Rand Paul Perfectly Explains Why There is No Right to Healthcare in an Amazing Statement

[EC]

So our military folks and gov't workers are indentured servants?

Speaking to the military side - lets see ...

Your appearance, thoughts, sex life are controlled to the Nth degree. You relationships and actual ability to keep breathing are entirely at the whims of your officers, who can move you 10,000 miles at a moments notice. Refusing to co-operate lands you either with serious long term sanctions or imprisonment.

What would you call it?

[Smokin Joe]

An interesting point. 

I'm of two minds on it -- mainly, what bothers me about the "you have to bake the cake" side of the issue is that the situations seem to have been created out of a totally vindictive intent.  The shops appear to have been selected specifically, the "pain and suffering" claims in the lawsuit are ridiculous, and the "thought crimes" aspect of the penalties is quite a bit too Maoist for my tastes.  It is the worst sort of governmental bullying.

OTOH, the idea of the same shop refusing to serve, say, black people or Jews is odious -- as is a general refusal of service to gays simply because they're gay.

But the bakers had no problem serving the gays. They had done so in the past. They did take issue with baking a wedding cake for a gay wedding because that is against their religious beliefs.

For that, they were sued out of business.

I agree with Rand Paul. --And Obamacare cost me my health insurance.

[Just_Victor]

Rand Paul is using the words Slavery,enslaved. Slavery means free labor-not being compensated for your labor.

 Rand Paul and all the other healthcare providers will be well paid, are well paid, and there are tens of thousands wanting those "slavery jobs" and there is  a waiting list in medical  and nursing schools.

Healthcare by singlepayer is not free. It's paid through taxes and the doctors and nurses will be compensated well. Paul is not forced to do his job. He can quit and do something else.

@jmyrlefuller
@IsailedawayfromFR

That is incorrect.  Slavery is not about compensation.  African American slaves were provided room and board, that is a form compensation.  Slavery is about the freedom to choose; when I work, who I work for, and why.  If I am not free to choose to work or not work, as I desire, then I am a slave.

If health care is a right, then it necessarily trumps the a health care providers need for compensation.  A right must come before other needs, that is the nature of "rights."  All of our other recognized rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc) exist without any requirement from another human being except that they recognize and allow those rights to exist.  My life, liberty, PoH, do not require you to do anything.

Healthcare cannot be a right, because it cannot exist in a social vacuum.

[Smokin Joe]

That is incorrect.  Slavery is not about compensation.  African American slaves were provided room and board, that is a form compensation.  Slavery is about the freedom to choose; when I work, who I work for, and why.  If I am not free to choose to work or not work, as I desire, then I am a slave.

If health care is a right, then it necessarily trumps the a health care providers need for compensation.  A right must come before other needs, that is the nature of "rights."  All of our other recognized rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc) exist without any requirement from another human being except that they recognize and allow those rights to exist.  My life, liberty, PoH, do not require you to do anything.

Healthcare cannot be a right, because it cannot exist in a social vacuum.

Well put!

[bolobaby]

Rand Pauls statement is idiotic.

@mirraflake

I disagree.

I have been making this argument for a long, long time. Once you establish that something is a "right," and people are entitled to get it if they want it, what happens when the basic laws of supply and demand create scarcity?

Here, let me explain a different, hypothetical way:

Let's say I decide to go to medical school. I learn all of the aspects of medicine, but I do so because I am a prepper. I want to be able to provide medicine for my family and my family only. Now, in order to practice medicine on my family, I need to be licensed with the state. OK - I seek licensing so that I can prescribe insulin to a diabetic daughter.

Is this currently legal?

What are the requirements to make this legal? What if a neighbor with a diabetic son demands that I prescribe insulin for them, too? If healthcare is a "right," am I obligated? What if I say "no" because I don't want to face liability issues? Am I denying them their "rights?"

Once you require licensing by the state to practice a skill, the state can require a whole bunch of things in return from you, which includes performing the service for which you have been licensed, even if you don't want to. Even if you simply want to practice medicine on yourself and prescribe yourself insulin.

Bake the cake, right?

Sure, you may be "compensated," but forced labor - whether paid or not - is a form of slavery.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

You have the right to health care in the United States... as long as you pay for it.

[Victoria33]

So the idea of forcing someone to serve you to fulfill a "right" doesn't bother you?

@jmyrlefuller

That's how it works in England.  The doctors have to work where the government assigns them to work.
There are two types of hospitals there.  Those on government health care go to one type hospital.  Then, there are hospitals for those with private insurance.  The govn. ones have wards, the private ones have private rooms for patients.  My son has lived there over 20 years and he has private insurance.

[Victoria33]

Rand Paul is using the words Slavery,enslaved. Slavery means free labor-not being compensated for your labor.

 Rand Paul and all the other healthcare providers will be well paid, are well paid, and there are tens of thousands wanting those "slavery jobs" and there is  a waiting list in medical  and nursing schools.

Healthcare by singlepayer is not free. It's paid through taxes and the doctors and nurses will be compensated well. Paul is not forced to do his job. He can quit and do something else.

@jmyrlefuller
@IsailedawayfromFR

@mirraflake

We have a shortage of doctors now.

[Hondo69]

This is the old debate of In Theory vs In Practice.

It's a handy argument to keep in your arsenal because it allows you to play both sides of the fence.  In Theory we're told state's rights trump those of the federal government but we all know that went out the window a long time ago.  In Theory a small business owner may refuse service to anyone they please, as long as they're not a left-handed Samoan transvestite.  Then the government will drop the hammer on you.

When it comes to Rights those were spelled out very clearly a few hundred years ago.  I think it was Jefferson who said, "You have the right to a daily a** kicking because life is hard - wear a cup".

Yet people today think they have a right to a driver's license, a right to vote no matter who they are, and a right to a seat at the buffet table.  They don't.  At least In Theory they don't.  But pick up a newspaper or turn on your TV and you'll discover our fearless leaders are fuzzy on the concept.

[The_Reader_David]

Rand Pauls statement is idiotic.

No, it is a critique of what the left means by "a right to healthcare".

If one means by a right the same sort of thing that the Founders meant by the right to keep and bear arms, the right to freedom of the press, the right to freedom of religion and the like, then there is a right to healthcare, a natural right, albeit not one enumerated in the Constitution because the Founders did not foresee a circumstance in which the government would interfere in its exercise.

  There is no right to compel anyone else to pay for your healthcare or to provide it (which is what the left means by the phrase and which is what Sen. Paul is criticizing), just as my right to keep and bear arms does not entail a requirement that my fellow citizens be taxed to buy me an AR-15 (or AK-47), ammunition and range-time or to compel firearms manufacturers and shooting range owners to provide me with the same gratis or at a government determined discount, so the right to healthcare does not entail a right to compel others to pay for it or physicians and other health professionals to provide it to me.

Actually, Obamacare and a great many state laws and regulations governing health insurance and healthcare represent infringements of the natural right to healthcare.

[r9etb]

No, it is a critique of what the left means by "a right to healthcare".

OK, so then if it's a "critique," it's an idiotic critique.  Idiotic because so it is so hyperbolically stated that it cannot be taken seriously, especially by those who don't already agree with Rand Paul.

Such talk gets him headlines from the media outlets of the Amen Chorus, and contributions from same ... but it doesn't actually do much good when it comes to changing minds.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

It's a weird argument IMO. I can see the taxation = theft angle, but this is pretty different from that.

[Smokin Joe]

Rand Paul is using the words Slavery,enslaved. Slavery means free labor-not being compensated for your labor.

 Rand Paul and all the other healthcare providers will be well paid, are well paid, and there are tens of thousands wanting those "slavery jobs" and there is  a waiting list in medical  and nursing schools.

Healthcare by singlepayer is not free. It's paid through taxes and the doctors and nurses will be compensated well. Paul is not forced to do his job. He can quit and do something else.

@jmyrlefuller
@IsailedawayfromFR

AMENDMENT XIII

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

I don't give a damn whether that is baking a cake or sewing your boo-boos. A provider has a Constitutional Right to say "no", for whatever reason or no reason at all.

[Smokin Joe]

This is the old debate of In Theory vs In Practice.

Theory always works, in theory.

When it comes to Rights those were spelled out very clearly a few hundred years ago.  I think it was Jefferson who said, "You have the right to a daily a** kicking because life is hard - wear a cup".

I think that was George Jefferson, not Thomas.

[Hondo69]

I think that was George Jefferson, not Thomas.

 

[Bigun]

AMENDMENT XIII
I don't give a damn whether that is baking a cake or sewing your boo-boos. A provider has a Constitutional Right to say "no", for whatever reason or no reason at all.

  

[Bigun]

Theory always works, in theory.
I think that was George Jefferson, not Thomas.

But Thomas did say this: "And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, and to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering.

Then begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia, which some philosophers observing to be so general in this world, have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man.

And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression."


Thomas Jefferson, letter to Sam Kercheval about reform of the Virginia Constitution, July 12, 1816; "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson," Definitive Edition, Albert Ellery Bergh, Editor, The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association (1905) Vol. XV, p. 40

And he was EXACTLY right in saying it!

[Smokin Joe]

But Thomas did say this: "And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, and to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering.

Then begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia, which some philosophers observing to be so general in this world, have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man.

And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression."


Thomas Jefferson, letter to Sam Kercheval about reform of the Virginia Constitution, July 12, 1816; "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson," Definitive Edition, Albert Ellery Bergh, Editor, The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association (1905) Vol. XV, p. 40

And he was EXACTLY right in saying it!

Which fits hand-in-glove with:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

(The Declaration of Independence.)