Universal Healthcare= Slavery (Libertarians Are Trolling Us)

[BigBallinStalin]

But anyway, in a technical sense, neither is a right. However, you keep insisting that owning a business, taking whatever profit you have is a "right". I say if that is a "right", then getting at least a livable wage for work is also a right.

The labor was the act of taking one's own money and investing it.

I am afraid that I will have to disagree with you regarding that being defined as "labor". I recognize that this is a rather esoteric tangent on the conversation, and what is happening there definitely is not necessarily a bad thing so please don't misunderstand...but that isn't really labor. It supports labor, and even provides for labor to happen, but it is not labor. It is financing. It is risk. It is not labor.

Ah, so financing is not labor at all. I guess financing isn't held accountable to labor laws, since financing is no longer labor.

How about accounting? Is that labor?

[Night Strike]

Should taxpayers pay the wages of policemen? Or judges to decide if their freedom of speech has been infringed?

I don't understand what this means.

As I indicated above, a right is something exercised through one's own initative and action. It is not a right to claim something from other people. One does not have the right to other people's money or property.

Payment of judges via taxation would surely constitute taking away people's money. Would you also consider that an infringement of your individual rights? You might never need a judge.

No, because the Constitution specifically says the Congress has the job to set up a court system to adjudicate disputes and be impartial if someone breaks the law. There is no clause in the Constitution saying the Congress has the power to take money away from one group of people in order to pay for the medical expenses of another group of people. Furthermore, it does not say that doctors are forced to give up their rights in order to provide medical care to other people without expecting anything in return (in this case, payment).

[Symmetry]

Should taxpayers pay the wages of policemen? Or judges to decide if their freedom of speech has been infringed?

I don't understand what this means.

As I indicated above, a right is something exercised through one's own initative and action. It is not a right to claim something from other people. One does not have the right to other people's money or property.

Payment of judges via taxation would surely constitute taking away people's money. Would you also consider that an infringement of your individual rights? You might never need a judge.

No, because the Constitution specifically says the Congress has the job to set up a court system to adjudicate disputes and be impartial if someone breaks the law. There is no clause in the Constitution saying the Congress has the power to take money away from one group of people in order to pay for the medical expenses of another group of people. Furthermore, it does not say that doctors are forced to give up their rights in order to provide medical care to other people without expecting anything in return (in this case, payment).

I've got to be honest- arguments about the US constitution kind of bore me. I can understand why some Americans are really fervent about it, and I think in general it's a good basis for law, but it has changed with circumstances in the past. Sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly. Solely basing law on a literal interpretation of it seems pretty wrong to me.

But anyway, an area that I do know well is the public health system in the UK. Unsurprisingly, doctors have not been forced to give up their rights in order to provide medical care to other people without expecting anything in return (in this case, payment).

[natty dread]

But anyway, an area that I do know well is the public health system in the UK. Unsurprisingly, doctors have not been forced to give up their rights in order to provide medical care to other people without expecting anything in return (in this case, payment).

What! Surely those poor doctors are just silenced by the oppressive communist regime of your country. After all, no freedom-loving, democratic, god-fearing country would think of something as evil as providing healthcare for all it's citizens!

[BigBallinStalin]

But anyway, an area that I do know well is the public health system in the UK. Unsurprisingly, doctors have not been forced to give up their rights in order to provide medical care to other people without expecting anything in return (in this case, payment).

What! Surely those poor doctors are just silenced by the oppressive communist regime of your country. After all, no freedom-loving, democratic, god-fearing country would think of something as evil as providing healthcare for all it's citizens!

It depends on how that healthcare is provided.

[InkL0sed]

I've got to be honest- arguments about the US constitution kind of bore me. I can understand why some Americans are really fervent about it, and I think in general it's a good basis for law, but it has changed with circumstances in the past. Sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly. Solely basing law on a literal interpretation of it seems pretty wrong to me.

I have to agree. Even in the US, it seems to me the argument should start with what should be the case, and to then attempt to change the law however possible. The Constitution can and should be amended if necessary.

A lot of Americans seem to think that if something is unconstitutional, it is automatically wrong. I think a lot of Americans confused the Constitution with the Bible.

[Night Strike]

I've got to be honest- arguments about the US constitution kind of bore me. I can understand why some Americans are really fervent about it, and I think in general it's a good basis for law, but it has changed with circumstances in the past. Sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly. Solely basing law on a literal interpretation of it seems pretty wrong to me.

