I absolutely adore Thomases Paine & Jefferson. Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin are my two favorite founders ^_^* I visited Monticello when I was younger (my older brother that graduated from West Point went on to grad school at UVA). It's beautiful. The Gospel of Thomas is one of my favorites also.
your healthcare points are valid and reasonable, and the only thing I (very respectfully) disagree with is people having a right to healthcare--but then, that's what makes us different :) If everyone has a right to live, then to me it stands to reason that everyone has a right to care for that life. There are many rights that must be given--the right to vote, for instance. If people didn't have rights that had to be given, then what was the Civil Rights movement about? Ah, just my POV of course, I'm not wishing an argument or anything of that sort. ^_^*
If there was ever a case of a legimitate use of the "promote the general welfare" clause, it would be to try and provide healthcare to citizens. At least to children and the needy, right
( ... )
The problem I see with a two-tiered (public + private) system is that with a private system available, people with power have no incentive to ensure that the public system is funded adequately. However, I do think that if a single-payer public system cannot provide adequate care in a specific situation, the person should have the right to legally force the government to pay for whatever care is necessary when it is necessary even if that involves spending more money or jumping queues.
The problem I see with a two-tiered (public + private) system is that with a private system available, people with power have no incentive to ensure that the public system is funded adequately.
Yeah, that's a legitimate point...if a system that's supposed to cater to the masses is going to work, it's going to be because the masses demand that it work. I don't really see any way around that one.
However, I do think that if a single-payer public system cannot provide adequate care in a specific situation, the person should have the right to legally force the government to pay for whatever care is necessary when it is necessary even if that involves spending more money or jumping queues.I'm afraid I have to disagree...because I don't see how you can "force" the government to pay for anything, necessarily. If people could simply demand "I need this, so pay for it" the government would have to spend approximately a hojillion dollars. I'm afraid that's simply not going to happen, so I'm not going to try to design a system that tries to
( ... )
All right, let's a have a little digression about the nature of rights. :)
I believe that rights are inherent; you are born with them, no one needs to (or is capable of) giving them to you. Your rights are primarily the right for people not to interfere with you...your rights and freedoms are about what people CAN'T do to you or prevent you from doing. I don't think rights are things that are given to you...and shouldn't be; anything that can be given, can be taken away. If it has to be given to you, it wasn't yours in the first place.
Now, your rights (even your so-called) inalienable rights, can be denied to you. When I talk about human rights or natural rights or constitutional rights, I mean those things that no one has a right to take from you. I can certainly be deprived of life, liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of arms, etc etc...millions of people are every day. But stating that these things are basic human rights is saying that depriving people of these things is wrongIf rights are inherent and God-given (as I
( ... )
Comments 4
your healthcare points are valid and reasonable, and the only thing I (very respectfully) disagree with is people having a right to healthcare--but then, that's what makes us different :) If everyone has a right to live, then to me it stands to reason that everyone has a right to care for that life. There are many rights that must be given--the right to vote, for instance. If people didn't have rights that had to be given, then what was the Civil Rights movement about? Ah, just my POV of course, I'm not wishing an argument or anything of that sort. ^_^*
If there was ever a case of a legimitate use of the "promote the general welfare" clause, it would be to try and provide healthcare to citizens. At least to children and the needy, right ( ... )
Reply
The problem I see with a two-tiered (public + private) system is that with a private system available, people with power have no incentive to ensure that the public system is funded adequately. However, I do think that if a single-payer public system cannot provide adequate care in a specific situation, the person should have the right to legally force the government to pay for whatever care is necessary when it is necessary even if that involves spending more money or jumping queues.
Reply
Yeah, that's a legitimate point...if a system that's supposed to cater to the masses is going to work, it's going to be because the masses demand that it work. I don't really see any way around that one.
However, I do think that if a single-payer public system cannot provide adequate care in a specific situation, the person should have the right to legally force the government to pay for whatever care is necessary when it is necessary even if that involves spending more money or jumping queues.I'm afraid I have to disagree...because I don't see how you can "force" the government to pay for anything, necessarily. If people could simply demand "I need this, so pay for it" the government would have to spend approximately a hojillion dollars. I'm afraid that's simply not going to happen, so I'm not going to try to design a system that tries to ( ... )
Reply
I believe that rights are inherent; you are born with them, no one needs to (or is capable of) giving them to you. Your rights are primarily the right for people not to interfere with you...your rights and freedoms are about what people CAN'T do to you or prevent you from doing. I don't think rights are things that are given to you...and shouldn't be; anything that can be given, can be taken away. If it has to be given to you, it wasn't yours in the first place.
Now, your rights (even your so-called) inalienable rights, can be denied to you. When I talk about human rights or natural rights or constitutional rights, I mean those things that no one has a right to take from you. I can certainly be deprived of life, liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of arms, etc etc...millions of people are every day. But stating that these things are basic human rights is saying that depriving people of these things is wrongIf rights are inherent and God-given (as I ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment