The premise was that all parties agreed that America would adopt the view of many nations that all citizens have a right to preventative health care. That was a "given". The question was what would coverage which included all Americans look like.
Starting with Lee and continuing through the thread was the rejection of the premise. Not all citizens are entitled to preventative health care, that in this capitalist economy only those with money are worthy. There was no sense in pursuing the "given".
What such health care would look like was never addressed, obviously, as unnessary. Those people without insurance now don't deserve said care.
(After that various patches were mentioned. Those seem to be effective mainly as sops to real reform.)
On good days I feel very sorry for those who have $oul$ instead of souls.
Arf
Flame » in reply to What would happen if - - - ?
That was interesting.
The whole thread (51 posts)
- What would happen if - - - ?
- That was interesting.
- How can an invention be a basic right?
- re: How can an invention be a basic right?
- A good argument can be made
- re: "Things that must be paid for by others are not inherent rights."
- In my state
- Government health care
- It is a bad situation for those in the category of Eri and Alcaray
- It's a good thing we're on flame.
- Are you saying that clean water and a house are innate and basic rights?
- A good argument can be made
- Not necessarily so.
- re: How can an invention be a basic right?