The title sums it up pretty well...
If you have the right to X, do you have the right to NOT exercise that right?
Please explain your response.
Cutting to the chase, yes, suicide should be legal.
It is.Oh, I thought this was about mandatory health insurance.
I agree with everything else, however, there are some very limited instances where I think that enforcing someone else's right is all of our business, to explain, if someone is being threatened by physical threats or intimidation in my presence, it is my business to enforce their right to life and liberty if I can reasonably stop the threat and it is imminent, as is all of our responsibility, however, this is such a limited scope that it rarely applies and many of us will hopefully never be in such a position. IOW, if someone is being denied an actual right, we protect not only them, but ourselves by backing those rights up.you can never enforce or deny a right for another person. It's not your business.
Is it the right thing to do for a people to remove a 'right' or freedom if they will it democratically?
Oh, I thought this was about mandatory health insurance.
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.
Oooh! Nice try!!!Really? You have the right to be part of the militia, but you don't have the right to refuse to register for the selective service.
Please, explain....That what I thought, about this "rights" business..
I voted "other"
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.
On the contrary - its perfectly reasonable to expect everyone to provide their own means to exercise their rights.If healthcare were recognized as a right, then single payer would be the only reasonable solution.
So you argue that you do not have a right to health care...?The idea of individual mandates is not based upon healthcare being a right, but rather being a responsibility, much like carrying car insurance.
f you drive a car, you have a responsibility to carry car insurance, not a right to it.
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. Let's be honest, it's taxpayer subsidized, and government enforced, there is no "single payer" in this, only a single financing methodIf healthcare were recognized as a right, then single payer would be the only reasonable solution.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?:roll:Of course it's not practical to say we can guarantee absolutely everything in healthcare. Technology will outpace our ability to pay for healthcare more and more over time. So if one recognized BASIC healthcare as a right, the government would provide that to everybody and then things beyond basic could be covered by supplemental, as they have in France.
As created by law, but you don't HAVE, to own a car.The idea of individual mandates is not based upon healthcare being a right, but rather being a responsibility, much like carrying car insurance. If you drive a car, you have a responsibility to carry car insurance, not a right to it.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.Seeing healthcare as an individual responsibility is based largely upon the fact that people are not allowed to collapse and die in the emergency room due to EMTALA. In fact, the ER can't deny care at all.This is true, but you want the culprit to get the loot in this case.So people who go without insurance can and often do end up costing the rest of us a lot of money.
Oooh! Nice try!!!
Here's where you fail:
Selective Service, created under the power to raise armies, has nothing to do with the militia.
Now, tell me how you agree that you cannot force anyone to exercise thir rights, but support mandating that people exercise their right to health care.
Calling Out the Militia
The States as well as Congress may prescribe penalties for failure to obey the President’s call of the militia. They also have a concurrent power to aid the National Government by calls under their own authority, and in emergencies may use the militia to put down armed insurrection.1581 The Federal Government may call out the militia in case of civil war; its authority to suppress rebellion is found in the power to suppress insurrection and to carry on war.1582 The act of February 28, 1795,1583 which delegated to the President the power to call out the militia, was held constitutional.1584 A militiaman who refused to obey such a call was not “employed in the service of the United States so as to be subject[p.332]to the article of war,” but was liable to be tried for disobedience of the act of 1795.1585
CRS/LII Annotated Constitution Article I
The idea of individual mandates is not based upon healthcare being a right, but rather being a responsibility, much like carrying car insurance. If you drive a car, you have a responsibility to carry car insurance, not a right to it.
So people who go without insurance can and often do end up costing the rest of us a lot of money.
Non-sequitur.The idea of individual mandates is not based upon healthcare being a right, but rather being a responsibility, much like carrying car insurance. If you drive a car, you have a responsibility to carry car insurance, not a right to it.