Go Back   WAHM Forums - WAHM.com >

Welcome to the WAHM Forums - WAHM.com.

Welcome to WAHM Forums

Already registered? Login above 

OR

To take advantage of all the site's features, become a member of the largest community of Work-At-Home Moms.

The advertising to the left will not show if you are a registered user.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 08-14-2009, 07:03 PM
kamie3535's Avatar
WAHM Master
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 7,231
Default Is health care a right?

If it is a right, defined by any definition of the word "right" then it is not up to the government to deny the right. Right?

Lets look at the definition of rights. right - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Quote:
1 : qualities (as adherence to duty or obedience to lawful authority) that together constitute the ideal of moral propriety or merit moral approval
2 : something to which one has a just claim: as a : the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled <voting rights> <his right to decide> b (1) : the interest that one has in a piece of property —often used in plural <mineral rights> (2) plural : the property interest possessed under law or custom and agreement in an intangible thing especially of a literary and artistic nature <film rights of the novel>
3 : something that one may properly claim as due <knowing the truth is her right>
Okay, the Declaration of Independence , (pesky little thing) not to be confused with the most brilliant document ever written, the Constitution said the we where endowed by our creator with certain "INALIENABLE" rights.

Inalienable in the dictionary says.

Quote:
incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another; "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"
The three inalienable rights we have as Americans (don't really give a flying crap about the EU or Asia, thanks Yulia) are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Now, health care!

A Right to Health Care? | Cato @ Liberty

Quote:
If there is a right to health care, someone has the duty to provide it. Inevitably, that “someone” is the government. Concrete benefits in pursuance of abstract rights, however, can be provided by the government only by constant coercion.

People sometimes argue in favor of a universal human right to health care by saying that health care is different from all other human goods or products. It is supposedly an important precondition of life itself. This is wrong: There are several other, much more important preconditions of human existence, such as food, shelter and clothing.

Everyone agrees that hunger is a bad thing (as is overeating), but few suppose there is a right to a healthy, balanced diet, or that if there was, the federal government would be the best at providing and distributing it to each and every American.

Where does the right to health care come from? Did it exist in, say, 250 B.C., or in A.D. 1750? If it did, how was it that our ancestors, who were no less intelligent than we, failed completely to notice it?

Americans have a right to seek medical treatment of whatever kind they wish and to make treatment choices for themselves. Good and generous people should help ensure that their less fortunate neighbors receive necessary medical care. But no one has a “right” to force unspecified people to provide them with unspecified care. Even if they did, they wouldn’t want to rely on the government to filfull that right.
IS HEALTHCARE A RIGHT? - Nealz Nuze on boortz.com
Quote:
Look ... it's this simple. In order for you to receive health care someone else has to either expend time or property. To claim a "right" to health care is to claim a "right" to someone else's time .. that is, a right to a portion of their life: whatever portion of their life it takes for them to either render the health service or produce the medical implement or drug that is being used. Hate to break this to you ... but who in the hell do you think you are to claim a portion of someone else's life as YOURS?
Health Care Is Not a Right

Quote:
Most people who oppose socialized medicine do so on the grounds that it is moral and well-intentioned, but impractical; i.e., it is a noble idea—which just somehow does not work. I do not agree that socialized medicine is moral and well-intentioned, but impractical. Of course, it is impractical—it does not work—but I hold that it is impractical because it is immoral. This is not a case of noble in theory but a failure in practice; it is a case of vicious in theory and therefore a disaster in practice. So I'm going to leave it to other speakers to concentrate on the practical flaws in the Clinton health plan. I want to focus on the moral issue at stake. So long as people believe that socialized medicine is a noble plan, there is no way to fight it. You cannot stop a noble plan—not if it really is noble. The only way you can defeat it is to unmask it—to show that it is the very opposite of noble. Then at least you have a fighting chance.

What is morality in this context? The American concept of it is officially stated in the Declaration of Independence. It upholds man's unalienable, individual rights. The term "rights," note, is a moral (not just a political) term; it tells us that a certain course of behavior is right, sanctioned, proper, a prerogative to be respected by others, not interfered with—and that anyone who violates a man's rights is: wrong, morally wrong, unsanctioned, evil.

Now our only rights, the American viewpoint continues, are the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. That's all. According to the Founding Fathers, we are not born with a right to a trip to Disneyland, or a meal at Mcdonald's, or a kidney dialysis (nor with the 18th-century equivalent of these things). We have certain specific rights—and only these.

