Is health care a right?

[Sean]

The tradeoff in taking Health Care out of the hands of the private sector and giving it to government seems to be significant especially in terms of economic output and defense.

Our high costs in insurance are related directly to government intervention, especially states not allowing national competition as car insurance is, and car insurance is cheaper.

Furthermore, we deny no one health care and have an ever finer safety sieve in place for the "poor" who live as well here as any Western poor and certainly better then the rest of the world.

Whenever we get into this discussion, I see people who enjoy a lower standard of living than we do aghast at our barbarism and uncaring as they clamor for us to do to ourselves what they have done to themselves in the name of Social Justice.

I spit on fucking Social Justice. It is the stuff of Guillotines, Oligarchy and a general impoverishment of the individual in the name of his own Social Salvation under the guise of equality.

"Society has for its element man, who is a free agent; and since man is free, he may choose -- since he may choose, he may be mistaken -- since he may be mistaken, he may suffer....
I have faith in the wisdom of the laws of Providence, and for the same reason I have faith in liberty."
Frédéric Bastiat

Car insurance is far more expensive in the US than it is over here. How does that fit in with "it's all the gubmint's fault"?

 

[Sean]

And what would you do with the questions/answers? You know, as I do, nothing I could possibly say will alter one iota your thoughts, opinions or your beliefs.
I could spend hours writing about social justice, only for it to be dismissed by a one liner from that well known thinker A_J The Stupid.
I am curious though, have you ever considered an opinion other than yours?

He has no opinions of his own, he outsourced that division to American Thinker years ago.

 

[fair_warning]

Is it the right of every individual to be allowed to have access to health care facilities and resources, regardless of race, color, creed, religion, social status, etc.?

Yes.

Is health care, itself, a right?

Since it is not mentioned in the Bill of Rights or any other article or amendment of the Constitution...

No.

Like, so..****** travel? I take it that should never have been 'allowed'. Or is that covered in the Constitution?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Car insurance is far more expensive in the US than it is over here. How does that fit in with "it's all the gubmint's fault"?

Is this going to be the same proof as the mercury bulb discussion?

 

[Sean]

Is this going to be the same proof as the mercury bulb discussion?

I've had insurance in both countries, the US was about double the UK cost.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

And what would you do with the questions/answers? You know, as I do, nothing I could possibly say will alter one iota your thoughts, opinions or your beliefs.
I could spend hours writing about social justice, only for it to be dismissed by a one liner from that well known thinker A_J The Stupid.
I am curious though, have you ever considered an opinion other than yours?

Nothing but attack here no discussion.

I've held an opinion other than mine being a die-hard Socialist in my youth railing against Vietnam dreaming of the day when we would be more like the Soviet Union and actually take care of our people.

What I have found is that the more people you decide to take care of, the more people there are to take care of.

What is Social Justice?

Total equality of outcome?

A minimal living standard? If so, we already have one and it is one of the best in the world. The best way to end that, as far as I can see, is to allow the dreamers their shot at Social Justice.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I've had insurance in both countries, the US was about double the UK cost.

Your personal anecdotes fell flat in the lightbulb discussion.

Gas here is cheaper. What of it?

Would that not offset the insurance? If driving is reduced to only those who can afford gas, perhaps the insurance might be cheaper based upon several following actuarial realities...

 

[miles]

Ensuring everyone, including the disadvantaged have access to health care is part of social justice.

The disadvantaged have had access to free healthcare for a long time.

 

[Sean]

Your personal anecdotes fell flat in the lightbulb discussion.

Gas here is cheaper. What of it?

Would that not offset the insurance? If driving is reduced to only those who can afford gas, perhaps the insurance might be cheaper based upon several following actuarial realities...

Irrelevant. We're talking about insurance. Your argument was that health insurance in the US was so expensive because of government interference. You have provided no evidence for such a position and when challenged do your usual trick of trying to move the goalposts into the next state.

If only my wife were a medical administrator, maybe my personal anecdotes would be relevant.

 

[Liar]

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

"Libery" is the simple one. Don't provide anything and don't demand anything and bada-bing, there's liberty.

"Life" takes a little infrastrusture. And a little compromise. A legal framework taking away my liberty to kill you, and also charging me for aquiring the means to enforce it. One can also argue that there's a demand in there to not let one another needlessly die. Could be translated to health care, but that's extrapolating a lot.

"Pursuit of happiness" is the tricky bit. Nobody says said pursuit must be easy, but it should at least be reasonably possible. And that once again takes societal infrastructure and rules, which is inevitably a trade-off against maximum liberty. The question is: What's reasonable?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Like, so..****** travel? I take it that should never have been 'allowed'. Or is that covered in the Constitution?

We don't have the South African Constitution so beloved by French Revolution fan Justice Ruth "Buzzy" Ginsberg.

Our Constitution is a limiting of what government can do "for" us in order that we may indeed reach for the stars, which we did. In the US, my grandfather was born before man could fly and before he died, he saw man walk on the moon. Our Founders were very afraid of what government would do to us by governing our lives and retarding them in the name of Social Justice. They understood that progress comes not from trying to be all to everyone with a need, but to allow people property and the pursuit of happiness in order to increase Capital and create the productive gains of progress, to bring about by actual inaction the rising tide that lifts all boats.

