To be honest inalienable rights are intangible. So, if you take aces example, the RIGHT should be that one has a right to defend oneself. There shouldn't be a RIGHT to bear arms.

 

Extending based upon that example, one should have the right to health. The instrument to protect that is equal access to quality, affordable healthcare. Thus, if the right to own a gun is the amendment to ensure the inalienable right to defend oneself, then the right to quality, affordable healthcare should be the amendment added to achieve health

They have the right to buy healthcare. Who's stopping anyone? See, this is where Obamacare is a farce to me, the affordability part, it does nothing to make it more affordable for the average Joe.

I find it odd that the conservatives do not view health care as a "right" but they support all the "right to work" bills.

 

Why do you find it odd that conservatives support "right to work" legislation?

Mandating one to provide something for another is grossly abusing the idea of rights. Sure, you have a right to take care of yourself. In other words no one can make you drink all soft drinks, sit on the couch all day and eat potato chips or smoke so many packs of cigarettes. You are free to take care of yourself and no law can be put on you that mandates bad health. HOWEVER, forcing another person or party to provide something for you is not included in rights. It is more like communism.

I think there is some twisted logic there.

 

On the other hand, if you are accused of committing a crime, you will have an attorney appointed if you can't afford one, however, if you are sick (but have done nothing wrong) you will not have a doctor appointed. Logic seems fairly poor there as well.

Then according to your logic should the government supply guns to those who can't afford them??

I think there is some twisted logic there.

 

On the other hand, if you are accused of committing a crime, you will have an attorney appointed if you can't afford one, however, if you are sick (but have done nothing wrong) you will not have a doctor appointed. Logic seems fairly poor there as well.

You actually make a pretty good point however our criminal justice system is government created. Therefore the attonery has to be appointed if you can't afford one.

Exactly my point they have the right to associate with that job or not. No one is forcing them to take that job.

 

Just like no one should have a right to health care, no one should have a right to work. Conservatives also tend to be against smoking bans in private businesses/ restaurants. Their logic is that if you do not want to want to work or shop where smoking is permitted, then don't apply or patronize that establishment. But that logic is not applied to right to work.

 

Right to work is REENFORCING the basic and fundamental right of freedom of association. When a third party (a union) is required to hold a job then the fundemental freedom of two individuals or entities transacting is disrupted.

 

Lack of right to work laws allows unions to act against fundamental rights.

I am fine with hearing one's argument that healthcare is not a right if the system from simple doctor visits to going to the pharmacy were not so corrupt and overly expensive.

 

I have always struggled wrapping my head around a John Q type situation and believing that health care shouldn't be a right. If that was your kid, could you accept saying, "well, since we do not have the funds to cover this procedure, tough luck for us." If you are a working family that brings in a lower income, should your child be granted the same health care as the child of a millionaire? Simple yes or no question.

 

On the flip side, there is still corruption in the government provided systems.

I am fine with hearing one's argument that healthcare is not a right if the system from simple doctor visits to going to the pharmacy were not so corrupt and overly expensive.

 

I have always struggled wrapping my head around a John Q type situation and believing that health care shouldn't be a right. If that was your kid, could you accept saying, "well, since we do not have the funds to cover this procedure, tough luck for us." If you are a working family that brings in a lower income, should your child be granted the same health care as the child of a millionaire? Simple yes or no question.

 

On the flip side, there is still corruption in the government provided systems.

 

The John Q issue is a very valid one.

 

Due to Sarbanes-Oxley companies now must carefully guard against 'unlimited' or 'unfunded' liabilities - at least formally. This is why after SOX was passed the $1M limit on insurance became standard. It caps the liability and makes the accountant's happy. I do know of a situation were a child of company funded insurance plan had recurring brain cancer. The comment from the father was was - "I stopped counting at $2M". Would they cut off the treatment in today's world? Hard to say.

 

I believe that government can do something that standard business can not do - that is being insurer of last resort. For high-cost catastrophic life saving care may that should be medicare-ized.

 

Access to life saving procedures should not be a matter of having or not having specific private insurance and for very high cost items no company could reasonably cover all of us - especially in the post-SOX world.

Right to bear arms requires nothing from a second party. It does not force anyone to give me the arms.

Unless you have one pointed at them.

Time for a paradigm shift. Regardless of the philosophical debate on whether everyone has a right to healthcare, in practice they do. No one is denied health care if they are in serious need of it. So debate all you want but everyone does get healthcare and we are already paying for it.

 

Those people who do not have health insurance, you and I who do have insurance are paying for their health care. The cost is all in the system already. People complain about Obamacare being a government takeover of health care - well, the fact is more than 50% of the cost of health care in this nation before Obamacare is in government provided insurance and services. Who is paying for that? ...you and I who have health insurance and pay taxes. The mandatory coverage provision of Obamacare will get rid of the free loaders and help us pay for health care that everyone is already getting whether you want to call it a right or not.

Time for a paradigm shift. Regardless of the philosophical debate on whether everyone has a right to healthcare, in practice they do. No one is denied health care if they are in serious need of it. So debate all you want but everyone does get healthcare and we are already paying for it.

 

Those people who do not have health insurance, you and I who do have insurance are paying for their health care. The cost is all in the system already. People complain about Obamacare being a government takeover of health care - well, the fact is more than 50% of the cost of health care in this nation before Obamacare is in government provided insurance and services. Who is paying for that? ...you and I who have health insurance and pay taxes. The mandatory coverage provision of Obamacare will get rid of the free loaders and help us pay for health care that everyone is already getting whether you want to call it a right or not.

 

Agree with you totally until your last sentence......the freeloaders are not going to start paying whether it is mandated or not. Just like having auto insurance is a law in Kentucky-there are about 5% of the folks driving around without it. It doesn't stop them and then we all have to pay more for our auto insurance for uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage in case one of them hits us and doesn't carry enough insurance or any at all. I'm sick of paying for those that can't. If they have an accident without having insurance and cause harm to others make the penalty severe enough that they will never do it again. As for health insurance, if they can't pay, they don't get the same care-tough crap.

 

If I can't afford a Lexus, should I be able to get one anyway and not pay? Absolutely not. Same theory.

^ True, there will still be some as there are always going to be loopholes and people who will abuse the system. But there will be more people paying and more dollars going into the system.

^ True, there will still be some as there are always going to be loopholes and people who will abuse the system. But there will be more people paying and more dollars going into the system.

 

I know you always say that and I think that is the great Trojan Horse. That is a way to sell the plan, but those that can't afford to pay now for healthcare aren't going to pay for it tomorrow. They are in "the system" and they ain't coming out...

But there will be more payers. There are people who can't get insurance that will now be paying in. There are some who will follow the rules and will start paying.