Ted Cruz Is Right: You Don’t Have A Right To Health Care

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Ted Cruz Is Right: You Don’t Have A Right To Health Care
Progressives keep using the language of 'rights' to excuse and facilitate their agenda. But the word doesn't mean what they think it means.


There was a moment in the CNN Debate between Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders when the Senate’s senior socialist thought he had his Texan colleague dead to rights. Sanders asked Cruz whether he believed that every American is entitled to healthcare “as a right.”

Cruz, wisely, did not take the bait. He differentiated between the right to healthcare, which does not exist, and the right to access healthcare, which he readily conceded does exist. Sanders exploded, yelling that “access doesn’t mean a damn thing” if the government doesn’t pay for it for every citizen. Therefore, the Sanders argument goes, if it isn’t paid for by the government, it is the denial of a right.

This tactic isn’t confined to the healthcare debate. A look at the demands of the left which were voiced during the “Women’s March” reveal a laundry list of “rights” being “denied” in this country, including (but not limited to) taxpayer funded abortion on demand. And Kamala Harris one-upped everyone when she tweeted her belief that an infrastructure bill was “a human rights issue.”

Notice anything? There’s a recurring theme here. People, especially progressive politicians, often refer to every item in their agenda that is not yet realized as a “right”. This is true whether it’s a new government welfare program, or an attempt to further socially engineer the country. It’s an interesting choice of wording, but one that is not without reason.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Notice anything? There’s a recurring theme here. People, especially progressive politicians, often refer to every item in their agenda that is not yet realized as a “right”. This is true whether it’s a new government welfare program, or an attempt to further socially engineer the country. It’s an interesting choice of wording, but one that is not without reason.

I'd really be hard-pressed to think of a right mentioned from the right that isn't specifically spelled out in either the Declaration or Constitution.

But I HAVE heard of just about every thing that people think you should have as being a "right" - and that the right must either be guaranteed by the government - or provided by it. And that's pretty much where I see the distinction - the Constitution protects rights which we already *have*. We already have the right to free speech, freedom of religion. The government doesn't GIVE us this right - the government may NOT infringe upon it. You're BORN with these rights.

The left's list is different. You're not born with freedom of a job, or food, or shelter, or healthcare or an education. And I am glad it does not, because rights that come FROM the government CAN be rescinded, curtailed, infringed. Especially when the Constitution has no provision to protect them. It DOES protect your right to get any of these if you want to, but I'm horrified at the idea that people think it's the government's job to give it to you.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
There was a moment in the CNN Debate between Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders when the Senate’s senior socialist thought he had his Texan colleague dead to rights. Sanders asked Cruz whether he believed that every American is entitled to healthcare “as a right.”

Cruz, wisely, did not take the bait. He differentiated between the right to healthcare, which does not exist, and the right to access healthcare, which he readily conceded does exist.

This is what annoys me about political-lawyer-speak. Playing word games to justify their thinking. We absolutely have a right to healthcare as provided; just like we have a right to food. We NEED it, just like we need food or oxygen or oxygen. A right isn't defined by it's access or provision; a right is defined what government's authority is to limit it. And government should have no role is any of it.
 
Last edited:

This_person

Well-Known Member
This is what annoys me about political-lawyer-speak. Playing word games to justify their thinking. We absolutely have a right to healthcare as provided; just like we have a right to food. We NEED it, just like we need food or oxygen or oxygen. A right isn't defined by it's access or provision; a right is defined what government's authority is to limit it. And government should have no role is any of it.

The 10th amendment gives the states and the people the right to everything not SPECIFICALLY given to the federal government. That one has the right does not mean that anyone has the responsibility to provide it to you.

I have the right to peaceably assemble, but no one is required to assemble with me or provide a space to do so. I have the right to keep and bear arms, but the government is not responsible for providing that.
 

tommyjo

New Member
This is what annoys me about political-lawyer-speak. Playing word games to justify their thinking. We absolutely have a right to healthcare as provided; just like we have a right to food. We NEED it, just like we need food or oxygen or oxygen. A right isn't defined by it's access or provision; a right is defined what government's authority is to limit it. And government should have no role is any of it.

Your post makes no sense...you seem to need to look up the different definitions of rights...legal, Constitutional, Civil.

