If health care is a right, what else is?

1. 57

   retief2000posted 9 years ago

   If health care is a right, what else is?
   
   Is food a right, can I have the taxpayers pay for a 5000 calorie diet of caviar, filet mignon and champagne. I s housing a right, can I have a 5000 sq ft home on 10 wooded acres on the coast of Maine provided by the taxpayers. Is transportation a right, I have had my eye on a nice Aston Martin DB9. Is education a right, I would love to return to school, preferably Harvard, and continue my studies at taxpayer expense. What are basic rights? Is speech limited to basic speech? Worship to basic worship? Conscience to basic conscience? Press to basic press?

   replyreport
2. 66

   tsadjatkoposted 9 years ago

   
   
   No it is not a right, "it is a good like food like clothing."
   The Judge answers your question and tells you what else is a right, but health care is not. Everyone should listen to what he says.
   
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xRu_u3U2Sk#t=215
   
   What the judge says is what is called the truth and is the farthest thing from liberal spin (like health care is a right) which is absolutely propaganda solely designed to promote the liberal agenda. Don't be duped by liberals whose cornerstone of their philosophy is to lie and if that doesn't work lie about lying.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Larry Wallposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I listen to the tape. That is the biggest line of bull I have heard in a long time. An example for you. I was without insurance and could not buy it--denied for age and prior health . I had a $33,000 hospital stay. The hospital forgave the debt.

      replyreport
   2. 66

      tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      and what does that prove? only that the hospital will charge everybody else more for their services to pay for your freeloading...that's your right?

      replyreport
   3. 57

      retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Did the hospital forgive the debt because they were compelled to do so by the government or because it was reasonable and prudent to do so?

      replyreport
   4. 0

      Larry Wallposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      It was a Catholic Hospital (Regional Medical Center actually) they did it because it was the Christian thing to do.\

      replyreport
   5. 57

      retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Catholic Hospital who wages a war on women's reproductive rights & will eventually close its doors rather than bend to Obama's desire to compel them to perform abortions, that kind of Catholic Hospital?Pro-Life,Charitable,Private&about to go

      replyreport
   6. 0

      Larry Wallposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The Catholic hospital that forgave my debt does not deliver children or perform abortions. There is a hospital in my city that treat women. I had been a patient at the hospital several times with mega bills. This was goodwill and Christian kindness.

      replyreport
   7. 57

      retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      So they send women to separate facilities?That sounds rather bigoted, the whole separate bet equal thing.Why aren't they treating women?Is that just another Catholic attack in their war on women's rights to health care?

      replyreport
   8. 0

      Larry Wallposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Retire 2000--My city has three major hospitals. The Catholic Hospital is designated for heart and head injuries. Another privately owned hospital has a burn unit. The Woman's hospital handles  women's issue. Less duplication. Do you oppose Medicaide?

      replyreport
   9. 57

      retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I oppose the involvement of the Federal government in anything with which it is not specifically charged in the Constitution. So the answer is yes.

      replyreport
3. 46

   Ericdierkerposted 9 years ago

   right or wrong basic health care is considered a right throughout the world. See article 25 of the   http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
   I am not saying it should or should not be, just that "universally" it is considered a right.
   We are not socialist here so when we say it is a "right" in the United States we mean that it cannot be interfered with. Not that it must be provided by the government. Health care is a right but not Health Insurance. We have a right to be treated not a right to have our neighbor pay for it. It is not a fine line it is very clear. We have a right to bear arms but not to have the government pay for our gun and our ammo. The same goes for your other satirical examples.
   We must keep in mind that we also have the right to starve ourselves and to refuse treatment of any sort.

   replyreport
   1. 66

      tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      You are kidding Eric, right? The UN? Like how many countries actually adhere to this declaration? and where exactly is the phrase health care is a right? I can't find it.

      replyreport
   2. 57

      retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Can something be a right if it requires from others that they surrender their property or their liberty? The confiscation of another's property is necessary to pay for your health care, do you have a right to claim their property?

      replyreport
   3. 46

      Ericdierkerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Read my comment, tsadjatko and pick another battle. Yes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes Health care in Article 25 as I listed it. It does not require socialist medicine.

