Miss USA sparks controversy after saying healthcare is a 'privilege' not a right

[Right_in_Virginia]

Miss USA sparks controversy after saying healthcare is a 'privilege' not a right
The Telegraph/UK, May 15, 2017, Nick Allen

The newly crowned Miss USA stepped into controversy after she appeared to express conservative views on the thorny issue of healthcare.

Kara McCullough, 25, a scientist who works for the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, was victorious in the competition on Sunday night in Las Vegas.

During the pageant, which until recently was part-owned by Donald Trump, Miss McCullough was asked whether she thought affordable health care for everyone in America was a right or a privilege.

She said: "I’m definitely going to say it’s a privilege. As a government employee, I’m granted healthcare and I see firsthand that for one to have healthcare, you need to have jobs."

Miss McCullough was later asked if she considered herself a feminist. She said: "I don’t want to call myself a feminist. Women, we are just as equal as men, especially in the workplace.

"I believe we’ve come a long way and there is more work to be done. I think domestically we are making progress and I do believe that we will become equal one day.”

Miss McCullough, a chemistry graduate from South Carolina State University, was born in Italy and represented Washington DC in the pageant.




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/15/miss-usa-sparks-controversy-saying-healthcare-privilege-not/

[Right_in_Virginia]

    DC will be revoking her residency card. 

[EC]

It's always nice when brains accompany beauty. 

[Frank Cannon]

Yeah baby. You keep talking like that. It turns me on.....

[LateForLunch]

The leftists have tried to create a new paradigm - that it is no longer permissible (morally) to speak the truth if that truth offends someone. It has always been the standard for civilized society that the right of people to speak the truth supersedes the right of people to be free from feeling offended.

One could expand the latter paradigm to include the principle that nobody has an entitlement to never be offended by anything and that people who try to invoke or claim such a right are by definition, cacogens.

Are there better and worse ways of expressing the truth? Sure. But one of the things that Americans are respected and liked for around the world is the proclivity to "cut through the BS" (avoid prevaricating or p*ssy-footing) and speak plainly.

The Japanese culture has in many ways perfected the art of speaking the truth in ways that are not overtly offensive. However, that tendency also has a down side in that it encourages sneakiness, excessive dissembling and avoidance of matters which are difficult to deal with or express plainly (IOW, if they can't be polite about it, they pretend that it doesn't exist). The Yakuza is infamous for never warning people that they have sky-lined themselves because they resent being obligated to "display rudeness" so they just kill people who offend them and move on.

Being overly-polite but hypocritically two-faced is probably the default position for most of the world. That's one of the reasons why people prefer to deal with Americans. We will have the decency to actually speak frankly and honestly to those with whom we have business.

NOTE: I'm guessing that it was a bot that edited the slang term "p*ssy footing" and inserted the term "bleep-footing" (heh) until I added an asterisk. That is amusing. The coarse elements of our society have apparently fully appropriated certain words, to the point now that even using a term which refers to "stepping with excessive caution like a cat" is censored by a bot. I'm not complaining, just observing. This is one way that leftism infects everything we do, forcing us to accept changes to cater to the world that they seek to create - where even a wholly innocuous term referring to a feline is associated mostly with a vulgarity.

[driftdiver]

Its really a misguided question.  Lately the people calling it a right also say the govt must pay for it because its a right.   So what they really mean is its a government funded right.  What other rights does the federal government currently pay for?

The people saying its a privilege really just mean the govt shouldn't be paying for it and personal responsibility should kick in.

If we go with the latter what does that really mean?  Is it a privilege like driving?   If its a right is it a right like the 2nd amendment?  One that the use of can be regulated with "reasonable" controls.  If its a privilege but priced so that normal people can't access it then what?

Both of these approaches are fallacies and both are giving the government control over life and death.  The Federal govt should get the heck out of the entire healthcare picture.

[Wingnut]

Yeah baby. You keep talking like that. It turns me on.....

If I had a hump left in me I throw it to her!   

[Frank Cannon]

If I had a hump left in me I throw it to her!

My unnamed sources tells me she gets off on trampling a copy of John Maynard Keynes "General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money" in stilettos for foreplay.

[Wingnut]

My unnamed sources tells me she gets off on trampling a copy of John Maynard Keynes "General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money" in stilettos for foreplay.