“Rights.” It appears to me that this word instills are great sense of “defense.” It’s my right! You’re violating my right to free speech! ect. So what happens when this word is used when on the “offense?” I’m speaking more or less but not limited to Obamacare.
Heath care is a service rendered. When did the government get the power to force me to buy something, such as government health insurance? Collective rights, one might say. The collective want government enforced health care so the United States gets government enforced health care. That in and of itself doesn’t make sense. How can it be my right to violate your “rights,” then neither of us has any “real rights.”
All you humanitarians settle down, the answer to your question before you scream it is NO. I would not let a man die simply because he didn’t have health insurance. I do not think any doctor would deny a dying man treatment. But, I do think that that person should pay for that service himself. If someone consciously doesn’t where a seat belt crashes, and is put in a comma. The doctors, I’m sure would save his life. But, as for the bill is concerned that is his responsibility, not mine. He rolled the dice and lost, he will be paying off a debt for a long time. Such is the nasty way of freedom of choice.
I do however see no problem in giving this service or right to children. Children are omitted from the argument simply because they are children. Do you not pay for education once you’re an adult? Why, yes you do. If Obamacare was rendered to only children I would have absolutely no argument against it.
I understand that when the status quo is being changed, rights are sometimes broken or changed. It was once man’s right to own another man. Although, I don’t think you truly can relate slavery to government enforced health care. Regardless of whether the change is better or worse there still is a change. Rights are, well, rights are they not. So the real question is how long before the next right is broken or altered? The answer I think is that none of us really have any rights. Since rights are not this sacred undeniable defense/right, but something to be vexed and twisted to whatever the collective wants.
1) Rights protect citizens and should not be taken away by ANYONE.
2) If rights are violated and the law/people find out then the violator is punished according to the law.
3) If the law makers violate a citizens right and the law/people know it, and the law makers go unpunished then the right was not a real right. Because Point 1 and 2.
If individualists unite to fight collectivism, doesn’t that make them a collectivist…