We don't have Universal Health care, but we do have laws to make sure the poor get treated and we have a multitude of programs to assist them, raise them, and give their children a better future if only they decide to actually work for it. We don't pretend to pay people who pretend to work the way they did in the Utopia known as East Germany or the current utopias of Cuba and North Korea...

Whenever this topic comes up, the attitude form the citizens of the enlightened world is that because we're not "just like them" that we have the indigent dying in the streets. You have to work pretty hard at being a total fuckup to die in the streets for any reason in the US. It ain't Somalia.

 

[fair_warning]

Nothing but attack here no discussion.

I've held an opinion other than mine being a die-hard Socialist in my youth railing against Vietnam dreaming of the day when we would be more like the Soviet Union and actually take care of our people.

What I have found is that the more people you decide to take care of, the more people there are to take care of.

What is Social Justice?

Total equality of outcome?

A minimal living standard? If so, we already have one and it is one of the best in the world. The best way to end that, as far as I can see, is to allow the dreamers their shot at Social Justice.

My intention wasn't a personal attack per se but simply a statement of the facts as I saw them.

Social justice is about equity and the power to bring about change. In many instances, the power to bring about change rests outside of those seeking equity, lying with those who resist change, supporting outdated political beliefs that underpin the status quo.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

"Libery" is the simple one. Don't provide anything and don't demand anything and bada-bing, there's liberty.

"Life" takes a little infrastrusture. And a little compromise. A legal framework taking away my liberty to kill you, and also charging me for aquiring the means to enforce it. One can also argue that there's a demand in there to not let one another needlessly die. Could be translated to health care, but that's extrapolating a lot.

"Pursuit of happiness" is the tricky bit. Nobody says said pursuit must be easy, but it should at least be reasonably possible. And that once again takes societal infrastructure and rules, which is inevitably a trade-off against maximum liberty. The question is: What's reasonable?

Because of slavery, the euphemism , "pursuit of happiness,: was used instead of the word Property.

Life could also be extrapolated to apply to the most helpless among us which seemed only to reduce them to a mass of tissue or too old to enjoy a "quality of Life."



We, in the US enjoy an equal opportunity, which is arguably being killed by slow degree as government expands to protect us and provide more equal outcome in the name of Social Justice...

If you ask your government to treat someone "fairly," the only way it can ever accomplish that task is to treat someone "unfairly."
A_J, the Stupid

 

[Liar]

We don't have the South African Constitution so beloved by French Revolution fan Justice Ruth "Buzzy" Ginsberg.

Nor do you have the Communist Soviet's Constitution so beloved by Justice Antonin Scalia.

http://foolocracy.com/2012/02/ginsb...what-is-wrong-with-politics-in-america-today/



Derp-tastic.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

My intention wasn't a personal attack per se but simply a statement of the facts as I saw them.

Social justice is about equity and the power to bring about change. In many instances, the power to bring about change rests outside of those seeking equity, lying with those who resist change, supporting outdated political beliefs that underpin the status quo.

What the hell does that actually mean?

How do you make people equal without taking something from somebody else?

I would say you give them equal opportunity, not ever-increasing benefit, which seems to be the exact methodology of everyone who fights for Social Justice, for Social Justice seems to be a lot more expensive set of "rights" to maintain that Life, Liberty and Property.

If I have a right to health care, as Berwick postulated and I posted earlier, then his rights to housing and food are also secured because they are fundamental components of health. Do I have a right to government housing? Does the government have an obligation to feed me as a right? To clothe me? To provide me a marriage f I so desire one and I cannot find a willing mate? after all, it is one of our newer "rights" created in the name of Social Justice.

It seems to me that Social Justice is a pretty elastic metric and confined mainly to the eyes of the beholder.



There is black and white, and if you refuse to believe that, then you will accept grey and let me tell you gray tends to black for when you say ∃ of anything is a good function of government then ∃ is everything ¬∀.
A_J, the Stupid

 

[fair_warning]

The disadvantaged have had access to free healthcare for a long time.

Great.
Fabulous.
Yay for your country. Not everyone is so danged fortunate.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Nor do you have the Communist Soviet's Constitution so beloved by Justice Antonin Scalia.

http://foolocracy.com/2012/02/ginsb...what-is-wrong-with-politics-in-america-today/



Derp-tastic.

That's a laughable comparison.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Irrelevant. We're talking about insurance. Your argument was that health insurance in the US was so expensive because of government interference. You have provided no evidence for such a position and when challenged do your usual trick of trying to move the goalposts into the next state.

If only my wife were a medical administrator, maybe my personal anecdotes would be relevant.

You never showed any of us that car insurance was actually cheaper in England...

You stated that yours was, but never in relation to time or place or anything else.

You don't seem to want to compare health insurance costs increases with the auto insurance industry which has a handle on costs and can provide affordable insurance. Why is that? Because your actual experience is so limited?

When you get to using "equal" facts, then you can resume throwing rocks at glass houses.



It just seems to kill you that I have some knowledge of what goes on because my wife deals with it on a daily basis and because it is a continual topic of discussion in our social circle because it has a deep effect on our lives.

 

[fair_warning]

What the hell does that actually mean?

There is black and white, and if you refuse to believe that, then you will accept grey and let me tell you gray tends to black for when you say ∃ of anything is a good function of government then ∃ is everything ¬∀.
A_J, the Stupid

What does it mean? It means that in order to exercise your 'equity' you need to understand it. But surely you are just kidding me, asking what that means - it makes me think you are either obtuse or naive.

 

[Liar]

We, in the US enjoy an equal opportunity, which is arguably being killed by slow degree as government expands to protect us and provide more equal outcome in the name of Social Justice...

So you say. And with a specific definition of both the words "equal" and "opportunity". Others would argue otherwise.

I'd argue that equal opportunity is unattainalbe outside of a sports arena. Everyone has unequal opportunities. Either by nature (which we can not affect) or by nurture (which we can).

If you believe, for instance, that even the poor shiuld have access to some sort of basic education (Maybe by charter to private schools, instead of a public school system? I think you argued for that some time ago. Or was that someone else?) then you believe in levelling the playing field and providing more equal oppotunity by Government Interventation and application of Social Justice. Because that's what it is. The very definition of it.

So then we're just discussing what level of Government Intervention is reasonable.

"We have already established what you are, now we are merely haggling over the price"

 

[Liar]

That's a laughable comparison.

It's a laughable assertion that there's anything wrong with what either of them said.

 

[fair_warning]

It's late here..I'm off to bed....argue amongst yourselves, I'll mark up in the morning.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It's a laughable assertion that there's anything wrong with what either of them said.

Scalia also asserts that the Soviet Constitution is “wonderful” but only words on paper, “just a parchment guarantee.”

The difference is, Scalia was praising a section of their written (although not practiced) protections of one of our more cherished traditional rights in its stringency while Ginsberg was praising the concept of Social Justice and the non-Libertarian style of Constitution brought about by the French Revolution.

What happened is the Left, frantic to do some damage control to their efforts to slowly subvert the US Constitution went out frantically looking for something on the right to say AHA! GOTCHA! your people hate the Constitution too, but that is demonstrably not true, to use your rather un-adult phraseology "derpish."

There is a LOT wrong in what Ginsberg said, there is nothing wrong in what Scalia said for his remarks were not to impeach the Constitution and hers were.

 

[rosco rathbone]

We're in a transitional zone. Healthcare has not been 'a right" in the past, in the future it will be seen as such. Even the libertarian paradise of Singapore maintains tight government price controls on healthcare in order to make it afforable to the populous.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

So you say. And with a specific definition of both the words "equal" and "opportunity". Others would argue otherwise.

I'd argue that equal opportunity is unattainalbe outside of a sports arena. Everyone has unequal opportunities. Either by nature (which we can not affect) or by nurture (which we can).

If you believe, for instance, that even the poor shiuld have access to some sort of basic education (Maybe by charter to private schools, instead of a public school system? I think you argued for that some time ago. Or was that someone else?) then you believe in levelling the playing field and providing more equal oppotunity by Government Interventation and application of Social Justice. Because that's what it is. The very definition of it.

So then we're just discussing what level of Government Intervention is reasonable.

"We have already established what you are, now we are merely haggling over the price"

It's a poor argument under the rubric of Life, Liberty and Property. You argument conflates outcome with opportunity by saying equality of opportunity implies an equal start and that was never implied by the Founders; no one will ever have an equal beginning, but under LIbertarian (classical Liberal) government, the rich son and the poor son have every pursuit open to them that their abilities will let them travel and there is no guarantee that just be being born rich that the road you travel will be the better one. When you begin to pave the road with Social Justice, then there is a speed limit for everybody, except the ruling Oligarchy which always follows. After all, someone has to define and protect fair, and as we see, it is a complex creature, to complex for the common man to understand...



The answer was no; it [that their drug use was currently considered an illegal act by their own 'democratic' government in Australia] didn't bother them. It doesn't really bother anyone who accepts mob rule as a desirable form of social organization. The reason is that democrats never regard existing democracy as their preferred political system — they regard it only as a transitory state to a democratic utopia in which the elected leaders will agree totally with their own values and social-political views. Mises has observed that "the critics of the capitalistic order always seem to believe that the socialistic system of their dreams will do precisely what they think correct." Hence, when people talk about the importance of democracy, it is never democracy as it has ever actually functioned, with the politicians that have actually been elected, and the policies that have actually been implemented. It is always democracy as people imagine it will operate once they succeed in electing "the right people" — by which they mean, people who agree almost completely with their own views, and who are consistent and incorruptible in their implementation of the resulting policies. This is what allows an intelligent group of people to espouse mob rule as a desirable principle, even as they simultaneously commit acts that brand them as criminals worthy of imprisonment under the very social system they maintain.
Ben O'Neill
http://mises.org/daily/5879/Worship-of-the-Mob