Health care is not a human right

Unclebaldrick said:
a human right is whatever the fuck society wants it to be.
Click to expand...

Which is why our Constitution says:

"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".

Our nation grants rights to humans. The very first right GUARANTEED is life.

It takes health care to provide life, ergo health care is a human right in the United States.

Ironically, every other civilised nation already admits that. They all have universal health care.

The United States is the only advanced nation that doesn't.

In a case of double irony, we're the only nation that guarantees it but refuses to supply it.
 
TacoMac said:
Which is why our Constitution says:

"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".

Our nation grants rights to humans. The very first right GUARANTEED is life.

It takes health care to provide life, ergo health care is a human right in the United States.

Ironically, every other civilised nation already admits that. They all have universal health care.

The United States is the only advanced nation that doesn't.

In a case of double irony, we're the only nation that guarantees it but refuses to supply it.
Click to expand...

Wow, where am I lol
First off your quote is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
Second thing is that the Constitutions does not "grant" rights, it protects rights on the basis that they are self evident.
I would go on, but if you knew better the Declaration of Independence then you would better understand the Constitution as it gets it's justification, mission, and marching orders from the Declaration.
 
If the govt makes me sick the govt should pay to fix my ass. Fuck big words :blsmoke:

Don't tell me you don't eat...........or drink water. But maybe you are a fucking alien....so who knows :sleep:
 
ChiefRunningPhist said:
One is protected by law, the other isn't?

What's the point of distinction except to exclude? Do we protect human rights under civil code? It seems one supercedes another and you're trying to drive a wedge between what's validated outrage when it comes to the equal access to healthcare debate, and what's lawfully present. Laws can be changed and are created by the people, so if the majority thinks that healthcare is a human right, then it is a human right.
Click to expand...

Laws can be changed, the Constitution can even be amended, but you can't change the Declaration that informs the Constitution and you can't create a human right.
You can create a civil right.
 
V256.420 said:
If the govt makes me sick the govt should pay to fix my ass. Fuck big words :blsmoke:

Don't tell me you don't eat...........or drink water. But maybe you are a fucking alien....so who knows :sleep:
Click to expand...

Of course this is a separate question and the answer to which we seem to agree.
 
Civil rights are a reflection of human rights, whether they have defined them correctly yet or to the populous' satisfaction is arguing semantics, people are responsible for creating the notion of what a human right is and therefore can amend it. If you need legal validation then so be it, but that can be amended. Your viewpoint is no more valid now than when people defended jim crow laws before they were abolished..
 
DNAprotection said:
Wow, where am I lol
First off your quote is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
Click to expand...

They are one in the same, retard.

The Declaration is the promise. The Constitution is the fulfillment.

Everything the Declaration promised is backed up by law in the Constitution.

Once again, if you ever make it past elementary school, you'll learn that.
 
ChiefRunningPhist said:
Civil rights are a reflection of human rights, whether they have defined them correctly yet or to the populous' satisfaction is arguing semantics, people are responsible for creating the notion of what a human right is and therefore can amend it. If you need legal validation then so be it, but that can be amended. Your viewpoint is no more valid now than when people defended jim crow laws before they were abolished..
Click to expand...

Civil rights are only a "reflection" of human rights in so far as they try to assure equal rights and access to the commercial constructs of society.
The fact remains that you are naturally endowed with certain rights.
 
DNAprotection said:
Civil rights are only a "reflection" of human rights in so far as they try to assure equal rights and access to the commercial constructs of society.
The fact remains that you are naturally endowed with certain rights.
Click to expand...
Lol there you go again pivoting it upon capitalism. The point of a right is that it supercedes other forms of governing limitations.
 
ChiefRunningPhist said:
Lol there you go again pivoting it upon capitalism. The point of a right is that it supercedes other forms of governing limitations.
Click to expand...

No, the point of a self evident naturally endowed human right is that it "supersedes other forms of governing limitations", or in other words comes before and is protected from disparagement.
Civil rights are regulated by "governing limitations".
 
You can't put constraints on rights. If someone happens to be privatizing access to a right that the majority believe we are innately endowed with, then that's encroaching on the individuals' rights. Lobbyists are controlled by money and much of our system is set up to benefit the rich including the way healthcare is distributed. Assuming you are correct that by legal definition we as humans aren't endowed the right to access medicine, it only needs a bit of legislation and it's changed. When that happens, will you still argue along the same logic, or will you disagree with how that legal distinction is applied then, when it comes to healthcare?
 
DNAprotection said:
No, the point of a self evident naturally endowed human right is that it "supersedes other forms of governing limitations", or in other words comes before and is protected from disparagement.
Civil rights are regulated by "governing limitations".
Click to expand...
So these "self evident naturally endowed" rights just didn't apply to black people, right? And you expect us to believe your view of what a human right is?

giphy.gif


Get the fuck out of here and get your fat ass back to Liberty University. You still have some time to achieve your freshman year goal of finally getting laid.
 
ChiefRunningPhist said:
You can't put constraints on rights. If someone happens to be privatizing access to a right that the majority believe we are innately endowed with, then that's encroaching on the individuals' rights. Lobbyists are controlled by money and much of our system is set up to benefit the rich including the way healthcare is distributed. Assuming you are correct that by legal definition we as humans aren't endowed the right to access medicine, it only needs a bit of legislation and it's changed. When that happens, will you still argue along the same logic, or will you disagree with how that legal distinction is applied then, when it comes to healthcare?
Click to expand...

If humans were naturally endowed with the right to commercial medicine then it would be free.
No matter how you regulate guns, for example, even if you wiped out the 2nd amendment and banned all guns, this would not change your self evident right to defend yourself against harm.
 
DNAprotection said:
If humans were naturally endowed with the right to commercial medicine then it would be free.
No matter how you regulate guns, for example, even if you wiped out the 2nd amendment and banned all guns, this would not change your self evident right to defend yourself against harm.
Click to expand...
That's am incorrect supposition. That may be your opinion.
 
DNAprotection said:
If humans were naturally endowed with the right to commercial medicine then it would be free.
No matter how you regulate guns, for example, even if you wiped out the 2nd amendment and banned all guns, this would not change your self evident right to defend yourself against harm.
Click to expand...


Monsanto operates your health care insurance why do support them?

A new gold-standard triple therapy for H.I.V. has just made its debut in Africa. It costs $75 a year. In the United States, many people with H.I.V. take an almost identical therapy. It costs $39,000 a year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top