A "right" as you questionably describe it, absolutely is defined by access. If you have a "right" to food, it is most definitely gov'ts role to make sure no other person denies your "right" to access. No person or entity can stand outside a grocery store and say, as a general rule, you can't come in. The grocer can't refuse to take your legal currency as payment for your food. The grocer can't deny you access to the meat section of the store.

Whether or not govt provides some level of food to the poor, sick or disabled is a civil issue to be decided (in a Democratic society) by the will of the majority.

(Mr. Trump's ongoing problem, which neither he nor none of his supporters have yet come to grips with, is that the majority of the American public does not support him and never has.)
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
(Mr. Trump's ongoing problem, which neither he nor none of his supporters have yet come to grips with, is that the majority of the American public does not support him and never has.)

How big is that "majority" sugar tits? Be specific and cite reliable sources, kay?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Your post makes no sense...you seem to need to look up the different definitions of rights...legal, Constitutional, Civil.

A "right" as you questionably describe it, absolutely is defined by access. If you have a "right" to food, it is most definitely gov'ts role to make sure no other person denies your "right" to access. No person or entity can stand outside a grocery store and say, as a general rule, you can't come in. The grocer can't refuse to take your legal currency as payment for your food. The grocer can't deny you access to the meat section of the store.

Whether or not govt provides some level of food to the poor, sick or disabled is a civil issue to be decided (in a Democratic society) by the will of the majority.

(Mr. Trump's ongoing problem, which neither he nor none of his supporters have yet come to grips with, is that the majority of the American public does not support him and never has.)

Demonstrably not true. People have a right to join clubs that sell food that choose to exclude some people. It is not more the government's job to ensure that you have access than it is your fellow citizen's responsibility to sell food.

No clear majority supports or rejected anyone's plan or vision. This has been true for some time. Get over it.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Your post makes no sense...you seem to need to look up the different definitions of rights...legal, Constitutional, Civil.

A "right" as you questionably describe it, absolutely is defined by access. If you have a "right" to food, it is most definitely gov'ts role to make sure no other person denies your "right" to access. No person or entity can stand outside a grocery store and say, as a general rule, you can't come in. The grocer can't refuse to take your legal currency as payment for your food. The grocer can't deny you access to the meat section of the store.

Whether or not govt provides some level of food to the poor, sick or disabled is a civil issue to be decided (in a Democratic society) by the will of the majority.

(Mr. Trump's ongoing problem, which neither he nor none of his supporters have yet come to grips with, is that the majority of the American public does not support him and never has.)

There is absolutely no legal requirement for anyone or any business to provide access to anything. It is in their best business interest to do so; but Safeway can refuse my patronage if they wanted to. The constitution does not limit or expressly force private enterprises to recognize my rights. The constitution limits government’s authority to limit these rights; both for individuals and businesses. If a grocery store refuses my patronage, if they don’t have just cause, I can sue them. It would be stupid for any business to refuse customers without a valid reason.

We’re quibbling over terms “access” vs “provision”. Why would my need for something end at “access”? If I’m pursuing healthcare, I do, first, need access; but ultimately I’m going to need the USE of that service. Any private business can limit my right to food, healthcare, types of speech, preaching inside their establishment… But they better have just cause to do so, or they will be sued. Government does not have the authority to force businesses to provide me anything. Nor do they have the authority to tell a business to refuse me their business. THAT is what the constitution addresses – limits on the authority of government.

But you being the smartest person in the world, you already know this……………… apparently not.

Lastly, I don’t give a damn what you think about support for Trump. He is the president of this country, and is going to do his thing regardless of how many times you try to sell us his poll ratings. But you keep throwing it out there if it makes you feel better.
 
Last edited:

LightRoasted

If I may ...
If I may ...

The only rights we have are enshrined in the US Constitution. All others are called privileges, and are at the whim of governments to give and take. There is no right to food. But you can grow and hunt for your own food. Healthcare: You have access to it all day long. And for life saving medical procedures as well when necessary. You can not be turned down for a life saving procedure. But not for continued health services. Living healthy is up to the individual.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
(Mr. Trump's ongoing problem, which neither he nor none of his supporters have yet come to grips with, is that the majority of the American public does not support him and never has.)

Oh boo hoo. By that reasoning, Clinton NEVER had the support of the American people, having NEVER won with a majority of the votes.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
If I may ...

