• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sen. Rand Paul: Right To Health Care Is Like Believing In "Slavery"

Government can't give you anything that hasn't first been taken away from someone else.
 
Oh my god my health care is provided for! This is slavery!!?!?
How is this slavery?
Like Kandahar said even the most "regulated" systems you choose your doctor, your hospital and etc...

Next you'll want your food, gasoline, mortgage, haircuts and beer paid for. Where does it end?
 
This is the dumbest slavery comparison I've ever heard. Nobody gets conscripted in a universal health care system.

Conservatives? This is your race card.
 
There is no "right" to health care.

Health care is a service provided by professionals, and no one has a "right" to the labor of others. The presumption that some have a right to the labor of others is the defintion of slavery.

I know well the argument you are attempting to make, but it doesn't apply here. Universal health care is not about forcing doctors to work for free. Rand Paul knows that and so do you.
 
Last edited:
Government can't give you anything that hasn't first been taken away from someone else.

I never understand this perspective. Why would the basic presumption for every person be not to share what they have? We all have differing talents and abilities, and we are strongest when we work together. I do what I can, you do what you can, and we are all better off for it. Ideally, we wouldn't need a government to help with the distribution, but it's really nothing more than a method of getting stuff from point A to point B. The basis for civilization is that we share what we have so that we can all live better lives. This notion of "fruits of labor" only works if a person exists in a vacuum. Which no one does.

If a person hordes everything they can, and needs a government to tell them to shape up and stop acting like a spoiled child, then that person really has no place in civilization, and would rather be a caveman. Actually, even cavemen pooled their resources so they could all live better. There is actually no civilization in human history where everyone has only worked for their own benefit. Even the rugged frontiersmen of the American West had to work together to survive. We are a communal species. That's how we are. The ones who only worked to benefit themselves were the tyrranical aristocrats and war-leaders who murdered, raped, and pillaged their way through history, and were the exact dynamic that we in America rebelled against. In functional terms, there is no difference between a wealthy business owner and an Earl or a Duke. They own the things you need to live, and use power and force to keep you from having it.

If someone thinks that the government, which is entirely staffed and run by Americans who grew up in American neighborhoods, raised on American values, attended American schools, does anything besides executing the will of the people, then they are sorely mistaken. Unfortunately, we the American people allowed our will to be expressed in the money owned by a few individuals. And it is our own fault for letting that happen, and we need to do something about that.
 
Wouldn't the same logic apply to a person's right to be represented by an attorney in court?

pretty big stretch.

government sets up the courts - for the express purpose of using due process to stip you of rights. So the right to an attorney is more like an extension of your rights to defend your life and liberty.


unlike the courts, government isn't putting your health at risk , so they have no obligation to ensure they don't adversely impact your health.
 
Do you also believe that teachers, soldiers, prison guards, road workers, and other public servants are slaves? All of those services require funding "at the end of a gun by brute force" too. :roll:

stupid straw man example. courts have ruled we don't have a right to police protection, or to an education. or to roads, etc, etc.

progressives are saying we do have a right to healthcare though.
 
This is the dumbest slavery comparison I've ever heard. Nobody gets conscripted in a universal health care system.

What kind of stupid remark is this?

O_amaCare forces citizens into The Plan.
 
I never understand this perspective. Why would the basic presumption for every person be not to share what they have? We all have differing talents and abilities, and we are strongest when we work together. I do what I can, you do what you can, and we are all better off for it. Ideally, we wouldn't need a government to help with the distribution, but it's really nothing more than a method of getting stuff from point A to point B. The basis for civilization is that we share what we have so that we can all live better lives. This notion of "fruits of labor" only works if a person exists in a vacuum. Which no one does.

The presumption in the American experiment is that people voluntarily "share" their skills by engaging in what's called "commerce", and the concept of "sharing" goes both ways. The skilled American "shares" his skills, the recipient of this "sharing" shares his money.

The European experiment in "sharing" involves people sharing their skills and in exchange they're exempted from the "sharing" of bullets, rubber truncheons, and prison. That is, after all, the heart of socialism.

If a person hordes everything they can, and needs a government to tell them to shape up and stop acting like a spoiled child, then that person really has no place in civilization, and would rather be a caveman.

And..

...in a grown-up mature civilization, the hoarder is recognized as a free individual and he's allowed his freedom to live his own life. Only in juvie "civilizations" do the governmnts beleive that its acceptable to use the force held by the mindless mob to steal what the hoarder possesses for their own greedy purposes. Which is exactly what all socialist schemes do.
 