      replyreport
   4. 66

      tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Sorry but you are wrong - that says everyone has a right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family... that is not a right to health care, it's a right to a standard of living so they can afford HC

      replyreport
   5. 0

      Larry Wallposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Our Declaration of Independence proclaims that all people, not just Americans, are endowed with certain rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If life is a right, health care must be a right and a right not limited to a few.

      replyreport
   6. 66

      tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, like you need healthcare to be given life? What that means is you have a right to live, not to healthcare. I suppose you think you have a right to free food and transportation to live?

      replyreport
   7. 46

      Ericdierkerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Larry, something being a right and having something provided for by your government are two separate issues. Guns are a right - not to have them provided. Health is a right, not to have it provided.

      replyreport
   8. 0

      Larry Wallposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Promoting the general welfare to be sounds like the government is going to provide basic needs which can and include health--via the FDA, Medicare, research grants, indigent funding and the list that has been in existence for years goes on.

      replyreport
   9. 57

      retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare. Not promote defense and provide welfare.Madison, the author of the Constitution address your mistaken idea http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blo … Quote.3254 - THE END!

      replyreport
   10. 0

       Larry Wallposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       This is my only comment for the day. What is the difference between subsidized insurance and forcing people to go to charity hospitals and wait or to private hospitals, be treated and not pay the bill. We are all going to bear the cost.

       replyreport
   11. 66

       LandmarkWealthposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       There is a big difference. When you subsidize something through gov't...you get more abuse and less price discovery. Charities don't pay 50 times the cost for a product than they need to with no bid contracts, and give aid to people who don't need it

       replyreport
   12. 57

       retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       If a charitable organization operated like the Federal government, its officers would be in prison. But that is true of almost every Federal government program. Bernie Madoff is in jail for running his funds like the Social Security Administration.

       replyreport
4. 66

   LandmarkWealthposted 9 years ago

   Healthcare is not a right in any way shape or form.  A "right" as our framers intended is something that cannot be denied.  If you assume that you have a right to any product or service which requires the labor of others, and it must be provided regardless of your ability to compensate the provider...than the provider of this product or service no longer has any rights...and is by default your slave.  This is why our founders used terms like "Pursuit of Happiness". 
   
   As you correctly noted...food is as fundamental to survival as any product or service.  Does that mean that if you can't afford to buy food that you must be provided with it ???  If that is true...than why should I continue to work and earn a living ???  Either way I have to be provided with these essential items.  Silly me...I am wasting my time working I suppose...when I could just let the other guy pay for it.  When we provide those in need out of a sense of charity, that is very noble. When we do it through coercion, we get a very unproductive society.
   
   If we would extrapolate these ridiculous assumptions...than since the 2nd amendment clearly enumerates my guaranteed right to keep an bare arms...The gov't must provide me with a functioning weapon at my request.    In fact nothing can be further from the truth.  The 2nd amendment allows for me to purchase a firearm with my hard earned money...but no individual, group or agency is required to provide me with one.  The 1st amendment permits me the freedom of speech.  But that does not mean that I must be provided air time on TV or radio at my request...or a megaphone to pontificate my views publicly. 
   
   Americans are terribly confused with the concept of "rights"...and what the framers meant when they wrote our founding and governing documents.  Rights were believed to be inalienable.  Meaning they were given to all of us by God. Therefore it was not permissible for gov't to take away that which they were not authorized to give. To the best of my knowledge...God is not writing scripts for antibiotics.
   
   Its somewhat irrelevant anyway. I saw a friend out in California recently post on facebook that she was opting out of Obamacare because she was so disappointed that none of her Dr's accept the coverage...which was quite predictable.  Sadly, many Americans will learn the hard way that insurance does not mean treatment.  And a lot of Seniors are going to learn that as well, as the rate of Dr's dropping out of Medicare tripled last year alone.

   replyreport
   1. 57

      retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I would only argue that "Rights" have little to do with the Founders and everything to do with Nature.Doctors are fleeing their profession, why? Because they know where the country is heading.

      replyreport
   2. 66

      LandmarkWealthposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The founders argued the same thing.  Rights were "endowed by their creator".  Which would be god given. Dr's are fleeing because the economics of medicine have been slowly eroded since the mid 60's. Price discovery is near totally gone.

      replyreport
   3. 57

      retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The Declaration and Constitution are both marvels of Natural Law Theory and yes God and for Jefferson, Nature. http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2012/06/hid … -cash.html Paying cash is often cheaper.

