Rand is creating a hyperbole. Look at Europe. Do you think healthcare is conscripting people in Europe and turning them to slaves?
That is not at all what the right to healthcare is about. The government should do what is reasonably possible to provide the healthcare without infringing other rights.

Rand is absolutely turning a serious argument into a joke. Look up how many countries in the world enslave healthcare workers.

As for why there is such a disconnect, I guess it has to do with how scared you are of change and how unwilling you are to consider what Bernie is proposing as opposed to some extreme Doom's Day picture forming in your head when hearing a term like free healthcare.

Er, here's a tweet from Rand Paul in defense of the 2nd Amendment:
https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/746022114042478592

The National Health Service in the UK was founded nearly 68 years ago. Today it employs around 1.6 million people, none of whom are conscripted or slaves. People who train as doctors and nurses can seek employment in the NHS, but they have other options, including private hospitals.

I guess Paul is "worried" that a medical professional could somehow be forced to work for the public healthcare system.

This objection has no more basis in reality than if someone wanted a career as a fireman, a policeman, a soldier, etc.

Rand Paul is spouting utter nonsense there.

Manwe is spouting utter nonsense here.

guys take this in context as a RIGHT.

if nobody decided to be a doctor, and the profession started going into decline, then according to Sander's logic people are having their rights violated. thus we'd have to use government interventions to force people into healthcare.

this is far fetched, but the principle of healthcare as a right demands that people MUST provide labor.

if Bernie were to say it's something we should all do, that is different from proclaiming it a RIGHT.

it's not even a full fledged argument against single payer, it's just blatantly obvious that Bernie lacks basic moral principles in this argument. by trying to push the narrative that it's a right, not only is that against what the constitution was founded upon, but it also sets the precedent that ANY good or service COULD BE declared a right.

a right to free food?
a right to free housing?
a right to free clothing?

these are all major factors in peoples' lives almost as much (if not more!) than healthcare.

if you're like Bernie and do not care about who actually has to work to provide the labor, you'd be willing to demand free stuff from everyone. after all if your ONLY principle and moral center is that things that people need to survive should be free, then you're well down the path of socialism.

the constitution outlined all NEGATIVE rights, but something like healthcare would be a positive right. the founding fathers limited these as much as possible and made sure the power of taxation: WAS NOT A RIGHT OF GOVERNMENT!

it's interesting to hear, but the founding fathers only ever said it was a power that the people bestowed upon the government, and that the mechanisms of government did not have intrinsic rights.


but this is the 21st century, and people seem to have stopped caring about things like "Freedom" and "liberty" they just want free stuff.

i mean look at Europe, that's working great for them... except for ALL of south europe... and also the "socialist" Denmark had it's Prime Minister bash Sanders for his over the top socialist tendencies, as compared to the much more are market nordic model... and let's ONLY look at ethnically homogenous smaller centralized countries when talking about single payer, and ignore all the places socialism failed... and let's also not mention the fact that the sole cause of debt crises in most western countries is healthcare costs...

#Bernie2020IfHeIsStillAlive

i mean do none of you know what a RIGHT entails? if you want single payer just say the people are going to vote upon it and if they vote for it, then it's now a power of government.

enshrining it as a right has implications that directly bely the constitution.

I think in general you can divide the duties of the government into tasks that have a clearly quantifiable distinction between failure and success and tasks that don't have this distinction. When we say that the same quality of healthcare needs to be available to everyone, it is not clear what result would be considered a failure and what result would be considered a success and where exactly the line is drawn. So to my knowledge, it's actually a commitment from the government to put in an effort rather than a commitment to attain a result, if that makes some sense.

I think what Bernie is saying is that the government should be making a concerted effort and recognise that they should be making this effort, without anything forcing the government to take such unrealistically drastic interventions as JamesYanik and others allude to, to achieve a specific result.

So as I see it, with this right, the government could be held accountable if they don't make a realistic effort to ensure everyone is provided in this right, but if there is simply a lack of healthcare workers available, it would not allow the government to force people into healthcare. They could encourage it through certain subsidies, scholarships etc., though.

