"Bernie playing the emotional card again. But if you use logic, then you can only agree with Paul."
Really? Paul sits there with his salary and perks being paid for by the taxpayers (i.e. his right to be paid by the taxpayers) and claims that being forced to work for a certain aim (around 2:00) is slave-hood.
My question is:
Is this the system we want in 50 years' time, 100 years' time. Is this progress?
Surely, we want to work towards a system which will help everybody. Or are we pesimistic enough that we will have such a system forever?
What are right's? Google says conditions that can not be infringed upon, given or taken away by government or the state. Makes sense, that which is given can also be taken away. It is government sole function to safeguard our inalienable human right's not grant new one's that aid their political agenda or take away old one's that hinder said agenda. Can the government grant the right of health care without infringing or taking away other rights? If we allow government to grant right's do we not open the door for them to take away right's as well? It can be argued that government involvement in health care is the main reason it operates so poorly, that because of their involvement we are all subject to a lower standard of health care. So I say as long as a third party(government) stands in between us and our health care practitioner's we can absolutely expect a degrading system with higher cost's and lower standard's. In 50-100 years our right to health care will amount to a clerk handing us a band aid, but that right will have cost us so much more.
"inalienable human right's"
There is no such thing. Rights always need a qualification, or a comparison, if you like.
Is it your right to kill someone? No
Is it your right to kill someone if they are trying to kill you? Yes, probably.
"If we allow government to grant right's"
The government constantly grants and takes away people's rights by passing laws. There is nothing new in this.
"not grant new one's that aid their political agenda or take away old one's that hinder said agenda"
That is exactly what democracy is. Politicians tell the public what their agenda is and they vote in an election on whether they should have power to do such things.
"It can be argued that government involvement in health care is the main reason it operates so poorly"
it does , of course, depend on why types of comparisons one decides to make. From my own experience, The health care services in the UK, Austria and even Slovakia (a relatively poor country) to some extent, are not too bad. And there is always the option of private medicine. I really can't imagine a system whereby someone who needs treatment or medication is refused, and I really wouldn't like to be part of such a society. If you want a society like this in 50-100 years from now then all I can say is that we obviously have very different views on whether a society should be inclusive or not.
As a side note: If everyone was employable and employed, having only private health care would not be a problem. The fact is though that government policy and law govern how much employment there is. People are not allowed to build a hut to live in wherever they want. They can't just set up a market stall in the middle of the street, etc. These are rights which have been taken away from people through laws. People at the bottom of society have had their natural rights removed while being given little in return.
I would argue that inalienable human right's do exist, or at least did exist, and are supposed to be safeguarded by the very people who are currently in the process of figuring out how to strip us of whats left.(government)
The magna carta, constitution, charter of rights etc were laws put in place to limit governmental interference in it's citizens daily lives, and ensure their inalienable human right's were not infringed upon. They are not documents that tell us what we can and can not do they are documents meant to tell government what they can and can not do. People have seen time and time again how dangerous government can become if allowed to grow to the size they represent today. The cost of freedom is constant vigilance and I believe we the people are asleep at the wheel.
No there is obviously no law that says one human can kill another. However the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness clearly says that you can not murder me,(if you do your infringing on my right to life) and that I will defend myself with lethal force if necessary.
So does universal health care fit? I don't think it does. It can be argued that healthcare will contribute to ones happiness sure, but health care at the barrel of a gun doesn't fit the bill. If you are in need of healthcare you should be free to pursue it, that is your right. Forcing someone else to provide it goes against that person's right.
Finally you will say nurses and doctors want to provide health care to all who need and I would say, take away the financial incentive provided by government at end of a barrel, and you will see how quickly people change their mind. With out funding, people who practice health care would do so with great hardship to them selves and their families, and if they chose to do so it would be their right. We don't have health care because of government, we have healthcare in spite of government interference.
You acknowledge that government gets in the way of employment, I acknowledge government gets in the way of employment, health care, education, environment and a whole host of other public matter's they have no business sticking their noses in.
In conclusion to my rant, Is it your contention that if not for government people would not receive health care? I can say for sure that not every citizen would receive the same health care, some may get no health care some would get exceptionally good care. Is that preferable to what we have now where all but the rich receive a very low standard of health care? I think that is what this all comes down to.
You may think in the scenario I have outlined only the rich would get exceptional health care but that is not exactly true. Health care standard's would be community based. Which means that rich, middle class and poor would all benefit from a community with a high standard of health care. Rich people from communities with a poor standard would certainly travel to a community with better health care and would most likely pay a higher premium for health care to help offset health care for the poorest.
What we could achieve if government didn't divert resources from where it is most needed to where it is not needed at all has no limit's. Government imposes the limits. Restricts our right's and our freedom's and makes us believe that our neighbors are the problem.
The funny thing about Bernie supporters, they would trash all the parks and buildings surrounding his rallies. He came to the city I live in and there was trash covering the entire convention center. I thought everyone cared about the environment?
"Bernie playing the emotional card again. But if you use logic, then you can only agree with Paul."
