Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Attn Rand Paul: I Have a Right to Free Health Care And That Doesn’t Make You a Slave
All American Blogger ^ | 5/13/11 | Duane Lester

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 I’m wrong.

And liberals, don’t 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 ...


TOPICS: Government; Health/Medicine; Society
KEYWORDS: healthcare; randpaul; rights; slavery

1 posted on 05/13/2011 4:37:17 PM PDT by Bodhi1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Bodhi1

Rand Paul is a geek and I don’t care what any blogger thinks about it.


2 posted on 05/13/2011 4:40:03 PM PDT by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bodhi1

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.


3 posted on 05/13/2011 4:42:29 PM PDT by MeganC (NO WAR FOR OIL! ........except when a Democrat's in charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bodhi1

I suspect you may receive comments from those who do not read the article.

Good post.


4 posted on 05/13/2011 4:42:54 PM PDT by Lando Lincoln (But that's just me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bodhi1
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.

Well then, physician, heal thyself.

5 posted on 05/13/2011 4:45:47 PM PDT by BufordP ("Drink me if you can't take a joke." -- Kool-aid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bodhi1

Interesting, but not enough to click.


6 posted on 05/13/2011 4:49:48 PM PDT by FourPeas ("Maladjusted and wigging out is no way to go through life, son." -hg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bodhi1

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.


7 posted on 05/13/2011 4:49:51 PM PDT by harmonium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bodhi1
Excellent Read and vid!
8 posted on 05/13/2011 4:53:55 PM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bodhi1
Great post and for sure the definition of a “right” has been grossly distorted.
9 posted on 05/13/2011 4:55:45 PM PDT by LuvFreeRepublic (Support our military or leave. I will help you pack BO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FourPeas

>>> 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.


10 posted on 05/13/2011 4:55:58 PM PDT by C. Edmund Wright (American Thinker Columnist / Rush ghost contributor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Bodhi1
No, it makes those who are required to provide that service to you a slave.

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

11 posted on 05/13/2011 5:00:28 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bodhi1
Rand Paul is absolutely right about this. If you have a right to health care that means that the government has an obligation to provide a doctor. And if they're a little short, to press people like Dr. Paul into service, sort of like the draft, even if they have plans to go on vacation.

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.

ML/NJ

12 posted on 05/13/2011 5:02:26 PM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln
I agree - good post, but I would have worded it a little differently to make the point clearer. I would say that we have a right to the pursuit of healthcare, but not a right to healthcare itself. What that means is that, just as with the right to the pursuit of happiness, government should not prevent us from seeking healthcare (or happiness), but it has no business attempting to guarantee an outcome of health or happiness. That part is up to us.

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).

13 posted on 05/13/2011 5:04:15 PM PDT by noiseman (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Bodhi1
We have a right to seek healthcare. The government should not be able to compel a doctor to provide it. If the government can compel a doctor to do so, it is not an inalienable right. Seeking and providing are different concepts.
14 posted on 05/13/2011 5:10:13 PM PDT by jtonn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

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.


15 posted on 05/13/2011 5:11:41 PM PDT by Goreknowshowtocheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Bodhi1

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.


16 posted on 05/13/2011 5:18:47 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bodhi1

No one has a right to health care unless THEY PAY FOR IT!


17 posted on 05/13/2011 5:24:51 PM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bodhi1

I have RIGHT to refuse paying for your free health care.


18 posted on 05/13/2011 5:27:51 PM PDT by Libertynotfree (Dream act, Amnesty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Goreknowshowtocheat

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.


19 posted on 05/13/2011 5:34:57 PM PDT by C. Edmund Wright (American Thinker Columnist / Rush ghost contributor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

Communism never works. Sounds good never works.


20 posted on 05/13/2011 5:39:37 PM PDT by screaminsunshine (Shut up and eat your Beans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

The Dems were and I guess always will be the party of slavery.


21 posted on 05/13/2011 6:05:47 PM PDT by vrwconspiracist (The Tax Man cometh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln

You were right.


22 posted on 05/13/2011 6:18:21 PM PDT by Bodhi1 (Homeschools for a reason.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: vrwconspiracist

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.


23 posted on 05/13/2011 6:19:33 PM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Bodhi1
Regarding rights: “Can't anybody here play this game?”

Let's start with a definition:

“RIGHT, n.

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 doesn’t 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.

24 posted on 05/13/2011 6:20:06 PM PDT by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln
I have a right to be provided a machine gun at the expense of the government.

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!

25 posted on 05/13/2011 6:20:14 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Bodhi1

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.


26 posted on 05/13/2011 6:28:21 PM PDT by crz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bodhi1
From the article: "The government has only one role when it comes to health care: protect our right to choose the best health care available."
 
The above statement from the article is correct as far as it goes.
 
From the article: "It is the government’s responsibility to keep your right to affordable health care secure. It is there to make sure nothing impedes your quest, and if something does, to utterly destroy it, then get out of your way as you go about your annual checkup."
 
The above statement from the article is incorrect in more ways than one.

27 posted on 05/13/2011 6:39:36 PM PDT by Let_It_Be_So
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bodhi1

Rand Paul is the cow-chip that didn’t fall far from the cow.


28 posted on 05/13/2011 6:41:41 PM PDT by Bullish (the golfer gets all the credit while the jet fighter pilot gets all the blame.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bodhi1
Good article.

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.

29 posted on 05/13/2011 6:59:15 PM PDT by ApplegateRanch (Islam: A Satanically Transmitted Disease spread by unprotected intimate contact with the Koranus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bodhi1

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.


30 posted on 05/13/2011 7:03:51 PM PDT by gitmo (Hatred of those who think differently is the left's unifying principle.-Ralph Peters NY Post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj; Bodhi1
>>>Rand Paul is absolutely right about this. If you have a right to health care that means that the government has an obligation to provide a doctor.

That's right. Look what they have already done with the requirement that those showing up at ERs be treated regardless of ability to pay.
31 posted on 05/13/2011 9:35:20 PM PDT by nc28205
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson