Healthcare is not a right!?

[Arraya]

There is no such thing as unalienable rights. They are simply cultural constructs to problems of the time. That’s all, we make them up. Our documents are just paper proclamations of this and language is always subject to interpretation, always. Humans make it up as the go along. Always have and always will.

As the Right continues to blabber about a mythical socialist takeover, private capital pulls all the strings. Bwahaaa… Keep chasing socialist ghosts guys. They are turning into those people that sees jesus in cheese sandwiches. Like Obama was out at the docks with factory workers planning a populist uprising when his campaign was receiving checks from GS and their ilk. haha

If you have not guessed it by now. The country has not changed between GW and Obama. If Sarah Palin, Dennis Kucinich, or Britney Spears were president, the system that the president pretends to run would still be bailing out banks and insurance companies, escalating wars, hiding atrocities, and generally chugging along to its ruin. The suicidal inertia is too great at this point.

Ironically, it’s paralyzing and self-destructive non-change that rules with an iron fist. The political left just mixes it up with some perceived goodies to keep the unwashed in check, ONLY if it benefits the corporatocracy that runs the show.

Health care is a good intention on a dead and rotting system that has been configured to enrich a few and not really change anything. Which is the only way it would pass.

This thing does not go into effect until, 2013. By that time I would be surprised if anyone in washington answers their phones. haha

One of these days real “change” is going to vomit all over the whole establishment.

Oh look, insurance stocks are up. Well, Mr Market is always right, so it must be good….

[sdduuuude]

[quote=pri_dk][quote]anything that costs money can’t be a right[/quote]

This claim is so flawed it is not even worth debating.

Jury trials certainly cost money, and I’m pretty sure they get mention is the “rights” section of the Constitution.[/quote]

This is a very interesting comment. Had to think about it for quite a bit. The real answer is very long. Too much to discuss here.

A trial is a useful tool to manage the problem of people violating others’ rights.

To an ultimate freedom idealist, you don’t really have a right to trial, but anyone punishing someone who has not committed a crime is then guilty.

A better way to look at it is this – in the overall scheme of “logically consistent rights” as I see it (and I have studied this ad-infinitum) a trial is required but whoever loses the trial has to pay for it, even if you have to borrow the money to pay for it and work it off. But the process has to happen so rights aren’t violated.

So, you don’t really have a right to a trial paid for by others but if you commit a crime, part of the punishment is paying for the trial. Certainly, it creates a burden on society and somehow has to get paid for. Either the jury volunteers, or charities fund trials.

Not being the ultimate idealist, I have always said the gov. should be limited to cops and courts and a very small set of laws.

The claim made in the earlier post is still an excellent claim. The it’s a simple way of insisting that the definition of “rights” is logically consistent across society. You can’t grant rights to some without taking them away from others. You have just chosen as your example about the only necessary infringement of rights that I see as useful.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=pri_dk][quote]anything that costs money can’t be a right[/quote]

This claim is so flawed it is not even worth debating.

Jury trials certainly cost money, and I’m pretty sure they get mention is the “rights” section of the Constitution.[/quote]

This is a very interesting comment. Had to think about it for quite a bit. The real answer is very long. Too much to discuss here.

A trial is a useful tool to manage the problem of people violating others’ rights.

To an ultimate freedom idealist, you don’t really have a right to trial, but anyone punishing someone who has not committed a crime is then guilty.

A better way to look at it is this – in the overall scheme of “logically consistent rights” as I see it (and I have studied this ad-infinitum) a trial is required but whoever loses the trial has to pay for it, even if you have to borrow the money to pay for it and work it off. But the process has to happen so rights aren’t violated.

So, you don’t really have a right to a trial paid for by others but if you commit a crime, part of the punishment is paying for the trial. Certainly, it creates a burden on society and somehow has to get paid for. Either the jury volunteers, or charities fund trials.

Not being the ultimate idealist, I have always said the gov. should be limited to cops and courts and a very small set of laws.

The claim made in the earlier post is still an excellent claim. The it’s a simple way of insisting that the definition of “rights” is logically consistent across society. You can’t grant rights to some without taking them away from others. You have just chosen as your example about the only necessary infringement of rights that I see as useful.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=pri_dk][quote]anything that costs money can’t be a right[/quote]

This claim is so flawed it is not even worth debating.

Jury trials certainly cost money, and I’m pretty sure they get mention is the “rights” section of the Constitution.[/quote]

This is a very interesting comment. Had to think about it for quite a bit. The real answer is very long. Too much to discuss here.

A trial is a useful tool to manage the problem of people violating others’ rights.

To an ultimate freedom idealist, you don’t really have a right to trial, but anyone punishing someone who has not committed a crime is then guilty.

A better way to look at it is this – in the overall scheme of “logically consistent rights” as I see it (and I have studied this ad-infinitum) a trial is required but whoever loses the trial has to pay for it, even if you have to borrow the money to pay for it and work it off. But the process has to happen so rights aren’t violated.

So, you don’t really have a right to a trial paid for by others but if you commit a crime, part of the punishment is paying for the trial. Certainly, it creates a burden on society and somehow has to get paid for. Either the jury volunteers, or charities fund trials.

Not being the ultimate idealist, I have always said the gov. should be limited to cops and courts and a very small set of laws.

The claim made in the earlier post is still an excellent claim. The it’s a simple way of insisting that the definition of “rights” is logically consistent across society. You can’t grant rights to some without taking them away from others. You have just chosen as your example about the only necessary infringement of rights that I see as useful.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=pri_dk][quote]anything that costs money can’t be a right[/quote]

This claim is so flawed it is not even worth debating.

Jury trials certainly cost money, and I’m pretty sure they get mention is the “rights” section of the Constitution.[/quote]

This is a very interesting comment. Had to think about it for quite a bit. The real answer is very long. Too much to discuss here.

A trial is a useful tool to manage the problem of people violating others’ rights.

To an ultimate freedom idealist, you don’t really have a right to trial, but anyone punishing someone who has not committed a crime is then guilty.

A better way to look at it is this – in the overall scheme of “logically consistent rights” as I see it (and I have studied this ad-infinitum) a trial is required but whoever loses the trial has to pay for it, even if you have to borrow the money to pay for it and work it off. But the process has to happen so rights aren’t violated.

So, you don’t really have a right to a trial paid for by others but if you commit a crime, part of the punishment is paying for the trial. Certainly, it creates a burden on society and somehow has to get paid for. Either the jury volunteers, or charities fund trials.

Not being the ultimate idealist, I have always said the gov. should be limited to cops and courts and a very small set of laws.

The claim made in the earlier post is still an excellent claim. The it’s a simple way of insisting that the definition of “rights” is logically consistent across society. You can’t grant rights to some without taking them away from others. You have just chosen as your example about the only necessary infringement of rights that I see as useful.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=pri_dk][quote]anything that costs money can’t be a right[/quote]

This claim is so flawed it is not even worth debating.

Jury trials certainly cost money, and I’m pretty sure they get mention is the “rights” section of the Constitution.[/quote]

This is a very interesting comment. Had to think about it for quite a bit. The real answer is very long. Too much to discuss here.

A trial is a useful tool to manage the problem of people violating others’ rights.

To an ultimate freedom idealist, you don’t really have a right to trial, but anyone punishing someone who has not committed a crime is then guilty.

A better way to look at it is this – in the overall scheme of “logically consistent rights” as I see it (and I have studied this ad-infinitum) a trial is required but whoever loses the trial has to pay for it, even if you have to borrow the money to pay for it and work it off. But the process has to happen so rights aren’t violated.

So, you don’t really have a right to a trial paid for by others but if you commit a crime, part of the punishment is paying for the trial. Certainly, it creates a burden on society and somehow has to get paid for. Either the jury volunteers, or charities fund trials.

Not being the ultimate idealist, I have always said the gov. should be limited to cops and courts and a very small set of laws.

