A right is a moral principle, sanctioning conduct in a social context. The "right to life" means that murder, a violation of that right, is punished. The "right to liberty" means that a person is free to act in any way that does not infringe upon another's rights. The "right to the pursuit of happiness" means that a person is free to decide what makes him happy, and act to achieve happiness as he defines it, not just to do the things that make others happy.

A true right does not impose any positive obligation upon others. My right to life does not require that others supply me with food, shelter, clothing, medical care, or anything else that I need to sustain myself. It only requires that no one act to terminate my life.

A "right to health care" would require others to supply the services, medicines, artificial limbs, etc. It either must enslave the health care providers themselves, the taxpayers who compensate those providers, or both. Such a "right" negates the true rights.

I once thought I had an original idea when it came to me concerning female fighter pilots, that the modern conception of rights merely equates with wants. One wants to be a female fighter pilot (substitute any traditionally male occupation), therefore one has a right to do so. I was recently humbled to discover that Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) made this very argument in Leviathan (1651). In essence, he said that whatever we desire, we have a right to by nature, and it is the government's role to ensure that this right is protected. It naturally follows that this view of rights imposes an obligation on someone else to provide or accomodate such desires. In other words, if health care is a right, then someone like me will be compelled to provide it. Such compulsion is immoral, and tantamount to legalized thievery. Our Founding Fathers understood this very well, and declared that there were certain unalienable rights which impose no obligation on others, and are bestowed upon us not by man, but by God. The most important is the right to life, and all others devolve from these well known rights, including the right to speak freely and the right to bear arms. These are not wants or policy decisions, like the so-called "right to health care," but inherent in our humanity. One should never confuse them, as does Obama, with those benefits which can be given and, of course, taken away, by the government. We carelessly toss around the concept of rights without understanding, and in so doing we surrender our true rights to an all intrusive government which replaces them with the false rights known as entitlements. Let us always speak clearly about rights, and understand that they are few, precious, and unless zealously protected, perishable.

What he said...pretty much says it all.
(And I mean both Bill and The Monster.)
Paul A.

AND you, Sir, Mr. DermDoc. Well said.

Twist a word far enough and it becomes meaningless. Sure seems like Orwell had it right on that count.

The distinction between a right (something one is born with, that we as a culture choose to guarantee by Constitutional law cannot be taken away) and an entitlement (something one is owed by virtue of living and breathing) has always seemed fairly clear to me. It's also clearly an inconvenient distinction for some. No wonder it's one that people deliberately muddle.

The same seems to apply to the use of "justice" when "fairness" is meant (as in "social justice"), and the bending of "insurance" to refer to programs that pay out steadily and not just when some insured-against probability becomes reality.

That McCain didn't skewer Obamma for that obvious malignant misdirection is proof that he too is not fit to be our President. We are not left with a choice of the lessor of two evils, we have only a choice of two all but indistinguishable evils. Either will sell us out for a cup of coffee and a pat on the back.

We do have a right to all those things. What we don't have is an _entitlement_ to them. Unfortunately, politicians have twisted the former to nearly always mean the latter.

We do have a right to all those things. What we don't have is an _entitlement_ to them.

The only sense in which someone has such a right is that one is free to be a provider of health care services, or a consumer thereof, under terms mutually agreed between the parties without coercion. (This would include self-treatment in which the provider and the consumer are the same person.)

These rights are infringed upon by governments via their licensure laws, and the regulations of agencies like the FDA that restrict drugs and treatments. These laws restrict the options available to health-care consumers and drive up the cost as an inexorable result.

I do not object to an agency providing information: If someone who is not approved by the appropriate state board wanted to go into practice, disclosing this fact (perhaps getting patients to sign a one-paragraph release stating that they are aware of the provider's lack of such certification, and accept his care regardless) then it should be completely legal to offer his services. Similarly, if a patient and his provider want to try a treatment that is not FDA-approved, they should not be punished by law.

After all, the patient is the one whose life depends on the outcome of the treatment. If that is insufficient motivation for him to get it right, how can anything else be? This is yet another example of the Fundamental Contradiction of the Democratic Nanny State: How can a person; who is supposedly incompetent to choose his own providers, and together with those providers choose procedures and pharmaceuticals, or to self-medicate; step into a voting booth and choose laws (directly via referendum or indirectly in electing legislators to make laws on his behalf) that choose providers, procedures, and pharmaceuticals?

In our world of scarcity, goods and services don't fall from the sky. They require productive effort. Obama's claim there is a "right" to healthcare, means there's a corresponding "obligation"---someone has to bear the cost of its production. Obama's rhetoric won't change this fundamental fact. His healthcare plan is nothing more than thinly disguised socialist income redistribution.

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 10/09/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

Dermdoc,

"One should never confuse them, as does Obama, with those benefits which can be given ..."

"Confusion" denotes a certain lack awareness, understanding and motive.

I do not believe that Obama is 'confused' - rather he seeks to continue, build upon and exploit the confusion of the Lowest Common Denominator of our nation.
================================================

"Rights" to things like shelter, food, healthcare, etc. extend only as far as our having the Right to pursue them - and that only within a range of methods not-harmful to others.

As Bill Brown mentioned above, the exercising of any Right comes with a corresponding Obligation - and this is where the currently proffered definition of "Right" breaks down under torsion, as people try to secure their wants under "Right" without any acknowledgement of "Obligation".

Which looks especially attractive to the cuturally/societally/personally lazy - small wonder that Obama would twist it out when pandering to
his LCD-based ...well,...base.

- MuscleDaddy

I have always rejected claims of a 'right' to a good or service (for example health care). It seems obvious that the good or service that is claimed as a 'right' must be produced by someone. Thus, such a 'right' translates into the enslavement of the person(s) who provides the good or service, since they are producing something for free.

You can't say that a government provided good or service is a 'right' either, since this would have to be paid for with taxes. Such a 'right' can be viewed as the recipient of the good having the right take money from someone else (i.e. the taxpayer) to pay for the good or service that they receive as a right.

- Mike Aquilino

Appears that no one has mentioned K-12 education, which seems to me to be the best comparator to a 'right' to health care.

Richard Heys,

K-12 education isn't a "Right" - it's a legally mandated requirement, complete with criminal prosecution for citizen/parents failing to comply.

People have taken to calling it a 'right', just to make themselves feel better about being treated as subjects.

- MuscleDaddy

First, I want to let all of you know that the provocative discussion above has indeed helped me contemplate what truly constitutes rights, and whether the responsibilities of a government do or should extend to entitlements as well.

I hope you'll allow me a moment to present another side of this issue. Please bear with me, as I imagine this position could be initially discounted.

In the case of armed aggression, the government has a responsibility to protect its citizens. That is why we have a police force: to protect the individual's right to not be physically harmed by forces outside of his control. This is also part of why we have a military: to protect the nation as a whole from destruction of both life and property. As Hobbes does indeed assert, in the state of nature, each man has the right to seek whatsoever he chooses to seek (though of course he is not guaranteed the attainment). However, in a civil society, the right to seek anything is limited if the seeking violates the rights of another citizen.

Thus far, I have dealt with malicious, person-to-person aggression. I have asserted that insofar as aggression violates one citizen's right to life, the government has a responsibility to protect that citizen.

What if -- please bear with me here -- the aggression is not caused by another human being, but by a colony of bacteria? Or, in a more convoluted example, by the citizen's own body? (Imagine an auto-immune disorder such as diabetes, in which the person's immune system attacks its pancreatic islets, often leading to sure death if not treated with insulin supplements). Admittedly, these examples are far more complicated than the simple, person-to-person aggression about which I hope we can all agree the government must restrain.

So, again - if this aggression is depriving a citizen of her or his right to life, does the government have a responsibility to protect the citizen from the aggression?

Thanks for your time!

This site became of mild interest to me today as I read and research subject matter relating to the currents of political frenzy regarding the upcoming election. While I can agree with many of the fundamental assertions and views expressed, I am very off put where I encounter what smacks of arrogant, self-righteous, judgments. Ex: "attractive to the culturally/societally/personally lazy". It's a shame, really. Well articulated points right up until the point where there is conscious choice to expose a foolish, self-possessed, careless, "ready, fire and aim" core.
Suggestion: If what you intend to do is bolster support of your otherwise well stated points, you might consider losing labels that tend to distract from the subject and place focus on what appears as a possible deficit in emotional maturity.

To add, and relevant to the paticulary passionate political climate, these days..."Many think that assigning blame settles matters."

MT,

I do not personally see the point you raise as valid.

The difference I see between "bacterial aggression" and the aggression in violence by one man toward another is that a man's actions have free will behind them. The actions of a colony of bacteria, though it may have some "intelligence," do not result from free will.

This seems to me to be a fundemental breakdown in your analogy. Government cannot protect against every random happening of nature.

If I'm missing a piece of your argument, please let me know, or please expand.

[Sidenote: it occurs to me that a sentence above is poorly stated. Government cannot protect against every willful action of other people, either. So I'm not sure how to state the principle that government should protect against willful malicious actions as opposed to random misfortune.]

Hello MT,

First off - welcome! I don't recall seeing your nic before (though I might have just missed it, as I'm kind of in-and-out)

That said....

Let me begin by pointing out that the government only has the responsibility to defend its citizens from the aggressions of other countries - really, only on that 'macro' of a level (for brevity, let's just suspend the 'country-less terrorist' discussion for now)

Likewise, there have been numerous court cases in recent years that have legally recognized that police departments are under no legal compulsion to 'protect citizens from harm' - this tidbit came to be examined after several attempts to sue PDs over failure-to-respond/lack-of-timeliness-of response.

Police departments may adopt the "Protect & Serve" motto as an operating ideal and their internal procedures may require officers to do their jobs in a certain way, but their only legal responsibility is to 'enforce the law'.

You have no inherent 'Right' to protection from harm - boots-on-the-ground law enforcement is a service for which you pay, through your taxes.

** Of course, given the opportunity, the VAST majority of police officers are brave souls who would not hesitate to put themselves in harm's way for your sake - But we're talking about "Rights" here.**

Now - that said - the only 'reasonable' circumstance (and even this might be a stretch) under which the government might have a responsibility to defend you from a colony of bacteria would be (arguably) if said dangerous bacteria had been deliberately introduced by agents of a foreign country, as the form of an attack.

Barring that;...

In your suggested scenario - your Right to Life means that no one can prevent you from pursuing Life (in this case, seeking medical assistance or knowledge to fight the effects of said bacteria) - as long as that pursuit does not harm others (i.e. - robbing a bank to get the money to pay for medical treatment, etc.)

In general, your individual Rights impose certain Responsibilities on you - the breakdown of a 'Right to Health Care' comes in that such a Right would impose a Responsibility on someone else (providing your care) whether or not they chose to.

- MuscleDaddy

P.J.,

I will continue to maintain that the idea/promise of "Rights without Obligations" is, in fact, especially attractive to the culturally/societally/personally lazy.

Men (and that's a deliberately capital 'M') know that "something of nothing" is not only unlikely, but also not worth aspiring to.

If that makes me 'judgemental', well...

...making judgements is something that adults are supposed to do - it's how we make the decisions in maintaining and protecting ourselves, our families and our society.

And I'm okay with that.

- MuscleDaddy

"something for nothing"

...multi-tasking...bah!

- MD

We have, already, as a country bought into rights such as health care and education, and other "human rights" as per the charter of Paris, which, as per article 7 of the constitution is now part of the constitution as all treaties are.

So is all this surprising---no, we are just playing by the rules that were set up when nobody was looking. Hello nanny state, good bye freedom. Somebody light some fireworks.

Excellent video! I've sent the link to numerous friends....as in the past I have sent the link to your blog.

Is there a way to get a written version of your remarks for those who do not have access to a computer?

Thanks!

Well, the idea of "natural" rights is of course invalid. Any rights that exist are provided by society, and if society and government want to make health care a right, then they may-- but that's a big project. Scratch that-- a Big project. I'm pretty damn that the nation isn't unified enough on this matter for such an audacious plan to succeed; Hillarycare, after all, was a dismal failure, and that was in a far less polarized time. I don't think Obama will be able to push this one through, even if the Dems end up with the Presidency, House, and Senate. It didn't work back in ninety-three, and I don't think it'll work now.

Can you at least concede that every CHILD has a right to health care? Personally I believe health care falls under the right of LIFE and the pursuit of happiness. How about the common good? You would deny some for the profit of others? That makes you a sadist.

Perhaps if we as citizens all followed a generic, non-religious (or religious if that suits you better) moral code as espoused by Benjamin Franklin, these lengthy semantical discussions of the ideas of "rights" would hold more weight for me.

By the generally accepted definition of a citizen's "right", it should only be protected by the government as long as it doesn't impugn on another citizen's right? I don't disagree with the Second Amendment, but our government protects the rights of our citizens to own guns that kill innocent people as well as those intent on causing harm. The point is, the idea of a protected right cannot be supported by semantics.

Just as the common, tired argument against nationalized healthcare is bandied about by citizens who believe it will drain their wallets and support drug addicts, deadbeats, illegal immigrants, and just plain people (which at an unquantifiable level is true), the same could be said for a few other programs or "protected rights" that are immensely popular, namely: Medicare, Social Security, the aforementioned Second Amendment, hell, a large part of the Constitution if you count the legal options that are guaranteed to said criminals by the Bill of Rights.

What this says to me is that the appropriateness of a protected right is in the eye of the beholder, who will be for the next four years, more likely than not, Barack Obama.

For all of you who believe this will usher in era of American socialism a la the French or Canadian system for that matter, I would love for once to hear a well-thought out argument for your point as opposed to panicky cries of how socialism will end with this country in financial ruin.

Speaking of political systems and financial ruin...

Maybe a better way of putting it is this. Public education, good roads, airports-these things aren't "rights" but "social goods." Flat screen TVs, DVDs, new car tires-these things are "consumer goods." I believe that just like we all mostly agree good roads, good schools, safe airports/airways are a "social good" perhaps healthcare s/be considered the same, rather, RATHER than a consumer good.

I agree w/the author.....rights protect us, via the Constitution FROM the power of gov't. That document spells out the LIMITS of gov't's power, which is what makes it unique.

Do you really believe what you have written, or are you just trying to be provocative? We need to listen to both sides of this argument, however, when you lump education, health care, and safety together and say that we don't have the right to any of these it makes it difficult to give you any credibility.

How depressing most of these responses are. The very idea that many of you would prefer to view Barack's statement as government intrusion rather than a basic humanitarian obligation. The suggestion that we should commodify healthcare, calling it a responsibility does so, is exactly why healthcare is so expensive now. People's fear of "socialist" practices is irrational and unpractical. We should be willing to call good health a right. We have a right to life, good health preserves life. We have a right to liberty, good health does not enslave us. We have a right to the pursuit of happiness, don't you believe that everyone should be healthy enough to engage in this pursuit? The problems that emerge with "responsibility" based healthcare is that it proportionally disadvantages children, the poor, and the elderly--the very three groups we should be protecting at the HIGHEST level, not the minimum. Government should not back off, it should move more aggressively in. Why should only people who can afford to be healthy get healthcare? It's precisely those that cannot afford to provide for their own health that we must help. If you don't agree with that, then there's no basis for dialogue between where you are and where Obama is. That is not bad for Obama, it's sad for you.

The rights you mention in your article are in fact rights in many jurisdictions (e.g., to a shelter if homeless, to emergency medical care if you need it, etc.). Of course people behave irresponsibly, rich and poor alike. However, the cost of many of these things (health care being an excellent example, especially acute or long-term care) are clearly beyond many people's means (hard-working or not) and this seems to be excellent justification for why many jurisdictions have made them rights. Your slippery slope argument rings completely hollow. It has good demagoguery value but is utterly unsophisticated. Distinctions can be made between things that ought and ought not to be rights. We hopefully vote for politicians who make these distinctions in thoughtful ways.

[AND THE HOUSE BOUNCER HEAVES THE FIRST JUVENILE DELINQUENT OUT OF THE HOUSE... GHS]

Kevin,

Oh no - you didn't just play the "FOR THE CHILLLDRENNN" - Card, did you?

So you believe that you have a RIGHT to be GIVEN something - something that requires the skill, ability and productive effort of someone else (developed/gained at his own expense, btw)?

Be sure, if you have that RIGHT, then the other person has NO RIGHT other than to give it to you - he is purely beholden to and compelled by YOUR RIGHT.

And who said anything about 'denying' anyone anything?

Denying?
Like preventing someone from obtaining healthcare? - Because that's a whole different thing from "requiring that you obtain it yourself".

Hospitals cannot deny emergency health care and there are countless charity groups, foundations, grants etc. that specialize in caring for indigent children.

People feel that it is important enough that they are willing to endow children's hospitals, establish trusts and maintain charitable funds solely for that purpose. Thousands of doctors across the country reserve a percentage of their budgets as expected-write-offs for that very purpose.

But you think they should be forced by the government to give not merely "more" but "all"?

And what sort of effect do you think this 'something for nothing' system would have on the "common good" in the long-term, on a societal level?

I think you are a very passionate, caring person - who has not thought this through.

- MuscleDaddy

Well, the US has signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which says in Article 25, Section 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.

So, we decided 60 years ago that it is a right.

I wonder if all these Brits, French and Japanese are all a bunch of slaves or just crazy bums like you.

It's appalling that the U.S. is the only major country on this planet not to have a simple basic standard co-payment health care system.

That's a far cry from a welfare state.

Basic health care means better than none at all. Whoever wants excellent care and can afford it will be allright paying for it. How in the world can you take this as slavery??

Socialism? Give me a break. Who buys this crap these days?

Scared about Obama? Better get used to him.

I wouldn't go so far as to call health care a fundamental human right. However I would say that children, and anyone who works or is willing to, should be entitled to some basic form of care. If dependence on government for basic necessities is akin to slavery, then an employer paying a worker so little that they cannot afford care should they fall ill is tantamount to treating human beings like pack animals.

There are certain public services that most of us are willing to pay into so that we all may enjoy a certain amount of protection should we need it. Police and fire departments come to mind (even if we don't recognize police protection as a "right"). I don't see health care as exactly the same but it serves well for the purpose of comparison. Leaving aside the public health threat posed by untreated disease, the fact of millions of working people without insurance represents a threat to the broader economy. Many people find themselves in the unenviable position of having to choose between paying their medical bills or their mortgages, and go into foreclosure. If a few of these people live on your block, the value of your own home takes a hit, just as a fire in your neighbor's house is a threat to yours.

The Constitution does not anywhere forbid the establishment of a universal health-care system. What it does do is endow the government with the power to "promote the general welfare" -- which is admittedly ambiguous. We may not have an explicit Constitutional right to federally-funded and/or -maintained roads, bridges, universities, etc. but we understand the utility of such things and are mostly willing to pay for them. I am glad the FDA makes sure my food and medicine are safe to ingest, even though there is no Amendment saying they must. I'm sure you're glad for that too.

