned money just because you feel it's the right thing to do. If you earn $200,000 a year, you might still live comfortably on $100,000/yr, but what about the poor guy who earns less that $50,000/yr. You going to take half of his earnings, too? Now, you live on $25,000/yr and tell me how you get ahead....
The final result is force. You'll have to force people to pay for it. At that point, you move from socialism to communism.
Socialism is the tool, communism is the hammer.
You can argue all day for socialism, but it always fails. Communism steps up to fill the void.
If you want to step up to the plate, just send me $25,000. I promise to use it wisely. That's socialism. If I have to relieve you of it by force, that's communism. But you won't send me a damned dime. That's capitalism.
a PS...
http://personalliberty.com/cbo-remin...ate-cant-work/

25,000 a year sounds great, we live on 16,000.