Healthcare is not a right!?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=aldante]

Urban,
The topic is whether or not healthcare is a right. I did not see anything that you wrote telling us why you think it is a right. You are way far a field. I think another thread on what the Constitution movement or the tea party movement would be appropriate. [/quote]
I actually did say that I did not think it was a right, but that I feel that more efficient use of public resources is a responsibility.

In other words, I don’t want it in the constitution but if we are going to have universal health care (which we have had for 40 years now) this is more efficient allocation of costs than the current method.

Also, I would argue that the nature of the conversation between you and I did have the character of the tea party thing as a salient component. Read through our previous posts and I think you will agree.
[quote=aldante]

You are welcome to look at campaignforliberty.com for information as well. My view is that the lack of solidarity is more a symptom of any new movement. The ideas that you listed are part of those ideas. The problem is that any neo-con who benefited from the big government is trying to foist his/her identity on this movement and any identiy crisis is from the outside – not the inside. It is a new movement and the degree to which it takes hold is the degree to which people want tostand up for thier freedom.
[/quote]
I don’t think that the distinction between inside and outside division is a valid one.
Every movement has fracture but the way a movement succeeds is by having common “important” parts (whatever those may be). This is why the Christian Coalition was so powerful for so long. It took a while for them to sort out their sentiments and find a president to back them but they did meet with a fair amount of success. They still do. Tea bag is not there yet.
[quote=aldante]
I do an am. Voting is only a small part of the equation. Getting candidates who truely represent the freedom movement is the hardest and takes the longest.

Still hoping to convert you.[/quote]I admire your optimism.
I really am a member of the liberal (not radical) left.
I genuinely believe in the government’s responsibility to protect rights and that is something I think we share.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Arraya]Hey Urban, come whip it out. Dave wants to see it.[/quote]
That photo was only for you Arraya.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Arraya]Hey Urban, come whip it out. Dave wants to see it.[/quote]
That photo was only for you Arraya.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Arraya]Hey Urban, come whip it out. Dave wants to see it.[/quote]
That photo was only for you Arraya.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Arraya]Hey Urban, come whip it out. Dave wants to see it.[/quote]
That photo was only for you Arraya.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Arraya]Hey Urban, come whip it out. Dave wants to see it.[/quote]
That photo was only for you Arraya.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=patb][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=pertinazzio]anything that costs money can’t be a right. for instance the poorest possible society can grant all their citizens the right to free speech, association, religion etc. no matter how poor the society, the citizens can still have exercise those rights. on the other hand if in very poor societies you grant a right to universal high quality education, health-care, nutrition no will be able to exercise their so-called rights for a lack of resouces. now a society may decide that decency requires it to give all citizens health care, a job, etc. but that supposes society has the wherewithall to provide those things. Real rights are independent of society’s wealth.[/quote]

That is a very good point.

I find it compelling as a way of evaluating rights.

For example it is reasonable to describe equality of access to a public service as a right but not the access itself.
So we have a right to equal treatment when trying to get education but not a right to the education per se.[/quote]

“You have a right to an attorney, if you cannot afford one, the court will appoint one for you”[/quote]
Also a good point.
I don’t totally buy pertinazzio’s argument but if providing access is the right (as I was suggesting) it could be said that providing the defendant with a public lawyer is giving him access to a service equal to that of the plaintiff.

Your thoughts pat?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=patb][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=pertinazzio]anything that costs money can’t be a right. for instance the poorest possible society can grant all their citizens the right to free speech, association, religion etc. no matter how poor the society, the citizens can still have exercise those rights. on the other hand if in very poor societies you grant a right to universal high quality education, health-care, nutrition no will be able to exercise their so-called rights for a lack of resouces. now a society may decide that decency requires it to give all citizens health care, a job, etc. but that supposes society has the wherewithall to provide those things. Real rights are independent of society’s wealth.[/quote]

That is a very good point.

I find it compelling as a way of evaluating rights.

For example it is reasonable to describe equality of access to a public service as a right but not the access itself.
So we have a right to equal treatment when trying to get education but not a right to the education per se.[/quote]

“You have a right to an attorney, if you cannot afford one, the court will appoint one for you”[/quote]
Also a good point.
I don’t totally buy pertinazzio’s argument but if providing access is the right (as I was suggesting) it could be said that providing the defendant with a public lawyer is giving him access to a service equal to that of the plaintiff.

Your thoughts pat?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=patb][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=pertinazzio]anything that costs money can’t be a right. for instance the poorest possible society can grant all their citizens the right to free speech, association, religion etc. no matter how poor the society, the citizens can still have exercise those rights. on the other hand if in very poor societies you grant a right to universal high quality education, health-care, nutrition no will be able to exercise their so-called rights for a lack of resouces. now a society may decide that decency requires it to give all citizens health care, a job, etc. but that supposes society has the wherewithall to provide those things. Real rights are independent of society’s wealth.[/quote]

That is a very good point.

I find it compelling as a way of evaluating rights.

For example it is reasonable to describe equality of access to a public service as a right but not the access itself.
So we have a right to equal treatment when trying to get education but not a right to the education per se.[/quote]

“You have a right to an attorney, if you cannot afford one, the court will appoint one for you”[/quote]
Also a good point.
I don’t totally buy pertinazzio’s argument but if providing access is the right (as I was suggesting) it could be said that providing the defendant with a public lawyer is giving him access to a service equal to that of the plaintiff.

