Do you consider healthcare a basic human right? (brainwashing, carry, gun)
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.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,326 posts, read 54,344,425 times
Reputation: 40721
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
They would stay because they live in a nation that allows them self-determination (or at least did at one point), free from the tyranny of an overactive government. That choice that you are disparaging is exactly what this nation was built around.
Really? WHERE is it the Constitution states citizens are not to be subject to the guly enacted laws of the land?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
We do not live in a democracy. Democracy is mob rule. We live in a representative republic, which entails giving each citizen the right to choose for himself/herself (again, the idea of self-determination). That is the big selling point for a republic, which unfortunately, too many citizen's want to throw away in the name of security.
Democracy is mob rule yet each citizen going his/her own way is a plan for a strong society?
Again, WHERE does the Constitution establish that citizens are not subject to the laws of the land?
No. I've managed to pay for my own healthcare for the last 45 years, so others can too. As of next month, YOU get to pay for my healthcare. How does that really feel to you ?
LMAO. First off, you'd still pay for healthcare, just not such a high profit margin so you'd pay less for the same care. Second, we don't use natural selection anymore. Not since we moved out of the woods. We would quickly fall into a 3rd world if we let those who can't work because of illness die off.
My question to you is, why wouldn't you want to pay less money for the same healthcare?
Do you not know how buying bulk works?
They would stay because they live in a nation that allows them self-determination (or at least did at one point), free from the tyranny of an overactive government. That choice that you are disparaging is exactly what this nation was built around.
We do not live in a democracy. Democracy is mob rule. We live in a representative republic, which entails giving each citizen the right to choose for himself/herself (again, the idea of self-determination). That is the big selling point for a republic, which unfortunately, too many citizen's want to throw away in the name of security.
A republic requires a certain equality among us. Lobbyist, and large special interest groups that are allowed to bribe the government reduces the meaning of a republic. Unfortunately.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,326 posts, read 54,344,425 times
Reputation: 40721
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
Not to get into that whole debate, but it's "initiate" as in being the first to use force. I'm all for defense.
Me too, a shame the DoD doesn't believe in its own title.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
It shouldn't be based on geography, just like what food you get isn't based on geography. You choose what food you want, or if you want it at all. You choose from competing food providers (grocery stores, restaurants, food pantries, shelters, etc.), not have the collective decide what everyone will be eating.
Yes, I'm against democracy...actually I'm for a sort of democracy, which is voting directly with your dollars, but not the type you're describing.
HOW do you 'vote' with your $$$ in a self-contained, self-controlling market that gives you no real choice, when any vote is a vote for the exact same thing?
No. Its a service to be purchased just like any other. And if it cannot be purchased then others will donate to your cause however THEY see fit. However its wrong to FORCE people to give up thier labor and resources to another person who they don't even know.
We need to concentrate on a society of VOLUNTARY transactions rather than the gun pointed to people's heads known as wealth redistribution. Measures should be taken to lower healthcare cost, but we aren't going to have a nation of strong people if we continue to force people to subsidize weakness.
When will Liberal doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, drug company executives and employees, etc who think healthcare is a "right" start working pro bono?
Do you not see the hypocrisy in saying something is a human right and not being willing to provide that right for others without recompense?
Does that not in fact, make YOU selfish?
This is the dumbest thing I've ever read. There is no hypocrisy. The government insures all residents. The current networks stay in place. People currently employed in health care stay employed. The only thing that changes is the payor. It's very simple.
Me too, a shame the DoD doesn't believe in its own title.
Yep, very true.
Quote:
HOW do you 'vote' with your $$$ in a self-contained, self-controlling market that gives you no real choice, when any vote is a vote for the exact same thing?
Not sure what you mean here... Instead of voting for a politician to (supposedly) represent you, you vote directly for what you want and which people you want providing it. If you don't like Trump foods, you spend your money at Hillary foods, or Johnson foods, or Obama foods, or non-political-family foods ...it isn't a vote where everyone in your geographic region decides which store will be picking your food for the next 4 years. You just go to whichever one you want and pick what you specifically want from there.
Really? WHERE is it the Constitution states citizens are not to be subject to the guly enacted laws of the land?
Democracy is mob rule yet each citizen going his/her own way is a plan for a strong society?
Again, WHERE does the Constitution establish that citizens are not subject to the laws of the land?
You need to think about what I wrote for a moment. I didn't say anything about not being subject to the laws. What I said is not being subject to the tyranny of an overactive government. This implies that those laws that you are talking about are the result of an overactive government that should not have imposed the laws in the first place. It goes beyond the enforcement of the law. It's a question of whether the law should be there in the first place.
Of course, we could consider whether a given law is constitutional, and we have in many instances. But it's more a philosophical question of where the government belongs in relationship to the citizenry. The founding fathers did everything they possibly could to minimize the influence of the federal government upon the private citizenry. Unfortunately, their best efforts have still not been enough to save the populace from the yoke of tyranny. Too many people are too willing to accept tyranny and exchange freedom for security/comfort.
QUOTE: Q: "Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
A: “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
I propose that we have done a very poor job of "keeping it."
All depends. Do you consider saving a life or alleviating suffering a basic human responsibility?
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.
...it isn't a vote where everyone in your geographic region decides which store will be picking your food for the next 4 years. You just go to whichever one you want and pick what you specifically want from there.
