Should people without health insurance, etc. be allowed to die?

[PowderdToastMan]

Food and medical services are provided by individuals to others for the sellers livleyhood. No one has the right to those products or services. That is a principle.

You stated that my principle was flawed but diddnt provide testimony regarding the principle being flawed, only the particulars of the situationwhich you concived.

 

Did you watch the video. same principle, different scenario.

 

Trying to save someones life in an emergency or give a starving man food is certainly something anyone of us is definitley compelled to do. but the dying man does not have the right to my product or service. That is the principle you fail to understand.

 

The UN Disagrees with you:

 

Article 25.

 

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

 

Want a link? Universal Declaration Of Human Rights

 

Oh, by the way, the United States agreed to this.

 

No you mean the UN disagrees with me and the united states constitution.

 

and there is not a country in the world that actually recieves that right in any context

 

FDR tried that. he tried to declare everyone a right to a job, house, etc

 

but what you dont realize is that rights like that turn a freeborn citizen into a peasant that awaits permission and products from the government.

It is the oldest system on the planet - a top down system, where all resources are fed to a few at the top, all else are diminished in power and wealth, and it is distributed to individuals increasingly diminishing the further down in society you go. That is how every country has operated since the beginning of human existance. The concept of freedom to pursue your own goals without influence from a king, monarch, despot, tyrant, or otherwise is the newest and greatest concept ever developed in the history of the world.

 

And you would trade that for a warm blanket of tyranny

[Sepherose]

Food and medical services are provided by individuals to others for the sellers livleyhood. No one has the right to those products or services. That is a principle.

You stated that my principle was flawed but diddnt provide testimony regarding the principle being flawed, only the particulars of the situationwhich you concived.

 

Did you watch the video. same principle, different scenario.

 

Trying to save someones life in an emergency or give a starving man food is certainly something anyone of us is definitley compelled to do. but the dying man does not have the right to my product or service. That is the principle you fail to understand.

 

The UN Disagrees with you:

 

Article 25.

 

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

 

Want a link? Universal Declaration Of Human Rights

 

Oh, by the way, the United States agreed to this.

 

No you mean the UN disagrees with me and the united states constitution.

 

and there is not a country in the world that actually recieves that right in any context

 

FDR tried that. he tried to declare everyone a right to a job, house, etc

 

but what you dont realize is that rights like that turn a freeborn citizen into a peasant that awaits permission and products from the government.

It is the oldest system on the planet - a top down system, where all resources are fed to a few at the top, all else are diminished in power and wealth, and it is distributed to individuals increasingly diminishing the further down in society you go. That is how every country has operated since the beginning of human existance. The concept of freedom to pursue your own goals without influence from a king, monarch, despot, tyrant, or otherwise is the newest and greatest concept ever developed in the history of the world.

 

And you would trade that for a warm blanket of tyranny

 

I receive aid from the state, and they do not tell me how to live my life beyond what is typically required by law. I really don't see what your issue here is, and why you would be diametrically opposed to the very constitution that affords you the freedom you exercise on a daily basis.

[marharth]

Food and medical services are provided by individuals to others for the sellers livleyhood. No one has the right to those products or services. That is a principle.

You stated that my principle was flawed but diddnt provide testimony regarding the principle being flawed, only the particulars of the situationwhich you concived.

 

Did you watch the video. same principle, different scenario.

 

Trying to save someones life in an emergency or give a starving man food is certainly something anyone of us is definitley compelled to do. but the dying man does not have the right to my product or service. That is the principle you fail to understand.

 

The UN Disagrees with you:

 

Article 25.

 

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

 

Want a link? Universal Declaration Of Human Rights

 

Oh, by the way, the United States agreed to this.

 

No you mean the UN disagrees with me and the united states constitution.

 

and there is not a country in the world that actually recieves that right in any context

 

FDR tried that. he tried to declare everyone a right to a job, house, etc

 

but what you dont realize is that rights like that turn a freeborn citizen into a peasant that awaits permission and products from the government.

It is the oldest system on the planet - a top down system, where all resources are fed to a few at the top, all else are diminished in power and wealth, and it is distributed to individuals increasingly diminishing the further down in society you go. That is how every country has operated since the beginning of human existance. The concept of freedom to pursue your own goals without influence from a king, monarch, despot, tyrant, or otherwise is the newest and greatest concept ever developed in the history of the world.

 

And you would trade that for a warm blanket of tyranny

WHAT?

 

Where in the US constitution does it say we can't have universal healthcare?

 

Many countries receive that right. Most developed countries have a form on universal healthcare, and it is recognized that they have a right to health.

 

Every country is history operates by giving things to the government, so the government can orderly distribute it. The USA is no different.

[kvnchrist]

So you don't care what the governments of the world think?

 

The USA agreed that its citizens should have the right to health and happiness when the country was created.

 

 

Um, I think the rights had nothing to do with health, but they also weren't for the slaves or women, either.

[Quetzlsacatanango]

So you don't care what the governments of the world think?

 

The USA agreed that its citizens should have the right to health and happiness when the country was created.

 

Not even a little.

You have the right to pursuit of happiness. Not a right to happiness. Those are incredibly different statements.

[marharth]

So you don't care what the governments of the world think?

 

The USA agreed that its citizens should have the right to health and happiness when the country was created.

 

Not even a little.

You have the right to pursuit of happiness. Not a right to happiness. Those are incredibly different statements.

Kind of hard to pursuit happiness if your dying.

 

I wasn't referring to that either, I was referring to something else.

[HeyYou]

So you don't care what the governments of the world think?

 

The USA agreed that its citizens should have the right to health and happiness when the country was created.

 

Not even a little.

You have the right to pursuit of happiness. Not a right to happiness. Those are incredibly different statements.

 

Don't expect the government to change because you don't care what they think. I got news for ya, THEY don't care what YOU think either.

[Quetzlsacatanango]

Sadly, that is true. But I think this thread is evidence that more people are coming around every day.

[HeyYou]

Sadly, that is true. But I think this thread is evidence that more people are coming around every day.

 

Coming around to what? Your way of thinking? Maybe the republican party in some misguided attempt to 'fix' the budget/economy.... but, they are notoriously pro-big business, and anti-average citizen. Don't expect anything to change anytime in the near future, short of another revolution anyway......

[Quetzlsacatanango]

Yes, my way of thinking.

Individual responsibility and accountability over big government and institutionalized dependency.