Why only these? Observe that all legitimate rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people. The American rights impose no obligations on other people, merely the negative obligation to leave you alone. The system guarantees you the chance to work for what you want—not to be given it without effort by somebody else.

The right to life, e.g., does not mean that your neighbors have to feed and clothe you; it means you have the right to earn your food and clothes yourself, if necessary by a hard struggle, and that no one can forcibly stop your struggle for these things or steal them from you if and when you have achieved them. In other words: you have the right to act, and to keep the results of your actions, the products you make, to keep them or to trade them with others, if you wish. But you have no right to the actions or products of others, except on terms to which they voluntarily agree.

To take one more example: the right to the pursuit of happiness is precisely that: the right to the pursuit—to a certain type of action on your part and its result—not to any guarantee that other people will make you happy or even try to do so. Otherwise, there would be no liberty in the country: if your mere desire for something, anything, imposes a duty on other people to satisfy you, then they have no choice in their lives, no say in what they do, they have no liberty, they cannot pursue their happiness. Your "right" to happiness at their expense means that they become rightless serfs, i.e., your slaves. Your right to anything at others' expense means that they become rightless.

That is why the U.S. system defines rights as it does, strictly as the rights to action. This was the approach that made the U.S. the first truly free country in all world history—and, soon afterwards, as a result, the greatest country in history, the richest and the most powerful. It became the most powerful because its view of rights made it the most moral. It was the country of individualism and personal independence.

Today, however, we are seeing the rise of principled immorality in this country. We are seeing a total abandonment by the intellectuals and the politicians of the moral principles on which the U.S. was founded. We are seeing the complete destruction of the concept of rights. The original American idea has been virtually wiped out, ignored as if it had never existed. The rule now is for politicians to ignore and violate men's actual rights, while arguing about a whole list of rights never dreamed of in this country's founding documents—rights which require no earning, no effort, no action at all on the part of the recipient.

You are entitled to something, the politicians say, simply because it exists and you want or need it—period. You are entitled to be given it by the government. Where does the government get it from? What does the government have to do to private citizens—to their individual rights—to their real rights—in order to carry out the promise of showering free services on the people?

The answers are obvious. The newfangled rights wipe out real rights—and turn the people who actually create the goods and services involved into servants of the state. The Russians tried this exact system for many decades. Unfortunately, we have not learned from their experience. Yet the meaning of socialism (this is the right name for Clinton's medical plan) is clearly evident in any field at all—you don't need to think of health care as a special case; it is just as apparent if the government were to proclaim a universal right to food, or to a vacation, or to a haircut. I mean: a right in the new sense: not that you are free to earn these things by your own effort and trade, but that you have a moral claim to be given these things free of charge, with no action on your part, simply as handouts from a benevolent government.

Under the American system you have a right to health care if you can pay for it, i.e., if you can earn it by your own action and effort. But nobody has the right to the services of any professional individual or group simply because he wants them and desperately needs them.

You have a right to work, not to rob others of the fruits of their work, not to turn others into sacrificial, rightless animals laboring to fulfill your needs.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 08-15-2009, 06:39 AM
adbullock's Avatar
WAHM Addict
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 3,297
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kamie3535 View Post

Quote:
Look ... it's this simple. In order for you to receive health care someone else has to either expend time or property. To claim a "right" to health care is to claim a "right" to someone else's time .. that is, a right to a portion of their life: whatever portion of their life it takes for them to either render the health service or produce the medical implement or drug that is being used. Hate to break this to you ... but who in the hell do you think you are to claim a portion of someone else's life as YOURS?


IS HEALTHCARE A RIGHT? - Nealz Nuze on boortz.com
That quote I really like. How can it be your right to demand something that someone else must give? Not only give but devote a lot of time studying, learning, and devoted to the practice of. And the President is leading us all to believe that those who expect payment for their time are evil. If it wasn't so frightening it would be laughable.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 08-15-2009, 08:43 AM
Bailey4's Avatar
WAHM Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 5,488
Default

Who among those who are claiming it as a right are willing to work for nothing? There is a huge difference between donating your time and expecting to work for less than your services are worth. I don't know anyone who loves when they are offered less than the going rate for their services. How many of us rejoice when we hear we are getting a pay cut and expected to do more with less?

Why is it evil to want to be paid for the work that people want you to do? It isn't as if there is a shortage of people requesting health care. So why should they be upset that wanting something means someone wants to be paid in return. Do they expect that when they work they should not be paid because the person feels "entitled" to their services?
Reply With Quote
 
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off