      replyreport
   4. 66

      tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Watch for the  court case decision next week, Halbig vrs. Sebelius, it could make Obamacare subsidies illegal and throw the ACA into the death spiral http://www.newsmax.com/PrintTemplate.as … eid=581170 The Obama admin. isn't incompetent, is it.

      replyreport
   5. 57

      retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      That is just the First of several challenges to the Constitutionality of the original bill, vote and process. Obama has lost quite a few cases with the Supremes, let's hope this is one more.

      replyreport
   6. 66

      LandmarkWealthposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      It's amazing how many times his Adm has lost unanimously with SCOTUS in the last couple of years.  When he is getting shot down by the likes of Kagen...he is really over reaching.

      replyreport
   7. 66

      tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Obama most famously said at a March 30, 2007, fundraiser "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution." Liar. What's that tell you about the quality of education at U of Chicago?

      replyreport
   8. 0

      Larry Wallposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      When we start trying to determine what the founders intended, we are getting into speculation. Everyone has a different understanding. Conditions have changed since the day of the founders. Remember the 2/3s compromise? Times and conditions = changes

      replyreport
   9. 66

      tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      See that is how you liberals thing - nobody is  trying to determine what the founders intended. It is quite clear and they themselves determined it - the only reason you say that is because liberals try to rewrite history by re-"determining" it.

      replyreport
   10. 0

       Larry Wallposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I got in my carght  and remembered that liability insurance in mandatory in my state. I have to  carry uninsured motorist ins. for those who do not buy it. I  have to get a state inspection. They check emissions because all have a right to clean air

       replyreport
   11. 66

       LandmarkWealthposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       But you don't have to buy a car. Most of Manhattan buys no such insurance.  Regulating commerce is different than forcing commerce. Which is why SCOTUS only ruled obamacare to be legal on the grounds that the penalty is actually a tax.

       replyreport
   12. 61

       cjhunsingerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Landmark---
       It is rare that I say this, but your articulation here is one of the best I have ever heard or read. Madison would be proud and I thank you.

       replyreport
   13. 0

       Larry Wallposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Landmark, you missed the point or you avoided it. This whole discussion has gone on too long. The Affordable Health Care Act is law and it will be for awhile and probably a long time as the flaws, which do exist, are corrected.

       replyreport
   14. 66

       LandmarkWealthposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Larry, you missed the point entirely. The point is there is no FEDERAL law which requires auto coverage.  Reread the 10th amendment and you'll get the point. Obamacare is law...with various key provisions being declared unlawful, as expected.

       replyreport
   15. 0

       Larry Wallposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I never said the inspection require was a federal law. It is a state law. Finally, the shortage of Drs. covers a lot of territory. One factor is that Phy. Assts. and Nurse Practitioners are taking care of less serious health issues.

       replyreport
   16. 66

       LandmarkWealthposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Yes State law. The Fed gov't has no authority to mandate auto coverage. The framers clearly wanted these types of issues left to the states as the 10th amd indicates.  60% of Dr's surveyed would NOT encourage their kids to go into medicine.

       replyreport
   17. 57

       retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I discouraged my son from entering Medical School because of Obamacare and the rest of the Federal Racket. He is pursuing a PhD in Chemistry.

       replyreport
   18. 66

       LandmarkWealthposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Not uncommon.  Two my brother in-laws are Dr's and would never want their kids to become Dr's.  When you add up the total benefits package a NYC Bus Driver makes more than the average general internist in private practice.

       replyreport
   19. 0

       Larry Wallposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I think there a lot of parents who would encourage their children to study professions different from their parents. Also, a lot of layers, stock brokers, accountants, teachers and doctors wish they were doing something else. Should we ban flood ins?

       replyreport
   20. 66

       LandmarkWealthposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Read why they feel that way and what the gov't had done to their profession and you'll see why they don't want their kids to have a once prestigious title.  And nobody is banning anything.  You're free to buy whatever you want with your own money.

       replyreport
5. 72

   lone77starposted 9 years ago

   Freedom of motion, speech and right of assembly are rights. Freedom to live and to pursue happiness are rights. Nearly everything else is not.
   
   Health care is not a right, because it's camouflaged extortion -- taking from some to give to others.
   