So when I talk to fellow citizens who work hard and try to live within their means but cannot afford health insurance and therefore nurse a perpetual anxiety about a future sickness causing them to miss work and thus turning their lives upside-down, I'm convinced that a basic government health plan for those for whom private insurance is out of reach is necessary and within the boundaries we've drawn to date of what constitutes reasonable government authority.

Thanks, all! I think the notion of rights is an excellent topic, and I hope to bring some of these positions back to the classroom discussions in which I usually engage.

I think perhaps an important distinction to make is the difference between a natural right and a right vis a vis the responsibility (or even best-practices) of a government. In the definition of the true, inalienable, fundamental rights, I think the explanations you all provide are fantastic. I would assert that the responsibilities of a government extend beyond ONLY the natural rights - though I expect that is where many of you will disagree, but that's alright with me :)

To bring the subject back to Obama's claim, specifically - the question asked was whether Obama believes health care to be a privilege, a right, or a responsibility. Given those rather limited options (none of which were further defined in any way by the moderator), as well as the general public confusion about rights versus entitlements, I think his answer was not as fundamentally flawed as the article proposes. I suspect that given the arguments here, Obama would in fact change his categorization of health to "entitlement" rather than "right." Unfortunately, that wasn't an option.

Additionally, perhaps you would have expected him to label health as a responsibility, i.e. the responsibility of the state, as I have been arguing for - but unfortunately, saying "health care is a responsibility" could be construed so that each person has the responsibility to care for him or herself.
The ambiguity of all three categories given to Obama made this question incredibly tricky.

(And yes, I am new here :)

Remember the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? The duty of a nation as wealthy as the US is to care for its citizens first. We spend billions overseas in aid and in wars and yet decry spending on the welfare of our own people. That is just sick.

The idea of government absenting itself from the lives of its citizens is perverse. We mandate all sorts of other requirements from from our citizens but what do you propose we give back? There are many countries around the world that provide basic medical care for all their people. In Australia there is medicare that guarantees that no one will go without and it is paid for by the tax payers. Everyone is eligible but private medical insurance is also available and is taken uop by those who want greater coverage and more choice in services. Why not here?

We are busy bailing out Wall Street and the banks while corrupt conservative politicians sitting in Washington have their snouts in the trough (See Ted Stevens) . They say we have the right to starve and to die of disease because otherwise we would be socialists, which in conservative code means "communist". It is time that the conservative grew up and became ethical rather than just political.

I live in the UK where we have a National Health Service. Everyone has the right to use it for free. We get subsidised presription charges and we never have to pay a doctor's bill. I also have private healthcare as a benefit from the company I work for but I believe I'd probably get a better level of care from the NHS.

It's so awesome being British.

Spencer,

Just wondering - where's the valve you used to inflate that screed?

- MuscleDaddy

I'm a little confused by your ideas about the right to healthcare. Maybe I'm looking at this from the wrong angle.
Ok, so if someone is in a grievous accident or develops cancer they shouldn't enjoy the right to have a healthcare practitioner do what would save his/her life because they may not have the necessary insurance? Do you not understand that if you don't have a policy almost no one will help you? I'm probably going to die in the next 6 months because I can't afford the part of treatment that my insurance company won't pay for. I've been paying on this policy for more than 10 years and I had to fight for what coverage I'm entitle to because the company call it a pre-existing condition.
As for having the right to something like food or shelter, I have the right because I pay for those things. My doctor tells me we can't continue with my life-saving treatments because I'm not able to pay my bills. As if "we" were dying and not just me.
It's not about healthcare, you idiot! It's about having the same chance to live as anybody else. Unfortunately for me my right to life is tied up with the prohibitive cost of healthcare. I choose to eat because I can't pay for both food and doing what is necessary to save my life. You mentioned that we have the right to life.
Apparently not, unless you have money to pay for that right.
I find no comfort knowing that I don't have the same right to live as a horses ass who doesn't think before he writes an article.

Obama did not say he thought health care *was* a right. He said it *should be* a right. Big difference. That means it's not a right presently, but he favors making it one. In other words, in a representative republic, we can give ourselves rights, and Obama thinks we should give ourselves the right to health care. As for costs, giving everyone the right to health care might end up being less expensive than the way we do it now. It depends on the plan and the execution of it. But you're not against the people having a debate about that, are you? And you don't disagree that we the people have the power to grant ourselves rights, whether to be protected by the government or otherwise. And why isn't health care "protection" in the same or similar sense as being militarily protected by the government. It's for the common good, and it's something we can't do effectively by ourselves. Your argument's shallow and too cute by half.

Sounds like someone needs to take a political theory class and be introduced into this little known guy named John Rawls.

Policy is just when it aids the lowest in the society the most. This then entails that policies that inversely affect those in the lowest socioeconomic positions the most are unjust. Therefore, issues involving anything necessary for a minimum standard of what should be defined as a life by our society needs to be ensured by the government through whatever mechanisms deemed best.

Following from this, I think we can all agree the minimum needed for life in our society is food, shelter, health care and education, which when the above premises are granted, should all be deemed as rights.

Further, keep in mind that rights are not as action potentials are in neurons, unless of course you are a ruthless Kantian in nature, which I don't think the vast majority of us are. Rights can be scaled up and down according to societal necessity based upon the consensus of the society at the time

a reader,

"Well, the US has signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which says in Article 25, Section 1:..."

Q: Is the Declaration upheld universally. How is the Declaration enforced?

A: Originally the Universal Declaration was conceived as a statement of objectives to be pursued by Governments, and therefore it is not part of binding international law. Nonetheless, it is still a potent instrument used to apply moral and diplomatic pressure on states that violate the Declaration’s principles. In fact, in 1968, the United Nations International Conference on Human Rights agreed that the Declaration "constitutes an obligation for the members of the international community" to protect and preserve the rights of its citizenry.

Q: Who are the signatories of the Declaration?

A: Since the Declaration is not legally binding technically, there are no signatories to the Declaration. Instead, the Declaration was ratified through a proclamation by the General Assembly on December 10, 1948 with a count of 48 votes to none with only 8 abstentions.

