Lol. You know sometimes we disagree, sometimes we agree (but still argue), and sometimes you just crack me up. You're a good dude lurker.
Lol. You know sometimes we disagree, sometimes we agree (but still argue), and sometimes you just crack me up. You're a good dude lurker.
Stay up with the conversation; it was where veggie was going. Therefore, I did say I would not have the conversation, because that is what veggie wanted, is to have a debate about faith, which I will not have, it is pointless.
You are a smart guy, make the inference.
You are a smart guy, make the inference.
I was not trying to have a debate about faith.
Sent at a speed of 3*10^8 meters per second via Tapatalk.
Okay, I'll stay up with the conversation. You keep conversing with Veggie, it's your ball.
Negative rights--the right to free speech, or free exercise of religion--literally require no action on the part of another; they only require that he leave me alone. Positive "rights," such as your alleged "right to basic healthcare," do require a third party take positive action to secure. Either you require that the doctor render service without charge, or you require that I, and others like me, pay the doctor's bill. Either way, you impose a duty upon somebody--ultimately to be enforced at the point of a gun--to render service to another.
Remind me again, what do we call it when people enforced servitude upon others by force?
BTW, if you "don't think the Govt" should be involved, what about those who don't work? The retired, the unemployed? If they have a "right to basic healthcare" that the employer should meet, and there's no employer, then who?
Also, do you know how it came to be that employers started providing medical insurance in the first place? Government intervention in employment contracts. That didn't become "kinda how it used to work" until about WWII. Just a bit of fact; sorry to intrude upon your argument.
Your not intruding. You speak of rights as being positive or negative, sure I understand that. There is also enumerated Rights such as the Bill of Rights and there's also implied Rights. Let's talk of this positive right to healthcare. My examples, life, limb or other emergency healthcare is a right. A positive right. Every Doctor takes an oath before getting that license to practice. Doctors are obligated to treat and hospitals are obligated to provide care for all life or limb type emergencies. So yes, here in the U.S., basic emergency healthcare is a positive right.
As to who has to pay or absorb the cost of the uninsured, that's the point of providing basic healthcare insurance to those who can't afford it or have no means to afford it ie; elderly, children, unemployed or those who are disabled or unemployable. There is still a duty to provide care and thusly presumed right. So if you fall and break your back, rather than lay n squiggle around in the street suffering, somebody with a civic duty to act, can take you to an emergency room and they must provide basic emergency care. Payment will be settled up some other day.
As to duty, yes each and every citizen has a duty to participate in our govt, state, community and family. You have a duty to provide for your wife, children or dog. That's why we made and passed laws that force that duty on you. That's the rule of law. You have a duty, if you don't meet your obligations, then usually a law is passed that will "impose" the will of the people on you.
Now some civic duties cannot be legislated, such as voting. Others such as military service can, ie. military draft.
You can have a right to vote but there is no right to join military.
Now back to that pesky question about basic healthcare. With the passage of Obamacare, citizens gained a right to buy healthcare insurance. Whether it's a positive or negative right no longer matters. It's a right that now exists and has the power of law behind it.
As to your last question about how companies came to provide insurance, yes I'm very aware. And yes, I happen to agree that when a company says they will provide certain benefits to get contracts, then they better not renege, or we will impose more "rights" favorable to the workers. That's the right to form unions. You see, I firmly believe when a company agrees to a contract, they should, in good faith, honor that contract.
If they make promises to provide a pension, insurance and other benefits then they have a obligation or duty to keep that promise. Its the same if you and I come to an agreement. If i agree to mow your yard for $10 and you provide for my healthcare insurance, then your obligated and have a duty to pay and provide insurance. If you break the contract, I can't unmow your yard. So I seek protection from unscrupulous employers that will force you to fulfill your obligations and duties.
Talk about a weak argument, Congress and the Executive Branch cannot pass a right, only a law. Rights have to be either in the Constitution or an Amendment to the Constitution.
Similar threads