I never understand this perspective. Why would the basic presumption for every person be not to share what they have? We all have differing talents and abilities, and we are strongest when we work together. I do what I can, you do what you can, and we are all better off for it. Ideally, we wouldn't need a government to help with the distribution, but it's really nothing more than a method of getting stuff from point A to point B. The basis for civilization is that we share what we have so that we can all live better lives. This notion of "fruits of labor" only works if a person exists in a vacuum. Which no one does.

If a person hordes everything they can, and needs a government to tell them to shape up and stop acting like a spoiled child, then that person really has no place in civilization, and would rather be a caveman. Actually, even cavemen pooled their resources so they could all live better. There is actually no civilization in human history where everyone has only worked for their own benefit. Even the rugged frontiersmen of the American West had to work together to survive. We are a communal species. That's how we are. The ones who only worked to benefit themselves were the tyrranical aristocrats and war-leaders who murdered, raped, and pillaged their way through history, and were the exact dynamic that we in America rebelled against. In functional terms, there is no difference between a wealthy business owner and an Earl or a Duke. They own the things you need to live, and use power and force to keep you from having it.

If someone thinks that the government, which is entirely staffed and run by Americans who grew up in American neighborhoods, raised on American values, attended American schools, does anything besides executing the will of the people, then they are sorely mistaken. Unfortunately, we the American people allowed our will to be expressed in the money owned by a few individuals. And it is our own fault for letting that happen, and we need to do something about that.


It's not a Right if another has to be imposed upon for you to exercise said Right.

WHICH is what is the point here. The supposed "RIGHT" to healthcare is bull****. You have RIGHT to access Healthcare, you do not have a RIGHT to Healthcare.
 
See more as a solution to a problem and not a right. It is more a public health issue, and not so different from fire departments and other public issues that we work together to solve.
 
How Rand Paul was able to make such a connection between health care and slavery is beyond me.

First off, we don't have nationalized nor socialized health care for the civilian population. No public option; no universal health care.

Second, I didn't know doctors still made house calls! :shock:

Third, no one is forcing anyone to see a doctor they don't want to see or received medical treatment they don't want.

Fourth, States still have some control over how health insurance markets will function within their boarders. Insurance companies may now come under state-sponsored health insurance exchanges (a Republican idea, BTW), but it won't be the federal government that runs them. The PPACA only sets the standard bywhich the HIEs are to be organized; it's the individual States responsibility to operate and maintain them according to the law.

Fourth, the mandate may require folks to get health insurance, but it certainly doesn't tell you what insurance company to buy from.

Rand Pauls comments are nothing more than unnecessary race baiting.
 
for the love of god. slavery is a concept that is not actually tied to race.

Shh, don't you know, slavery is ONLY slavery when white people enslave black people, anything else isn't actually "slavery"
 
Shh, don't you know, slavery is ONLY slavery when white people enslave black people, anything else isn't actually "slavery"

No, slavery is slavery when it's slavery. Calling things that are not slavery, you know where you actually get paid for your work, is not slavery. This is some stupid **** here.
 
No, slavery is slavery when it's slavery. Calling things that are not slavery, you know where you actually get paid for your work, is not slavery. This is some stupid **** here.

he didn't call it slavery, he said it is "like slavery" as in having some similar qualities, while not actually equaling something.

you are right, this thread does contain some stupid **** here.
 
No, slavery is slavery when it's slavery. Calling things that are not slavery, you know where you actually get paid for your work, is not slavery. This is some stupid **** here.

He was making a comparison, to explain how you cannot have a RIGHT to healthcare. Instead of taking a moment to think about that, and why he said it, you're stuck on "OMG it's NOT SLAVERY LOL" mode. Which is the real tragedy here.
 
He was making a comparison, to explain how you cannot have a RIGHT to healthcare. Instead of taking a moment to think about that, and why he said it, you're stuck on "OMG it's NOT SLAVERY LOL" mode. Which is the real tragedy here.

He's making a stupid and false comparison. If he were serious, he find something that might actually work as a comparison. As it is, he has done nothing but hurt his own position.
 
he didn't call it slavery, he said it is "like slavery" as in having some similar qualities, while not actually equaling something.

you are right, this thread does contain some stupid **** here.

Like is a comparison, and it is not like slavery in any way. Any one who says it is is saying some really stupid ****.
 
He's making a stupid and false comparison. If he were serious, he find something that might actually work as a comparison. As it is, he has done nothing but hurt his own position.

you never supported his positions, and you clearly have no ability to understand the mindset of people that did support his opinions. so what you just wrote, is pure bull****.
 
Like is a comparison, and it is not like slavery in any way. Any one who says it is is saying some really stupid ****.

if you believe you have a right to someones labor, you do support a position that is very much "like slavery"

I understand the hand-wringing, it sucks for you because this makes you a bad person.
 
Back
Top Bottom