Do we actually have a "right" to health care? (independent, ideology)

[aneftp]

Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic

I feel you on that, but beyond any aspect of human compassion, it's certainly not "free" to skimp on universal health care. And the only industry I'm aware of that is more convoluted and wasteful than government bureaucracy is private medicine.

Actually the Arms industry (aka defense contractor spending) along with the DHS are pretty close in terms of wasteful spending with private contractors to the health industry.

Look at the US yearly budget. Both industries are close to neck and neck in terms of spending.

And defense spending isn't a Republican hobby. Democratic presidents love collecting all the political donations from the defense contractors as well.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by Bamford

It says was it involves quite clearly, so if you don't want to adhere to international treaties or international laws then don't sign them in the first place, simple as that.

Originally Posted by Bamford

Isn't the US a signatory of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which includes the Right to Health Care???

Perhaps it's best not to sign things if you don't want to adhere to them.

Perhaps people not versed in international relations should refrain from displaying amusing ignorance until they learn the meaning of "reservations."

Um, you speak the Queen's English and you don't understand the meaning of the word "Declaration."

It means "non-binding."

Why don't you be a good-fellow and show us which articles in the UN's Declaration provide for enforcement?

Oh....that's right....gosh, you can't, since it is a non-binding informal agreement.

Originally Posted by BradPiff

Think about it. Right-wingers have pretty much convinced their base to dislike anything that they think will be of particular benefit to minorities (Welfare, affirmative action)even if it will also benefit them and Healthcare is no different.

Right-wingers are color-blind.

Originally Posted by BradPiff

There's a huge racial disparity when you look at the percentage of people with no health insurance.

Prove it isn't cultural.

Each culture has different values with differing priorities on those values.

For example, some culture value education over healthcare; others value work ethic over all else; and still others hold different values.

Being the intolerant Liberal that you are, if you want to line up people and shoot them for holding differing cultural values that conflict with your Liberal one-size-fits-all ideology, I would have to stop you.

Originally Posted by Rambler123

I think you mean to say "as soon as the conservative party was taken over completely by corporate interests and Tea Party lunatics,....

Um, the Republican Party and the Conservative Party are not the same thing, but you get the Göbbels Award for trying to confuse people just the same.

Originally Posted by Rambler123

... they tried to rewrite history and pretend that the ACA and their plan are not effectively one in the same."

The ACA is not a conservative plan.

Originally Posted by Rambler123

Funny how when lily-white Romney came up with basically the same idea in Massachusetts and it worked out fine there. But he's a white guy and conservative, so that's okay.

Romney is not a Conservative.

Originally Posted by Rambler123

The funny part is that by admitting to having an insurance policy, by definition he's participating in the same "evil" spreading of costs that he so despises.

Um, insurance policies have nothing to do with "spreading of costs."

Why don't you learn what insurance is, and then get back to us.

Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated

Universal health care is more conservative than our current system.

Fiscally conservative....which has nothing to do with being Conservative.

Tell us again why these Brits died on waiting lists...

Lung cancer treatment waiting times and tumour growth.

Therefore, 21% of potentially curable patients became incurable on the waiting list. This study demonstrates that, even for the select minority of patients who have specialist referral and are deemed suitable for potentially curative treatment, the outcome is prejudiced by waiting times that allow tumour progression.

US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health

Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated

Not only that, but the Heritage's original proposal argued that the individual mandate protected society from the imprudence of "liberty." Details can be found here.

Heritage? Um, those are Neo-Conservatives, which has absolutely nothing to do with Conservatives or Republicans.

Originally Posted by RogersParkGuy

Wrong. Obamacare is a repackaged conservative plan.

The original idea for what we now call "Obamacare" was first floated by Stuart M. Butler, domestic policy director for the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation, back in 1989. It was outlined in a paper entitled, "A National Health System for America." Look it up if you don't believe me.

Again, the Heritage Foundation is Neo-Conservative, which has nothing to do with Conservatives or Republicans.

When you mentioned "Ultra-Conservative" you left out the "Jew" part....you know, as in Ultra-Conservative Jew.....Neo-Con....same thing.

Remember? There's two Jews in Paris...one's name is Lenin and the other is Trotsky. The Germans put them on a train and send them to Moscow where they over-throw the monarchy.

Lenin and Trotsky argue over ideology......Trotsky gets exiled and flees to Mexico City, Mexico.

A lot of American Jews are into Marxism, especially those that are professors at universities, specifically Ivy League Colleges.

They start visiting Trotsky, writing letters, sending telegrams, calling on the phone.

They establish the Young People's Socialist League.

FDR gets elected....they swarm into Washington....naturally...since they're all Ivy League "you-Harvards."

The merge with another political party called the Social Democrats. They become known as the Young People's Socialist League/Social Democrat Party or YPSL-SD.

Red Scare makes the name change to simply Social Democrats.

The Social Democrats control nearly all of your major bureaucratic positions in foreign policy, and then during the Eisentyrant Administration, take over most of the Alphabet Agencies.

They gave you Vietnam and the Grotesque Society. And then they backed up a regrouped, mostly under Kristol and Kissinger.

During an interview with the New York Times of Irving Kristol, the phrase "neo-conservative" was coined and accepted.

No Neo-Conservative has ever run for public office. The closest thing would be Joe Lieberman who was a Democrat turned Independent.

Originally Posted by RogersParkGuy

So, basically, a plan that started out on the far right wing of conservatism in 1989 is denounced as "socialist" by the conservatives of 2014. That is how insanely far to the right today's conservatives are. They are so far to the right, they are in a ditch.

No, that was the far-left wing.

Which part of "Young People's Socialist League" do you not understand?

How about a little more truth and a little less propaganda, folks....

Mircea

[Seabass Inna Bun]

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

Those are people who are trying to punish me for some act or infraction. "Due process" is the government saying they have to do it right, according to law.

It doesn't change what they do. Only how they do it.

And yes, I have a right, if they are going to try to punish me, to insist they do it according to law. In fact, the law requires that they do so.

As for other rights, I have no "right" to insist that a doctor treat me. He might do it anyway out of human kindness. And he would also likely do it if I arrange to pay him for the service. But if his schedule is full up with critically ill or injured patients, he might well refuse to treat my broken arm. As he should. I have no "right" to force him to treat me.

You didn't actually answer my questions. And the right to medical care does not mean one has the right to force a particular person to do your bidding. If you think it means giving you the right to order a doctor around, you don't understand what you're talking about. I can't imagine your obtuseness is anything but deliberate.

[Naglfarni]

The sixth amendment provides the right to a lawyer if you are accused of a crime.

If you can't pay for one, you get one provided for you. It includes the right to counsel of choice, the right to appointed counsel, the right to conflict-free counsel and the effective assistance of counsel.

This is what is known as a "claim right".

It is fascinating to me that to many Americans, providing medical care to taxpayers is far more controversial than providing legal assistance to criminals.

[aneftp]

Originally Posted by Naglfarni

The sixth amendment provides the right to a lawyer if you are accused of a crime.

If you can't pay for one, you get one provided for you. It includes the right to counsel of choice, the right to appointed counsel, the right to conflict-free counsel and the effective assistance of counsel.

This is what is known as a "claim right".

It is fascinating to me that to many Americans, providing medical care to taxpayers is far more controversial than providing legal assistance to criminals.

Because the law profession doesn't give subsidized law advice to a family of 4 making 95K a year like the ACA does.

You got to be dirt poor to have right to counsel for free. Which means poorer than most medicaid expansion patients. Also in cases not involving jail time, you don't have that right to legal counsel if you are poor.

[RogersParkGuy]

Originally Posted by T-310

Its redistribution of wealth. Demean it anyway you want.

Doesn't change that fact.

But all government activity involves wealth redistribution. Every last bit of it!

Building and maintaining highways requires wealth redistribution. Maintaining the national park system requires wealth redistribution. Funding the military requires wealth redistribution. You are not making an argument. In fact, you are barely making an observation. What is your point?

[T-310]

Building and maintaining highways requires wealth redistribution.

No it doesn't. Fuel excise taxes pay for the roads. Buy gas, you pay.

Maintaining the national park system requires wealth redistribution.

Only if you go to the park and pay.

My point is all your assertions are wrong. It is in the Constitution that government maintain a standing army. Fly on a plane, the fuel excise taxes pay for air traffic control. Drive on roads, fuel excise taxes pay for road maintenance.

So when a person who is well to-do buys health insurance, he pays a huge amount that goes to subsidize those who can't pay for it. That is wealth redistribution.

[nmnita]

Very basic medical care? yes, otherwise, you pay for what you get. None of us has the right to expect the government to take care of every need we have.

[TrapperJohn]

Originally Posted by RogersParkGuy

But all government activity involves wealth redistribution. Every last bit of it!

Building and maintaining highways requires wealth redistribution. Maintaining the national park system requires wealth redistribution. Funding the military requires wealth redistribution. You are not making an argument. In fact, you are barely making an observation. What is your point?

Nothing prevents the government from opening medical clinics today and offering care. Nothing. The ACA passed SCOTUS muster not because it was deemed "a right" or even because it was insurance - it passed because the SG argued that the government has the right to tax and offer services. That one point alone is true, and on that point Roberts concurred.

The libs are playing both sides of the fence and counting on their constituents being morons, which is usually the case.

What passed and what is in practice are different. The entire website and subsidy voodoo is smoke and mirrors to disguise welfare to the poor, and progressive marginal tax rates on the middle class. That's it. Nothing else.

They could have been honest and just added a 8% payroll tax and been done with it, but then they can't promise free stuff to to their moronic base who thinks the Evil Koch brothers and the Walton family owes them a living.

[Little-Acorn]

Originally Posted by nmnita

None of us has the right to expect the government to take care of every need we have.

You're halfway there.

The truth is, none of us has the right to expect the Federal government to take care of ANY need we have... except the need to have our fundamental rights protected.

Not medical care.

Not food (which is even more vital than medical care).

Not the size of our toilets.

Not retirement funds.

The Fed govt has no authority to "take care of" any of those things.

The states can if they want to. So write to your state legislators if you want those things to be handled by government.

Bring your wallet.