Discussion: Rights

[Handsome Rob]

happiness is a variable. its convenient you chose that one out of the three...

while hapiness to you may be evironmentally friendly things or facism, its not a fair comparison to say... needing emergency medical care...

for the most part lack of emergency medical care will lead to death in many cases.

not having passive solar design on your house is a bit more arbitrary and specific to the person.

Well, to be honest, I picked it because the whole green thing was the first idea to pop into my head. But . . .

Life is variable, as well. If not, then would your healthcare plan EVER draw a line at which treatment is cost-prohibitive and not worth a limited chance at success? Let's say you've got a 90-year old man who is already running up thousands of taxpayer dollars a month in treatment of his emphysema and diabetes. He's already been treated for lung cancer once, but two years later, it's come back. But, he wants to live as long as possible. So, at taxpayer expense, do you spend thousands and thousands more to treat him, when he could die from the emphysema or old age at any moment? If "life" via healthcare is a right and is not variable, then how can you draw the line?

Old age and the related problems are going to be an increasing portion of our health expenses, particularly as the boomers enter their twilight years. Will you tell any of them that they can't use every tax dollar at their disposal to extend their life as long as possible, regardless of the cost?

Oh, and one other thing: Emergency medical care is provided at every emergency room in the nation. By LAW (the law is known in its abbreviated form as EMTALA), you cannot be turned away at an ER. Period. So, emergency medical care IS available, regardless of the ability to pay. We don't need nationalized health care for that.

 

[Tron5000]

Well, to be honest, I picked it because the whole green thing was the first idea to pop into my head. But . . .

Life is variable, as well. If not, then would your healthcare plan EVER draw a line at which treatment is cost-prohibitive and not worth a limited chance at success? Let's say you've got a 90-year old man who is already running up thousands of taxpayer dollars a month in treatment of his emphysema and diabetes. He's already been treated for lung cancer once, but two years later, it's come back. But, he wants to live as long as possible. So, at taxpayer expense, do you spend thousands and thousands more to treat him, when he could die from the emphysema or old age at any moment? If "life" via healthcare is a right and is not variable, then how can you draw the line?

Old age and the related problems are going to be an increasing portion of our health expenses, particularly as the boomers enter their twilight years. Will you tell any of them that they can't use every tax dollar at their disposal to extend their life as long as possible, regardless of the cost?

Oh, and one other thing: Emergency medical care is provided at every emergency room in the nation. By LAW (the law is known in its abbreviated form as EMTALA), you cannot be turned away at an ER. Period. So, emergency medical care IS available, regardless of the ability to pay. We don't need nationalized health care for that.

Too true. No one's going to walk into an ER with a gunshot wound only to be told, "You know, we're awfully busy and you don't have coverage, so you might just wanna put a bandage and some ice on that."

 

[Handsome Rob]

I agree with Malice and Superman Beyond. Our constitutional rights are individual powers, liberties that neither the government nor any other entity recognized by the government can TAKE from you. One role of the government is to enforce our rights, which are enumerated in the bill of rights. Right to free speech, right to assembly, right to protect ourselves with a gun.....powers that we can use to operate and express ourselves in this free society of ours and to protect ourselves from being abused by a powerful government.

Healthcare doesn't count as a right because it involves redistributing wealth. Your right to own a gun or right to speak is not dependent upon my right to speak or own a gun. Your "right" to healthcare is dependent upon coercing everyone to pay a fee, tax into some system. There is no choice whether to opt in or out in universal healthcare, its simply mandated of everyone. Healthy people will have to subsidize the sick people. Rich will subsidize the poor. Anything that requires taking one thing from oen person in order to subsidize another cannot be a right, because there is no choice, no freedom in that. Furthermore, you're subjected to the will of the government. That is not a right. That should be decided by legislatures, not simply accepted as a right under any circumstances.

I'm going to have to disagree with jmanspice,...I don't think anyone should have the RIGHT to adopt. When you adopt someone, you are taken custody of someone else. That's not enumerated anywhere, and suggesting that everyone should have a right to take custody of other is dangerous in my opinion.

People confuse the definition of "rights". Rights aren't priveleges. Rights are powers you have that allows you to live and have the opportunity to pursue your dream that you work for. Rights are not laws or contracts that bind certain people to others.

I have to agree with SuBe. I could print this post out, frame it, and hang it on the wall of the Louvre.