Everyone will eventually find a doctor to care for them....but it’ll take hours, if not days...to get your dose of “care”. The sad thing is that you then have to hear folks whine about this on NBC or CNN...telling you just woeful tales of how the system didn’t work like they imagined (to include the folks who had health care before Obama Care came along).
Silly doctor. Doesn’t he know ‘bout the Physician Draft act of 2015, that will swell the ranks of the Public Health Service Corps?
Im from the Givernment and I have come to give you a free lifetime supply of
More debt than you can possibly imagine
More debt than you could possibly repay in a lifetime
and its absolutely free,
paid for by the ever shrinking value of the dollar!!
Its just like winning the lottery of life for a little while...
Us peons will get the ill-trained “barefoot doctors” that rank-and-file Cubans now receive care from. The politiburo members and well-connected citizens will receive 21st Century care. Period.
The right to healthcare does require a doctor to work for free
Did y’all read the comments after the article....sheesh, the ignorance of the masses...
Exactly. If God wanted us to have a “right” to free healthcare, doctors would have been born already educated and trained and would have been given a license to practice medicine instead of a birth certificate. Don’t use drugs. We’ve already got more liberal ‘RATS in this country than we really need.
Say goodbye to hospital bedside doctors...
We are seeing implementation of interactive audio/video systems installed in patient rooms that are connected by a high bandwidth connection to a monitoring facility in another city that will be staffed with a doctor that is able to watch the streaming medical data from the patient - heart rate, blood pressure(s), oxygen saturation, heart data calculations, etc.
The doctor can pan the camera to talk to the patient/nurse and watch the bedside patient monitor, ventilators, etc.
Just another step closer until it is monitored from a certified Obamacare “doctor” out of Washington DC who can remotely pull the plug on grandma.
It’s what I have been telling folks for years. If you have a right to the knowledge and skill I have spent a lifetime acquiring how do you propose to get it against my will?
Postitive rights require slaves. Not coincidental that the Democrats love positive rights.
As an MD, I agree. I think people have no idea what’s coming their way - a rude shock to their sense of entitlement, lives of increasing frustration and desperation, and a nose dive in their life expectancy.
Food is needed to sustain life so it must be a right, right? When will Obama be giving free food to everyone within our borders?
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.)