It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If healthcare is important, shouldn't it be bi-partisan?

page: 6
7
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 06:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

So no answer then. Thanks.




posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 06:46 AM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

Not sure what that has to do with anything. If government finds a way to have 50 billion people live on Earth, and all they have to do is kill off all the animals and plant life, should they? Do they have a right to do that? Along with innate rights are innate responsibilities, one of which is being a good steward of the Earth. Are we meeting that obligation?



posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

And you cannot have a right to something that only exists because another person creates or provides it to you.

Let's put it this way ...

If you break your leg, how are you getting that treated? Unless you can do that for yourself, you are depending on the labor and services of other human beings in order to do it for you. If you make those labor and services your unalienable right, then you have the power to more or less enslave the human beings who know how to treat your broken leg to your whims.

In other words, you are advocating for slavery just because someone else chose to learn a particular set of skills.

That alone violates several other unalienable rights. If we also have unalienable rights to our own life and liberty, then if I become that doctor who has to set your leg, and I am now operating solely at your whim to do so because it's your *right* to have that done and for me to refuse is in violation, then you are violating my unalienable *right* to my liberty to live as I choose.

You just said that government can't unmake unalienable rights, so now if you also want to decide that health care is an unalienable right ... well, we have two rights in direct opposition.

This is why an unalienable right is properly and narrowly defined as something you have simply because you are and not because there are other humans in society to provide it to you. What you want to believe health care is is a social privilege that a proper society ought to provide its citizens as a social good liked public education. And citizens can agree to disagree on that.



posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

....are developing a really great HealthCare Plan with far lower premiums (cost) & deductibles than ObamaCare. In other words it will be far less expensive & much more usable than ObamaCare. Vote will be taken right after the Election when Republicans hold the Senate & win......
52K
8:23 PM - Apr 1, 2019


Donald J. Trump
‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump

....back the House. It will be truly great HealthCare that will work for America. Also, Republicans will always support Pre-Existing Conditions. The Republican Party will be known as the Party of Great HealtCare. Meantime, the USA is doing better than ever & is respected again!


he really does take his supporters as fools..

if they believe this crap they are fools, no doubt.

it's full on comedy now.



posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko




And you cannot have a right to something that only exists because another person creates or provides it to you.


Like machine guns? Roads, public schools?



In other words, you are advocating for slavery just because someone else chose to learn a particular set of skills.


Are public servant slaves?


edit on 2-4-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yes, you have no right to force someone to build you roads. How have asphalt roads been a right since the dawn of man? Were human rights violated thousands of years ago when no one had them? You have rights to have weapons, but there is no right to force someone else to make a specific weapon for you. I don't recall public schools being an inalienable right in the Constitution, maybe you can show me where it is stated.
edit on 2-4-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Are your second amendment rights to own a gun included in your, "you have no rights" rant?

Equal protection under the law, equal access to social structures, these are human rights, that falls under the moniker of "equality", as in "All men are created equal".



posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: knoxie

Smart move by the President. Put Obama repeal/replace off until after the 2020 President/Congressional elections. Let Democrats hang themselves with the 100% Government Run Healthcare platform, in the interim.



posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

The only rant is yours, I never said you have no rights.

Equal protection means we can't give public education to some and not all. We have the right of equality, not a right to public education. We can give no public education at all and not violate any innate rights. Try again.



posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Public education isn't the operative issue, equality and equal access is.

Why do keep dodging my 2nd Amendment question? Do you have the human right to own an AK47?


edit on 2-4-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

LOL....

So much for "Trump has a plan", and "Trump says he'll protect pre-existing conditions".



posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Sorry, that's a lie. Innate rights is the operative issue, and you brought up public education as an example. Equality and equal access was never anything anyone talked about.

You have the innate right to bare arms. So let's talk about equality and equal access, if we give one group access and remove access from all other groups, are we not failing to uphold equality to all?

What if government decided education was dangerous, and could be used to kill people, can they now decide that only their members can have access, in the name of public safety?
edit on 2-4-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: carewemust

LOL....

So much for "Trump has a plan", and "Trump says he'll protect pre-existing conditions".


It's better to sit back and let Democrats hang themselves with their $92 Trillion package of healthcare, zero pollution, etc..



posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

a smart move? you've got to be kidding. lol

he's a clown, and he just proved it. expect for his base and they're idiots if they think they'll be better off regarding healthcare if they vote for trump.

party of healthcare but I can't tell you what the plan is - seriously, how dumb does he think his supporters are?

his con is crumbling and it's hysterical to watch.



posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




Equality and equal access was never anything anyone talked about.


"Equality" is the human right that we're talking about, as in "All men are created equal". Equal access to education, roads, clean water, safe food, housing, the application of laws, etc., all fall under the moniker of "Equality".



You have the innate right to bare arms


How so? Did the creator create your guns or did a person create your gun? Why do you have the right to take what someone else made? Or, do you have the right to have equal access to society's tools for self defense to protect your innate right to life and property?



posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Sorry, no one was talking about equality. It was never mentioned until I destroyed your argument. Rocks and sticks are arms, they are indeed created by the Creator. You have no right to take what someone else made. Why do you keep making these foolish arguments that have literally nothing to do with my posts.

Please try harder to follow along with the conversation and stop making posts that are contradictory and have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Since you believe in equality, you believe we should all have access to machine guns, equal access to societies tools for self defense and protection of life and liberty, right?



posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I think you're the one that's not following. "All men are created equal" is the pivotal argument in regards to health care access.

Why should one baby born with a heart defect receive life saving care, medication and surgery, and other not?



posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I think you're the one that's not following. "All men are created equal" is the pivotal argument in regards to health care access.

Why should one baby born with a heart defect receive life saving care, medication and surgery, and other not?

Sorry, it's you. There is no innate right to health care. If we have PUBLIC healthcare, we need to provide equal access to all. We do not NEED to provide public healthcare, just like we do not need to provide public education. We could have private education only. As a nation we have decided to provide public education. As a nation we could decide to provide public healthcare. Equality does not demand we do so. If you think it does, then we need to make food a public good as well and give everyone the exact same food. Everyone needs to get the exact same house. See how your argument falls flat on it's face?

Here's another question. One baby is born with defects that require a huge amount of resources. My child is equal, why can I not demand the same spending on my child, why is that child more equal and gets more funds? If we can pick and choose who gets more funds, then why can't we decide other groups in other areas (education) should get 100x more funds?
edit on 2-4-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04





Sorry, it's you. There is no innate right to health care.


You need to submit to the fact that that is your opinion. The United Nations has declared health care a human right, so they disagree with your opinion, and so do countries like Canada, Mexico, France, Germany, England, Scotland, Belgium, Italy and Australia, just to name a few.



posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

It's not an opinion. It's a fact. An innate right can not rely on someone else to provide something for you. Technology and advancement means new ways to express and exert innate rights, that's it.

Are you actually claiming that 10,000 years ago everyone living on the planet had their right to healthcare violated because they did not have access to modern day healthcare?







 
7
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join