The claim made in the earlier post is still an excellent claim. The it’s a simple way of insisting that the definition of “rights” is logically consistent across society. You can’t grant rights to some without taking them away from others. You have just chosen as your example about the only necessary infringement of rights that I see as useful.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=ucodegen]

The government produces nothing?

By Definition the government produces public goods
ranging from parks to sidewalks to national defense.

The free market sure didn’t produce I-5.

You need to produce better examples.

*Parks are public owned property, not a produced good. The maintenance of said property is a service.. though now they have individual fees on such parks which were initially provided by through general taxes.
[/quote]
-“public good” is commonly used a term to refer to government supplied, real property, personal property, or performed service
-fees are not the norm. Usually they are just charged at special purpose parks (like boat docks and skate parks).
-usually they are have been built and maintained through special and general taxes[quote=ucodegen]
*not all sidewalks are done by the gov. I fact, most are done by the property owner as a requirement… as well as roads in many places. This is why you will often see sidewalks, curbs and roads in the middle of new developments before the houses are completed yet.[/quote]
-Most are required as per public policy (generally such building requirements are considered public goods unto themselves)to built by developers. Private funds and resources being taken for public benefit (eg: sidewalks)is a definitional example of a public good. This is the same way that taxes and bonds turn into teacher salaries and textbooks. [quote=ucodegen]

*national defense.. is a service not a good.
[/quote]Again your definition is not in keeping with current practice. Also, its not like the soldiers are out there naked throwing rocks. Their uniforms, their guns, their bases are all examples of public goods that are either publicly owned real or personal property.[quote=ucodegen]
*I-15 was contracted out.. it was not build by the government.. as with virtually all highway work.[/quote] The interstate highway system was built in part for the benefit of national defense. No part of it is privately owned. Using contractors does not make a public good private. Lots of public schools use private contractors (eg: Laidlaw buses). That does not make them private schools.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=ucodegen]

The government produces nothing?

By Definition the government produces public goods
ranging from parks to sidewalks to national defense.

The free market sure didn’t produce I-5.

You need to produce better examples.

*Parks are public owned property, not a produced good. The maintenance of said property is a service.. though now they have individual fees on such parks which were initially provided by through general taxes.
[/quote]
-“public good” is commonly used a term to refer to government supplied, real property, personal property, or performed service
-fees are not the norm. Usually they are just charged at special purpose parks (like boat docks and skate parks).
-usually they are have been built and maintained through special and general taxes[quote=ucodegen]
*not all sidewalks are done by the gov. I fact, most are done by the property owner as a requirement… as well as roads in many places. This is why you will often see sidewalks, curbs and roads in the middle of new developments before the houses are completed yet.[/quote]
-Most are required as per public policy (generally such building requirements are considered public goods unto themselves)to built by developers. Private funds and resources being taken for public benefit (eg: sidewalks)is a definitional example of a public good. This is the same way that taxes and bonds turn into teacher salaries and textbooks. [quote=ucodegen]

*national defense.. is a service not a good.
[/quote]Again your definition is not in keeping with current practice. Also, its not like the soldiers are out there naked throwing rocks. Their uniforms, their guns, their bases are all examples of public goods that are either publicly owned real or personal property.[quote=ucodegen]
*I-15 was contracted out.. it was not build by the government.. as with virtually all highway work.[/quote] The interstate highway system was built in part for the benefit of national defense. No part of it is privately owned. Using contractors does not make a public good private. Lots of public schools use private contractors (eg: Laidlaw buses). That does not make them private schools.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=ucodegen]

The government produces nothing?

By Definition the government produces public goods
ranging from parks to sidewalks to national defense.

The free market sure didn’t produce I-5.

You need to produce better examples.

*Parks are public owned property, not a produced good. The maintenance of said property is a service.. though now they have individual fees on such parks which were initially provided by through general taxes.
[/quote]
-“public good” is commonly used a term to refer to government supplied, real property, personal property, or performed service
-fees are not the norm. Usually they are just charged at special purpose parks (like boat docks and skate parks).
-usually they are have been built and maintained through special and general taxes[quote=ucodegen]
*not all sidewalks are done by the gov. I fact, most are done by the property owner as a requirement… as well as roads in many places. This is why you will often see sidewalks, curbs and roads in the middle of new developments before the houses are completed yet.[/quote]
-Most are required as per public policy (generally such building requirements are considered public goods unto themselves)to built by developers. Private funds and resources being taken for public benefit (eg: sidewalks)is a definitional example of a public good. This is the same way that taxes and bonds turn into teacher salaries and textbooks. [quote=ucodegen]

*national defense.. is a service not a good.
[/quote]Again your definition is not in keeping with current practice. Also, its not like the soldiers are out there naked throwing rocks. Their uniforms, their guns, their bases are all examples of public goods that are either publicly owned real or personal property.[quote=ucodegen]
*I-15 was contracted out.. it was not build by the government.. as with virtually all highway work.[/quote] The interstate highway system was built in part for the benefit of national defense. No part of it is privately owned. Using contractors does not make a public good private. Lots of public schools use private contractors (eg: Laidlaw buses). That does not make them private schools.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=ucodegen]

The government produces nothing?

By Definition the government produces public goods
ranging from parks to sidewalks to national defense.

The free market sure didn’t produce I-5.

You need to produce better examples.

*Parks are public owned property, not a produced good. The maintenance of said property is a service.. though now they have individual fees on such parks which were initially provided by through general taxes.
[/quote]
-“public good” is commonly used a term to refer to government supplied, real property, personal property, or performed service
-fees are not the norm. Usually they are just charged at special purpose parks (like boat docks and skate parks).
-usually they are have been built and maintained through special and general taxes[quote=ucodegen]
*not all sidewalks are done by the gov. I fact, most are done by the property owner as a requirement… as well as roads in many places. This is why you will often see sidewalks, curbs and roads in the middle of new developments before the houses are completed yet.[/quote]
-Most are required as per public policy (generally such building requirements are considered public goods unto themselves)to built by developers. Private funds and resources being taken for public benefit (eg: sidewalks)is a definitional example of a public good. This is the same way that taxes and bonds turn into teacher salaries and textbooks. [quote=ucodegen]

*national defense.. is a service not a good.
[/quote]Again your definition is not in keeping with current practice. Also, its not like the soldiers are out there naked throwing rocks. Their uniforms, their guns, their bases are all examples of public goods that are either publicly owned real or personal property.[quote=ucodegen]
*I-15 was contracted out.. it was not build by the government.. as with virtually all highway work.[/quote] The interstate highway system was built in part for the benefit of national defense. No part of it is privately owned. Using contractors does not make a public good private. Lots of public schools use private contractors (eg: Laidlaw buses). That does not make them private schools.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=ucodegen]

The government produces nothing?

By Definition the government produces public goods
ranging from parks to sidewalks to national defense.

The free market sure didn’t produce I-5.

You need to produce better examples.

*Parks are public owned property, not a produced good. The maintenance of said property is a service.. though now they have individual fees on such parks which were initially provided by through general taxes.
[/quote]
-“public good” is commonly used a term to refer to government supplied, real property, personal property, or performed service
-fees are not the norm. Usually they are just charged at special purpose parks (like boat docks and skate parks).
-usually they are have been built and maintained through special and general taxes[quote=ucodegen]
*not all sidewalks are done by the gov. I fact, most are done by the property owner as a requirement… as well as roads in many places. This is why you will often see sidewalks, curbs and roads in the middle of new developments before the houses are completed yet.[/quote]
-Most are required as per public policy (generally such building requirements are considered public goods unto themselves)to built by developers. Private funds and resources being taken for public benefit (eg: sidewalks)is a definitional example of a public good. This is the same way that taxes and bonds turn into teacher salaries and textbooks. [quote=ucodegen]

*national defense.. is a service not a good.
[/quote]Again your definition is not in keeping with current practice. Also, its not like the soldiers are out there naked throwing rocks. Their uniforms, their guns, their bases are all examples of public goods that are either publicly owned real or personal property.[quote=ucodegen]
*I-15 was contracted out.. it was not build by the government.. as with virtually all highway work.[/quote] The interstate highway system was built in part for the benefit of national defense. No part of it is privately owned. Using contractors does not make a public good private. Lots of public schools use private contractors (eg: Laidlaw buses). That does not make them private schools.

