débats
add a link
Health Care is Not a Right, par Julie Borowski
Health Care is Not a Right, par Julie Borowski
|
|||||||||||||
|
soumis par DarkSarcasm il y a plus d’un an | |
1 fan
|
|||
|
|||
I remember visiting this website once...
It was called Health Care is Not a Right | FreedomWorks
Here's some stuff I remembered seeing:
Your browser is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites.
Please update to the latest version of Internet Explorer, Chrome, or Firefox for a better browsing experience.
Government goes to those who show up. FreedomWorks makes it easy to hold your elected officials accountable in our fully interactive Action Center.
2016 House Scorecard 2015 House Scorecard 2014 House Scorecard 2013 House Scorecard 2012 House Scorecard 2011 House Scorecard 2010 House Scorecard
2016 Senate Scorecard 2015 Senate Scorecard 2014 Senate Scorecard 2013 Senate Scorecard 2012 Senate Scorecard 2011 Senate Scorecard 2010 Senate Scorecard
Knowledge is power. It makes sure people understand what is happening to their country, and how they can make a difference. FreedomWorks University will give you the tools to understand economics, the workings of government, the history of the American legal system, and the most important debates facing our nation today. Enroll in FreedomWorks University today!
President Obama believes that health care is a right for every American. This is a perversion of the Founding Fathers’ idea of rights. There is an abundance of problems associated with ObamaCare but not enough attention has been paid to the dangerous philosophy behind the law. The underlying problem with ObamaCare is that too many Americans now see health care as a human right rather than a good.
The Declaration of Independence states that we have an unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That doesn’t mean that other people should be forced to sustain our life or make us happy. Many people have a fundamental misunderstanding of the negative rights listed in the founding document. A negative right is a right to not have something done to us. The right to not be killed, the right to not have our property confiscated and the right to not have our speech punished are negative rights.
These legitimate rights do not place obligations on anyone except to not infringe on the rights of others. Otherwise, people are free to do as they please.
Progressives have invented so-called positive rights that are listed nowhere in our founding documents. A positive right is a right to something such as health care, housing, and clothing. The United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights claims that everyone has a right to health care. Of course, there’s no such thing as free health care. The government has no money of its own which means that it cannot “give” anyone health care without first taking away something from someone else.
There is a big difference between a need and a right. Health care is a basic need that everyone is free to pursue. This means that the government cannot infringe on our right to pursue health care but no one owes us health care. Health care is a good just like food, clothing, and shelter.
Positive rights contradict the very notion of rights. The so-called right to health care infringes on negative rights by imposing forceful obligations on taxpayers and health care providers. What about the right of the taxpayer to keep the fruit of his own labor? Should a doctor ultimately decide who he treats—or should he be forced to treat everyone whether he likes it or not? To say that we have the right to someone else’s time and services takes us back down a dark path in American history.
A right is not something someone gives you- it\'s something that no one can take away.
Those who reject the idea that health care is a right are not dismissing the importance of health care. Quite the opposite is true. Health care is too important to be left to the incompetent federal government. Due to a lack of proper incentives, government generally destroys everything they touch. The government has never been able to run anything more efficiently than the for-profit private sector.
Anti-ObamaCare activists are often accused of being selfish, greedy people. That isn’t the reality. ObamaCare was passed under the guise of compassion. But as the late economist Murray Rothbard said, “it is easy to be conspicuously ‘compassionate’ if others are being forced to pay the cost.” There is nothing virtuous about spending other people’s money without their consent, no matter how well-intentioned the cause. Where’s the compassion for taxpayers—who are forced to foot the bill?
Theft is seen as immoral in practically every society on earth. Most of us would never dream of stealing money from a neighbor to give to someone less fortunate. Why then do some people demand that the government do it for them? Private charities that run on voluntary donations are the best way of helping the poor obtain health care, not government welfare that relies on force and coercion.
President Obama seems to believe that he can simply repeal the economic law of scarcity. There will never be enough of anything to satisfy all human wants. People can complain about the alleged unfairness of reality, but the fact is that health care will always be a scarce good. No laws can change that fact.
Bad ideas have bad consequences. The idea that health care is a right has led to more government involvement in health care. Government now pays for more than 50 percent of all health care costs in the United States. In order to stop government control and increase freedom, Americans must reject the idea of so-called positive rights. Health care is a valuable
that would be better left to the free market.
I don't agree with this article or the comments. The poster Allen said the government has no business making body-care decisions for us. But the government is not doing that (unless they are forcing you to have or not have an abortion or forcing you to do something else with your body) What the government is doing is giving everybody access to health insurance which is not part of your body. What you do with the health care is up to you, not the government.
He also said people for Obamacare have no idea what they are doing is wrong. But how is saving lives wrong? On this website I saw a petition to cut funding for Planned Parenthood. I'm guessing it's because they do abortions. I'm guessing it's because you want to save lives. But abortion is only 3% of what planned parenthood does. It does much more good. And Obamacare will actually cut down on abortions. Countries with universal health care have less abortions because they can afford to get health care for the baby. Do you think it's right to cut a program that only does 3% abortion but much more good AND want to get rid of Obamacare which will reduce abortions and save lives? It makes no sense. Obamacare has already saved lives. Many lives. One man posted a picture of his daughter who would have died of a brain tumor if not for Obamacare. How is that wrong? Do you really think our founding fathers would WANT us to live in a world where saving lives is considered WRONG just because it's done through forced insurance? Don't you think that's kind of insane? Lives are more important than that. And if the founding fathers would be against that, then we should be against their view. Nothing is worse than letting people suffer and die because somebody a long time ago might not like it if we figure out a way to help people and save lives.
As for the article .... every developed nation on the entire PLANET except for the USA alone thinks health care is a right. Do you think all the people in every developed nation on the planet are wrong and just the conservatives in the USA alone are correct?
If you want to know what IS wrong I can tell you. Having a for-profit system what will deny you for a pre-existing condition is wrong. Letting children die is wrong. Not going to the doctor because you are not sure if you can pay is wrong. The fact that the majority of people who go bankrupt in the USA do so because of health care costs is wrong. The fact that people leave the USA to get care because because the cost of flying to another country and getting their care without insurance cost less then just getting the care here is wrong. The fact that you can see flyers or jars at the store asking people to donate money for somebody's cancer care is wrong. The fact that our insurance is tied to our job is wrong. The fact that the entire planet thinks we are insane (and you can actually find article about this) since people are against Obamacare is wrong. The fact that having access to health care will get people off the streets and create more jobs, but people are against it is wrong. The fact that people have such a horrible attitude towards their fellow man is wrong. The fact that people say "BUT IT'S A TAX" as if that is more important than a human life is wrong.
I'm sorry but if doing something that is going to save millions of lives and make the country better and give us a higher quality of living and happier lives is WRONG then I don't want to be right. I would rather be wrong all day, all week, all year.
What's scary is that the President (and his supporters) really do believe they are 'doing the right thing' by the people of our country. They have *no* idea that what they are doing is wrong, and even if you were to show them definitive proof, they would still think they were right. This article is very well-written, and it's absolutely correct. Health care is something that would be better left to the free market.
The government has *no* place making our body-care decisions for us. If they are able to regulate how we eat (in order to maintain our health by evading obesity), then how long will it be before as well they are controlling *what* and *when* we eat? As the author of the above said, the people of our nation must reject positive rights. Our Founding Fathers had *no* intention of our government to become capable of doing what our current leadership (and the party behind it) are attempting to do.
On behalf of FreedomWorks’ activist community, I urge you to contact your senators and ask them to support the ObamaCare Replacement Act, S. 222, introduced by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). FreedomWorks is supporting this bill because it promotes key aspects of what the health insurance market should look like after ObamaCare is fully repealed.
FreedomWorks Comment on Meadows and Jordan’s Obamacare Repeal Plan
FreedomWorks CEO Adam Brandon commented on the statement from Reps. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) and Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) calling for a vote on the ObamaCare repeal reconciliation bill that passed in the 114th Congress, H.R. 3762. House and Senate committees of jurisdiction are currently working on repeal legislation, but there are no certainties that the repeal bill will reflect the language of H.R. 3762.
The So-Called "Patient Freedom Act" Is Not an Alternative to ObamaCare
Earlier today, a quartet of Republican senators — Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.V.), and Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) — introduced the Patient Freedom Act, S. 191. The bill, they say, is a comprehensive replacement for ObamaCare after it\'s repealed, the process for which is currently underway in Congress.
President Trump Signs Executive Order to Provide Americans Relief from ObamaCare
Among President Donald Trump\'s first acts in the Oval Office on Friday was putting his signature on a rather lengthy executive order that deals a major blow to ObamaCare. The executive order states that it\'s the policy of the Trump administration to repeal the 2010 health care law and gives the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), presumably nominee Rep. Tom Price, M.D. (R-Ga.), who is awaiting Senate confirmation, "all authority and discretion available to them to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation" of ObamaCare.
Key Vote YES on the Nomination of Rep. Tom Price to Serve as HHS Secretary
On behalf of FreedomWorks\' activist community, I urge you to contact your senators and ask them to vote YES on the nomination of Rep. Tom Price, M.D. (R-Ga.) to serve as President Donald Trump’s secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.
With the passage of S.Con.Res. 3, the FY 2017 budget resolution, Congress has started the process of repealing ObamaCare through reconciliation. Although the budget resolution spends far too much and increases publicly held debt by $9 trillion, its purpose is to direct relevant committees to make recommendations to repeal ObamaCare. It will not be sent to the president for approval.
