Healthcare is not a right! The only Rights we have are: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. When these Rights are view through the prism of science, one will find they apply to all Life, from bacteria to humans, and Social systems, including Charles Darwin’s research; as in some Grand Unification principle for all Living-systems. Most understand the Laws of Nature trumps mortals in power; a new understanding of these Rights may help make this world a better place to live.
@Mike10four depends on whose laws of nature you are talking about. there are catholic natural laws, islamic natural laws. To call a law "natural" makes it seem as if we were born knowing it.
@thefredsays My channel video contains the context on what I mean by “Laws of Nature.” Also, the term “Laws of Nature,” is best defined by Wikipedia’s overview of “Physical Law.”
So, health care is a privilege, but we should do something to help the poor, but we shouldn't do it through the government; instead, we should just "trust" that private corporations whose sole purpose is profits for their shareholders will be nice enough to donate money so that the poor can have health care.
@thefredsays You sem confused. The right to the labour of another can be aquired either through contract with that person or through enslaving him. Only the first is capitalism.
@356pla not when the laborer is forced to participate in the contract because he/she does lacks the capital or the collective bargaining rights to gain just compensation for labor in order to avoid wage slavery.
@356pla just compensation would be a confortable livable wage in which the wage laborer can actually have a savings account and is therefore allowed to accumulate enough capital to start a business of his or her own. i.e. not living paycheck to paycheck. The wage slave has no means of escaping this condition, limits his/her class mobility and results in production potential lost.
@thefredsays And who decides what comprises comfortable? It would be a subjective evaluation so open to dispute. Those who are to provide this value are bound to say.." That's enough for him to be comfortable. That's enough that he can save some if he's careful and doesn't insist on a right to meat more than three times a week."
The guy being squeezed for another dollar from his childs table, for your childs table, is gonna have a different idea as to what constitute 'comfortable.'
@356pla usually a measurement of confortability is found in the federal poverty level. In the case of employment by a corporate entity no one's table is being squeezed for food since those who have money to invest- have extra money they essentially don't "need" and are free to speculate and raise hell with it by investing in a corporate enterprise.
In the case of a mom and pop store- there aren't many of those out there.
As for a "right".Everyone has a right to take care of themselves. life a healthy life.
People have the right to go to a doctor, as a doctor(being he or she can be suied has the right not to see anyone)has the right not to see you.Just means you have the right to look for another doctor.
obama and others want to take those rights away from people. all in the name of taxs.Obama isn't just taxs and spend, but taxs spend and take as many rights away from Americans as he can in less than 4 years.
@AllTheGoodNamzWerTkn No, you are moronic for not knowing that Rand Paul is not an ideology type. He's a philosophy of honesty, transparency, freedom and peace. Individuality allows for room to interpret achieving those goals differently, but most politicians do not even have those seriously as their objectives. What they aim for is specifically the opposite.
Nice try trolling though. Perhaps with other names it would work, but with Rand Paul, the idea of honest govt is what comes up most.
You said that if all candidates were like Rand Paul, then there would be no bad choices. I said that there wouldn't be any choices if all candidates were like Rand Paul, because all choices would be like Rand Paul. The whole point of having an election is to give people choices.
Obviously, you like Rand Paul and I respect your right to vote for the candidate you like. I like having choices, though, and I don't like Rand Paul.
@AllTheGoodNamzWerTkn I just said Rand Paul is NOT about ideology. He is about a basic bi-partisan rule that politicians should be exposed, budgets should be balanced, the Fed is not be allowed to hide when they are looting us all, & that politicians from BOTH parties should show constitutional authority BEFORE writing or voting for a bill.
The opposite is govt dishonesty, secrecy, massive debt, tax payer robbery,and politicians making laws with no constitutional backing. You really want that?
It's the difference between a people choosing to voluntarily give and people being forced by government (with the threat of fines, imprisonment, etc) to give.
It is a very big difference, and the two resulting societies will be even more different from each other. One based on government (and perhaps eventually individuals) force, violence and punishment; another based on personal choice, real giving and relationships.
We're only confused because force is hidden by pretty images of "giving".
@Intervene Promote competition between insurance companies by lifting regulations. Giving major tax breaks to doctors who work at free clinics. And for pete's sakes don't tax them more...
they have a right for not having healthcare. if they cant afford healthcare than there are those possibilitys to help the person: family, friends, church, private organisations
and remember: nobody can safe lifes, the death just comes later.
but nevertheless: healthcare would be very affordable if the goverment didnt regulate it so much and create artifical demand and at the same time making it harder for doctors to compete.
Another big problem is that employers, incentivised by tax laws, pay for our health care. Since we don't pay we have less incentive to care about costs than we otherwise would. When something is "free" the natural tendency is to use more of it. This artifically inflates demand thereby raising prices. Why should our health be in the hands of an employer or a politician? I say give us the same tax breaks so we can control our own health. This would also increase competition amongst doctors.
Healthcare is not a right! The only Rights we have are: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. When these Rights are view through the prism of science, one will find they apply to all Life, from bacteria to humans, and Social systems, including Charles Darwin’s research; as in some Grand Unification principle for all Living-systems. Most understand the Laws of Nature trumps mortals in power; a new understanding of these Rights may help make this world a better place to live.
Mike10four 1 year ago
@Mike10four depends on whose laws of nature you are talking about. there are catholic natural laws, islamic natural laws. To call a law "natural" makes it seem as if we were born knowing it.
thefredsays 10 months ago
@thefredsays My channel video contains the context on what I mean by “Laws of Nature.” Also, the term “Laws of Nature,” is best defined by Wikipedia’s overview of “Physical Law.”
Mike10four 10 months ago
wtf, corporations claim ownership of the labour of their wage slaves... ALL THE TIME.
Shananaganss 1 year ago
So, health care is a privilege, but we should do something to help the poor, but we shouldn't do it through the government; instead, we should just "trust" that private corporations whose sole purpose is profits for their shareholders will be nice enough to donate money so that the poor can have health care.
Have I summed it up pretty well?
AllTheGoodNamzWerTkn 1 year ago
If you have the right to live then you have the right to quality health care period ..
picassoui 1 year ago
Everyone has a right to someone else's labor, its called capitalism.
thefredsays 1 year ago
@thefredsays You sem confused. The right to the labour of another can be aquired either through contract with that person or through enslaving him. Only the first is capitalism.
356pla 10 months ago
@356pla not when the laborer is forced to participate in the contract because he/she does lacks the capital or the collective bargaining rights to gain just compensation for labor in order to avoid wage slavery.
thefredsays 10 months ago
@thefredsays Please define "just compensation"
Forced by whom? Forced labour is a crime in civilized places.
How do you delimit what you consider as "wage slavery"?
356pla 10 months ago
@356pla just compensation would be a confortable livable wage in which the wage laborer can actually have a savings account and is therefore allowed to accumulate enough capital to start a business of his or her own. i.e. not living paycheck to paycheck. The wage slave has no means of escaping this condition, limits his/her class mobility and results in production potential lost.
thefredsays 10 months ago
@thefredsays And who decides what comprises comfortable? It would be a subjective evaluation so open to dispute. Those who are to provide this value are bound to say.." That's enough for him to be comfortable. That's enough that he can save some if he's careful and doesn't insist on a right to meat more than three times a week."
The guy being squeezed for another dollar from his childs table, for your childs table, is gonna have a different idea as to what constitute 'comfortable.'
356pla 10 months ago
@356pla usually a measurement of confortability is found in the federal poverty level. In the case of employment by a corporate entity no one's table is being squeezed for food since those who have money to invest- have extra money they essentially don't "need" and are free to speculate and raise hell with it by investing in a corporate enterprise.
In the case of a mom and pop store- there aren't many of those out there.
thefredsays 10 months ago
Great answer!
TimeWarp66 1 year ago
As for a "right".Everyone has a right to take care of themselves. life a healthy life.
People have the right to go to a doctor, as a doctor(being he or she can be suied has the right not to see anyone)has the right not to see you.Just means you have the right to look for another doctor.
obama and others want to take those rights away from people. all in the name of taxs.Obama isn't just taxs and spend, but taxs spend and take as many rights away from Americans as he can in less than 4 years.
MrSTANDFORAMERICA 2 years ago
If all candidates were like Rand Paul there would be no bad choices.
MrDeppness 2 years ago 5
@MrDeppness
There wouldn't be any choices, because all candidates would be the same. What a moronic statement.
AllTheGoodNamzWerTkn 1 year ago
@AllTheGoodNamzWerTkn No, you are moronic for not knowing that Rand Paul is not an ideology type. He's a philosophy of honesty, transparency, freedom and peace. Individuality allows for room to interpret achieving those goals differently, but most politicians do not even have those seriously as their objectives. What they aim for is specifically the opposite.
Nice try trolling though. Perhaps with other names it would work, but with Rand Paul, the idea of honest govt is what comes up most.
MrDeppness 1 year ago
@MrDeppness
You said that if all candidates were like Rand Paul, then there would be no bad choices. I said that there wouldn't be any choices if all candidates were like Rand Paul, because all choices would be like Rand Paul. The whole point of having an election is to give people choices.
Obviously, you like Rand Paul and I respect your right to vote for the candidate you like. I like having choices, though, and I don't like Rand Paul.
AllTheGoodNamzWerTkn 1 year ago
@AllTheGoodNamzWerTkn I just said Rand Paul is NOT about ideology. He is about a basic bi-partisan rule that politicians should be exposed, budgets should be balanced, the Fed is not be allowed to hide when they are looting us all, & that politicians from BOTH parties should show constitutional authority BEFORE writing or voting for a bill.
The opposite is govt dishonesty, secrecy, massive debt, tax payer robbery,and politicians making laws with no constitutional backing. You really want that?
MrDeppness 1 year ago
RandsTeaParty . com
Pledge for December 16th - Money bomb
freemarket11 2 years ago
ths is the best argument against the right to healthcare I've heard, and how entitled people have confused the definition of "right" and "obligation"
ForTehNguyen 2 years ago
I meant to write "...between people choosing to voluntarily..." NOT "between A people..."
It changes much of the meaning, and is very often a key point of confusion.
Using group words like "we" is one way that theft and force is disguised as charity.
"No one was forced to give. WE, as a society, gave to those in need."
I've heard a (former) friend of mine often say "we're just taking it from ourselves".
I reply "should MY part of 'we' take from YOUR part of 'we'?
TheMoravians 2 years ago
It's the difference between a people choosing to voluntarily give and people being forced by government (with the threat of fines, imprisonment, etc) to give.
It is a very big difference, and the two resulting societies will be even more different from each other. One based on government (and perhaps eventually individuals) force, violence and punishment; another based on personal choice, real giving and relationships.
We're only confused because force is hidden by pretty images of "giving".
TheMoravians 2 years ago 3
kind of seems like he is splitting hairs here.
ithinkronpaulissmart 2 years ago
Health is a right not healthcare, which is a service/good.
BOOK RECOMMENDATION:
Good To Be King by Michael Badnarik
Chapter 2 is free on his website
It's called "Rights vs Privileges"
I am the king of my own castle.
I am sovereign aka self-governing.
The smallest minority is the individual.
Individualism>Collectivism.
There is no such thing as a group; it is an abstract meaning for a temporary state. Rights belong to individuals. :-)
chucksheen 2 years ago 2
I hope you people take this in and really think about what he just said.... Its important for people who demand health care as a right.
Orionx26 2 years ago 9
Very good answer. Absolutely spot on. But what do we do to those who do not have health care?
Intervene 2 years ago
@Intervene Promote competition between insurance companies by lifting regulations. Giving major tax breaks to doctors who work at free clinics. And for pete's sakes don't tax them more...
Orionx26 2 years ago
they have a right for not having healthcare. if they cant afford healthcare than there are those possibilitys to help the person: family, friends, church, private organisations
and remember: nobody can safe lifes, the death just comes later.
but nevertheless: healthcare would be very affordable if the goverment didnt regulate it so much and create artifical demand and at the same time making it harder for doctors to compete.
sorry for my bad english,
greetings from germany
Krampfarsch 2 years ago
Another big problem is that employers, incentivised by tax laws, pay for our health care. Since we don't pay we have less incentive to care about costs than we otherwise would. When something is "free" the natural tendency is to use more of it. This artifically inflates demand thereby raising prices. Why should our health be in the hands of an employer or a politician? I say give us the same tax breaks so we can control our own health. This would also increase competition amongst doctors.
cfbastiat 2 years ago
couldnt agree more. If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until its free!
flukemate 2 years ago