Skip to comments.Attn Rand Paul: I Have a Right to Free Health Care And That Doesn’t Make You a Slave
Posted on 05/13/2011 4:37:13 PM PDT by Bodhi1
Rand Paul is wrong. You, Rand Paul, that punk kid down the street who plays his music too loud at night and I have a right to any kind of health care. We have a right to affordable health care, expensive health care and yes, even free health care. We even have a right to Voo Doo chiropractic therapy.
Now before you scroll down to the comment section to lambast me, or click back and forget the article entirely, I beg you to read the rest and then tell me Im wrong.
And liberals, dont get cocky, because you are dead wrong in your thinking too.
As I wrote in my article, "I Have a Right to Affordable Health Care and a Sig Sauer P229," the problem is the modern definition of what a "right" is.
(Excerpt) Read more at allamericanblogger.com ...
Rand Paul is a geek and I don’t care what any blogger thinks about it.
Rights are things that are inherent in your person. A right to anyone else’s income via an intermidiary of exchange, such as health care, is utterly non-existent as that diminishes my rights to the fruits of my labors. Ultimately, a right to health care is also your right to be shot by those who contest such nonsense.
I suspect you may receive comments from those who do not read the article.
Well then, physician, heal thyself.
Interesting, but not enough to click.
What a bunch of semantic idiocy.
I suppose it’s just desserts for the Paul family who play that semantic game all the time, but intentionally missing the point, isn’t the same as making a point.
The freedom to pick and chose services shouldn’t be mistaken with personal rights. To be willfully ignorant of what dopey Rand Paul was talking about, in forcing the health industry to provide free coverage, doesn’t help, or make one more of a Constitutionalist.
>>> Interesting, but not enough to click. >>>
Thanks for saving me the time. The libtards will do enough misinterpreting of Rand Paul’s very cogent point. The last thing we need is someone missing the point on purpose to try and, well, try whatever he was trying here.
Rand’s point is a very important one.
It stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there's someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.-Ayn Rand
You know it's sort of like your right to a jury. The government sees me as a capable juror and decides I'm worth $5 a day, and that I must show up if they tell me to, under penalty of law. Attorneys may like getting empty headed jurors, but I'm wondering what you will think about getting an empty headed doctor.
Rand Paul was exactly right in his argument. A true right to healthcare could only exist via slavery. To say that one has this right is to assume that healthcare professionals MUST be available and MUST provide the service. What would happen if no one wanted to be doctors anymore? Would we have to force them to provide our "right"? Sounds like slavery to me (and of course, no one is seriously claiming that slavery would occur - it's just taking the premise to it's logical extreme in order to test it).
You are right. Rand Paul makes a great case. Progressive income taxes is slavery. The producers become slaves of the non-producers. Probably 50% of a producer’s life it donated by force to the non-producers. Slavery in the South at it’s peak only required 38% of person’s life.
First of all the title seems to have nothing to do with the article, which is fairly typical stuff, but doesn’t address what Paul was talking about.
Paul was speaking more to what national health care is in Canada, where people have no choice but to go to a government doctor, and doctors can only work for the government. And *that* is slavery. You cannot get, or give, health care except the way government dictates, unless you flee the country.
In the English health care system, despite it being a bloated and inefficient mess, there is still a private health care system as well. If you want to pay for it, you can get it, and a doctor can provide it, legally. This is something Americans often miss. In England, their national health care is *welfare*. Yet taxpayers *must* pay this welfare, which is unfair to them.
In the US, the health care welfare that we used to have was provided by counties, and paid for by the States. It wasn’t great health care, but it did provide for the minimal health care needs of the poor. For example, if you have a bad cavity, you don’t fill it, you pull the tooth. It was a serviceable remedy.
And importantly, if you need major brain surgery that costs a lot, you are going to die, because taxpayers were only willing to pay so much to keep you alive. Sorry, but that is one of the costs you must pay to be poor. Yet, it should be noted that the public was generally willing to pay the bill, to avoid horribly diseased poor people dying in the gutter, if it didn’t cost too much to heal them.
Likewise, health charities did kick in a lot to health care for the poor.
Probably the best solution for America is to get both government and insurance companies out of the health care business as much as possible. Between those two, the amount of overhead piled on to the medical system doubles the price of care.
Yet there is a role for both. There is just no way that the typical family, even upper middle class, can deal with catastrophic illness medical bills. So if insurers and government could get together to provide reasonable catastrophic coverage, that would probably fill the largest gap that could not be dealt with by the free market.
No one has a right to health care unless THEY PAY FOR IT!
I have RIGHT to refuse paying for your free health care.
And another great point Rand made is that not only the Doctor is conscripted into service, but every single person who has any supporting role for a doctor’s practice is also conscripted.
What liberals don’t process is that if folks have a right to free health care, then that means they have a right to rob others of their ability to make a living. Rand Paul pointed this out very well.
Communism never works. Sounds good never works.
The Dems were and I guess always will be the party of slavery.
You were right.
Well of course slaves were dependent upon their owners. Anything they would get from health care to their energy usage was controlled. distributed and administrated by their owners.
This has been the history of the democrat party. They have continually sought what they view as a right. The right of their political party to own the rights of others and determine how much heathcare, energy usage, property, wages, etc.... that they get.
From the days of the Confederate democrats to the current Progressive democrats that real underlying ideology of power still exists.
Let's start with a definition:
10. Just claim; immunity; privilege. All men have a right to the secure enjoyment of life, personal safety, liberty and property. We deem the right of trial by jury invaluable, particularly in the case of crimes. Rights are natural, civil, political, religious, personal, and public.”
That's a cut and paste from Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary. Notice that there are different kinds of rights. (Natural rights would be the unalienable rights noted in the Declaration of Independence.)
As to the article:
The author writes “The Bill of Rights gives you a right to a free press, yet you still pay for a newspaper and Fox News.” The Bill of Rights states “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...” That's not about being the customer of a newspaper or Fox news. That's about publishing and broadcasting, whether or not you have any customers.
The author writes “According to the Constitution and the Framers, the government doesnt create rights.” I've read the Constitution several times and I don't recall where it says that. I haven't read everything the Framers wrote, so I can't say for sure they didn't say that, but if they did I don't know where. What the government doesn't create is natural or unalienable rights. That doesn't mean the government can't create a legal or civil right (in accordance with the will of the people of course). Think of “the right to a speedy and public trial” in the Sixth Amendment. There is no such unalienable right in nature.
I'm not going to address anything else in the article, not because there's nothing else to address, but because I think it's a mess, in spite of the author's good intentions.
Actually carried one around for a good long time too ~ provided by the government.
I'd like it back ~ and some ammo too. That stuff is ex pen sif!
No, you dont have a “right” to health care.
You have a right to seek health care.
Its up to you what type you desire. Just dont expect it from me. I got my own to take care of.
Rand Paul is the cow-chip that didn’t fall far from the cow.
What it really seems to be saying, however, is that one has an inherent right to seek free health care, and not be prevented from utilizing it, if found; not an inherent right to free treatment.
A good article except for this sentence: “Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that men were born with certain inalienable rights.”
He was wrong about that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.