   All of this "entitlement" mania is pure Ego. The power brokers behind Washington are playing our egos like a symphony. We need to give up all entitlements and start taking responsibility. Responsibility is what builds. Social nanny state enslaves, even if only by crippling our abilities to create.
   
   If we were to stop knee-jerk reacting to the Rockefeller carrot and stick (e.g. government handouts and 9/11), then we would be far better off as a nation.
   
   Legislated compassion is really another form of slavery. Real compassion doesn't need a middleman. When America was full of responsible citizens, most people were taken care of by compassionate neighbors. Today's neighbors want the government to take care of things. Same thing happened in Nazi Germany.
   
   Kennedy had it right. Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.

   replyreport
   1. 57

      retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Outstanding! How can something be a right that requires another be compelled to supply it or pay for it.Rights are intrinsic to human nature. How can something be a right the makes a doctor supply it and your neighbors pay for it.THANK YOU

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Larry Wallposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Assume you our right. It is proper and appropriate to deny insurance coverage to a person because of his age and past medical history, which had nothing to do with his lifestyle, but just general health. I was one of those persons. What should I do?

      replyreport
   3. 66

      LandmarkWealthposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      How about pay the Dr out of your own pocket.  Yes I know.. the cost it too much.  Yet we fail to point out that the reason the cost has skyrocketed is because of the massive distortions in medicine created by national subsidies for 50 years.

      replyreport
   4. 57

      retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      This price distortions are also caused by insurance as the cost of care is born by a pool rather than reflecting the actual cost of one individual's care. The long ago GOP plan was for catastrophic insurance and out of pocket common care-like auto IN

      replyreport
   5. 66

      LandmarkWealthposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      That's exactly what it should look like, something similar to auto coverage.  The current system of health coverage we use does not even meet the definition of insurance. Since the "Great Society" medical inflation has risen about 40% faster than CPI

      replyreport
   6. 57

      retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Medicare/aid have fueled health care inflation. Another market has also experienced high inflation as a consequence of massive federal interference - Higher Education. Wait for ObamaED to wreck the greatest University system in the world.

      replyreport
   7. 0

      Larry Wallposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Now someone just has to come up with the definition of catastrophic. I had a perforated colon once--almost died.  Eight weeks later, the colostomy, which was working was reversed. Three years later scar tissue was restricting colon-Catastrophic?

      replyreport
   8. 66

      LandmarkWealthposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Excellent point.  You should.  Each person should buy a policy based on the deductible that they feel is affordable. For some people that might be 10k a year.  Others it might be 100k.  That should be between you and the insurer of your choosing.

      replyreport
   9. 0

      Larry Wallposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Landmark: Before perforated colon surgery I was hospitalized once--how could I predict how much coverage I would need. My son was in a car accident, passenger, traumatic brain jury, more than $100,000. Future, personal health needs-unpredictable.

      replyreport
   10. 66

       LandmarkWealthposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       By looking at your savings account and determining how liquid you are, and how much of a cash withdrawal would be "Catastrophic" based on your financial resources and lifestyle.  For some people 100k...other it might be 10k.

       replyreport
   11. 0

       Larry Wallposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       The poor and the working poor, who do not have thousands in savings, but can become ill through no fault of his own cannot pay the bill. If he gets treatment, we all pay. Don't like Obamacare, give me a plan that covers all situations for all people.

       replyreport
   12. 57

       retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       A plan that covers all people is a free market and a compassionate medical community. We pay, they treat. Those who cannot pay still get treated. Those who pretend they cannot pay still get treated and then sued for nonpayment. See how that works.

       replyreport
   13. 0

       Larry Wallposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       retief2000 you are digressing and your arguments and not logical. The medical community--doctors and hospitals like to make money. There are more private hospitals than you think, they have internal demands. There is no perfect system.

       replyreport
   14. 57

       retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       No one denies that doctors like to make money. It is the interference of the government and insurance that have been driving inflation in health care. It is not the inability of someone to pay. Treating the poor predates insurance.

       replyreport
   15. 66

       LandmarkWealthposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Larry the poor can choose a very low deductible. Under the current system, My neighbor with a 250k annual pension pays a few $'s for medicare copays and is subsidized by a 22 year old kid making 35k. It's a total market dislocation driving up prices.

