Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Either you are liberal or conservative, the US healthcare system needs a total overhaul. Nobody I spoke to (conservative or liberal) is happy with it. It simply doesn't answer our current needs. It is inflated, twisted, inefficient and ultra expensive.
People may differ at how to fix it, but not for the need to do so. That is no myth....
Bingo.
I once heard a pundit quip that the US healthcare system is a mixture between government provided healthcare and private healthcare and it has managed to show that neither system works.
Actually Synopsis.. that was the point that Katiana was trying to make... Delta was arguing that healthcare wasn't a right written in the constitution.. and so katiana was trying to point out that while smokers claim they have a "right" to smoke, that too is not written in the constitution and that saying that healthcare is not a right because it's not written, but then claiming that something else IS a right even though it's not explicitly written is being hypocritical.
No, no, no...
You're not differentiating between a right and a freedom. It's the difference between "doing" and "getting". You don't have a "right" to go to the store. You don't have a "right" to grow a garden. What you have is the "freedom" to go to the store or grow a garden. Just as you have the "freedom" to smoke, as long as there's no law against it.
You're not differentiating between a right and a freedom. It's the difference between "doing" and "getting". You don't have a "right" to go to the store. You don't have a "right" to grow a garden. What you have is the "freedom" to go to the store or grow a garden. Just as you have the "freedom" to smoke, as long as there's no law against it.
Nice try, though.
You know what's funny.. NOT ONE PERSON has answered my question that I brought up referring to right to healthcare.. and that is this..
If you do not have a right to healthcare then why do we have laws that says taht EVERYONE regardless of their ability to PAY for said healthcare and or prove sufficient means to pay for said healthcare still GET healthcare?
Or.. do you feel that since it's not a right, if you can't pay at the point of service or get a "loan" to pay for the service.. that the sick or injured person should just be left to DIE!
It is a RIGHT. we ALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO HEALTHCARE and we are GIVEN that right by our laws!!
If we didn't have a right to it we would do the same thing with healthcare that we would with say purchasing a car or a TV.. and have the person pay for it right then and there or not recieve it.
I once heard a pundit quip that the US healthcare system is a mixture between government provided healthcare and private healthcare and it has managed to show that neither system works.
The amount of regulation imposed by the government on healthcare is enormous. The paperwork generated by the system is astonishing in size and scope. I am thinking of the millions working in healthcare administration, not direct providers...
Ah..I get your point of view now.. Your view is this..
If I say it's a right it's ar right.. even if it's NOT explicitly written in the constitution.
BUT>. if someone else who disagrees with you says something is a "right" they must then point to the exact line that lists that specific thing as a right..
BTW.. healthcare didn't exist over 200 years ago But smoking tobacco did.. and they didn't include that specifically in the constitution...
This whole notion of "rights" has gotten out hand, anyway.
Still, I can't believe that the "right" to smoke can even remotely be equated with the "right" to universal health care.
Not the least of reasons being that if a person chooses to smoke, then they pay for it themselves and it imposes no obligation on anyone else to furnish the said tobacco products.
On the other hand, if universal health care is a "right" then it obligates others to pay for it. And I have often wondered if there were no doctors, then would free health care still be a natural right?
Constitutionally speaking, similarities are ludicrous.
You know what's funny.. NOT ONE PERSON has answered my question that I brought up referring to right to healthcare.. and that is this..
If you do not have a right to healthcare then why do we have laws that says taht EVERYONE regardless of their ability to PAY for said healthcare and or prove sufficient means to pay for said healthcare still GET healthcare?
Or.. do you feel that since it's not a right, if you can't pay at the point of service or get a "loan" to pay for the service.. that the sick or injured person should just be left to DIE!
Pretty much, yeah. It sucks, but health care providers are providing a service. Providing that service costs the providers money. Not only directly in time and materials, but in obtaining the required education, too. They should absolutely be compensated for the services they provide. If the recipient of the services is unable to pay for them, why should the providers be required to provide them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy
It is a RIGHT. we ALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO HEALTHCARE and we are GIVEN that right by our laws!!
No, it's not, and no, we aren't. If you really believe otherwise, find the specific law(s) that delineates that right and cite it/them here. Plenty of people hold your position, but none of them ever provide the proof that backs it up. Buck the trend and prove what you say.
One has the FREEDOMS to get Health Care.
And, they can get Health Care today.
And contrary to the propoganda presented by those who want to socialize health care, many of those who do not have medical insurance are those who choose not to have it. Even if they can afford it. Most are young people for whom it is simply not a high priority. I was that way myself once. So were most of us over the age of 40.
You're not differentiating between a right and a freedom. It's the difference between "doing" and "getting". You don't have a "right" to go to the store. You don't have a "right" to grow a garden. What you have is the "freedom" to go to the store or grow a garden. Just as you have the "freedom" to smoke, as long as there's no law against it.
Nice try, though.
Here are a few posts from a previous smoking thread about smoker's rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jadex
So the non smokers rights are more important then the smokers.
(I think this was meant to be a question.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by vkhmini
Beg to differ. My drug is legal, and I don't have to steal or prostitute myself to get it. Comparing me to a crackhead is likely to get you into more trouble than you want to be in.
And I'm not defending my addiction. I'm defending my rights.
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlickRick1
They shouldn't be fifty dollars a week. That's the point. why are we allowing state and local government to dictate such high tax increases on something some people enjoy, wheather it is good for them or not. That is their choice. If we didn't have these rediculous taxes on ciggarettes, and ciggarettes were affordable, then the problem would be solved. Your basically saying, why should we have a choice?
I'll answer that, because it's my damn body. Is that good enough, are we afforded or allowed any rights anymore? I wouldn't even be naive enough to say something as frivilous as, "because I am an american". Because I realize we have so few rights anymore. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't still have some rights left.
.
A lot of people seem to think they have a "right" to smoke, something that is certainly not in the constitution.
... many of those who do not have medical insurance are those who choose not to have it. Even if they can afford it.
I know.
I know
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But smoking tobacco did.. and they didn't include that specifically in the constitution...
