Healthcare is not a right

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Thegeek

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 20, 2013
    2,059
    63
    Indianapolis
    Why is it that I keep hearing that healthcare is a right? Your choice to live a healthy lifestyle or not is a right. Healthcare itself is not. Healthcare at it's base is goods and services. Goods are surgical supplies, vaccines, and other pharmaceuticals. Services are provided by individuals or companies who provide the knowledge and skills necessary to perform those services. Your access to these goods and services is a civil right. But just because healthcare enhances the quality of life does not mean it's a right. You could be born in a barn today, and live a long full life without any "healthcare". Or, you could be born with a genetic flaw which would cause your death without modern medical intervention. At this point is where people claim "right to life".

    I see the debate. Kids born into families without the ability to provide healthcare is tragic, but I also believe that these people weren't required to have a child. I'm pretty sure they knew medical care was expensive and that insurance is expensive. We don't feel bad for people who buy cars or houses they can't afford, so why should we feel bad about their choice to have a child they can't afford? It's pretty heartless to say it, but that's the truth of it. Just because it's not compassionate doesn't mean it's a right. Compassion doesn't define our rights, it defines our charity. If you can't afford a plumber or HVAC tech, you don't get those things for free. You could argue that clean water and sanitation is a right, or even electricity is a right using the same argument that "everyone needs it". Need doesn't make material things rights.

    Sorry for the rant, but I overheard a discussion at work and it has my blood boiling and I needed to vent and I like my paycheck too much to give these two leeches what they deserve.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,169
    113
    Gtown-ish
    Why is it that I keep hearing that healthcare is a right? Your choice to live a healthy lifestyle or not is a right. Healthcare itself is not. Healthcare at it's base is goods and services. Goods are surgical supplies, vaccines, and other pharmaceuticals. Services are provided by individuals or companies who provide the knowledge and skills necessary to perform those services. Your access to these goods and services is a civil right. But just because healthcare enhances the quality of life does not mean it's a right. You could be born in a barn today, and live a long full life without any "healthcare". Or, you could be born with a genetic flaw which would cause your death without modern medical intervention. At this point is where people claim "right to life".

    I see the debate. Kids born into families without the ability to provide healthcare is tragic, but I also believe that these people weren't required to have a child. I'm pretty sure they knew medical care was expensive and that insurance is expensive. We don't feel bad for people who buy cars or houses they can't afford, so why should we feel bad about their choice to have a child they can't afford? It's pretty heartless to say it, but that's the truth of it. Just because it's not compassionate doesn't mean it's a right. Compassion doesn't define our rights, it defines our charity. If you can't afford a plumber or HVAC tech, you don't get those things for free. You could argue that clean water and sanitation is a right, or even electricity is a right using the same argument that "everyone needs it". Need doesn't make material things rights.

    Sorry for the rant, but I overheard a discussion at work and it has my blood boiling and I needed to vent and I like my paycheck too much to give these two leeches what they deserve.

    If we were a nation of laws, then the Constitution would have to be amended to create positive rights, which oblige action. That's the only way that "healthcare as a right" could be constitutional. But, as it was written and amended, the constitution is based on negative rights, which oblige or allow inaction.

    However, none of that matters now because we're not a nation of laws anymore. That got broke all to hell. We're now a nation of two parties, both controlled controlled by oligarchs, and whichever one puts the most of its justices in the courts, gets to decide what the constitution says.

    So, lefties want the constitution to give them permission to oblige action, like healthcare. Conservatives, generally, want the constitution to say what it says, unless it's an alt-right kind of conservative, in which case they want the constitution to give them more power for law and order than the constitution allows.
     

    gregr

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 1, 2016
    4,300
    113
    West-Central
    In theory, the United States Constitution is the law of the land. As Jamil pointed out, our elected employees routinely disregard the law. But understand that, the Constitution offers NO authority for government to own, mandate, direct, nor provide healthcare, period. When government seizes, and/or redirects taxpayers monies to provide for the general populace, they`ve WAY exceeded their role.
     

    MikeBrennan

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 30, 2016
    179
    16
    Indiana
    In theory, the United States Constitution is the law of the land. As Jamil pointed out, our elected employees routinely disregard the law. But understand that, the Constitution offers NO authority for government to own, mandate, direct, nor provide healthcare, period. When government seizes, and/or redirects taxpayers monies to provide for the general populace, they`ve WAY exceeded their role.


    It ignores it's limits regularly....and people tolerate it.
     

