• 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"

Harry Guerrilla said:
I can't even begin to debunk that nonsense you just wrote.
There may exist some deregulation, but that tends to be involved with things that are supported as cartels or monopolies by the government, primarily banking and utilities.

The progressives wanted this, this cartel power to banks, you got it.
It's the progressives burden.
Click to expand...
And each time Republicans/Conservatives complained about "over-reach, nationlism or socialism" what happened? Those so-called "cartels" were deregulated. And then what insued soon afterwards? And , majority rules, which party was in charge when the bottom fell out?

Again, do your homework. Understand the true nature of conservatism and then review history. Perhaps then you'll have a different perspective on the matter. As I said, don't take my word for it. I've provided links that provide you with the history. But to be clear, I said "DEEP recession or depression" not every recession or depression.
 
Yes, because the right to healthcare means the enslavement of those who work in healthcare...
 
Objective Voice said:
And each time Republicans/Conservatives complained about "over-reach, nationlism or socialism" what happened? Those so-called "cartels" were deregulated. And then what insued soon afterwards? And , majority rules, which party was in charge when the bottom fell out?

Again, do your homework. Understand the true nature of conservatism and then review history. Perhaps then you'll have a different perspective on the matter. As I said, don't take my word for it. I've provided links that provide you with the history. But to be clear, I said "DEEP recession or depression" not every recession or depression.
Click to expand...

Ya ya, you're trying to use history as a platform for your politics when you don't get at the root of the problem.
That your political ideology would not tolerate these institutions not being a cartel.

Top down economics was largely the platform of the progressive movement in the 1910's there on after.
Now you guys try to blame it on everyone else except those who started the problems.

No I do not agree with the deregulation of monopolies and cartels, I support getting rid of them altogether, something you guys want no business in.
You wouldn't have a scape goat for irrational economic policy.
 
digsbe said:
Yes, because the right to healthcare means the enslavement of those who work in healthcare...
Click to expand...

A right to medical care, this isn't health care because that is hugely broad subject, means that someone else has to pay for it and someone else has to provide the physical labor, for you.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
A right to medical care, this isn't health care because that is hugely broad subject, means that someone else has to pay for it and someone else has to provide the physical labor, for you.
Click to expand...


Like insurance, where the healthy pay for the ill.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
A right to medical care, this isn't health care because that is hugely broad subject, means that someone else has to pay for it and someone else has to provide the physical labor, for you.
Click to expand...

But how is this akin slavery? Anyone in healthcare can quit their job, a slave cannot. I respect the right for a doctor to refuse someone service, but that doesn't mean another doctor can't see that individual. A right to healthcare does not mean any patient can order a doctor to see them immediately. It means that they have the right to access healthcare.

liblady said:
i thought you were FOR universal healthcare.
Click to expand...

I am, my comment was sarcastic.
 
winston53660 said:
Like insurance, where the healthy pay for the ill.
Click to expand...

Like car insurance where the good drivers pay for the bad...the list just goes on...its always been that way and always will be
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
A right to medical care, this isn't health care because that is hugely broad subject, means that someone else has to pay for it
Click to expand...

That's no different than any other public service.

Harry Guerrilla said:
and someone else has to provide the physical labor, for you.
Click to expand...

Not unless the government puts a gun to someone's head, forces them to go to medical school, and forces them to treat specific patients without compensation. Aside from that, doctors are free to provide (or not provide) the physical labor for someone's health care, and they'll be compensated for it. If they don't like the amount of compensation they're receiving, they are free to take up a different specialty, move to a better-paying area, or retire.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
Insurance is voluntary and still reserves the person to self ownership.
Systems with mandatory UHC, still ration medical care on price, only you do not get to chose what price that is, the government does.
Click to expand...

It's a good thing we don't have UHC then isn't it? To that, Rand Paul was speaking out of his butt.

Next headline, please...
 
digsbe said:
But how is this akin slavery? Anyone in healthcare can quit their job, a slave cannot. I respect the right for a doctor to refuse someone service, but that doesn't mean another doctor can't see that individual. A right to healthcare does not mean any patient can order a doctor to see them immediately. It means that they have the right to access healthcare.
Click to expand...

Everyone already has the right to access medical care.
I was not equating this to slavery.

Btw, Health care is not medical care.
Health care involves personal daily habits (diet, exercise, etc.) not associated with medical treatment.
You know the other stuff that has more of an effect on well being than medical care.
 
Kandahar said:
That's no different than any other public service.
Click to expand...

Two wrongs don't make a right. ;)


Kandahar said:
Not unless the government puts a gun to someone's head, forces them to go to medical school, and forces them to treat specific patients without compensation. Aside from that, doctors are free to provide (or not provide) the physical labor for someone's health care, and they'll be compensated for it. If they don't like the amount of compensation they're receiving, they are free to take up a different specialty, move to a better-paying area, or retire.
Click to expand...

Why should someone be forced to quit their job because the government decides to fundamentally alter the activities related to their career choice?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Two wrongs don't make a right. ;)

Why should someone be forced to quit their job because the government decides to fundamentally alter the activities related to their career choice?
Click to expand...

Because the possibility that the market will change is a risk that you take with ANY career?
 
Kandahar said:
Because the possibility that the market will change is a risk that you take with ANY career?
Click to expand...

The government changing it is not the same as the market changing.
Typically the market changes in slower intervals, while the government makes very rapid moves that can't easily be adapted to.
 
MrVicchio said:
No. Because you have the CHOICE to have an attorney represent you, or you can choose to have a court appointed one.
Click to expand...
So if we had a choice to have a doctor or to have a court appoint a doctor, a right to health care would be just like the right to have an attorney?

I am not following you on that one.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
So if we had a choice to have a doctor or to have a court appoint a doctor, a right to health care would be just like the right to have an attorney?

I am not following you on that one.
Click to expand...

The only reason we have a right to have an attorney, is because the state is accusing you of a crime and seeks to remove all your other rights, for a period of time.

You do not get a right to an attorney for civil cases.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Everyone already has the right to access medical care.
I was not equating this to slavery.

Btw, Health care is not medical care.
Health care involves personal daily habits (diet, exercise, etc.) not associated with medical treatment.
You know the other stuff that has more of an effect on well being than medical care.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that you were equating it to slavery, but Rand Paul is.

I disagree, I think healthcare and medical care are synonymous. Health care involves the treatment of disease which is synonymous to medical care. My problem is with Rand Paul's statement that if someone has the right to healthcare, then he must be forced to take care of them as if he were in slavery.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The only reason we have a right to have an attorney, is because the state is accusing you of a crime and seeks to remove all your other rights, for a period of time.
You do not get a right to an attorney for civil cases.
Click to expand...
I can get that. But that's not what I was asking about. I was asking about what MrV meant.
 
digsbe said:
I'm not saying that you were equating it to slavery, but Rand Paul is.

I disagree, I think healthcare and medical care are synonymous. Health care involves the treatment of disease which is synonymous to medical care. My problem is with Rand Paul's statement that if someone has the right to healthcare, then he must be forced to take care of them as if he were in slavery.
Click to expand...

Some/most of the top illnesses in the U.S. are related to obesity, something that no UHC system could fix.

I think it's incredibly naive to think you can solve health issues with some kind of magical silver bullet, like UHC and "rights" to medical care.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Some/most of the top illnesses in the U.S. are related to obesity, something that no UHC system could fix.

I think it's incredibly naive to think you can solve health issues with some kind of magical silver bullet, like UHC and "rights" to medical care.
Click to expand...


When you get into the high dollar things like heart transplants you can get kicked out of the program for not following dietary guidelines. And your blood is checked every four to six weeks at a min.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Some/most of the top illnesses in the U.S. are related to obesity, something that no UHC system could fix.

I think it's incredibly naive to think you can solve health issues with some kind of magical silver bullet, like UHC and "rights" to medical care.
Click to expand...

I think it's naive to rely on a for profit healthcare system who's focus isn't providing healthcare but to maximize profits. People have the right to be obese, but I support incentives like tax breaks for those who stay healthy and try to lose weight.

It's wrong and inhumane for a family to go broke because a family member developed cancer and they have to spend everything and then some to ensure that persons survival. I think it's wrong that people who are born with chronic diseases could be denied coverage or forced to pay much more than others. I think a for profit health insurer system is wrong and infective. I would also tweak healthcare practice in America, but for profit insurance companies only drive up the cost and put the patients 2nd to profits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom