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

[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.

[vrwconspiracist]

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

[Bodhi1]

You were right.

[TheBigIf]

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.

[KrisKrinkle]

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.

[muawiyah]

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!

[crz]

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.

[Let_It_Be_So]

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.

[Bullish]

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

[ApplegateRanch]

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.

[gitmo]

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.

[nc28205]

>>>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.