Healthcare is not a right!?

[greekfire]

“Probably agree with the tax part.
But let’s face it, what you put in your piehole is YOUR choice – and blaming that on ANY one else is l-a-m-e.”

I couldn’t agree more.

[KSMountain]

[quote=greekfire]I do not intend to discount the many fine arguments that have been made up to this point. Caloric intake of different individuals from differing ethnic backgrounds is well and fine and something to take into consideration, but it misses the main thrust of this thread’s over-arching question: Is healthcare a right or a good?[/quote]
What, you don’t enjoy discussing the fine points of polynesian diet? Where ELSE are you going to get THAT kind of analysis?

As has been raised before: it might depend on what you mean by “healthcare”.
Do you mean emergency care or do you mean *everyone* in the country has a *right* to lifetime free consumption of *every* treatment that our technologists have been able to devise – regardless of cost?

My personal answer would be: no.

If you’re gonna have 6 kids, I hope you have a plan for how to pay for them.
You might have the right to *pursue* happiness, unfetterred, but that doesn’t mean that you have the right to take your neighbor’s money to pay for your health issues, that might be random, or might be self-inflicted.

If you think about Jefferson, the Federalist papers, etc., was there really an anticipation of handouts of this magnitude? I don’t think so (especially given that Jefferson was a self-reliant farmer) but I’m willing to be proved wrong.

Just, if you’re going to assert a “right”, admit that you’re asserting a new obligation for a country that is not in such good shape with its current entitlements…

Further acknowledge that it is the nature of beauracracies to grow, therefore it is likely that the obligations due to this will grow over time.

[KSMountain]

[quote=greekfire]I do not intend to discount the many fine arguments that have been made up to this point. Caloric intake of different individuals from differing ethnic backgrounds is well and fine and something to take into consideration, but it misses the main thrust of this thread’s over-arching question: Is healthcare a right or a good?[/quote]
What, you don’t enjoy discussing the fine points of polynesian diet? Where ELSE are you going to get THAT kind of analysis?

As has been raised before: it might depend on what you mean by “healthcare”.
Do you mean emergency care or do you mean *everyone* in the country has a *right* to lifetime free consumption of *every* treatment that our technologists have been able to devise – regardless of cost?

My personal answer would be: no.

If you’re gonna have 6 kids, I hope you have a plan for how to pay for them.
You might have the right to *pursue* happiness, unfetterred, but that doesn’t mean that you have the right to take your neighbor’s money to pay for your health issues, that might be random, or might be self-inflicted.

If you think about Jefferson, the Federalist papers, etc., was there really an anticipation of handouts of this magnitude? I don’t think so (especially given that Jefferson was a self-reliant farmer) but I’m willing to be proved wrong.

Just, if you’re going to assert a “right”, admit that you’re asserting a new obligation for a country that is not in such good shape with its current entitlements…

Further acknowledge that it is the nature of beauracracies to grow, therefore it is likely that the obligations due to this will grow over time.

[KSMountain]

[quote=greekfire]I do not intend to discount the many fine arguments that have been made up to this point. Caloric intake of different individuals from differing ethnic backgrounds is well and fine and something to take into consideration, but it misses the main thrust of this thread’s over-arching question: Is healthcare a right or a good?[/quote]
What, you don’t enjoy discussing the fine points of polynesian diet? Where ELSE are you going to get THAT kind of analysis?

As has been raised before: it might depend on what you mean by “healthcare”.
Do you mean emergency care or do you mean *everyone* in the country has a *right* to lifetime free consumption of *every* treatment that our technologists have been able to devise – regardless of cost?

My personal answer would be: no.

If you’re gonna have 6 kids, I hope you have a plan for how to pay for them.
You might have the right to *pursue* happiness, unfetterred, but that doesn’t mean that you have the right to take your neighbor’s money to pay for your health issues, that might be random, or might be self-inflicted.

If you think about Jefferson, the Federalist papers, etc., was there really an anticipation of handouts of this magnitude? I don’t think so (especially given that Jefferson was a self-reliant farmer) but I’m willing to be proved wrong.

Just, if you’re going to assert a “right”, admit that you’re asserting a new obligation for a country that is not in such good shape with its current entitlements…

Further acknowledge that it is the nature of beauracracies to grow, therefore it is likely that the obligations due to this will grow over time.

[KSMountain]

[quote=greekfire]I do not intend to discount the many fine arguments that have been made up to this point. Caloric intake of different individuals from differing ethnic backgrounds is well and fine and something to take into consideration, but it misses the main thrust of this thread’s over-arching question: Is healthcare a right or a good?[/quote]
What, you don’t enjoy discussing the fine points of polynesian diet? Where ELSE are you going to get THAT kind of analysis?

As has been raised before: it might depend on what you mean by “healthcare”.
Do you mean emergency care or do you mean *everyone* in the country has a *right* to lifetime free consumption of *every* treatment that our technologists have been able to devise – regardless of cost?

My personal answer would be: no.

If you’re gonna have 6 kids, I hope you have a plan for how to pay for them.
You might have the right to *pursue* happiness, unfetterred, but that doesn’t mean that you have the right to take your neighbor’s money to pay for your health issues, that might be random, or might be self-inflicted.

If you think about Jefferson, the Federalist papers, etc., was there really an anticipation of handouts of this magnitude? I don’t think so (especially given that Jefferson was a self-reliant farmer) but I’m willing to be proved wrong.

Just, if you’re going to assert a “right”, admit that you’re asserting a new obligation for a country that is not in such good shape with its current entitlements…

Further acknowledge that it is the nature of beauracracies to grow, therefore it is likely that the obligations due to this will grow over time.

[KSMountain]

[quote=greekfire]I do not intend to discount the many fine arguments that have been made up to this point. Caloric intake of different individuals from differing ethnic backgrounds is well and fine and something to take into consideration, but it misses the main thrust of this thread’s over-arching question: Is healthcare a right or a good?[/quote]
What, you don’t enjoy discussing the fine points of polynesian diet? Where ELSE are you going to get THAT kind of analysis?

As has been raised before: it might depend on what you mean by “healthcare”.
Do you mean emergency care or do you mean *everyone* in the country has a *right* to lifetime free consumption of *every* treatment that our technologists have been able to devise – regardless of cost?

My personal answer would be: no.

If you’re gonna have 6 kids, I hope you have a plan for how to pay for them.
You might have the right to *pursue* happiness, unfetterred, but that doesn’t mean that you have the right to take your neighbor’s money to pay for your health issues, that might be random, or might be self-inflicted.

If you think about Jefferson, the Federalist papers, etc., was there really an anticipation of handouts of this magnitude? I don’t think so (especially given that Jefferson was a self-reliant farmer) but I’m willing to be proved wrong.

Just, if you’re going to assert a “right”, admit that you’re asserting a new obligation for a country that is not in such good shape with its current entitlements…

Further acknowledge that it is the nature of beauracracies to grow, therefore it is likely that the obligations due to this will grow over time.

[scaredyclassic]

a hamster ina cage has little choice of what to eat.

humans in america have more choice, kind of, but there’s a lot of crap out there, at the right price. a LOT. so it’s gonna get eaten by a lot of hungry hamsters. there probably aren’t enough veggies in the nation to supplant all the HFCS calories in just southern ca.

i just find it personally difficult to uncouple the decision on nationalizing health care to nationalizing a healthier population. The cost is dependent on the efforts people make. that’s why it’s on topic. kind of.

[scaredyclassic]

a hamster ina cage has little choice of what to eat.

humans in america have more choice, kind of, but there’s a lot of crap out there, at the right price. a LOT. so it’s gonna get eaten by a lot of hungry hamsters. there probably aren’t enough veggies in the nation to supplant all the HFCS calories in just southern ca.

i just find it personally difficult to uncouple the decision on nationalizing health care to nationalizing a healthier population. The cost is dependent on the efforts people make. that’s why it’s on topic. kind of.

[scaredyclassic]

a hamster ina cage has little choice of what to eat.

humans in america have more choice, kind of, but there’s a lot of crap out there, at the right price. a LOT. so it’s gonna get eaten by a lot of hungry hamsters. there probably aren’t enough veggies in the nation to supplant all the HFCS calories in just southern ca.

i just find it personally difficult to uncouple the decision on nationalizing health care to nationalizing a healthier population. The cost is dependent on the efforts people make. that’s why it’s on topic. kind of.

[scaredyclassic]

a hamster ina cage has little choice of what to eat.

humans in america have more choice, kind of, but there’s a lot of crap out there, at the right price. a LOT. so it’s gonna get eaten by a lot of hungry hamsters. there probably aren’t enough veggies in the nation to supplant all the HFCS calories in just southern ca.

i just find it personally difficult to uncouple the decision on nationalizing health care to nationalizing a healthier population. The cost is dependent on the efforts people make. that’s why it’s on topic. kind of.

[scaredyclassic]

a hamster ina cage has little choice of what to eat.

humans in america have more choice, kind of, but there’s a lot of crap out there, at the right price. a LOT. so it’s gonna get eaten by a lot of hungry hamsters. there probably aren’t enough veggies in the nation to supplant all the HFCS calories in just southern ca.

i just find it personally difficult to uncouple the decision on nationalizing health care to nationalizing a healthier population. The cost is dependent on the efforts people make. that’s why it’s on topic. kind of.

[KSMountain]

Agreed. Slippery slope (and really difficult) though, to start having the government mandate personal behavior.

That’s why a tax seems attractive – at least you can *encourage* a behavior.

Folks would rightly complain that a junk food tax would be extremely regressive. True, but we do something similar for cigarettes, for similar reasons.

[KSMountain]

Agreed. Slippery slope (and really difficult) though, to start having the government mandate personal behavior.

That’s why a tax seems attractive – at least you can *encourage* a behavior.

Folks would rightly complain that a junk food tax would be extremely regressive. True, but we do something similar for cigarettes, for similar reasons.

[KSMountain]

Agreed. Slippery slope (and really difficult) though, to start having the government mandate personal behavior.

That’s why a tax seems attractive – at least you can *encourage* a behavior.

Folks would rightly complain that a junk food tax would be extremely regressive. True, but we do something similar for cigarettes, for similar reasons.

[KSMountain]

Agreed. Slippery slope (and really difficult) though, to start having the government mandate personal behavior.

That’s why a tax seems attractive – at least you can *encourage* a behavior.

Folks would rightly complain that a junk food tax would be extremely regressive. True, but we do something similar for cigarettes, for similar reasons.

[Author]

Posts