This discussion has had a dozen reincarnations in the past couple of months. As far as I can remember, we already established that free healthcare is a luxury that rich countries can afford and poor ones can't.

That's why it works in Germany and France, but doesn't work in Greece or Croatia (my government has been desperately looking for a way to increase taxes or foreign debt in order to keep the public health system from collapsing).

Therefore, while I'm opposed to free healthcare as a matter of principle, I'm not blind to the fact that the US could afford it.

@steephie22

"I think in general you can divide the duties of the government into tasks that have a clearly quantifiable distinction between failure and success and tasks that don't have this distinction."

can you give me specifics for each side? because i don't know what things government is supposed to do that aren't classifiable as right or wrong.


"When we say that the same quality of healthcare needs to be available to everyone, it is not clear what result would be considered a failure and what result would be considered a success and where exactly the line is drawn."

1. the same quality of healthcare should be available to everyone, given that they can provide enough money, which is a medium of exchange of labor. if you do not provide as much labor, then you have no right to demand more healthcare (also labor)

2. if you WERE to demand equal healthcare, then it's VERY obvious whether or not you've failed.


"So to my knowledge, it's actually a commitment from the government to put in an effort rather than a commitment to attain a result, if that makes some sense."

i think this is a horrible way of setting standards for the government. the public sector is already horrible inefficient, and we must be extra diligent in making sure the government does not waste taxpayer money.


"I think what Bernie is saying is that the government should be making a concerted effort and recognise that they should be making this effort, without anything forcing the government to take such unrealistically drastic interventions as JamesYanik and others allude to, to achieve a specific result."

1. if the is Bernie's intent, then he needs to rephrase what he is saying.

2. the government should not recognize ANYTHING!!! they should REPRESENT the people's will, within the confines of the constitution. saying the government "should" do something is something that is left up to democracy or to our declared rights, and saying the government should "Recognize" is also incorrect, as the government should not take any action not preordained by the citizenry.


"So as I see it, with this right, the government could be held accountable if they don't make a realistic effort to ensure everyone is provided in this right, but if there is simply a lack of healthcare workers available, it would not allow the government to force people into healthcare. They could encourage it through certain subsidies, scholarships etc., though."

now we're at a disagreement with what truly entails a right. i have a saying "half of philosophy is defining your terms, and the other half is arguing about the definitions"

IF the definition of a right being something that the government TRIES to provide, then that is problematic in the context of other rights. if the government tries to keep our freedom of speech, but fails what then? the founding fathers had much more principle and resolve on this matter of rights than you are showing here. they believed rights are to be secured by government, and that the failure to secure these rights... well, let me quote the Declaration of Independence


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,— That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."


This is what America was founded upon. this is what America rebelled upon. this WAS a revolution, and it holds true to this day. rights are not some trivial matter that the government is allowed to fail at protect, rights are Absolute.

Freedom of speech is actually a perfect example of a task that the government is committed to, but is never quantifiably achieved or failed. That's why freedom of speech remains a discussion on which opinions differ: do we have it or not?

I concede that maybe a right has a more special meaning in the US, though.

steephie's government healthcare provides for a means of reducing healthcare costs: Euthanasia, killing those the 'state' feels are 'undesirable'.

Let me repost this for you, since you conveniently ignored it:

Indeed, CAPT Brad's story sounds urban as fuck. Euthanasia is a topic of ongoing debate in the Netherlands, but as of now it is only allowed under very special conditions, and one notorious story that DID happen is that a family got in trouble after granting the last wish to a terminal family member who wanted to die of an overdosis. The family did it because the doctors weren't allowed to.

I assure you that legal euthanasia only occurs under very special conditions. If that urban legend were true and proven, it certainly wouldn't go unpunished. The debate is on whether it is inhumane not to give people the option of a peaceful ending without too much suffering, since some people have jumped in front of a train for instance *because* euthanasia was not an option. Obviously, jumping in front of a train when the suffering gets too much is a worse outcome for everyone involved.