The only rights we have are enshrined in the US Constitution. All others are called privileges, and are at the whim of governments to give and take. There is no right to food. But you can grow and hunt for your own food. Healthcare: You have access to it all day long. And for life saving medical procedures as well when necessary. You can not be turned down for a life saving procedure. But not for continued health services. Living healthy is up to the individual.

So, you're telling me the government can pass a law that would forbid me from buying food?

What a bout buying a guitar? Can the government forbid me from buying a guitar?

What about playing the guitar?

What about rolling around in my front yard?

Playing golf?

Bird watching?
 
Last edited:

LightRoasted

If I may ...
If I may ...

So, you're telling me the government can pass a law that would forbid me from buying food?
What a bout buying a guitar? Can the government forbid me from buying a guitar?
What about playing the guitar?
What about rolling around in my front yard?
Playing golf?
Bird watching?

Don't be obtuse. You well know what I'm saying. But no, but they could create a special tax under the guise of something to curtail the use of any product, service or activity.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
If I may ...



Don't be obtuse. You well know what I'm saying. But no, but they could create a special tax under the guise of something to curtail the use of any product, service or activity.

The "Bill of Rights" is actually a misnomer. The bill is a list of specific restrictions on government, not a list of your ONLY rights.

Read the tenth one. It tells you that you have the right to everything not specifically given to the federal government; or, rather, you share that right with the states.

Ted Cruz is wrong - you DO have the right to healthcare. However, having a right to something is not akin to having a requirement for it to be supplied. Healthcare now has a tax, or a fine, or whatever seems to make it legal for the moment, that has the effect of limiting healthcare insurance. For example, if your healthcare insurance is too good, the government supplies an additional 40% tax on it as a "Cadillac plan". Apparently Cadillacs are desirable to the government.

People in general are mistaking rights and entitlements. Entitlements are not rights, and vice versa.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
If I may ...

Don't be obtuse. You well know what I'm saying. But no, but they could create a special tax under the guise of something to curtail the use of any product, service or activity.

You're changing the conditions. I was answering to your claim that the only rights we have are those enumerated in the constitution, and this is completely false. The government cannot deny me food, or playing music, or any other thing I determine to be in pursuit of my happiness. Where those rights end is when it harms someone else or impedes on the rights of others.

And it shouldn't have to be said that the constitution doesn't grant us any right; it protects our rights from government interfering in our free exercise of those rights.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
If I may ...



Don't be obtuse. You well know what I'm saying. But no, but they could create a special tax under the guise of something to curtail the use of any product, service or activity.

The "Bill of Rights" is actually a misnomer. The bill is a list of specific restrictions on government, not a list of your ONLY rights.

Read the tenth one. It tells you that you have the right to everything not specifically given to the federal government; or, rather, you share that right with the states.

Ted Cruz is wrong - you DO have the right to healthcare. However, having a right to something is not akin to having a requirement for it to be supplied. Healthcare now has a tax, or a fine, or whatever seems to make it legal for the moment, that has the effect of limiting healthcare insurance. For example, if your healthcare insurance is too good, the government supplies an additional 40% tax on it as a "Cadillac plan". Apparently Cadillacs are desirable to the government.

People in general are mistaking rights and entitlements. Entitlements are not rights, and vice versa.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Ted Cruz is wrong

And this is what's so disturbing about these people in our government. Supposed smart people that understand the constitution and what it's designed to do. I could easily determine from Cruz's statement that he would have ruled as a socialist or even a dictator. How can he conclude that something as essential as healthcare, isn't a right? That somehow the government can interfere in my ability to obtain healthcare?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
And this is what's so disturbing about these people in our government. Supposed smart people that understand the constitution and what it's designed to do. I could easily determine from Cruz's statement that he would have ruled as a socialist or even a dictator. How can he conclude that something as essential as healthcare, isn't a right? That somehow the government can interfere in my ability to obtain healthcare?

I'm not sure I can go as far as thinking he'd have been a dictator, but I can say he says he is a constitutionalist but doesn't seem to get it. I have to think he was trying to use Bernie's definition of "right", not the actual definition. If he really does not think health care is a right (while not being a responsibility of anyone else to provide), then he's not a very good constitutionalist in my view.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
There is absolutely no legal requirement for anyone or any business to provide access to anything.


actually some states have said they do .... RE: Christian Bakers


[also of your business is some soft of 'Public Accommodation' - like a private ambulance service]
 
Top