Idiot, you tried to make the case that healthcare wasn't a constitutional right and therefore shouldn't be universally available. I simply pointed out to you that there are many aspects of life that are not constitutional in nature but done for the betterment of all. The rational behind each may be different, i.e. healthcare because it is viewed by many as a "basic human right", roads because they allow for the betterment of commerce, education because it serves to advance the social and economic engine upon which the nation exists.
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
You literally said, "That's why I said 'basic human right'." Just so we're clear going forward, you said health care is a right. Not a Constitutional one, but a basic human right. I have never once said you thought it was a Constitutional right (in fact, I explicitly said the opposite). I understand the difference between a human right and constitutional right. But you've never once shown how free healthcare is either of those. I've been using "right" in the broadest sense the entire time; never once relying on the mere Constitutionality of it. My argument is that free healthcare is not a "right", period. It can't, logically, be a right because it requires a third party.
So, again, can you explain under what philosophical framework can you have a right to a service? Please note that you are the one you thinks saying "health care is a basic human right" means you aren't calling health care a right
I never said one word about the Constitution. That's you either projecting, not being able to read, or not even understanding the difference yourself.
Again, let me clarify, free health care is not a right under any circumstance not just Constitutionally. You are the one who keeps thinking every time I say "right" I have to be referring to the Constitution, when I have not done that once.
Funny, every other country spends 25-40% less on healthcare than do we by using that model. Perhaps because they aren't paying insurance companies to skim a good portion of your healthcare premium to pay, process and profit from claims... not having to pay bill collectors to chase after medical billings, etc.
Just to sum up: Fuzz thought I was arguing that he thought free health care was a Constitutional right, when I explicitly stated otherwise; has shown himself to not understand the difference between "right" and things we do because they make things nicer according to some people; hasn't shown that he even understands that there is such a thing as a philosophical understanding of rights; and continues to argue that everyone else is stupid and can't read, even when they quote his own posts where he says exactly what he claims he didn't say.
OMG, could you be more stupid and obtuse?
"basic human right" means that you do it because it's the right thing to do.
Healthcare isn't free. You've never read where I have claimed that it was. Do you think medical professionals in nations with universal care work for free? Do you think hospitals operate on $0 dollars? You think those trillion$ we currently pay in healthcare premiums and medical bills would suddenly stay in our pockets? They still get paid.
We, those of us who are insured regardless if we carry a private policy or are insured through our employer, pay for care. My employer likes to point out our "total compensation" and it shows they contributed over $15000 last year for healthcare premiums in my behalf. I also paid another $3600. In 2016 we spent $3.3 trillion or $10,348/per person on healthcare. 18% of GNP. Health spending per person in the U.S. was 31% higher than Switzerland, the next highest per capita spender.
You called it a "statutory protection" that requires ERs to provide service. I think you need to explain how that isn't a de facto right...human or otherwise?
Still waiting on you to provide any link to me calling for "free health care"? I won't hold my breath.
OK, folks, we're done here. I got what I was looking for. Fuzz just outed himself as an abject more who doesn't understand what words mean. This was my goal, and he happily obliged after a little coaxing.
Statutory protection = right is an all timer. I have a basic human right to go 55 MPH on divided state highways, per fuzz
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
No, you're done because you tried to make a case out of me calling for "free healthcare" which I clearly never did and you realize you look like an idiot for making said case.
Why did Manafort shell out 100's of thousands for elite lawyers that didn't even try to defend him? Their entire argument was, yes Manafort did all this stuff but he was really the victim. Didn't even call one witness to try and show how he was the victim.
You mean other than the fact that every single claim so far has been denied and refuted from the sources 'quoted' in the book?
This proves how sad you people have become. You didn't learn after Fire and Fury. You're such sad sacks of crap it doesn't matter than it's all lies and fake news just as long as it's negative about Trump then you're willing to accept it as truth. It's kind of pitiful.
"free health care" is a common alternative description for universal health care, in that it is free to the consumer at "point of purchase" (i.e. the hospital). You claimed health care is a human right. If that is the case, then you have to be arguing for a system similar to this (which you are, you're arguing for universal health care provided by the government). How could a human right cost money? These are the types of questions you haven't shown the capacity to understand, let alone answer.
You really are making a fool of yourself by continuing to use "rights" the way you are. Literally everyone else in this thread understands that a "right" is not a "good thing" or a statute and that it has a specific meaning. You're the only one who can understand this concept.
The trials and tribulations of a man who has fully succumbed to the propaganda. No doubt he's broken.Guarantee he's the type that's so far gone that all you have to do is tweet something he disagrees with followed by #MAGA and he immediately labels you a Russian bot, tries to harass you, then reports you for harassment.
If its true Mueller interviewed Omorosa, it just ruins the credibility of the investigation even more. What a joke.
You are confused, not surprisingly.
Those ham sandwich indictments you keep touting as some sort of accomplishment mean nothing. The prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty of committing the crime. In this case the crime requires knowing and wilful conduct. It's on the prosecution to prove that, not on the defense to prove a negative.
You should educate yourself on the judicial system in this country, then things might make more sense to you.
I just want to know what happened to all of the collusion you lot have been obsessively telling us about.
Seriously, every time Mueller and his investigation get mentioned, you all immediately point to the Manafort indictment as evidence that Mueller is closing in on Trump -- "See, he indicted Trump's campaign manager. It's only a matter of time before he gets to Trump."
If you're still praying that Manafort flips, then I'm not sure what to tell you. You said so yourself, he just spent 100s of thousands on defense and sat through a trial that he knows a guilty verdict is more than possible.
Deep down you know it yourself, if he was going to flip, it would have been long ago. It's about time you wrap your head around the fact that he doesn't have anything on Trump, especially involving collusion, to flip with.
Things I learned today from liberals:
1. Indictment = guilt
2. "Basic human rights" = Constitutional rights
Damn, looks like we need to re-write the USC lol.
1. Indictment = guilt
2. "Basic human rights" = Constitutional rights
Damn, looks like we need to re-write the USC lol.
That's Ok Sweden has good healthcare. They can afford a Jihad. 
Hmmm a deranged radical anti Trump lunatic with a history of unethical behavior and lying dead set on bringing down Trump at all cost didn't interview Omarosa? I'm impressed.
That's Ok Sweden has good healthcare. They can afford a Jihad.
If you have your legs blown of by an immigrant's pressure cooker bomb, it's your human right to have a free wheel chair.
This Trump N word tape stuff is ridiculous. If such a tape existed it would've came out 2 years ago.
They just can't accept the truth since it's not bad for Trump. Luntz, the supposed source, has made it very clear that he never told anyone that Trump used the word, and that Omarosa nor the publishers ever contacted him to fact check the claim.Yet, today, the MSNBC White House press corp representative has this question for Sanders...
"Sarah, have you directly asked the president if he has ever used the n-word?"
![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
I don’t see how Sarah Sanders can keep her cool so well. That one girl asked her if Trump said the n word about five times. I would have told her to ask one of the other reporters for help understanding the answer.