       replyreport
   16. 0

       Larry Wallposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Landmark, how about the young male teacher in private school, with wife and child. Annual income $40,000. Wife has MS. As an investment counselor you deal with people who have higher incomes. The options change at lower income levels.

       replyreport
   17. 66

       LandmarkWealthposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       And those people could be paying a lot less for the cost of care if they weren't subsidizing people who can easily pay for it.  Medicare is one of the biggest transfers of wealth from the poor to the wealthy.Why is auto insurance much more affordable

       replyreport
   18. 0

       Larry Wallposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Landmark, you avoided by question and that is your right. I get the impression you do not understand poor people, the working poor and those that made errors and lost everything, Where are they to turn.

       replyreport
   19. 66

       LandmarkWealthposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I grew up dirt poor. I answered the question.  The truly poor would be addressed by charity as we once did very effectively. The working poor would likely choose lower deductible VERY affordable care if market forces were permitted as they once were.

       replyreport
6. 93

   poppyrposted 9 years ago

   Is this an argument again free healthcare?  The difference between free healthcare and a free house or free food is that a country's economy works fine with free healthcare, such as Canada or the UK.  I would think that anybody would be happy with knowing that if their little girl broke her leg they wouldn't be faced with huge medical bills.

   replyreport
   1. 66

      LandmarkWealthposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      There is no such thing as Free healthcare or Free anything anywhere in the world when it comes to products or services. No matter the service or product, there is a price somewhere in the supply chain.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Larry Wallposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      If there is nothing free-- does that mean we should end Obamacare, Food Stamps, Medicaide, public schools, etc. We all pay for those things either through income tax or some tax of fee. Therefore how does Obamacare differ from gov't charity care?

      replyreport
   3. 66

      LandmarkWealthposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Many of them yes...and others can simply be done in more effective ways. Public schools for example should be one national voucher system which provides parents choice. Otherwise we have legalized gov't subsidized segregation, with no accountability.

      replyreport
   4. 0

      Larry Wallposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I covered school boards as a reporter. If you think enacting a health care plan is difficult, getting all public schools nationalized would be a near impossibility, Would a voucher allow a Louisiana student to attend a NY school and pay housing, etc.

      replyreport
   5. 57

      retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      And yet the Federal-or would it be more accurately called National, since federalism is dead - government already seeks to impose a centralized curriculum, funding and regulation. It imposes its will over EVERYTHING - Madison Quote on my Profile

      replyreport
   6. 66

      LandmarkWealthposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Don't need to nationalize schools, just allow parents to direct their portion of their funding as they see fit.  And a kid from the Bronx could cross the Saw Mill Pkwy and go to school in Westchester.  Wife is a public school teacher.See it daily

      replyreport
   7. 57

      retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I have taught in an urban public school and a Catholic school, both drawing their pupils from the same population. The difference was pronounced, in every possible way. Morale, morality, commitment, learning, discipline, effort and that was the staff

      replyreport
   8. 66

      LandmarkWealthposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      My wife is a pub school teacher and she insisted we send our kids to Catholic school. I'm glad I agreed.Parents should all be able to direct their share of school funding.Watch how fast poor performing schools turnaround when voucher $'s go elsewhere

      replyreport
   9. 66

      tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      So Larry was a reporter,that explains a lot. Not only has he been indoctrinated by the left wing media he is one of the indoctrinators.No wonder whatever facts you present to him he spouts the left wing talking points while attacking the messenger.

      replyreport
   10. 57

       retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Nonsense, the wait for medical tests in both countries are far longer than here, regardless of one's ability to pay. If the product of healthcare is a right why not every other product? They may not have huge medical bills because their neighbors pay

       replyreport
   11. 0

       Larry Wallposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Retief2000--We are in close agreement with your last comment. But be careful, you are almost making the argument that if all are to have a right to health care and any system will have to subsidize help for the poor and needy.

       replyreport
   12. 66

       LandmarkWealthposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Unless of course you are going to the VA.  That is a great example of how we can expect gov't administer care.  It is still not free. Entitlements weigh heavily on deficits, which harms purchasing power and simultaneously destroys price discovery.

       replyreport
   13. 0

       Larry Wallposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       The VA is unique in that it was a good idea to provide special care for veterans, but poor planning on the ongoing cost and failing to realize that the number of veterans needing help would always be increasing.