- MD

Dear BW,
I doubt that Obama claims that health care is a constitutional right, and your exaggerations go easily from there. I’ll explain an alternative take with an example. Having good infrastructure
is not a constitutional right, yet we all pay taxes to have good roads. We don’t use all those roads all the time and we are not forced to take the I5 whenever we choose to go in a different direction. Having public roads does not stop us from using toll roads when we feel it is more convenient. Actually, we don’t have to have roads at all – we could just as well be brave and steady individuals fighting our daily routes through bushes and prairies and being proud of it. Yet we all support this system because it makes our life easier, and because its advantages are obvious.

Well, universal health care is not very different in this utilitarian sense. Having a minimum level of health insurance does not mean you absolutely have to take it, but it means that it’s there when you need it. It does not prevent you from better options, nor government prevents you from getting better options. And as a matter of fact, the resulting longer life span and less health problems diminish the financial burden on the state on other issues and increase productivity of individuals. These advantages are less obvious within one country than variations in road conditions. To see the difference, you’d have to go to a country where free markets exist (if not political freedoms) and individuals are left to themselves to tend to their health problems. The country in question is Russia which despite its recent affluence, high levels of education, industrial development etc experiences the most horrible demographic crisis imaginable: its population is literally dying out from health-related problems (check the statistics if you don’t want to take my word).

This brings me to the moral component of the concept of the universal health care (which a right to good roads does not have). Although health insurance is not a constitutional right, pursuit of happiness is. Would it not be only fair to give disadvantaged (sick) individuals a slim chance to such a pursuit by taking their life off the incessant worry and struggle for health? Getting sick is not within one’s control yet it impinges on essential freedoms. The universal health care does not imply a life of luxury to the idle, rather equal chances to the disadvantaged in order for them to work and achieve success just like other diligent and hard-working Americans who enjoy perfect health.

are all British people slaves?

But the "right" (we can dispute the term in a moment) to food, that's not a bad idea. We should invent something that tries to take care of people's "rights" in that regard, and maybe call it... welfare. That's a nice sounding word, isn't it? With some freedom-loving effort, we just might be able to make it work.

You can't very well pursue happiness without food or health. And perhaps, just perhaps, absolute, ideal freedom isn't possible for all in a society where people are born into unequal circumstances. To preserve the maximum freedom, some compromises on the parts of those who can afford to compromise without losing the rights that allow THEM to pursue happiness need to be made. Most people are hardwired to accept this necessity through this nifty little thing called a "conscience."

As for "The Monster"'s Kantian definition of rights as negative principles that merely prevent others from infringing upon them -- "liberty" presents a problem in that it doesn't quite work in parallel with life and the pursuit of happiness. That is, the negative definition of rights, when applied to freedom, faces a contradiction in social practice, where someone born into poverty or handicapped in some medical way, for example, does not possess the freedom to pursue happiness, constrained by the need to support life in categorically and catastrophically more limiting ways than others. Such people's "rights" to freedom, etc., require rescue by the body politic through which the society as a whole is represented, which is of course shouldered by individuals. To pretend otherwise is to blind yourself to reality on idealistic principle....

So those who have their food, housing, and health care provided for them are "slaves?" It's good to know what you think of the members of our country's armed forces. Especially single members, who have all three of these provided for them directly.


Sure, I've felt like a slave from time to time during my decade in the military, but I've never had some self-righteous jerk actually have the nerve to call me one.


Which country you want me to invade this year, massa?

"...a massive, self-forni..."

Some of you guys have clearly lost sight of the "dinner party on personal property" -part.
(see the notice at the top)

Hope you feel better and aren't too wedded to having your comments hang around here for long.

- MuscleDaddy

CM,

That bit of outrage is just dishonest.

Let's look at the statement you *nearly* quoted:

"Only it’s not something for nothing. “Free” health-care costs us something precious, and no less precious for being invisible. Because there’s a word for someone who has their food, housing and care provided for them… for people who owe their existence to someone else."

Do you feel that the military provided subsistence for you on a "something for nothing" basis?

Really?

Do you really feel that you "owe your existence" to your branch?

I knew some guys when I was in who fit that description, but most of us thought we were trading something of value.

Please stop taking things out of context to fuel some perpetual 'offendedness'.

- MuscleDaddy

Will all the refugees walking in the slurry so energetically shared please take your shoes off before entering. You are most definitely NOT in a public restroom.

There IS an Eject button.

Chris,

"Rights can be scaled up and down according to societal necessity based upon the consensus of the society at the time."

Uh-huh...

Or based upon judicial fiat, regardless of the consensus of society at the time... once they're 'established as Rights'.

... not that we've seen anything like that in living memory, of course.

- MuscleDaddy

Now nomally, I'd be tempted to to clean up the language and vitriol because up until now such outburts have been rare exceptions to what has been near universally civic discourse.

But there is NO WAY I am going to do that here. Everyone needs to know not just what these Kos people believe, but exactly who and what they really are.

Go for it guys! The fact that I have angered a bunch of raging lunatics is a badge of honor to me.

And for what little of an argument you bring to the table, you need to -- for once in your lives -- explain to the American People what YOU REALLY BELIEVE. Make them amend the Constitution to include your "rights." And maybe, one day, you'll be able to run a candidate who can say what he actually believes, instead of presenting himself as a pro-gun, anti-gay marriage, Osama-hunting, Pakistan-invading moderate. Doesn't it make you feel even a LITTLE dirty that your man has to deny you in every breath he takes, in order to sneak across the finish line?

CM just destroyed you. I believe the correct term is "OWNED!" Ha ha. Loser.
Keith in Denver

"Well, the US has signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which says in Article 25, Section 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.

"So, we decided 60 years ago that it is a right.

Posted by: A reader | October 9, 2008 1:18 PM "

Not so fast!

I quote from the Wikipedia article on the Universal Declaration of Humn Rights, (emphasis mine):

"NOTE: FROM THE SECTION OF THE ARTICLE TITLED, “Reservations”:
United States - Amnesty International writes that "The United States signed the Covenant in 1979 under the Carter administration but is not fully bound by it until it is ratified. For political reasons, the Carter administration did not push for the necessary review of the Covenant by the Senate, which must give its “advice and consent” before the US can ratify a treaty. The Reagan and Bush (Sr.) administrations took the view that economic, social, and cultural rights were not really rights but merely desirable social goals and therefore should not be the object of binding treaties. The Clinton Administration did not deny the nature of these rights but did not find it politically expedient to engage in a battle with Congress over the Covenant. The current Bush (W.) administration follows in line with the view of the previous Bush (Sr.) administration."[55] The Heritage Foundation, a critical conservative think thank, argues that signing it would obligate the introduction of policies that it opposes such as universal health care.[56]"

While I personally dislike using Wikipedia as a source, time constraints force me to use it from time to time. If you also dislike it as a source, please forgive me. I may eventually take the time to get the "original" source(s), as is my preference, when time allows.

However, it is evident from the above that the United States should not be considered a "signator" of the UDHR, and thus, your premise is false, Sir.

Natural rights don't exist.

A right is a claim, enforceable by state power, that others act in a certain manner in relation to the rightholder.

So a right is whatever we as a society collectively decide through our government is a right.

I side with Obama. I can think of few things more important to an economically productive society than access to health care.

Health care "choice" is nothing other than the time we waste trying to figure out which insurance company rationally incentivized to screw us is in fact going to screw us least.

There isn't a slippery slope argument to be made here, Whittle. Trying to equate wide-screen televisions with basic access to health care is ridiculous.

The Founding Fathers, on the other hand, put their names to documents that would have cost them their lives, had they lost. That is a fundamental issue of integrity

This is a post from my blog where I discuss the "right" to a mortgage:

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of a Mortgage?

The Declaration of Independence 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.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

These day it seems like many people exchange the word mortgage or healthcare for the words Pursuit of Happiness. We live in a world where many feel they are due a certain lifestyle - regardless of their ability to earn the money to provide that lifestyle. Many of the financial problems we are facing today are the result of the Clinton Administration's faulty decisions that allowed folks who would never have qualified for mortgages to receive them. Loans with crazy terms were granted to people with no credit history, not enough income and no understanding of the loans they were receiving. With so much easy money around, thank you Alan Greenspan, it is no wonder that mortgage brokers big and small pushed the money on non-qualified individuals who later defaulted on the loans.

The failure of the 700 billion bailout in the House yesterday was a blessing. It was democracy in action. The American people did not want the Paulson package and they let their reps know. We will wait for the next step - meanwhile hoping that Main Street is as intuitive on the presidential candidates as it was on the bailout. A vote for Obama is a vote for nationalization of many sectors that should remain privatized. He will add the words healthcare to the above rights and our healthcare will go the way of the Canadians and that is not a good thing at all.

Politburo-

Could you tell me which war we were fighting in 1787 when the first of the Federalist Papers were written? Who was going to execute the men in question? The British army that had surrendered at Yorktown six years earlier? Perhaps if you check Wikipedia (which has credible citations in this case) you might discover that practically everyone writing for or against federalism was using a Roman pseudonym in order to make a point about the positions they held on the issue. These men didn't do this out of fear; they did it because their classically-educated opponents (and readers) would understand the reference and appreciate the author's cleverness accordingly. While we're on the subject of pseudonyms, what inferences should I draw from yours?

Sorry. Sometimes I have to feed the trolls.

First, can I say this is a robust discussion worthy of being read.

I believe any society's idea of a right changes as the society evolves. Living in Egypt during the New Kingdom, a peasant would think it their right to worship their many Gods, even when Akhenaton declared they would only worship one. This took a toll on the priests who relied upon their knowledge of the many Gods for their livlihood, and the idea of a monotheistic society was met with resistance. The following pharoah went back to the old system of worship.

For America, the rights enshrined in the constitution and its amendments were also based on our needs at that time. It wasn't until later that slaves were given their freedom, and then the right to vote. But wouldn't we say it was also a right for a person of any color to attend a school of their choice? Work without discrimination? And yet these rights were never written into the Constitution.

Some rights are a collective agreement by the society as a whole. And Senator Obama was reflecting what he and the majority of Americans believe: That everyone has a right to health care.

Also, just to add... The interpretation of our constitution varies by era as well. Does right to life mean abortions are unconstitutional? Is capital punishment? How about killing someone in a war? In the line of fire as a police officer?

For these questions, we turn not to what was written hundreds of years ago, but to our nation's collective understanding of what's a right and what isn't. The next decade will bring new questions about rights, such as the right for two people (regardless of gender) to get married, the right to our own genetic sequences, and so on.

In short, Obama stating health care as a right was valid and true to the concerns of Americans, who, after all, should be the ones running this country anyway.

-Brandon

Interesting theoretical discussions you are having here. Mr. Whittle your piece says, "Simply this: Constitutional rights protect us from things: intimidation, illegal search and seizure, self-incrimination, and so on. The revolutionary idea of our Founding Fathers was that people had a God-given right to live as they saw fit. Our constitutional rights protect us from the power of government." The problem with all of this is that it is all theoretical, the Constitution is just a piece of paper and many of these rights you reference don't exist in reality thanks to democrats and republicans.

Taking that into account, what's wrong with saying we have a right to health care or housing? Heck, throw in the right to be on TV for a makeover and a right to go to the moon or free gas. It's all meaningless. If you're going to get riled up about presidential candidates promising new rights shouldn't we first get upset about the fact that the rights our founding fathers hoped we would have don't exist?

Neil - An expected response. However, the initial comparison was invalid. A blog is not the Declaration of Independence. It is much more comparable to the Federalist Papers.

To draw any inference from a screen name would be folly. You'd be far from the first to do so..

Helen - I'm intrigued by your suggestion that going the way of the Canadian health care system "is not a good thing at all." The Canadian system is certainly not without its faults, but the US could do worse than to take notes from their northern cousins.

The US system, as currently constituted, is quite inefficient and costly. Health care spending per capita is nearly double that of Canada, and even with the latter's vast federal and provincial health bureaucracies, the Amercian private system spends nearly double the amount on administration costs - this helps explain why the average US citizen also pays nearly double on out-of-pocket medical expenses. And yet in spite of the different levels of spending, there is no appreciable difference between the two nations in such statistics as average lifespan or number of doctors per person. In fact, the US, due to the varying levels of institutional quality experience a higher level of deaths per capita from surgical/medical mishaps. Canada has also substantially more long-term care units for persons over the age of 65.

Now, the US has many fine features too - Americans spend much more on hospital services, and the top tier of these facilities are by far the best in the world; wait times for non-life threatening surgeries and procedures can be as much as 1/4 that of above the 49th parallel; they also have access to a larger selection of pharmaceuticals. However, even though the majority of prescription drugs are not covered by basic Canadian health care, the northerners still pay less per average on Pxs than their American neighbours. And, despite what many Americans seem to believe, most, but not all, Canadians can choose their own physician and do not have one forced upon them.

The Canadian system is far from perfect, but it is, by an immense margin, the single most untouchable item in the nation. There is a deep emotional attachment to the idea of universal health care - which is somewhat ironic, as, with the advent of the New Deal in the thirtes, many Canadians at the time thought the US would be the first country to achieve universal coverage!

Wow!
I missed a lot today.
Let's look at a definition shall we? from Dictionary.com

-noun
18. a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral: "You have a right to say what you please."

Voting is a right. Education is a right. Food, shelter, and health care are more important than those, so by your logic they should be rights because voting and education are.

Bobba,
Voting is not a right, it's a responsibilty and costs your fellow man nothing.
Education is not a right, it's mandated by law and paid for by us all whether we use it or not.

Try again.

Bill Whittle appear unaware of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 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."

I hear Somalia hasn't signed on, either.

cassamandra,
Oddly enough, the law of the land is The Constitution of the United States of America not the Universal Wish Upon a Star.

Bill -- "Right" is the wrong word. What Obama should have said is that health care is a service best provided by the government -- that is, not subject to the profit motive. It transcends normal market mechanisms, like national defense, voting in elections, etc. It's too important to be put in the hands of business. That's all he meant, but the question was about "rights", so that's what he answered. Cheers.

I am an American living in Canada, where, thank goodness, healthcare is a right. Fortunately, we do not have horror stories about healthcare as the U.S.A. has. What a difference it makes. You should look at Canada's healthcare system and use some pointers. In Canada, nobody is left untreated because of lack of insurance. And the Canadian government is not a left wing government. And no, we do not have a right to widescreen televisions. Your logic is astoundingly ignorant.

Your objection to the "right" to healthcare is based solely in theory. In practice, an emergency room cannot refuse treatment with regard to the patient's ability to pay for their care. Therefore, there is already a recognized right to healthcare in this country. We benefit to since it mostly saves us from having to watch the indigent dying in the streets.

However, the cost is a hidden tax assessed by the medical provider whenever we pay for treatment. By bringing the cost into the open, we gain the opportunity to control it's extent and cost. The question is what is the most efficient and cheapest way to provide for a right whose cost we already bear. This isn't socialism, it's pragmatism. It's good economics and probably costs the taxpayer less in the long-term so should therefore be embraced by conservatives.

When we needed a pretense to separate from England, aside from not wanting to pay taxes, we cited a fundamental God given right to life, liberty, and happiness.

In a time when healthcare meant leaches, perhaps that wasn't considered, but then again neither was the institution of slavery considered a violation of the human right to liberty and life. Go figure.

"During the debate last night, Barack Obama was asked if he though health care was a "right." He said he thought it was a right."

... and I agree...

"Well, if you accept that premise, you can ask some logical follow-up questions. For instance, food is more important than health care... you die pretty quickly without food. Do we have a "right" to food in America?"

Apparently, America thinks so, or nearly 10% of our poorest citizens would not be entitled to food stamps. Are you suggesting this program should be done away with?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_stamps

"What about shelter?"

What about it? While homeless shelters are privately run, you don't need to go beyond HUD's website to learn:

'HUD, along with many other federal agencies, funds programs to help the homeless. These programs are managed by local organizations that provide a range of services, including shelter'

http://www.hud.gov/homeless/index.cfm

"Do we have a right to be safe?"

Do you have a right to Police and Firefighters? Should they be run privately as well? Since Churches don't pay taxers, when they catch fire should their congregations just pray for rain?

Should the police not report to an incident at your house because it might affect their bottom line?

"Do we have a right to wide-screen televisions? Where does this end?

It ends after healthcare, and before widescreens, since we've established that Americans do have a right to food and shelter, even when they can't afford any.

The notion that anyone should die in this country because their insurance company determines a bone marrow transplant to be an 'experimental treatment' is a disgrace. History will remember it as such.

Bill Clinton said it best: A 'Compassionate Conservative' is someone who says 'I want to help you, you know I do, but I just can't.'

Always remember that most people who have in this country were born into having, and those who have not, were mostly born not having.

Doesn't your argument fall apart at the end with the slaves bit?

By your confusion of sufficiency vs. necessity, you are calling all people who have their food housing and care provided for them necessarily slaves. Having your food, housing and care provided may be necessary to be a slave, but it is far from sufficient to make you one. If that were the case, most children, many elderly, and a large percentage of College age individuals would be slaves.

Your argument about the need for an incentive to work is certainly well taken, but what of those who can't work, or those who do work and still find health and homes outside of their reach? I would argue a right to have housing and healthcare available to those who work or honestly cannot would sit quite well with the founding fathers, or any believer in Christian values.

Health Insurance is not Health Care and Health Care is not Health Insurance. Adding to the confusion is that so many commentators, pundits and speakers use these terms interchangeably and often speak nationally. Since there are 50 different feudal state commissioners, speaking nationally often leads speakers, media types and communists to pick and choose their favorite scenarios. In addition thanks to the government interference the 60 history of government tax incentives, and mandates have mutated heath insurance and customer expectations.
Most people would laugh at the idea of having a car accident and than asking a third party to pay the bill.
But the discussions revolving around "pre-existing" conditions provoke not laughter but the usual girly boy philosophical debates. Lastly, a number of pseduo industries such as mental health and the associated liberal nut jobs are demanding to be taken seriously by insurance companies. Thanks to a provision added by the trillion Republican trailer trash handout signed by a trailer trash Republican president and voted on by Tommy the greaseball Tancredo, mental health coverage is expected to be recoginized as a covered expense.

Republicans now believe and act in practice directly opposite every single thing Ronald Reagan (the greatest president since George Washington) ever stood for.

Dark Days may be ahead.

On Immigration.

Republican Administration created the $700 Bailout request.

A Republican President signed the bailout bill.

Congressional Republicans voted for it.

It's interesting and amusing that s0-called conservatives (like the racist Hanson) have so much to say about the problem.

But where have true conservatives been the last 8 years. Republicans controlled the house and senate and the presidency 2000-2006. News Flash: Republicans STILL control the White House.

It was a REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL ADMINSTRATION that created the $750 Billion dollar bailout. It was a Republican President that SIGNED the $750 Billion dollar bailout.

One of the spectacles of the bailout drama was the GREASY RACIST Tommy Tancredo who voted for the BAILOUT TWICE.

It is no coincidence that the racist views of Hanson and too many of his trailer trash fascist admirers coincide directly with with big spending liberal Republicans who hold the American Constitution in contempt. It is no coincidence that the modern Republican party believes and acts directly the opposite of Ronald Reagan (the greatest American President since George Washington.

Racists on Immigration believe that America has an "Immigration problem". The truth is the rest of the world has "an EMIGRATION problem". The rest of the world generally "sucks".
Racist pseudo conservative trailer trash scum believe America needs to be fixed. Ronald Reagan backed freedom fighters for capitalism and democracy in Central America.
Racist fascist bigots like FOX News, Tancredo and many more believe in big fascist government and spending to match. Ronald Reagan believed in limited government.

..and it is no coincidence that all signs are pointing to an election day massacre of the liberal republican scum and their racist trailer trash fascists.

From Commission for Presidential Debates transcript.

"BROKAW: Quick discussion. Is health care in America a privilege, a right, or a responsibility? "

"OBAMA: Well, I think it should be a right for every American."

Next!

A Modest Proposal

It's the government's job to eliminate poverty. To that end we need to pass a law making poverty illegal. We can then round up the poor, euthanize them humanely, and render the residue into something useful, like fertilizer maybe.

The same method can solve our healthcare crisis. When a citizen exceeds his benefits and enters a hospital without coverage, the answer is to euthanize him. On the spot, without delay. Fewer humans will put less stress on the environment. It's a win-win.

We also need laws limiting family size. Two children should become the legal maximum. Any additional offspring can be eaten. Infant flesh is more tender than cornfed beef. Garnish with potato, onion and carrot. Cook for one hour per pound over medium heat.

I could go on, but grandma is banging on the basement door. I promised she could do her drooling act in front of the klansmen before we commence to the cross-burning. Uncle Billy promised to fill the bed of his pick-up with warm Budweiser so we can take a swim later on. Reverend Jed will join us around midnight for some snake-handling and verses from the Good Book. And don't forget your guns, brothers and sisters. We can take target practice shoot'n bottles off the neighbor's roof. My entire clan will be here tonight (easy to spot: six fingers on the left hand).

Now I ain't gonna make any promises, but I put a call into the governor's office of a certain northern state. SHE has promised to be here. SHE thinks we are cool. SHE knows what 'Merica is all about.

We need to show the Left that we know how to party, too. Cuz a party'n party is a winning party. What the hell . . . I just stepped in a big heaping pile of troll-doo. Who left the door open?

I would be careful with a "Founding Fathers/Rights" style argument. After all, African Americans and women did not have the "rights" mentioned in the original constitution.

Oliver,
Let's look at what Bill said in context.
Does that ring a little familiar these days? Because isn’t the danger here that if you’re offered something for nothing… you’ll take it?

Only it’s not something for nothing. “Free” health-care costs us something precious, and no less precious for being invisible. Because there’s a word for someone who has their food, housing and care provided for them… for people who owe their existence to someone else.

And that word is “slaves.”

If you depend on someone else for every aspect of your well being, and take no personal responsibility for your own life, you are worse than a slave; your are a child.

Right's, huh? the gop loves laws and rights when they don't have to apply them to themselves, or if they can cruch others rights. Tell the dixie chicks they have free speech. Tell pat tillman he has free speech. Tell ward churchill he has free speech. tell rosie odonnell she has free speech. One day the street will run both ways gop. One day the laws and rules you apply to others will apply to you as well. Better yet, you won't make any of the rules, as you have been shown as hypocrites, you lost all credibility as non partisan americans (party loyslist traitors rather), and no accountability for yoru own (only blame the other guy, even if you have full power). the gop loves to whine cry and complain. Lie spin discredit. You had yoru time, gop. you wasted it defrauding the government and getting americans and civilians killed to line yoru pockets. All the while silencing those you disagree, and hiding real news with gossip and heresay. One day the laws and rules you apply to others will apply to you gop. At least you won't be able to whine cry and complain when fox and rush are pulled from the air due to conflict of interest, and knowingly lying to their viewers. Well you will whine cry and complain, it's all you got left. This time who will care or listen? you made your bed gop. to NOT force you to sleep in it does you no favors as you will never change. your impending irrelevance will force you to introspect. to realize you have betreyed you r nation for money, or a monarchy fascist cult. Enjoy your irrelevance gop. you sure earned it,.

"Simply this: Constitutional rights protect us from things: intimidation, illegal search and seizure, self-incrimination, and so on. The revolutionary idea of our Founding Fathers was that people had a God-given right to live as they saw fit. Our constitutional rights protect us from the power of government."

Tell california they have the right to enact laws as they see fit. You are republcains right? You think america is a republic right? Why then, pray tell, does california make laws that the conservative feds reject and raid legal businesses (I think you know what I'm talking about? the gop is the party of hypocrites. The only power you have is the power, we as americans, give you. You cried wolf far to many times. Time for real patrioits to take over. The monarchy that has been established on american soil (the gop) is done for 30 years. that is if they survive. You may go the way of the whigs with the greens or libertarians taking yrou place. I promise you, no non-fascist republicans would bat one eyelash or shed one tear. :)

Your premise is false. Obama is not suggesting FREE healthcare. He is suggesting AFFORDABLE healthcare. If you have health insurance, you keep it. If you don't, you have the option to BUY it. No handouts, just a level playing field.

but then facts never interest people like you. You prefer lies to make your points. Shame on you.

"Does that ring a little familiar these days? Because isn’t the danger here that if you’re offered something for nothing… you’ll take it?

Only it’s not something for nothing. “Free” health-care costs us something precious, and no less precious for being invisible. Because there’s a word for someone who has their food, housing and care provided for them… for people who owe their existence to someone else.

And that word is “slaves.”"

the system's borken. ten years ago companies took care of their employees. The theroy was a happy employee will produce and stick around. be an assest. Now if you won't work for pennies, they will find someone that will. Regean offered the last blanket amnesty for illegal aliens. Bush tries this time. You people want the slave labor. No pensions. Crap insurance. The gop has filtered all the money to the top with no regulations hopin gprosperity will trickle down. You found out the hard way you wet dream will never work. It should. It's sound fundamentally. The problem is the rich are to damn greedy. You hoped prosperity would trickle down. Instead dispair trickled up. How do you hurt people who only care about money power and control? You MUST take it from them. Not only for their mental stability and well being, but those they subjecgate. That's it. Now attack and run yoru mouths. I know only you have opinons that matter, and only you get free speech.