I delight to inform you that you do not have a right to healthcare

Do you have the right to have police rescue you if you're held at gunpoint by a robber?

Do you have the right to have the fire in your burning house put out by the fire department?

Do you have the right to have the Coast Guard rescue you if your boat sinks?

No.

No.

No.

Been on a highway lately? Where does your garbage go when you put it on the curb? Run on any public trails or tracks in your lifetime? Health, it seems, should come before any of these.

See if you can go a single day without using something that doesn't "spend someone else's money," and then you can argue. This means you have to incinerate your own trash, not drive on any roads, not use any taxed gases or electricity, etc.

Something tells me you're not a Nebraskan rancher with thousands of acres to his name and complete sustainability. Even someone like that uses many, many public service.

Just because you're used to certain things being public and certain things being private does not mean they should remain that way.

I would be willing to trade gov't sponsorted social security for gov't healthcare.

clever, never wrote:

Been on a highway lately? Where does your garbage go when you put it on the curb? Run on any public trails or tracks in your lifetime? Health, it seems, should come before any of these.

See if you can go a single day without using something that doesn't "spend someone else's money," and then you can argue. This means you have to incinerate your own trash, not drive on any roads, not use any taxed gases or electricity, etc.

Something tells me you're not a Nebraskan rancher with thousands of acres to his name and complete sustainability. Even someone like that uses many, many public service.

Just because you're used to certain things being public and certain things being private does not mean they should remain that way.

You've committed the rather insipid error of using the status quo as the standard of morality: "it is, therefore it ought to be." You could use the same reasoning to justify literally any government action. For example: "The German government murdered a million Jews last week, therefore, it is justified in murdering a million more this week." Obviously, a previous illigitimate act of government does not justify a future one.

These poor, poor right wing suckers who think they are so admirable and realistic by accepting every bit of crap the ruling class gives them.

It's fools like these that drag the rest of us down and allow the elite, greedy, psychopathic few to benefit at the extreme expense of the many.

I ask you, if there were a God, would He (She) make so many fools?

tacomafan wrote:

Do you have the right to have police rescue you if you're held at gunpoint by a robber?

Do you have the right to have the fire in your burning house put out by the fire department?

Do you have the right to have the Coast Guard rescue you if your boat sinks?

The first one at least never happens. The Supreme Court and lower courts have repeatedly ruled, in fact, that police have no duty to protect individuals. Look it up. It might also change your point of view on the value of the Second Amendment.

You actually have a point in here, but you're a poor troll so you violated Godwin's Law amost immediately. Too bad.

the sayer of so wrote:

You've committed the rather insipid error of using the status quo as the standard of morality:

He never said anything was "a standard of morality"

tacomafan wrote:

Do you have the right to have police rescue you if you're held at gunpoint by a robber?

Do you have the right to have the fire in your burning house put out by the fire department?

Do you have the right to have the Coast Guard rescue you if your boat sinks?

No, no and no.

There is a social compact that covers that however. Through paying taxes those services are provided.

Did you know that there is no law against burning down your own house--one that you own? As long as the fire does not spread you can burn it down. Now you still have to pay the note (if there is one) and you cannot file a fraudulent insurance claim.

luv2run wrote:

[

Did you know that there is no law against burning down your own house--one that you own? As long as the fire does not spread you can burn it down. Now you still have to pay the note (if there is one) and you cannot file a fraudulent insurance claim.

I have little doubt there are plenty of ordinances prohibiting such a large fire.

danno wrote:

[quote]the sayer of so wrote:

He never said anything was "a standard of morality"

If I said that you have the IQ of a fire hydrant, would you not take offense just because I didn't explicitly call you stupid?

danno wrote:

the sayer of so wrote:

You've committed the rather insipid error of using the status quo as the standard of morality:

He never said anything was "a standard of morality"

Yes. Not to mention, sayer of so, you're the one trying to keep the status quo, because health care has always been private. You're saying that, since it is private now, it always should be.

You're twisting your own argument and mine to make your ultra-conservative ideas out to be progressive. They are not progressive.

We're not talking about murdering people. We're talking about providing health care to those who can't afford it.

What do you think of the public services you use now? Do you grumble when you're on the interstate about the taxes you pay to keep it up and running?

clever, never wrote:

danno wrote:

He never said anything was "a standard of morality"

Yes. Not to mention, sayer of so, you're the one trying to keep the status quo, because health care has always been private. You're saying that, since it is private now, it always should be.

You're twisting your own argument and mine to make your ultra-conservative ideas out to be progressive. They are not progressive.

We're not talking about murdering people. We're talking about providing health care to those who can't afford it.

What do you think of the public services you use now? Do you grumble when you're on the interstate about the taxes you pay to keep it up and running?

I will go ahead and explicitly say that you have the IQ of a fire hydrant.

You'll have to explain your argument to me. You might have a point, but I don't think I get it.

If you pay a company for the garbage to be, then that's a different case.

But why don't you have the right to use a park to which you contribute maintenance costs?

Right now, health care is like a big backyard, or a country club. Only the owners and those who can afford it are allowed to use it. If we make health care like a park or public library, how are you prohibited from using it?

That last one was to luv2run, by the way.

And, sayer of so, how does that contribute to the conversation? You obviously have no retort.

What do you constitute as a right versus a protected privilege?

Jefferson wrote:

What do you constitute as a right versus a protected privilege?

A right is a concept which applies only to human action and not to material goods or services. In the simplest terms possible, one has the right to any course of action that does not violate the person or property of someone else. One has the right to keep his own property, but not to take anyone else's regardless of whether "society" votes in favor of such.

"Privilege" does not apply here. A privilege is something allowed to you by someone who doesn't have to allow it. When your parents give you money for an allowance, that's a privilege. Trading your own money for goods and services is not privilege.