[34f3f3f]

Hmmm! Sduuuude, I think you might be missing the point here, or are just splitting hairs. Nobody’s talking about killing people. Health care is about keeping people alive …unless you are referring to the death wards:)

Well, if they voluntarily decide it, they also deem it. To deem is not to enforce. You’re splitting hairs.

The reason the costs are so high is that profit comes before right, shareholders before policy holders, greed before restraint, incompetence before efficiency. You can say the government indirectly has a hand in influencing everything, but that doesn’t makes it the main culprit, unless that is, it had the opportunity to make something right and failed to do, as is the danger in this case.

I don’t follow your argument about punishing people for not upholding their moral duty. The punishment comes from not educating people as to the facts, and therefore denying them the right to make those proper, or ‘moral’ choices in the first place. I use moral in a general utilitarian sense, and convey no religious overtones. We practice morality in the tiniest of social norms, which don’t necessarily conform to any written creed.

Do you like pizza by any chance?

[34f3f3f]

Hmmm! Sduuuude, I think you might be missing the point here, or are just splitting hairs. Nobody’s talking about killing people. Health care is about keeping people alive …unless you are referring to the death wards:)

Well, if they voluntarily decide it, they also deem it. To deem is not to enforce. You’re splitting hairs.

The reason the costs are so high is that profit comes before right, shareholders before policy holders, greed before restraint, incompetence before efficiency. You can say the government indirectly has a hand in influencing everything, but that doesn’t makes it the main culprit, unless that is, it had the opportunity to make something right and failed to do, as is the danger in this case.

I don’t follow your argument about punishing people for not upholding their moral duty. The punishment comes from not educating people as to the facts, and therefore denying them the right to make those proper, or ‘moral’ choices in the first place. I use moral in a general utilitarian sense, and convey no religious overtones. We practice morality in the tiniest of social norms, which don’t necessarily conform to any written creed.

Do you like pizza by any chance?

[34f3f3f]

Hmmm! Sduuuude, I think you might be missing the point here, or are just splitting hairs. Nobody’s talking about killing people. Health care is about keeping people alive …unless you are referring to the death wards:)

Well, if they voluntarily decide it, they also deem it. To deem is not to enforce. You’re splitting hairs.

The reason the costs are so high is that profit comes before right, shareholders before policy holders, greed before restraint, incompetence before efficiency. You can say the government indirectly has a hand in influencing everything, but that doesn’t makes it the main culprit, unless that is, it had the opportunity to make something right and failed to do, as is the danger in this case.

I don’t follow your argument about punishing people for not upholding their moral duty. The punishment comes from not educating people as to the facts, and therefore denying them the right to make those proper, or ‘moral’ choices in the first place. I use moral in a general utilitarian sense, and convey no religious overtones. We practice morality in the tiniest of social norms, which don’t necessarily conform to any written creed.

Do you like pizza by any chance?

[34f3f3f]

Hmmm! Sduuuude, I think you might be missing the point here, or are just splitting hairs. Nobody’s talking about killing people. Health care is about keeping people alive …unless you are referring to the death wards:)

Well, if they voluntarily decide it, they also deem it. To deem is not to enforce. You’re splitting hairs.

The reason the costs are so high is that profit comes before right, shareholders before policy holders, greed before restraint, incompetence before efficiency. You can say the government indirectly has a hand in influencing everything, but that doesn’t makes it the main culprit, unless that is, it had the opportunity to make something right and failed to do, as is the danger in this case.

I don’t follow your argument about punishing people for not upholding their moral duty. The punishment comes from not educating people as to the facts, and therefore denying them the right to make those proper, or ‘moral’ choices in the first place. I use moral in a general utilitarian sense, and convey no religious overtones. We practice morality in the tiniest of social norms, which don’t necessarily conform to any written creed.

Do you like pizza by any chance?

[Author]

Posts