Your thoughts pat?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=patb][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=pertinazzio]anything that costs money can’t be a right. for instance the poorest possible society can grant all their citizens the right to free speech, association, religion etc. no matter how poor the society, the citizens can still have exercise those rights. on the other hand if in very poor societies you grant a right to universal high quality education, health-care, nutrition no will be able to exercise their so-called rights for a lack of resouces. now a society may decide that decency requires it to give all citizens health care, a job, etc. but that supposes society has the wherewithall to provide those things. Real rights are independent of society’s wealth.[/quote]

That is a very good point.

I find it compelling as a way of evaluating rights.

For example it is reasonable to describe equality of access to a public service as a right but not the access itself.
So we have a right to equal treatment when trying to get education but not a right to the education per se.[/quote]

“You have a right to an attorney, if you cannot afford one, the court will appoint one for you”[/quote]
Also a good point.
I don’t totally buy pertinazzio’s argument but if providing access is the right (as I was suggesting) it could be said that providing the defendant with a public lawyer is giving him access to a service equal to that of the plaintiff.

Your thoughts pat?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=patb][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=pertinazzio]anything that costs money can’t be a right. for instance the poorest possible society can grant all their citizens the right to free speech, association, religion etc. no matter how poor the society, the citizens can still have exercise those rights. on the other hand if in very poor societies you grant a right to universal high quality education, health-care, nutrition no will be able to exercise their so-called rights for a lack of resouces. now a society may decide that decency requires it to give all citizens health care, a job, etc. but that supposes society has the wherewithall to provide those things. Real rights are independent of society’s wealth.[/quote]

That is a very good point.

I find it compelling as a way of evaluating rights.

For example it is reasonable to describe equality of access to a public service as a right but not the access itself.
So we have a right to equal treatment when trying to get education but not a right to the education per se.[/quote]

“You have a right to an attorney, if you cannot afford one, the court will appoint one for you”[/quote]
Also a good point.
I don’t totally buy pertinazzio’s argument but if providing access is the right (as I was suggesting) it could be said that providing the defendant with a public lawyer is giving him access to a service equal to that of the plaintiff.

Your thoughts pat?

[davelj]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=davelj][quote=urbanrealtor]

5.4 percent of my income for universal health care is not one of them.[/quote]

First, isn’t 5.4% the marginal (as opposed to “effective”) rate that kicks in for couples earning over $1 million (and individuals earning over $500,000)? (Maybe I’ve got the break points wrong.)

Second, are you certain that use of the term “my” (indicating “your”) applies here? Or should that be “one’s.”[/quote]
You are right I think but that is still a couple of non-points. I don’t think that the thrust changes based on the semantics.[/quote]

I don’t entirely disagree (maybe a bit), but… as my father used to say, “Where you stand often depends upon where you sit.” That is, it’s easy to say that 5.4% of one’s income isn’t a big deal when you’re not the one paying it. (And let me be clear, I don’t plan on paying it anytime soon, either.)

[davelj]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=davelj][quote=urbanrealtor]

5.4 percent of my income for universal health care is not one of them.[/quote]

First, isn’t 5.4% the marginal (as opposed to “effective”) rate that kicks in for couples earning over $1 million (and individuals earning over $500,000)? (Maybe I’ve got the break points wrong.)

Second, are you certain that use of the term “my” (indicating “your”) applies here? Or should that be “one’s.”[/quote]
You are right I think but that is still a couple of non-points. I don’t think that the thrust changes based on the semantics.[/quote]

I don’t entirely disagree (maybe a bit), but… as my father used to say, “Where you stand often depends upon where you sit.” That is, it’s easy to say that 5.4% of one’s income isn’t a big deal when you’re not the one paying it. (And let me be clear, I don’t plan on paying it anytime soon, either.)

[davelj]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=davelj][quote=urbanrealtor]

5.4 percent of my income for universal health care is not one of them.[/quote]

First, isn’t 5.4% the marginal (as opposed to “effective”) rate that kicks in for couples earning over $1 million (and individuals earning over $500,000)? (Maybe I’ve got the break points wrong.)

Second, are you certain that use of the term “my” (indicating “your”) applies here? Or should that be “one’s.”[/quote]
You are right I think but that is still a couple of non-points. I don’t think that the thrust changes based on the semantics.[/quote]

I don’t entirely disagree (maybe a bit), but… as my father used to say, “Where you stand often depends upon where you sit.” That is, it’s easy to say that 5.4% of one’s income isn’t a big deal when you’re not the one paying it. (And let me be clear, I don’t plan on paying it anytime soon, either.)

[davelj]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=davelj][quote=urbanrealtor]

5.4 percent of my income for universal health care is not one of them.[/quote]

First, isn’t 5.4% the marginal (as opposed to “effective”) rate that kicks in for couples earning over $1 million (and individuals earning over $500,000)? (Maybe I’ve got the break points wrong.)

Second, are you certain that use of the term “my” (indicating “your”) applies here? Or should that be “one’s.”[/quote]
You are right I think but that is still a couple of non-points. I don’t think that the thrust changes based on the semantics.[/quote]

I don’t entirely disagree (maybe a bit), but… as my father used to say, “Where you stand often depends upon where you sit.” That is, it’s easy to say that 5.4% of one’s income isn’t a big deal when you’re not the one paying it. (And let me be clear, I don’t plan on paying it anytime soon, either.)

[Author]

Posts