       replyreport
   14. 57

       retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       When was the last time market forces were turned loose on American healthcare? 50 years ago or more? If you want clunky,inefficient,emotionally detached,bureaucrat centered health care- like the worst of the VA - than keep nationalizing it.

       replyreport
   15. 66

       LandmarkWealthposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Good ideas and perpetually poor execution with terrible results is synonymous with gov't programs. That will never change.  Everything gov't involves itself in distorts prices and causes market dislocations.  College, housing, healthcare etc.

       replyreport
   16. 57

       retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Government's inherent ability to rend and destroy is valuable when military assets are deployed, not so valuable with any others.

       replyreport
   17. 66

       tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Yeah I hear all the time the only thing the government can do right is the military but truth be told even that can be run way more efficiently with less waste (and fraud) and more accountability.

       replyreport
   18. 57

       retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       In the final analysis, I would prefer the military concentrate on the easiest, most efficient, most aggressive way to end a war in victory - not accounting methods.

       replyreport
   19. 66

       LandmarkWealthposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Political correctness doesn't permit wars to be ended swiftly anymore.  That requires swift and blinding violence.  Not sending the Army in to build schools and pave new roads in Afghanistan without the Taliban having ever surrendered.

       replyreport
   20. 57

       retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Sun Tzu is still relevant. Breaking the will of one's enemies to fight is what ends wars, not aid packages. Germany and Japan were brutally defeated to the point of privation and suffering before the aid poured in.

       replyreport
   21. 0

       Larry Wallposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       tsadjatko: I was a reporter--small town newspaper, I cover city councils, school boards, crime, etc and other stuff. I belong to no political party. I voted Carter over Ford and Bush over Clinton.. I examine issues, not party or ideology.

       replyreport
   22. 66

       tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Examining issues, not party or ideology does not lead to your "If healthcare is a right I don't want to be wrong" mentality.

       replyreport
   23. 0

       Larry Wallposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I never said it did. I supported the Affordable Care Act because insurance companies were turning people like me, old and prior conditions. Medicare is too far away. Medicaid is not well accepted by most physicians.

       replyreport
   24. 66

       LandmarkWealthposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Medicare won't be well accepted either soon.  The rate of Dr's dropping out of Medicare tripled in 2013, my brother in-law did so a few years ago.  And Dr's opting out of Medicare and private insurance are cutting costs in half, sometimes more.

       replyreport
7. 58

   definitionsposted 9 years ago

   Having lots of babbies is also a right; and the right to eat fat laden food to clog my arteries full of preventable disease causing cholesterol.
   
   Inalienable rights I possess!
   
   :-b

   replyreport
   1. 57

      retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      These are most certainly rights. The right to do stupid crap is firmly cemented in human nature. Your poor judgement is your right, forcing everyone to pay for your stupid choices is not.

      replyreport
   2. 58

      definitionsposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I was joking honey I actually think some people do feel that way though!

      replyreport
   3. 85

      gmwilliamsposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      There are THOSE who think and act THAT way.  The word right has been misued and overused. Liberty, life, freedom of speech, and pursuit of happiness. Rights are to be judiciously and responsibly.

      replyreport
8. 0

   Daveadamposted 9 years ago

   They stole our rights before we we're born, & you could have had a 5000 sq ft home where ever you wanted to build one at one time in history..No land on planet earth should have ever been sold to an individual, it wasn't theirs before they was born & it isn't theirs when their dead..I am & would be quite able & content to fend for myself given my free share of land & resources, that nobody actually owns no matter what big business thinks..The world is run by thieves that have throughout history stolen every resource there is to steal, & then they sell it all back to us if we work for them..We work for 25 years just to be able to buy our own god given land, "back" from the thieves that stole it & are still stealing from us!lol..Now we're getting to the stage where we can't as a society fend for ourselves any more, & are becoming totally reliant on Governments & big business....All those things you mention are "Royalties" rights, & anyone who is pre-destined to become part of a corrupt government & system..All paid for by the tax payer as we are the slaves, & they are the slave masters....So food is a basic right of every man woman & child on the planet, & if we have to work for that food for "other" people we are slaves..I wasn't given any choice in the matter of whether or not i wanted to work my own land etc, i was brainwashed like everybody else into getting a job & paying taxes to "them".

   replyreport