Really? Paul sits there with his salary and perks being paid for by the taxpayers (i.e. his right to be paid by the taxpayers) and claims that being forced to work for a certain aim (around 2:00) is slave-hood.
My question is:
Is this the system we want in 50 years' time, 100 years' time. Is this progress?
Surely, we want to work towards a system which will help everybody. Or are we pesimistic enough that we will have such a system forever?
What are right's? Google says conditions that can not be infringed upon, given or taken away by government or the state. Makes sense, that which is given can also be taken away. It is government sole function to safeguard our inalienable human right's not grant new one's that aid their political agenda or take away old one's that hinder said agenda. Can the government grant the right of health care without infringing or taking away other rights? If we allow government to grant right's do we not open the door for them to take away right's as well? It can be argued that government involvement in health care is the main reason it operates so poorly, that because of their involvement we are all subject to a lower standard of health care. So I say as long as a third party(government) stands in between us and our health care practitioner's we can absolutely expect a degrading system with higher cost's and lower standard's. In 50-100 years our right to health care will amount to a clerk handing us a band aid, but that right will have cost us so much more.
"inalienable human right's"
There is no such thing. Rights always need a qualification, or a comparison, if you like.
Is it your right to kill someone? No
Is it your right to kill someone if they are trying to kill you? Yes, probably.
"If we allow government to grant right's"
The government constantly grants and takes away people's rights by passing laws. There is nothing new in this.
"not grant new one's that aid their political agenda or take away old one's that hinder said agenda"
That is exactly what democracy is. Politicians tell the public what their agenda is and they vote in an election on whether they should have power to do such things.
"It can be argued that government involvement in health care is the main reason it operates so poorly"
it does , of course, depend on why types of comparisons one decides to make. From my own experience, The health care services in the UK, Austria and even Slovakia (a relatively poor country) to some extent, are not too bad. And there is always the option of private medicine. I really can't imagine a system whereby someone who needs treatment or medication is refused, and I really wouldn't like to be part of such a society. If you want a society like this in 50-100 years from now then all I can say is that we obviously have very different views on whether a society should be inclusive or not.
As a side note: If everyone was employable and employed, having only private health care would not be a problem. The fact is though that government policy and law govern how much employment there is. People are not allowed to build a hut to live in wherever they want. They can't just set up a market stall in the middle of the street, etc. These are rights which have been taken away from people through laws. People at the bottom of society have had their natural rights removed while being given little in return.
I would argue that inalienable human right's do exist, or at least did exist, and are supposed to be safeguarded by the very people who are currently in the process of figuring out how to strip us of whats left.(government)
The magna carta, constitution, charter of rights etc were laws put in place to limit governmental interference in it's citizens daily lives, and ensure their inalienable human right's were not infringed upon. They are not documents that tell us what we can and can not do they are documents meant to tell government what they can and can not do. People have seen time and time again how dangerous government can become if allowed to grow to the size they represent today. The cost of freedom is constant vigilance and I believe we the people are asleep at the wheel.
No there is obviously no law that says one human can kill another. However the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness clearly says that you can not murder me,(if you do your infringing on my right to life) and that I will defend myself with lethal force if necessary.
So does universal health care fit? I don't think it does. It can be argued that healthcare will contribute to ones happiness sure, but health care at the barrel of a gun doesn't fit the bill. If you are in need of healthcare you should be free to pursue it, that is your right. Forcing someone else to provide it goes against that person's right.
Finally you will say nurses and doctors want to provide health care to all who need and I would say, take away the financial incentive provided by government at end of a barrel, and you will see how quickly people change their mind. With out funding, people who practice health care would do so with great hardship to them selves and their families, and if they chose to do so it would be their right. We don't have health care because of government, we have healthcare in spite of government interference.
You acknowledge that government gets in the way of employment, I acknowledge government gets in the way of employment, health care, education, environment and a whole host of other public matter's they have no business sticking their noses in.
In conclusion to my rant, Is it your contention that if not for government people would not receive health care? I can say for sure that not every citizen would receive the same health care, some may get no health care some would get exceptionally good care. Is that preferable to what we have now where all but the rich receive a very low standard of health care? I think that is what this all comes down to.
You may think in the scenario I have outlined only the rich would get exceptional health care but that is not exactly true. Health care standard's would be community based. Which means that rich, middle class and poor would all benefit from a community with a high standard of health care. Rich people from communities with a poor standard would certainly travel to a community with better health care and would most likely pay a higher premium for health care to help offset health care for the poorest.
What we could achieve if government didn't divert resources from where it is most needed to where it is not needed at all has no limit's. Government imposes the limits. Restricts our right's and our freedom's and makes us believe that our neighbors are the problem.
The funny thing about Bernie supporters, they would trash all the parks and buildings surrounding his rallies. He came to the city I live in and there was trash covering the entire convention center. I thought everyone cared about the environment?
Did you hear about this yet?
https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@floatingforest/us-senate-war-on-cryptocurrencies-bill-s-1241