• 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"

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.

He would be paid, paid, and not forced at all. No one is told they have to treat anyone. A complete lack of understanding on his part is sad. If he choose to treat someone he would be paid. There is nothing liek slavery going on.
 
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****.

Now, I have no idea what to make of this post, but stupid is stupid no matter who throws it out there.
 
He would be paid, paid, and not forced at all. No one is told they have to treat anyone. A complete lack of understanding on his part is sad. If he choose to treat someone he would be paid. There is nothing liek slavery going on.


Sorry, once you determine you have a right to someones labor, the natural progression is to have a say in who he treats, how much he charges, etc, etc.

History shows that the progressive movement is full of liars. The Civil Rights movement won’t amount to quotas. The 16th amendment was to soak the rich, not tax labor, and a right to healthcare won’t dictate the amount DR’s charge.

I don’t believe a ****ing word you guys say anymore. You have proved you will say or do anything to get your foot in the door.
 
Sorry, once you determine you have a right to someones labor, the natural progression is to have a say in who he treats, how much he charges, etc, etc.

History shows that the progressive movement is full of liars. The Civil Rights movement won’t amount to quotas. The 16th amendment was to soak the rich, not tax labor, and a right to healthcare won’t dictate the amount DR’s charge.

I don’t believe a ****ing word you guys say anymore. You have proved you will say or do anything to get your foot in the door.

I'm afraid you're wrong. The "right", which is the wrong word, is not to someone specifics labor. It is to the care. Someone will willingly provide the care for money. No one will be forced to provide it.

The rest of your post is completely incoherent.
 
for the love of god. slavery is a concept that is not actually tied to race.

Tell that to the hundreds of Black people who escaped from the south via the Underground Railroad.

But I digress...

I understand that you believe Rand Paul's commentary was equated to the economic and selective process of the health care system, but as I've pointed out nothing about the PPACA remotely resembles choices being taken away from the soverignty of the States or the liberty of the people. You still have a choice to get health insurnace if you can afford to do so or not get it. Just understand that if you don't get it you will pay a tax penalty for your choice. But in exercising that choice, NO ONE is holding a gun to your head telling you which doctor to see, what treatment to receive, or when to receive said treatment. I know he was referring to Universal health care, but again that's not what the PPACA provides. But even if it did, it wouldn't be "slavery" on any level because we all would be paying into the system.

Therefore, for Rand Paul to equate slavery to health care in general, Universal health care or the PPACA not only is foolish but intellectually dishonest. This notwithstanding, I have to wonder why someone you defend as not being a racist certainly seems to make alot of comments concerning either the non-inclusion of people from certain racial backgrounds or speaks in such oppressive terms of the establishment. I can only surmise that he's not a firm believing in pluralism with such commentary.
 
Last edited:
Like is a comparison, and it is not like slavery in any way. Any one who says it is is saying some really stupid ****.

Really. Well that's your opinion and you are welcome to it. I disagree. If you believe you have a RIGHT to some item, service or the like, then you are in fact compelling another person to provide it for you. What would happen Boo. if all the doctors in a city were to go on strike? Those that believe there is this mythical "right" to healthcare would then do what?

Hmm?
 
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.

So then, your problem with UHC is just a matter of semantics. And as long as people don't claim health care is a "right", you'll be perfectly content with it, just as you are with those other services?
 
I'm afraid you're wrong. The "right", which is the wrong word, is not to someone specifics labor. It is to the care. Someone will willingly provide the care for money. No one will be forced to provide it.

The rest of your post is completely incoherent.

More progressive bs.

Once you claim you have a right to something that requires labor, the path has been set.
 
So then, your problem with UHC is just a matter of semantics. And as long as people don't claim health care is a "right", you'll be perfectly content with it, just as you are with those other services?

Semantics? I wish this was an issue of semantics. The word right carries significant meaning in this country, by attempting to label this as a right is a political maneuver to advance a cause.
 
More progressive bs.

Once you claim you have a right to something that requires labor, the path has been set.

Not forced labor. Slavery is about forced labor. No one is required to provide the service. And anyone who choose to provide it will be paid for doing so. Come one, think this through. :coffeepap
 
Really. Well that's your opinion and you are welcome to it. I disagree. If you believe you have a RIGHT to some item, service or the like, then you are in fact compelling another person to provide it for you. What would happen Boo. if all the doctors in a city were to go on strike? Those that believe there is this mythical "right" to healthcare would then do what?

Hmm?

No, that does not follow. It merely means it will be paid for. No one is required to provide the service. You're really making a huge illogical leap, as is Rand.
 
Semantics? I wish this was an issue of semantics. The word right carries significant meaning in this country, by attempting to label this as a right is a political maneuver to advance a cause.

So far the only person in this thread who has brought it up as a "right" is you. I haven't seen anyone labeling it as a right. As far as I'm concerned, you can call it whatever you like, as long as we get UHC. Put it in the same category as universal education, universal police protection, or a national military. I'm not really that interested in whether you want to call those things "rights" or "privileges" or whatever else...the important things are the policies themselves.
 
No, that does not follow. It merely means it will be paid for. No one is required to provide the service. You're really making a huge illogical leap, as is Rand.

Where does this money come from Boo? The Money Tree?
 
So far the only person in this thread who has brought it up as a "right" is you. I haven't seen anyone labeling it as a right. As far as I'm concerned, you can call it whatever you like, as long as we get UHC. Put it in the same category as universal education, universal police protection, or a national military. I'm not really that interested in whether you want to call those things "rights" or "privileges" or whatever else...the important things are the policies themselves.

