View Poll Results: Do you have the right to NOT exercise a right?

Voters
45. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    40 88.89%
  • No

    2 4.44%
  • Other

    3 6.67%
Page 4 of 38 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 377

Thread: The right to -not- exercise a right?

  1. #31
    Advisor LiveUninhibited's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-11-10 @ 03:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    549

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    On the contrary - its perfectly reasonable to expect everyone to provide their own means to exercise their rights.
    I suppose it depends on if you're talking about it as a positive or a negative right. Seeing it as a negative right has little meaning for many though, as healthcare is different from other services being an absolute need that they cannot reliably fulfill.

    So you argue that you do not have a right to health care...?
    No I'm arguing that individual mandates is not based upon a right to healthcare, but a responsibility to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by EpicDude86 View Post
    Isn't Car Insurance required more to protect other people's property from you? (and yes I know it's for unlikely events happening solely to you, like a tree falling on your car)
    Yes exactly. That's why they see it as a responsibility. I'm saying individual mandates are an attempt to treat health insurance exactly as auto insurance.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    How so? Rights are not dependent upon your ability to exercise them, nor can they be exercised at the expense of your neighbor. Rights are there, they are not to be infringed, yet you are responsible for them, thus, single payer is the opposite of a singular reasonable solution.
    You probably only believe in negative rights. There is at least one positive right that society as a whole recognizes, i.e. the right to a basic education. This is a positive right because children cannot generally be expected to provide for their own education, and it is not their fault their parents are morons. Yet education is seen as a real need in our society, as it is hard to attain a living wage without one. Healthcare is analogous because patients really are like children when it comes to healthcare, particularly in medical emergencies or when the big insurance company rescinds their policy and fights in court until the patient dies.

    Let's be honest, it's taxpayer subsidized, and government enforced, there is no "single payer" in this, only a single financing method In other words, everyone will have to live down and accept less, even though it is a right, someone would be able to deny it due to cost, but single payer "is the only reasonable solution" right?
    No I said it would logically follow from seeing healthcare as a positive right, which you clearly do not believe. It is true that rationing occurs in single payer systems, though we simply have a different form of rationing here, based upon wealth. That is why I think it would be reasonable to expect the government to fund the basics, and then have a market for supplemental.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Non-sequitur.
    Car insurance is a responsibilty you must accept in order to exercise a privilege granted to you by the state, to ensure that others are protected from your actions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    For liability to others, not to yourself. You don't have to insure your car (or yourself) at all unless you're required to by your loan agreement.

    You're not even required to carry liability insurance if you can self-insure.
    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    As created by law, but you don't HAVE, to own a car. As created by a Federal Government mandate, so the the federal government can "protect" people from their own bad decisions, like a good big brother. This is true, but you want the culprit to get the loot in this case.
    Not sure I understand the last sentence, but before that is precisely why I oppose individual mandates. I don't think the comparison between car insurance and health insurance is valid, but I do know that is the reasoning behind individual mandates. But I do support a more France-like system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Uncompensated care makes up a tiny fraction of health care spending, hardly a blip.
    I didn't say there aren't more important reforms to pursue (e.g. malpractice), but I would be curious to see where you get that data.
    Last edited by LiveUninhibited; 11-04-09 at 02:08 PM.

  2. #32
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post
    I suppose it depends on if you're talking about it as a positive or a negative right. Seeing it as a negative right has little meaning for many though, as healthcare is different from other services being an absolute need that they cannot reliably fulfill.
    Doiesn't matter -- it is -always- reasonable to expect everyone to provide their own means to exercise their rights; that some may not be able to do is a seperate issue that in no way nullifies said reasonable expectation.

    Your position is that the ONLY reasonable solution is single payer.
    This is demonstrably false.

    No I'm arguing that individual mandates is not based upon a right to healthcare, but a responsibility to it.
    That being the case, your input here isnt relevant to the topic.
    Last edited by Goobieman; 11-04-09 at 02:08 PM.

  3. #33
    Advisor LiveUninhibited's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-11-10 @ 03:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    549

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Doiesn't matter -- it is -always- reasonable to expect everyone to provide their own means to exercise their rights; that some may not be able to do is a seperate issue that in no way nullifies said reasonable expectation.

    Your position is that the ONLY reasonable solution is single payer.
    This is demonstrably false.
    No I said it would logically follow IF AND ONLY IF you believe all healthcare is a positive right. If you do not know what I mean by positive rights when I speak of the right to a basic education then I'm not sure how I can get it across. It's fine if you don't believe in positive rights, but if you recognized healthcare as a positive right it would follow that you believe in single payer. This is actually not quite my own position, as I believe only basic healthcare is a positive right and it is unrealistic to expect government to cover everything.

    That being the case, your input here isnt relevant to the topic.
    It was stated that the poll was inspired by the idea that requiring people to buy insurance is like forcing them to exercise a right. My point was that is false. Requiring people to buy insurance is not based upon healthcare being a right at all, but a responsibility:

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    It is.

    If you having a right means you have the right to not exercise said right, and if health care (that is, to buy health insurance) is a right, you must then be against the government requiring you to buy health insurance.
    Last edited by LiveUninhibited; 11-04-09 at 02:14 PM.

  4. #34
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post
    No I said it would logically follow IF AND ONLY IF you believe all healthcare is a positive right.
    And thus, my argument.
    You have the same right to health care as you do to a gun, a car, a TV and a house.
    Last edited by Goobieman; 11-04-09 at 02:26 PM.

  5. #35
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post
    I suppose it depends on if you're talking about it as a positive or a negative right. Seeing it as a negative right has little meaning for many though, as healthcare is different from other services being an absolute need that they cannot reliably fulfill.
    Here's a hint for you:

    Rights don't carry a price tag.

    People have right to own guns. they gotta buy the weapons themselves.

    People have a right to free speech. They gotta use their own money to buy the radio station.

    If people have a "right" to health care (which is a service provided by others who have the right to be paid), they have to foot the bill themselves. Especially since the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment.


    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post
    Yes exactly. That's why they see it as a responsibility. I'm saying individual mandates are an attempt to treat health insurance exactly as auto insurance.
    And it shouldn't be, since auto insurance exists to protect others, not the insured.

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post
    You probably only believe in negative rights. There is at least one positive right that society as a whole recognizes, i.e. the right to a basic education.
    That's not a right, that's a parental obligation and not something the general public should finance.

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post
    This is a positive right because children cannot generally be expected to provide for their own education,
    Exactly, its their parents' duty, a burden the parents accepted when they chose to do the nasty.

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post
    and it is not their fault their parents are morons.
    It's not the fault of parents who are struggling to provide for their own kids, either.

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post
    Yet education is seen as a real need in our society, as it is hard to attain a living wage without one.
    Only because the politicians are permitting the nation to be overrun by the Invading Horde that's sucked up all the jobs for unskilled illiterate labor. Otherwise there would be plenty of dishwashing and strawberry picking jobs for these people.

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post
    Healthcare is analogous because patients really are like children when it comes to healthcare, particularly in medical emergencies or when the big insurance company rescinds their policy and fights in court until the patient dies.
    No, it's not similar. Citizens aren't children, and no sane person elects politicians to be their daddy. People that elect politicians to be their daddy, and I know liberals do this (reference Bush-Clinton Presidential debate 1992, the "Pony Tailed Guy".) Clearly liberals shouldn't be allowed to participate in elections until they grow up.

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post
    No I said it would logically follow from seeing healthcare as a positive right, which you clearly do not believe. It is true that rationing occurs in single payer systems, though we simply have a different form of rationing here, based upon wealth. That is why I think it would be reasonable to expect the government to fund the basics, and then have a market for supplemental.
    I think it would be reasonable for the government to get the hell out of the way, since its the government that's preventing out-of-state insurers from competing locally, and the lack of competition is one of the biggest cost drivers in health care.

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post
    Not sure I understand the last sentence, but before that is precisely why I oppose individual mandates. I don't think the comparison between car insurance and health insurance is valid, but I do know that is the reasoning behind individual mandates. But I do support a more France-like system.
    Then move to France.

  6. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Epic Mountain
    Last Seen
    12-28-09 @ 06:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,384

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Here's a hint for you:

    Rights don't carry a price tag.

    People have right to own guns. they gotta buy the weapons themselves.

    People have a right to free speech. They gotta use their own money to buy the radio station.

    If people have a "right" to health care (which is a service provided by others who have the right to be paid), they have to foot the bill themselves. Especially since the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment.
    Oh snap! Logic'd

  7. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post
    It was stated that the poll was inspired by the idea that requiring people to buy insurance is like forcing them to exercise a right. My point was that is false. Requiring people to buy insurance is not based upon healthcare being a right at all, but a responsibility:
    But its up to the individual to decide not only what his responsiblities are, but how to address them. That's their right.

  8. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Epic Mountain
    Last Seen
    12-28-09 @ 06:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,384

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post
    Yes exactly. That's why they see it as a responsibility. I'm saying individual mandates are an attempt to treat health insurance exactly as auto insurance.
    So...you need Health Insurance to cover someone else that you get sick or injure?

  9. #39
    Advisor LiveUninhibited's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-11-10 @ 03:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    549

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by EpicDude86 View Post
    Oh snap! Logic'd
    Um no. Clearly he simply does not believe in positive rights. I already acknowledged that you do not believe in positive rights as you're libertarians. Here's a primer for you guys:

    [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_right]Negative and positive rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    But its up to the individual to decide not only what his responsiblities are, but how to address them. That's their right.
    Well I wish this were so with car insurance. I would rather not buy liability insurance.

    Quote Originally Posted by EpicDude86 View Post
    So...you need Health Insurance to cover someone else that you get sick or injure?
    This is not actually my position, I just wanted you to be aware of the reasoning behind individual mandates (not a rights-based argument): You need health insurance so you don't declare bankruptcy for unexpected/unmanageable health costs and cost the rest of us money. It's the leading contributer to personal bankruptcy.
    Last edited by LiveUninhibited; 11-04-09 at 03:10 PM.

  10. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Epic Mountain
    Last Seen
    12-28-09 @ 06:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,384

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    He makes perfect sense. Just because you have the RIGHT to something doesn't mean it is OWED to you. Your rights and Freedoms, that you are GIVEN by those who fight for your freedom, and who have fought for it, is not even owed to you. You have the right to healthcare, and no one is turned down if they are sick. The country would be a lot better off if we were all a little more responsible AND we realized that "Life isn't Fair" and "**** happens" When you try to force equality or fairness, you run into far more problems than if you just try to give everyone a fair chance. That's why Modern Liberalism is a bunch of whiners. They can't quite move past that part in their life where Mommy and Daddy took care of everything for them and they think they are owed all kinds of crap simply for existing.

Page 4 of 38 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •