Skip to comments.Nationalized healthcare ZOT!
Posted on 12/17/2010 7:18:44 PM PST by B_Simons
click here to read article
Whose right is health care? Do you think it's yours?
Congressman Anthony Weiner has said that health care is not a commodity. If it isn't a commodity then do doctors and nurses have rights? Assigning health care the status of a right makes health care workers slaves to that right who must serve it. On what ground could a health care worker refuse to provide their products and services since that would violate the patient's "basic human right to health care."
That is a direct loss of individual rights for health care providers. The collective right of the people to receive health care would supersede the provider's individual right to set fees and hours or to change their occupational status or even decide how to apply their skills and knowledge if taken to its logical extreme. A collective right, by practical definition, is a state right because it is a right that is created and given by the government to those it chooses to give it to. It is not a natural right possessed by each person protected by the Constitution from the government. It is also a collective/state right by virtue of the fact that it would supersede individual rights when the two come into conflict. How else would the government view a right that it created and administers vs. one it has no control over?
Of course it isn't stated in any bill that a patient's right to care supersedes a provider's right to set fees and hours etc, but it doesn't need to. Rights, as always, are adjudicated in the courts. The Health Care Reform bills simply establish the foundation for the courts to rule in favor of the collective right.
Weiners view is collectivist, fascist and totalitarian. Collectivist because it has to be described as being a right of the many instead of the one and superior due to that fact. Fascist because ultimately the sole authority for its creation and oversight is from one entity the Federal government. Totalitarian because the Federal government is the enforcer of this collective right as well. State and local jurisdictions will have little say about it.
Congressman Weiner's view is the underlying philosophy of all of the Health Care Reform legislation in the House and Senate. Consider this section in the Senate version of the bill; the setting up of community watch dogs that will monitor citizens for various health parameters. Read pages 382 - 393.
So, even citizens themselves will be subject to Federal regulations on their behavior in order to fulfill the "human right" of universal health care. It isn't the individual's liberty that is being protected by that it is the government's control over its own health care system that is being guarded. How much clearer can it be that these bills abrogate the concept of individual rights? Someone will be checking your lifestyle, according to gov regulations, to be certain you serve the best interests of the "basic human right to health care" ie. "the Public Option."
HCR is not just about rationing care and wealth redistribution. It's about the end of individual rights as the corrosive effects of the new collectivist "basic human right to health care" spreads throughout the legal and political systems like a virus.
I think that the main purpose of Health Care Reform (HCR) is as a direct assault on individual liberties.
Health Care is a Liberty Issue
Conservative Underground - 18 August 2009 - Tim Dunkin
Second Bill of Rights aka FDR's economic bill of rights
(An early attempt to embed collective rights into American politics and society.)
Another problem is that you're not free either. You're not even a human being as far as your government is concerned. You are a tax production unit who, statistically, must produce more revenue for the government than you take back in services. But you can't so your government borrows on what your children and grandchildren must produce to pay for you.
Our Constitution does not allow the Federal Gov’t to require a citizen purchase something or be fined. (Obama and the current Speaker of the House don't realize this, or don't care)
That would be akin to the federal government mandating every citizen must purchase a firearm for the purpose of reducing crime.
The US Constitution is pretty specific on what the FEDGOV cannot do.
States, on the other hand, have more leeway.
You know what sonny? My mother told me that even If she hadn't already moved away from The UK when she had her childern she would have because.......THE UK HEALTH CARE SYSTEM SUCKS!!!!!
She also told me on other thing that you should know too!.........
DONT TEASE THE VIKING KITTIES!!!!
What, exactly is the problem with nationalized/socialized healthcare?
Our government has no right to demand we purchase a service or product from another person.
Fine for your country but not ours.
Cheerio and IBTZ
He’s gonna need a dentist and a spell checker first.
Are heterosexual penguins more suitable than homosexual penguins?
Read his in-forum history...
#1) America is broke.
#2) This Obamacare adds an enormous added debt to our already bloated budget.
#3) It robs funds from areas where it is needed the most. Mainly Medicare.
#4) Obamacare includes 14,0000 IRS agents ready to pounce on your bank account.
#5) The individual mandate is unconstitutional under the commerce clause.
#6) America was not founded on collectivism. Individual Liberty is embedded in our DNA. We do not worship Royalty or any other form of Monarchy.
#7) The European Union is on the Brink of collapse due mainly to enormous entitlement spending.
#8) Americans beleive in Liberty over a false sense of security.
#9) Our constitution was specifically written to keep us from sliding back to a nation of subjects. (Read the Declaration of Independance)
#10) Finally, this country has overwhemlingly just recently cast a vote of “NO-CONFIDENCE” in our current administration for a vast majority of reasons.
A question not asked, nor answered, enough.
I have a few points of contention with socialized medicine here in the USA and they are:
1) The Federal government isn’t authorized by our consitution to do anything outside of the enumerated powers, and health care as well as other social programs are not on the list. According to our 10th amendment social programs are within the scope of power retained by the states and the people. This is probably difficult for a European to understand, but our founders belived that local governments and society itself were best equipped to deal with micro issues and did not empower the central government to act directly upon the people in order to preserve the idea of liberty and freedom from which our founding documents were conceived.
2) Government intervention in the health care market is what drives prices through the roof by disturbing the natural pricing mechanism and injecting market failure with politics which includes the emergence of monopolies, price fixing, and other kinds of inefficiencies. It’s the primary reason health care becomes unaffordable. Providing even more subsidies with tax dollars only drives more waste and inefficiency, and puts people at the mercy of politicians and bureaucrats instead of having the power of the market.
3) Single-payer destroys the market based system all together which also destroys the incentive to provide the best possible care at the best possible price. You get what they feel like giving you when they feel like giving it to you, and if you don’t like that there’s nowhere to go.
4) It gives too much control over what care is provided and under what circumstance to the government and takes it away from the individual.
5) The subject of ‘fairness’ is a red herring. Prior to the government dabbling in our health care system, there were thousands of charity hospitals in the United States that operated on a low to no cost basis. Today, the number of existing charity hosiptals is in the low hundreds and declining. Our government responded to the lack of low cost health care by making treatment necessary when people just show up at an emergency room, and the cost is shifted to those who can pay, either with insurance or out of pocket, making us all unwitting philanthorpists just by purchasing health insurance or services at inflated prices. No one went without care because of inability to pay, not before the government started messing around with the system, and not now.
Notice not one single reply by Mr. Simon to any post on this thread. He's not genuine.
Message from a Marine: Dont Break the Military
Friday, December 17, 2010 10:18:36 PM · 29 of 31
B_Simons to DBeers
Supposedly, according to homosexual sex loving leftist researchers there are 'homosexual' penguins -does this imply that penguins that engage in homosexual sex are suitable for military service?
Are heterosexual penguins more suitable than homosexual penguins?
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies
I didn't ASK for it.
there you are!
geez... howd that get in there?
I just did. Kitties need some extra play time, to work out pent up aggression..
Hi Vendome! I can’t believe this troll hasn’t gotten ZOT yet....