FreedomWorks Urges Congress to Repeal, Replace ObamaCare Quickly
Following the passage of the FY 2017 budget resolution to begin the process of ObamaCare repeal, FreedomWorks CEO Adam Brandon commented:
Spending, Debt Levels in ObamaCare Repeal Resolution Send a Terrible Message to Fiscal Conservatives
The Senate didn\'t waste any time when it convened at the beginning of the 115th Congress. The chamber moved quickly on a motion to proceed on the FY 2017 budget regulation, S.Con.Res. 3, which begins the process of repealing ObamaCare. The resolution directs two Senate committees -- Finance and Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions -- and two House committees -- Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce -- to begin work on repeal legislation through budget reconciliation.
Want more freedom? Become a member today!
Oklahoma’s Attorney General Scott Pruitt is a strong conservative who will fight to repeal the EPA’s disastrous regulations.
Download a print-ready PDF of FreedomWorks’ Federal Freedom Agenda
Download a print-ready PDF of FreedomWorks’ 7 For ’17: An Agenda for the States
Download a print-ready PDF of the latest FreedomWorks Investor Impact Report.
Download a print-ready PDF of the latest FreedomWorks Foundation Impact Report.
read more
My major critique is that there's so much ideology and so little attention to actual consequences.
Let's break it down to a simple dichotomy - you have the choice of one.
1. Idealistic notions about a worker "keeping the fruit of one's labour".
2. Actual people dying from preventable causes.
Alternatively:
1. People pay less tax. and they have more disposable income to eg. buy that new handbag they want (however, note that this is overly simplistic insofar as countries with robust healthcare systems do not even necessarily pay more tax).
2. People needlessly dying.
On a larger scale, not relevant to just healthcare:
1. There's no right to food, shelter or life, just as the author advocates. You pay less tax, but you also live in a broken, uncivilised society where many people don't around you don't have a basic standard of living and violent crime is rife. It's not like this doesn't affect you, because you don't live in an isolated closed-system - your society's wellbeing impacts your own.
2. You pay more tax, but it's not a one-sided transaction: in exchange, you live in a healthier society, with better infrastructure, an educated populace, less crime.
If the author prefers to the first, there are a number of third-world countries in which she could choose to make her residence.
Her only worthwhile argument is positive vs negative rights. But again, entirely ideological. See above.
"If one is really concerned to secure civil or political liberty for a person, that commitment should be accompanied by a further concern about the conditions of the person's life that make it possible for him to enjoy and exercise that liberty. Why on earth would it be worth fighting for this person's liberty (say, his liberty to choose between A and B) if he were left in a situation in which the choice between A and B meant nothing to him, or in which his choosing one rather than the other would have no impact on his life?"
On a similar note, you can't just pursue liberty as the be-all-and-end-all, and let society go to hell in the process. An exchange I saw yesterday on Twitter:
User 1: What is liberty without a job?
User 2: Liberty is the ability to decide I want or if I don't want a job. It's my decision and my liberty.
User 1: In order to decide which jobs you want or to choose not to work, there have to be jobs available.
A few other thoughts I had while reading the article:
"Health care is a good just like food, clothing, and shelter"
In the context of her other arguments, she is literally saying that people don't have a right to food (ie. to not die), clothing or shelter.
Where’s the compassion for taxpayers—who are forced to foot the bill?
Forced to pay a few dollars (that you'd otherwise probably spend on material goods) so that other people don't die from preventable causes? Sorry if I don't weep for you.
"Health care is too important to be left to the incompetent federal government. Due to a lack of proper incentives, government generally destroys everything they touch"
Woah.
"The government has never been able to run anything more efficiently than the for-profit private sector."
WOAH. Holy shit, hold up there. You can't just drop that all blasé into a sentence. British public transport? Australian electricity? Privatised training colleges that have a course completion rate of 20% while taking millions of dollars in subsidies? For-profit prisons that actually have a financial interest in recidivism??
"Theft is seen as immoral in practically every society on earth... Why then do some people demand that the government do it for them?"
OH DEAR GOD IT'S ONE OF THESE PEOPLE. Whenever I say the "taxation is theft" argument, I rage, then despair. How exactly do these people expect to have roads, bridges, fire departments, cops, a national defence and so on without taxes? Voluntary donations, only performed by a few? Total anarchy? Whenever I bring this up with a libertarian friend of mine, he maintains that the "the community" will take care of them. Like there will be some magical utopia where people come together to repair damaged roads out of the goodness of their hearts with all the money the evil government doesn't get from them. He also maintains there shouldn't be any government standards for drinking water, because if people get sick, "the market" will take care of it and people will stop buying it - never mind that some people have to die first. So basically I've given up because it's total lunacy.
"Private charities that run on voluntary donations are the best way of helping the poor obtain health care, not government welfare that relies on force and coercion."
Apparently she actually does believe that healthcare could be taken covered by private donations. In no world is this actually possible, considering the cost of healthcare and the limited amount of donations it would receive.
"But the fact is that health care will always be a scarce good."
A "scarce good"?? What a horrible thing to say. I spluttered.
enregistre-toi ou rejoins fanpop pour ajouter ton commentaire