But anyway, an area that I do know well is the public health system in the UK. Unsurprisingly, doctors have not been forced to give up their rights in order to provide medical care to other people without expecting anything in return (in this case, payment).

I'm sorry they bore you, but the Constitution should always be the basis of what the federal government can or cannot do. The federal government is not allowed to force universal health care on its citizens, so if you want that system of health care, you must amend the Constitution. It's quite simple yet frequently ignored in this era of ever-expanding government powers.

[thegreekdog]

I'm sure there is a term for it (I'm not sure if that term is straw man), but you are all arguing different things. And by "all" I mean everyone except Symmetry and me.

Here's what I'm arguing - healthcare is not a right.

Here's what the rest of you are arguing - Universal healthcare is good/bad. Everyone/no one should get free healthcare.

I'm pointing out that calling healthcare a right gives it more credence than saying that healthcare is something you want. Because I think healthcare is not a right, I think it's a ridiculous proposition to use the word "right" in the context of describing access to healthcare. I've illustrated this difference in the context of education. So, if you want to discuss with Night Strike the benefits or detriments of universal healthcare, please continue. Alternatively, if you want to discuss whether healthcare is a right or not, please join me, Rand Paul and Symmetry.

I've got to be honest- arguments about the US constitution kind of bore me. I can understand why some Americans are really fervent about it, and I think in general it's a good basis for law, but it has changed with circumstances in the past. Sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly. Solely basing law on a literal interpretation of it seems pretty wrong to me.

As Ink suggested, there are ways to change the Constitution. The first way is to adjudicate the issue before the Supreme Court who will "interpret the Constitution" to mean whatever public policy item they find convenient. And by "interpret" I mean the Supreme Court will make law, which they aren't supposed to do. The second way is to amend the Constitution. We don't do this anymore because the Supreme Court takes care of amending the Constitution for us. A literal interpretation of the Constitution seems pretty right to me. That was the point of the document after all.

Payment of judges via taxation would surely constitute taking away people's money. Would you also consider that an infringement of your individual rights? You might never need a judge.

I'm still not certain I understand the question. Are you referring to the right to a speedy trial and a fair adjudication? You might want to go for the right to an attorney, that might work better for what you're attempting to argue. I think what you're attempting to say is that if one has the right to an attorney that is provided for him/her by the government, aren't we taking tax dollars to pay that attorney? Why yes, yes we are. But that's not what the Constitution is referring to. What the Constitution is referring to is the idea that if you want representation in court you cannot be denied such representation.

[Phatscotty]

They do? That's news to me. Explain to me how Canada, the UK, and Germany, as examples, treat healthcare as a right. Is it because they have nationalized healthcare? That doesn't make healthcare a right.

In my country, healthcare is considered a basic right, everyone has the right to receive medical treatment, regardless of their ability to pay for it.

My country has yet to face doom & destruction because of it. Go figure.

Interesting how long ago it would have been doomed (or if it was even possible in the first place) if you did not border the USA.....

[Phatscotty]

Something can not be a right if it infringes on other peoples rights to make it a right.

[Phatscotty]

I have a right to Freedomly participate in a market economy, and you can not take that away.

Edited for accuracy. You can not claim that being a slave to an economic system is freedom, you can freely participate within it, but that isn't what I would call freedom (meanwhile, enjoy your priviliged position -not everyone can be so lucky)

It's not luck, its....
FREEDOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

[PLAYER57832]

I'm sure there is a term for it (I'm not sure if that term is straw man), but you are all arguing different things. And by "all" I mean everyone except Symmetry and me.

Here's what I'm arguing - healthcare is not a right.

No, I argue that basic healthcare is a basic human right.

Here's what the rest of you are arguing - Universal healthcare is good/bad. Everyone/no one should get free healthcare.

Universal healthcare is not free healthcare, even though it might be free to a few people. Important distinction you like to avoid.
In fact, the only one talking about "free" healthcare is you and Ron Paul.

And... we already offer free healthcare to the deadbeats and prisoners. Its working adults on low wages that don't get it through work and cannot afford to buy it on their own who have to go without.

I'm pointing out that calling healthcare a right gives it more credence than saying that healthcare is something you want.

Yes.

Because I think healthcare is not a right, I think it's a ridiculous proposition to use the word "right" in the context of describing access to healthcare.

Most of us think the idea that its OK to live in a country with one of the most advanced medical systems on earth and yet claim its OK for working people to have to risk losing their housing , every penny of savings, etc because they get sick.

I've illustrated this difference in the context of education.

Except, we understand, and did understand from your first post. We just disagree, firmly.

[PLAYER57832]

Something can not be a right if it infringes on other peoples rights to make it a right.

Then you might as well commit suicide, becuase the very act of breathing, living in your house, etc, etc, etc, means you take those options from others.

In the real world, Phattscotty, almost everything you do impacts other people. Even so, we define those things necessary for life as rights. In the US, we define those things that allow people to pursue their dreams as rights also, but defining those has always been tricky.

[Phatscotty]

Something can not be a right if it infringes on other peoples rights to make it a right.

Then you might as well commit suicide, becuase the very act of breathing, living in your house, etc, etc, etc, means you take those options from others.

In the real world, Phattscotty, almost everything you do impacts other people. Even so, we define those things necessary for life as rights. In the US, we define those things that allow people to pursue their dreams as rights also, but defining those has always been tricky.

Fortunately, I do not live my life according to your obtuse opinions.

There is a difference between "impacting" and "infringing" ya stick.

Do not reply

[Night Strike]

Something can not be a right if it infringes on other peoples rights to make it a right.

Then you might as well commit suicide, becuase the very act of breathing, living in your house, etc, etc, etc, means you take those options from others.

So because I breathe, it means no one else has the right to breathe??

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[thegreekdog]

I'm sure there is a term for it (I'm not sure if that term is straw man), but you are all arguing different things. And by "all" I mean everyone except Symmetry and me.

Here's what I'm arguing - healthcare is not a right.

No, I argue that basic healthcare is a basic human right.

Here's what the rest of you are arguing - Universal healthcare is good/bad. Everyone/no one should get free healthcare.

Universal healthcare is not free healthcare, even though it might be free to a few people. Important distinction you like to avoid.
In fact, the only one talking about "free" healthcare is you and Ron Paul.

And... we already offer free healthcare to the deadbeats and prisoners. Its working adults on low wages that don't get it through work and cannot afford to buy it on their own who have to go without.

I'm pointing out that calling healthcare a right gives it more credence than saying that healthcare is something you want.

Yes.

Because I think healthcare is not a right, I think it's a ridiculous proposition to use the word "right" in the context of describing access to healthcare.

Most of us think the idea that its OK to live in a country with one of the most advanced medical systems on earth and yet claim its OK for working people to have to risk losing their housing , every penny of savings, etc because they get sick.

I've illustrated this difference in the context of education.

Except, we understand, and did understand from your first post. We just disagree, firmly.

Okay, Player... I understand your point of view. Everyone should have access to healthcare. I'm not arguing that point. I'm arguing whether it's appropriate that the reason everyone should have access to healthcare is because it's a right. It's inappropriate because healthcare is not a right. It's not a right because you have to take from other people to give that right to someone.

[Woodruff]

But anyway, in a technical sense, neither is a right. However, you keep insisting that owning a business, taking whatever profit you have is a "right". I say if that is a "right", then getting at least a livable wage for work is also a right.

The labor was the act of taking one's own money and investing it.

I am afraid that I will have to disagree with you regarding that being defined as "labor". I recognize that this is a rather esoteric tangent on the conversation, and what is happening there definitely is not necessarily a bad thing so please don't misunderstand...but that isn't really labor. It supports labor, and even provides for labor to happen, but it is not labor. It is financing. It is risk. It is not labor.

Ah, so financing is not labor at all.

It's a paper trail. Nothing is produced. As I said, it is risk and therefore there should be some form of recompense expected for it. But it is not labor.

[thegreekdog]

But anyway, in a technical sense, neither is a right. However, you keep insisting that owning a business, taking whatever profit you have is a "right". I say if that is a "right", then getting at least a livable wage for work is also a right.

The labor was the act of taking one's own money and investing it.

I am afraid that I will have to disagree with you regarding that being defined as "labor". I recognize that this is a rather esoteric tangent on the conversation, and what is happening there definitely is not necessarily a bad thing so please don't misunderstand...but that isn't really labor. It supports labor, and even provides for labor to happen, but it is not labor. It is financing. It is risk. It is not labor.

Ah, so financing is not labor at all.

It's a paper trail. Nothing is produced. As I said, it is risk and therefore there should be some form of recompense expected for it. But it is not labor.

Uh oh. My friend Steve is going to be pissed to hear his 100 hours a week at work is not labor.

[PLAYER57832]

A lot of Americans seem to think that if something is unconstitutional, it is automatically wrong. I think a lot of Americans confused the Constitution with the Bible.

True.

[Woodruff]

The labor was the act of taking one's own money and investing it.

I am afraid that I will have to disagree with you regarding that being defined as "labor". I recognize that this is a rather esoteric tangent on the conversation, and what is happening there definitely is not necessarily a bad thing so please don't misunderstand...but that isn't really labor. It supports labor, and even provides for labor to happen, but it is not labor. It is financing. It is risk. It is not labor.

Ah, so financing is not labor at all.

It's a paper trail. Nothing is produced. As I said, it is risk and therefore there should be some form of recompense expected for it. But it is not labor.

Uh oh. My friend Steve is going to be pissed to hear his 100 hours a week at work is not labor.

All your friend Steve does is spend money for 100 hours per week? Because that's all investing is. I'm not talking about accounting procedures. And I'm not talking about things not being important or even more important than "labor". But financing something is not contributing labor to that something. It is providing other things, like risk reduction.

[thegreekdog]

All your friend Steve does is spend money for 100 hours per week? Because that's all investing is. I'm not talking about accounting procedures. And I'm not talking about things not being important or even more important than "labor". But financing something is not contributing labor to that something. It is providing other things, like risk reduction.

He works with his clients in order to properly (hopefully) invest their money in various instruments. He is paid hansomely for his work, although he works a lot of hours.

I just used the word "work" three times in two sentences to describe my friend's job.

Just out of curiousity - is teaching considering labor? What about accounting? Lawyering?

[Phatscotty]

oh shit.....there goes the planet

[Woodruff]

All your friend Steve does is spend money for 100 hours per week? Because that's all investing is. I'm not talking about accounting procedures. And I'm not talking about things not being important or even more important than "labor". But financing something is not contributing labor to that something. It is providing other things, like risk reduction.

He works with his clients in order to properly (hopefully) invest their money in various instruments. He is paid hansomely for his work, although he works a lot of hours.

Then HE WORKS. The act of investment (the transfer of funds) is not work. It just isn't. It is other good things, but it is not work. This really isn't a difficult concept.

[PLAYER57832]

I've got to be honest- arguments about the US constitution kind of bore me. I can understand why some Americans are really fervent about it, and I think in general it's a good basis for law, but it has changed with circumstances in the past. Sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly. Solely basing law on a literal interpretation of it seems pretty wrong to me.

But anyway, an area that I do know well is the public health system in the UK. Unsurprisingly, doctors have not been forced to give up their rights in order to provide medical care to other people without expecting anything in return (in this case, payment).

I'm sorry they bore you, but the Constitution should always be the basis of what the federal government can or cannot do. The federal government is not allowed to force universal health care on its citizens, so if you want that system of health care, you must amend the Constitution. It's quite simple yet frequently ignored in this era of ever-expanding government powers.

The federal government is allowed to do what is necessary for the health and safety of the people, which can include healthcare. Its actually a right that has been affirmed in the courts, in the context of everything from imposing quarantines to mandatory vaccinations.

However, given that the courts are not bought and sold by the right wing, that view is likely to change, but don't mistake that for any return to what the original forefathers intended.

[thegreekdog]

All your friend Steve does is spend money for 100 hours per week? Because that's all investing is. I'm not talking about accounting procedures. And I'm not talking about things not being important or even more important than "labor". But financing something is not contributing labor to that something. It is providing other things, like risk reduction.

He works with his clients in order to properly (hopefully) invest their money in various instruments. He is paid hansomely for his work, although he works a lot of hours.

Then HE WORKS. The act of investment (the transfer of funds) is not work. It just isn't. It is other good things, but it is not work. This really isn't a difficult concept.

Okay, the actual transfer of the funds is not work. He doesn't do that. Computers do that. Well, maybe he pushes a button on the computer, I honestly don't know. Maybe his clients push buttons on their computers (or write letters or whatever).

Maybe I'm not understanding your point. Are you saying the investors themselves aren't working? Because I might agree with that (I haven't decided how I want to argue about it yet). If you're saying investment bankers don't work, I have to continue to vehemently disagree with you. Because, really, attorneys, accountants, McDonald's employees, etc. aren't working either.