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.
I believe we all have a right to health care. It's a moral imperative. I'm not comfortable w/ letting people get sick and die if we can prevent or stop it by providing health care. A healthy country is a more productive one so it affects the economy of our country.
I'm not for giving away all free stuff to anyone standing it line, though. We have to have common sense, too, and let people work for things. That's how we all earn self esteem. Health care is one of those things, though, that is essential to life.
A good, working healthcare system doesn't exclude anyone. But now in the US it is just a tenuous patchwork. We should be ashamed that we let it get like this, without much activism or complaint. It has been a long slow whine but most people just keep their head down and hope they can hold on to their corporate job and that nothing changes so they don't get bankrupted by a major health event.
I believe we all have a right to health care. It's a moral imperative.
Exactly the same as we all have a right to post-secondary education for which we can pay. Colleges/universities cannot discriminate against any individuals. Health care is exactly the same. Anyone's dollar for payment of services is as good as anyone else's.
To the OP question I guess it depends on the definition of “Own”. I own a car but I don’t own the roads I drive on. I own access to healthcare but don’t own my healthcare directly. I own my home in spirit but my bank actually holds the note since I have a mortgage. I own a car but same idea since I have a loan. I own stocks but gains are not real since I have not pulled them out.
The idea of ownership and the definition of ownership are not the same thing. Obama stuck his foot in his mouth for not understanding this concept.
You are correct in saying we own very little that we claim too but you are incorrect if we take the “idea of ownership” approach which is how most Americans view things. Again how many of your nebhors would say they own their home but still have a mortgage? Same concept with social security and unemployment. We don’t own directly but Americans believe that they “Own” the right to those programs.
Unless you agree that slavery is legal and proper, there can be no such thing as the positive right (defined as a right to some portion of somebody else's labor/skills).
Period.
In greater detail - if I claim that I have a "right" to that which another individual or group thereof provides, then I make a claim that I have a "right" to some portion of their labor SOLELY for my benefit, whenever I want. The word we have for people who have a portion of their labor owned by others by right is "slave."
You cannot describe the concept of "positive rights" any other way.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,604,784 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian
Unless you agree that slavery is legal and proper, there can be no such thing as the positive right (defined as a right to some portion of somebody else's labor/skills).
Period.
In greater detail - if I claim that I have a "right" to that which another individual or group thereof provides, then I make a claim that I have a "right" to some portion of their labor SOLELY for my benefit, whenever I want. The word we have for people who have a portion of their labor owned by others by right is "slave."
You cannot describe the concept of "positive rights" any other way.
Your statement fails the slavery test, since medical professionals would still be financially compensated, just like they are in other single payer countries. Doctors in Canada and Europe aren't slaves.....
Your statement fails the slavery test, since medical professionals would still be financially compensated, just like they are in other single payer countries. Doctors in Canada and Europe aren't slaves.....
Then the people do not have a right to their labor. You cannot have a right to someone's labor without that person being a slave. If they are not slaves, then they can refuse to labor on your behalf.
Unless you agree that slavery is legal and proper, there can be no such thing as the positive right (defined as a right to some portion of somebody else's labor/skills).
Period.
In greater detail - if I claim that I have a "right" to that which another individual or group thereof provides, then I make a claim that I have a "right" to some portion of their labor SOLELY for my benefit, whenever I want. The word we have for people who have a portion of their labor owned by others by right is "slave."
You cannot describe the concept of "positive rights" any other way.
I couldn't have said it better. All other justifications, claims by others for a positive right to anything others have or earned, are merely justifications for theft to be legalized IF that theft is for certain claimed positive rights.
Quote:
“The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.”
― Frederic Bastiat
Your statement fails the slavery test, since medical professionals would still be financially compensated, just like they are in other single payer countries. Doctors in Canada and Europe aren't slaves.....
Can doctors, nurses, drug producers, hospitals and patients negotiate terms with each other outside of the system you propose?
Your statement fails the slavery test, since medical professionals would still be financially compensated, just like they are in other single payer countries. Doctors in Canada and Europe aren't slaves.....
You appear to not understand who the slave is in regard to healthcare. The slave would be everyone who is forced to pay, by threat of imprisonment or death if they do not pay, for the healthcare of any person other other than themselves or their family.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,604,784 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian
Then the people do not have a right to their labor. You cannot have a right to someone's labor without that person being a slave. If they are not slaves, then they can refuse to labor on your behalf.
Doctors in single payer countries wouldn't want to refuse to provide labor, because then they wouldn't get paid. It would be cutting their nose to spite their face
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.