Rand Paul framed the debate this way. He is talking specifically about people that believe in a right to healthcare.
 
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.


There ya go...you got that right. Some people that pay taxs think they are the only ones that pay taxs and they think they are slaves because they do...Ive said for a long time...that we should not tax for police and fire...we should charge per call...like whats your ass worth when its in a sling...100 grand ? 200, a million...its worth whatever we say its worth because after all this is capitolist society and we can charge whatever the freight will bear..:)
 
Where does this money come from Boo? The Money Tree?

No, all kinds of places. Insurance, private pockets, charity, and tax dollars. But there is no forced labor. People get paid. And no one is forced to work for money, let alone free.
 
ObamaCare would be horrible even if it wasn't mandated.
 
ObamaCare would be horrible even if it wasn't mandated.

Not having any reform has been pretty rough as well. You can't move forward by standing still.
 
This would actually be funny if it wasn't so pathetically ignorant. I mean it's not like doctors are invariably among the wealthiest people in every nation, whether there's UHC or not. Like slavery? Seriously? That's gotta be the most profitable form of slavery ever. For the slave, that is. I think I've just stepped into bizarro world. :lol::lol:
 
Needless to say, both sides are using highly emotive terminology to advance their political positions on medical care.

His using the slavery example isn't excusable, but neither is the hyperbole coming from those who rant and rave over the supposed problems we have now.
 
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.

You've just touched on the very contridiction that is "Conservatism!" Think about it...

The movement claims to be God-fearing Christians which one of the basic tenants of Christianity is "love thy neighbor". Yet one of the guiding priciples behind conservatism is "protecting the American way" which in their storied history doesn't necessary allow for the inclusion of minorities particularly in a leadership role.

The big issue really is how they view "prosperity". Conservatives truly do see themselves as defenders of American business interest. So, if you're a big time mover and shaker economically, they'll do everything in their power to protect your interest. Problem is conservatism says that those at the top of the economic chain are to support the social and economic interests of those at the bottom via sturdy employment, fair wages and contributions to social needs (i.e., donations to charities). And yet, what we have as a result of allowing businesses to regulate themselves is high unemployment and little assistance on a grand national stage to help those in need. And if you really study U.S. history what you'll discover is just about every time this country has had an economic downturn it starts off by corporate greed. Every recession (and the Depression) this country has every experienced can be traced back to moments of greed or the lack of regulatory oversight (or in some cases no regulations at all).

Now, that's not to say that deregulation always came at the hand of conservatives. However, from my study of U.S. history particularly between 1920-present, nearly every time this country has experienced a deep recession or depression the origins can be traced to Republican/conservative leadership. Don't take my word for it, though.

Wikipedia: List of Recessions/Depressions in U.S.

Independent source: List of U.S. Presidents (w/party affiliation)

And that's the ironic part. For all the talk of "let the free enterprise system and the markets do what they do" and "low taxes on businesses" or "let me keep more of what I earn," the ultra conservative mindset in over 100 years has yet to grasp the simple concept that while we have checks and balances within our government to halt corruption, there needs to be checks and balances in business as well for the exact same reason. Otherwise, Wall Street runs wild over Main Street.
 
You've just touched on the very contridiction that is "Conservatism!" Think about it...

The movement claims to be God-fearing Christians which one of the basic tenants of Christianity is "love thy neighbor". Yet one of the guiding priciples behind conservatism is "protecting the American way" which in their storied history doesn't necessary allow for the inclusion of minorities particularly in a leadership role.

The big issue really is how they view "prosperity". Conservatives truly do see themselves as defenders of American business interest. So, if you're a big time mover and shaker economically, they'll do everything in their power to protect your interest. Problem is conservatism says that those at the top of the economic chain are to support the social and economic interests of those at the bottom via sturdy employment, fair wages and contributions to social needs (i.e., donations to charities). And yet, what we have as a result of allowing businesses to regulate themselves is high unemployment and little assistance on a grand national stage to help those in need. And if you really study U.S. history what you'll discover is just about every time this country has had an economic downturn it starts off by corporate greed. Every recession (and the Depression) this country has every experienced can be traced back to moments of greed or the lack of regulatory oversight (or in some cases no regulations at all).

Now, that's not to say that deregulation always came at the hand of conservatives. However, from my study of U.S. history particularly between 1920-present, nearly every time this country has experienced a deep recession or depression the origins can be traced to Republican/conservative leadership. Don't take my word for it, though.

Wikipedia: List of Recessions/Depressions in U.S.

Independent source: List of U.S. Presidents (w/party affiliation)

And that's the ironic part. For all the talk of "let the free enterprise system and the markets do what they do" and "low taxes on businesses" or "let me keep more of what I earn," the ultra conservative mindset in over 100 years has yet to grasp the simple concept that while we have checks and balances within our government to halt corruption, there needs to be checks and balances in business as well for the exact same reason. Otherwise, Wall Street runs wild over Main Street.

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 progressive's burden.
 
Last edited:
What is sad is that Rand Paul brings up a good point, but people will have trouble getting their head around the slavery comparison. The rights guaranteed to people are rights that do not impose an obligation onto other human beings. If healthcare is a right, someone must pay for it. Likewise, someone must perform a task to help those that are sick. To suggest someone has the right to another man or woman's work is ridiculous. That is Paul's point.
 
Back
Top Bottom