CAPT let's not make such large jumps

The netherlands like Oregon are on the slippery slope of removing the weak and 'undesirable'. In this era of modern medicine, and leaps in palliative care there is no need for this practice. Euthanasia is barbarism.

Surpsied? Hardly. I bet slave would love to get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Rand Paul likes watching people die because "free dumb"

Ogion, i hardly think that's a coherent thought much less an argument

CAPT Brad you're trolling or brainwashed. Euthanasia is basically only an option in the Netherlands if you are terminal and chronically suffering with no chance of improvement. The LACK of option for euthanasia is what makes people jump in front of trains in The Netherlands.

And *any* form of euthanasia is always initiated by an individual and the individual needs to go through a long procedure to ensure that it's indeed what they want and they have 0 doubt. The state doesn't decide to kill anyone in healthcare.

@JamesYanick

So, health-care cannot be a right because in extreme scenarios the state might have to co-opt providers? By that logic education cannot be a right. Nor bearing arms (imagine manufacturers stop making guns). Nor liberty (because people might have to be forced to l lock you up).

In other words, your argument is more powerful than you might really wish. Are you sure that you want it applied?

I think the right to bear arms is actually a very, very strong example by diplomat61.

@diplomat

"So, health-care cannot be a right because in extreme scenarios the state might have to co-opt providers? By that logic education cannot be a right. Nor bearing arms (imagine manufacturers stop making guns). Nor liberty (because people might have to be forced to l lock you up)."

i have a right to bear arms. correct? do i get free guns because it is my right? NO. i have to PAY for the SERVICE.

healthcare is not something that you have a right to get for free, that is coopting labor

you do not have a right to demand free education. public education is decided by small communities, and is not a RIGHT, it's simply a power the people have bestowed upon government. recently the federal government has taken over this role with the department of education, which has caused massive problems with standardized tests and college tuition rates.

as i said before (YES I ALREADY SAID THIS) there is a difference in-between rights, and powers that people decide to bestow upon government.


"In other words, your argument is more powerful than you might really wish. Are you sure that you want it applied?"

i'm not saying you don't have a right to access a market which has healthcare, there should be no discrimination for healthcare...

BUT WAIT, THAT'S IN THE HIPPOCRATIC OATH (something which the government never actually created, but free individuals in ancient greece)

you already have the "right" to buy stuff without discrimination. there is a debate about freedom of association, but that's NOT what we're talking about here.

you NEVER have a right to someone else's service without providing compensation. it's a mutual, consensual transaction for services.

yes you have a RIGHT to stick a needle full of penicillin into your body. that's your liberty. but you do NOT have a RIGHT to TAKE the needle from someone who created the medicine and inject it into yourself.

christ i shouldn't have to reexplain these things over and over again


@steephie22

"I think the right to bear arms is actually a very, very strong example by diplomat61."

no it's really not. according to leftist logic, since i have the right to bear arms, all my guns should be free.

we're talking about two different things

let me reiterate something too:

THIS IS NOT AN ARGUMENT AGAINST SINGLE PAYER.

this is an argument against the drastic misuse of the term "rights" by much of the left, twisting it to fit their will.

if you want the majority of the populous to bestow the power of taxation for actuarial risk assessment and fund redistribution to private individuals based off of their health, that is door A.

if you want to magically create a new right and stick it into the constitution and open up a flood of controversy on the precedent of what is and is not constitutional now, that is door B

Sanders chose door B. progressives and socialists nowadays should choose door A if they want any chance of getting this stuff pushed through

You have the right for emergency treatment though. According to EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act) anyone coming to an emergency department is entitled to be stabilized and treated, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay.

Slavery! Only rich people deserve to live!

@Hauta

1. that's not the same as it being free. they usually have debts and bills they have to pay afterwards.

2. if we're going off of what the government says as of right now, vs what the founders really intended...

http://www.businessinsider.com/strangest-most-ridiculous-laws-in-america-2015-3

@Ogion

socialism! we can take from the rich because they have no rights to the product of their labor!