    Leadeye

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 19, 2009
    36,696
    113
    .
    The long and short of obiecare was a novel way of dodging responsibility for a tax vote. Regardless of how you feel about it, if the government wanted to subsidize healthcare they should have said it's going to cost X dollars and here are new taxes to support it, now vote, and let the people decide if it was a good thing in the next election. The government pays insurance carriers to carry the ball with some direction and the money shows up in increased premiums for the existing insured along with new rules. It's an off the books public/private partnership similar to an enron scam. There's also an implied government backstop in there financially somewhere. The entire program needs to be scrapped and replaced with an up or down vote on subsidized health care and the taxes that it's going to cost. Leadership should take the accolades, or consequences in the next election.
     
    Last edited:

    Twangbanger

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Oct 9, 2010
    7,062
    113
    Of course it's not a right - it's an entitlement, silly!

    We put 20 Million more people on Medicaid, and called it healthcare reform.
     

    Ark

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    25   0   0
    Feb 18, 2017
    6,735
    113
    Indy
    You have a human right to life, and healthcare is an extension of that life.

    Not so different from the right to self defense, really. If you strip one of all ability to effectively defend themselves, can you really claim they still have a right to self defense? If you're going to deprive people of the healthcare they need to survive on the basis of economic "deservedness", I don't know how you can realistically claim that you acknowledge any right to live in the first place.

    Or perhaps you would like to explain to a cancer patient's kids why mommy has no right to be treated and will die soon.
     

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    102,091
    77
    Southside Indy
    You have a human right to life, and healthcare is an extension of that life.

    Not so different from the right to self defense, really. If you strip one of all ability to effectively defend themselves, can you really claim they still have a right to self defense? If you're going to deprive people of the healthcare they need to survive on the basis of economic "deservedness", I don't know how you can realistically claim that you acknowledge any right to live in the first place.

    Or perhaps you would like to explain to a cancer patient's kids why mommy has no right to be treated and will die soon.

    Nobody is taking away the ability to seek healthcare though. It's a matter of who pays for that care. In your self defense analogy, it would be akin to saying the government is obligated to provide the means of self defense. Pretty sure Uncle Sam isn't passing out guns to the citizens. :dunno:
     

    Drail

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 13, 2008
    2,542
    48
    Bloomington
    Mommy has no "right" to be treated and the Govt. doesn't care. The people who make billions off of hopeless cancer "treatments" care. It's a business, and brother - business is GOOD! The Constitution is simply a list of things the Govt. is NOT ALLOWED under any circumstances to do and it grants no "rights" - merely states that the Govt. recognizes a handful of "rights". The problem we are seeing today is that the Constitution does not seem to address what will happen to politicians who violate those rules. There would seem to be no consequences. Especially if your last name in "Clinton".
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,169
    113
    Gtown-ish
    You have a human right to life, and healthcare is an extension of that life.

    Not so different from the right to self defense, really. If you strip one of all ability to effectively defend themselves, can you really claim they still have a right to self defense? If you're going to deprive people of the healthcare they need to survive on the basis of economic "deservedness", I don't know how you can realistically claim that you acknowledge any right to live in the first place.

    Or perhaps you would like to explain to a cancer patient's kids why mommy has no right to be treated and will die soon.
    You don’t have a right to make other people do **** for you. Positive “rights” aren’t actually rights, they are powers.

    That said, there is a place for compassion and a personal responsibility, to help people who need help. That doesn’t mean you can be compassionate with other people’s money. That’s fake compassion. Voting Democrat isn’t a substitute for genuine compassion. That’s fake virtue.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,169
    113
    Gtown-ish
    Mommy has no "right" to be treated and the Govt. doesn't care. The people who make billions off of hopeless cancer "treatments" care. It's a business, and brother - business is GOOD! The Constitution is simply a list of things the Govt. is NOT ALLOWED under any circumstances to do and it grants no "rights" - merely states that the Govt. recognizes a handful of "rights". The problem we are seeing today is that the Constitution does not seem to address what will happen to politicians who violate those rules. There would seem to be no consequences. Especially if your last name in "Clinton".

    One nit. The constitution is an enumeration of federal powers. The intent was that you have all rights, not just what is listed innthe bill of rights. It lists the powers the government has, not the powers it does not have. So, if the power isn’t listed. The federal government doesn’t have it.
     

    BigBoxaJunk

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Feb 9, 2013
    7,314
    113
    East-ish
    Mommy has no "right" to be treated and the Govt. doesn't care.

    Right to life is right up there with "Your call is important to us."

    The great conundrum of a free society is how to lead the masses to believe they are free, and that they matter.

    Democrats want us to believe that, to have the latter, you have to sacrifice the former. Republicans want us to believe it's the other way around. They both know that neither is true.

    That's why it says "Satisfaction Guaranteed" on your foot cream, but not on your Constitution.
     
    Last edited:

    mmpsteve

    Real CZ's have a long barrel!!
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Nov 14, 2016
    5,870
    113
    ..... formerly near the Wild Turkey
    I once had a right to health care; the right to purchase said health care with a mutually bennificial contract from a private firm that specialized in health care. Then that right was stripped from me (after 30 years of providing it to my employees), and I now get what amounts to a catastrophic health care plan at double the cost and $5000 deductible per person. Thanks obama. Thanks progressives; you've fundamentally changed America: Eeh Haw!!

    Oh, but wait. All is not lost! The formerly uninsured now get free abortions. Oh Happy Days.


    You have a human right to life, and healthcare is an extension of that life.

    Not so different from the right to self defense, really. If you strip one of all ability to effectively defend themselves, can you really claim they still have a right to self defense? If you're going to deprive people of the healthcare they need to survive on the basis of economic "deservedness", I don't know how you can realistically claim that you acknowledge any right to live in the first place.

    Or perhaps you would like to explain to a cancer patient's kids why mommy has no right to be treated and will die soon.
     
    Last edited:

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,615
    149
    Valparaiso
    Sure you have a right to healthcare.

    You have a right to obtain healthcare without the govt. interfering and preventing you from doing so.

    What you don't have a right to do is make others pay for the exercise of your right.

    As for Mommy and cancer, people don't get denied life-saving care. They don't. What you might end up with is a bill for the treatment if you have no coverage. If you have no coverage you do not get denied necessary care.

    If you are truly in need, hospitals and other healthcare providers write off bills for the truly needy every day. Charities also pay for necessary care and there are a lot of them.

    "No coverage means no healthcare" is a lie and pure propaganda without a basis in reality. Now, if you want to talk elective healthcare, sure...but why should anyone but you pay for that?
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,169
    113
    Gtown-ish
    Right to life is right up there with "Your call is important to us."

    The great conundrum of a free society is how to lead the masses to believe they are free, and that they matter.

    Democrats want us to believe that, to have the latter, you have to sacrifice the former. Republicans want us to believe it's the other way around. They both know that neither is true.

    That's why it says "Satisfaction Guaranteed" on your foot cream, but not on your Constitution.

    I don't think I agree with that. First, I don't really think the purpose for a society's social contract is at all to strive to satisfy constituents. Satisfaction is subjective; it's the individual's job to pursue, and determine individually, what is satisfaction. Because, satisfaction doesn't come in one-size-fits-all.

    You've kinda drawn a dichotomy between liberty and mattering. And that's fine. It's actually a good representation of the perceptions. But I think it's more of an issue of individuals vs groups, in both rights and mattering. So it's not so much that progressives are the compassionate ones and conservatives are the mean old practical ones who don't think others matter. Or, that progressives don't care about rights, and conservatives do. It seems that way, but it doesn't necessarily follow that it is that way.

    It is the kinds of rights, and in what ways we think of people mattering that makes our perceptions about caring about rights or mattering. Collective vs individual rights. Or groups vs individuals mattering. I think that's probably a more accurate way to dissect liberals/progressives and conservatives.

    I'd rather not put it in terms of R's and D's, because who the hell knows what they really want other than to hold the power of their offices as long as possible.

    So about the idea of conservatives not caring about people mattering. That's not really true. For individualist types, it's not a group compassion. It's an individual compassion. We have infinite ways we can group people. Size, shape, weight, sex, race, beliefs, politics, age, nationality, wealth, health, and so on. So the collective minded would say poor people need health care, and would devise a collective solution, where resources are forcefully extracted from some groups in a society and given to other groups. The individualist solution to that is individual. An individual would say, I know a person who needs help. I do what I can to help that person. If it's more than I can handle, I ask for people close to me to help me help the person.

    Neither one is sufficient by itself. You take the collectivist solution to its full conclusion, and you have group oppression. You take the individualist solution to its full conclusion and it really requires individuals of high character to avoid having a lot of starving people.

    So it seems that both sides have parts of the solution but neither has the whole solution. I'd say the best mix is to prefer individualism, because that maximizes liberty, but have a collective solution for those who fall through the cracks. And you can have fewer people falling through the cracks by fostering character development.

    So in terms of healthcare, that means we wake Bernie out of his wet dream. No universal healthcare. But, the collective should have moral responsibility to help those less fortunate, and should contribute to help those who fall through the cracks. And I think there's room to define who the "collective" is that contributes for those without means. Maybe it's charity. Maybe it's privatized. It could be government, but I think in the age of technology, it could be voluntary through crowdsourcing can work without having to involve guns.
     

    Ark

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    25   0   0
    Feb 18, 2017
    6,735
    113
    Indy
    Nobody is taking away the ability to seek healthcare though. It's a matter of who pays for that care. In your self defense analogy, it would be akin to saying the government is obligated to provide the means of self defense. Pretty sure Uncle Sam isn't passing out guns to the citizens. :dunno:

    Hey, I'll stand in line to get my free government gun. :yesway:

    Like it or not, you're already paying for everyone else as it is. You pay for everyone else in Medicare/Medicaid taxes. You pay for everyone else in private insurance premiums. You definitely pay for everyone else when you get your bill from the ER for $40,000 for a cast and some x-rays. We all engage in risk pooling already, so that we can each benefit from it when our time comes. Almost nobody in this country genuinely pays for their own healthcare only, and nobody else's.

    As it is, ERs are already required to provide at least some basic treatment to people who can't pay, and that money is taken out of your hide through this arcane, ridiculous system of overcharging and negotiating. There are more middlemen in healthcare than any other industry in the country. If there was one single private insurer with a massive risk pool who paid 100% of your healthcare expenses with no deductibles or co-pays for a monthly premium at or below what you're paying now, wouldn't you want to sign on to that policy? Wouldn't it be cheaper and better than what you have now, because they have a risk pool of 325 million people and no middlemen? And would it really matter to you, the end user, if that insurer is a government agency instead of a corporation that takes a profit cut for themselves?

    Always seemed like a no-brainer to me. The system as it exists now is lunacy. It's like an ancient car that you've spent 60 years jerry-rigging with duct tape and twine. Nobody designed it this way, it's a mess of big changes and little changes that several generations of politicians, insurers, and provider networks have made, and that's why it's so ludicrously expensive. Vertical integration is why Walmart's stuff is cheap. No reason it can't work for healthcare.

    National insurance systems work very well. Providers are still private, people are still free to make their own choices, outcomes are better, and premiums/taxes are cheaper. Beats sending hundreds and hundreds of dollars a month to an insurer who won't even lift a finger until I pay another $3,500 in deductible. I'd just as soon spend that money on premiums for a national insurance program and go to sleep knowing I won't get wiped out by bills if I get hit by a drunk driver tomorrow.
     

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    102,091
    77
    Southside Indy
    Hey, I'll stand in line to get my free government gun. :yesway:

    Like it or not, you're already paying for everyone else as it is. You pay for everyone else in Medicare/Medicaid taxes. You pay for everyone else in private insurance premiums. You definitely pay for everyone else when you get your bill from the ER for $40,000 for a cast and some x-rays. We all engage in risk pooling already, so that we can each benefit from it when our time comes. Almost nobody in this country genuinely pays for their own healthcare only, and nobody else's.

    As it is, ERs are already required to provide at least some basic treatment to people who can't pay, and that money is taken out of your hide through this arcane, ridiculous system of overcharging and negotiating. There are more middlemen in healthcare than any other industry in the country. If there was one single private insurer with a massive risk pool who paid 100% of your healthcare expenses with no deductibles or co-pays for a monthly premium at or below what you're paying now, wouldn't you want to sign on to that policy? Wouldn't it be cheaper and better than what you have now, because they have a risk pool of 325 million people and no middlemen? And would it really matter to you, the end user, if that insurer is a government agency instead of a corporation that takes a profit cut for themselves?

    Always seemed like a no-brainer to me. The system as it exists now is lunacy. It's like an ancient car that you've spent 60 years jerry-rigging with duct tape and twine. Nobody designed it this way, it's a mess of big changes and little changes that several generations of politicians, insurers, and provider networks have made, and that's why it's so ludicrously expensive. Vertical integration is why Walmart's stuff is cheap. No reason it can't work for healthcare.

    National insurance systems work very well. Providers are still private, people are still free to make their own choices, outcomes are better, and premiums/taxes are cheaper. Beats sending hundreds and hundreds of dollars a month to an insurer who won't even lift a finger until I pay another $3,500 in deductible. I'd just as soon spend that money on premiums for a national insurance program and go to sleep knowing I won't get wiped out by bills if I get hit by a drunk driver tomorrow.
    If they work so well, why do Canadians flock to the U.S. to get critical care that they need but don't want to wait months or years to get? Knowing how governments tend to run things in general, I'm skeptical.
     
    Top Bottom