Is healthcare a right or a privilege II

We are talking about the right to access healthcare as a corollary of the right to life. Once again you have misunderstood the issue and made a series of bare assertions with no evidence adduced to support them.

So, once more for clarity: I am asking how you square being 'pro-life' with being against healthcare being a right.

Still waiting for that answer.

 

Don't have to look it up. It's been around for decades. It's the safety net the left claims doesn't exist.

But,as you say, it ain't free, so it's not a "right". Liberals will look at it that way and, since they think it's free, to them it becomes a "right".

But it's still a service and it has to be paid for. There's nothing there that we really disagree on.

 

Once again i do not have to square it because there is no conflict and yes once again the two are not related. Not sure how many times I have to say that.

 

Then explain, using evidence not merely opinion, how there is no conflict. Is that an easier way of asking the question?

 

Pretty much what I think. True "rights" are free, at least monetarily. That doesn't mean they are without cost. The tree of freedom is still watered by the blood of patriots.

Anything that is paid for in dollars and cents, regardless of who pays it, is not a "right". And somebody always pays.

 

Explain, using evidence, why chocolate ice cream is more delicious than vanilla ice cream. Lol...

We're arguing over opinions in here. Science cannot give us empirical proof of any of this.

 

I missed the shift. Ironically enough, I will blame the post-op meds prescribed by the surgeon who did a rather expensive arm rebuild paid for by private insurance.

*laugh*

 

Alright, I'll refine my request: explain, using cogent arguments and reasoning (and, where possible, evidence), how you square being pro-life with denying that the right to healthcare is a corollary to that.

 

I think it happened between Grimm's Law and the Great Vowel Shift. (How's that for philological chops. ;) )

Hey, but at least I'm willing to acknowledge that word meanings can change over time, right?
:D

 

That's what we've both been doing. Seems we can either keep at it or agree to disagree.

You want chocolate or vanilla?

 

Except I haven't seen the good Reverend put forward a reasoned (as opposed to unsubstantiated assertions) defence of his position as to how he can claim to be pro the right to life and not pro the right to healthcare as its adjunct.

 

Evidently I am presently in no good position to comment. :)

 

And I'm sure he and others feel the same about your posts.

I don't want this to be shocking, but did you know that sometimes (and this is especially true on the internet), people will argue about a topic and not come to a consensus. :Thumbsup

I'm fine with this. Most people are.

 

I have put forward a reasoned argument - on your Natural Law/ Rights framework terms based on John Locke and have cited an article in support. I have yet to see anything similar from your side. Unless you produce something of that nature, the observer is forced to conclude that you have no argument, merely an opinion which can thus be safely dismissed.

 

You will never get an answer because your parameters are false.

We don't deny anyone the "right" to healthcare. They have the same "right" to it as I do. If they want it, they have to pay for it. If they refuse to do so, or can't, they can go to the local ER in this country and be taken care of.

That's easy to "square" with being against government sanctioned, and paid for, murder of a child.

 

And if they are diagnosed with a longstanding or terminal condition but cannot pay for treatment, what then? Your ER isn't going to treat them long term is it? How can you say with a straight face that such a person has the right to life in such circumstances?

 

And I put the Locke quote into context, yet you did not respond. Locke spoke of depriving someone of something they possessed.

I guess if he were alive we could ask him, but that ship has sailed. (Regardless, even if a manuscript popped up where Locke flat out wrote that access to doctors and medicine should be provided free to the populus, well, he is not infallible, now is he? I am not a "Lockian," even though he got plenty right.)

So you haven't produced any evidence to change my mind, and I haven't produced any that has changed your mind. Yet you cannot even tolerate the possibility that you may be wrong, while I freely admit that our disagreement is on opinions. Since, as I stated earlier, your goal is to affirm a right to healthcare and silence debate.

 

John McCain was just diagnosed with brain cancer, a type that has a high mortality rate. He may have a year and a half left.

He's going to die. At what point is his right to life violated? He has access to the best healthcare. Access to both government and private healthcare. And in the end it won't keep him alive. When do we assume guilt for his death, since his right to life is about to be violated?

 

I responded by expressly quoting Locke and stating that it was explicit IMO that he was sanctioning the right to health. But, as you say, we are, as with any other text including the Bible, free to draw what conclusions we see therein.

[ETA: cross posted with you: I'm not talking abiut a situation ad idem with McCain's, however,what if McCain's condition was treatable and he was a pauper - what then?]