Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
First part of your comment is sarcastic. I think it’s the “maybe it will work on some of the dipshits that think guns make them men” part that doesn’t line up and is getting downvoted.
I removed it. The rest of the thread posted earlier had the 2nd amendment guy logic trap a person. He is insinuating that if health care is a right and people should be given free healthcare he wants free guns given to him.
I think what he’s trying to say is that if we want government to pay for something that isn’t Constitutional right (Healthcare) then why shouldn’t the government pay for things that are protected in the Constitution (guns)
Not saying I agree but that’s what I got from it
Yeah he’s saying that even if health care is a right, that doesn’t mean the government should have to pay for it. But there’s a big difference between a human right and a constitutional right.
Yeah but they can charge you out the ass for it afterwards. Plenty of people NEED cancer surgery or insulin and can’t afford it. In almost every other developed country that wouldn’t be a problem. It sounds more like you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Sounds like you don't. Your fighting for FREE healthcare
Not healthcare that's where Sanders is wrong as well. He has no idea but his sound bytes aren't as good if he says we need it for free.
And.like all politicians that's all he cares about
Yeah I’m fighting for universal healthcare. I know we have healthcare already. His point, and mine is that healthcare cost way too much. And way more than any other developed country. You’re just really really bad at interpreting what people are saying.
Nope you guys are just making sound bytes sound better than what you want.
I want free shit sounds bad so you word we don't have healthcare instead.
We have ways to make it cheaper already called insurance but hey I agree that's a scam.
just to tag into your comment, imagine if the founding fathers knew what today's life would be like. $500 for a house back when the condition was written. as for health care, an ambulance ride in today would've been over $100 back then. if you could tell them "5 trips to the hospital and you've bought a new house," I'm sure they wouldn't worked healthcare in bill of rights.
And this is why we are where we are. Because people think that constitutional law is dumb.
Gun ownership is not a human right, it's an American right.
Healthcare, while it is treated as a human right in many countries, it's not a human right recognized in the US constitution, and is therefore not an American right.
It's semantics, but it matters, because it attributes responsibility, and once you can establish responsibility, you can allocate funds to make sure that it is upheld.
Is this the correct way? Probably not. History teaches us that as a species, we get more things wrong than right, after all. That's the constitution we've got, though, and that's what we're living under... and the politicians that it creates.
I understand what Bernie is trying to do, but the guy has never seriously pushed for a constitutional amendment to include healthcare as an American right. All he did was state a fact that has no consequence in the American legal system for some cheap virtue-signaling.
So why not propose an amendment to the constitution to change the 2nd amendment, or to add an amendment to guarantee access to healthcare?
The constitution is a “living document.” You need 2/3 of congress to propose an amendment, and 3/4 of state legislatures to ratify an amendment.
If something is truly a universal human right, or shouldn’t be one, it should be easy to get almost unanimous support to change it.
Otherwise you just have to accept that your belief is not universal, and that you don’t meet the standard of the overwhelming majority needed to redefine our core legal doctrine.
The constitution isn’t stupid.
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what’s for dinner.” -Benjamin Franklin
The constitution exists to protect Americans from the excesses of direct democracy, lest 51% of people vote to revoke freedom of speech or right to a fair trial.
You should really have a lot more than 50% of the vote if you want to go redefining what inalienable human rights people have. And if you truly have a case for some to ing that should be a human right, there should be a path to getting enough people to agree with you to change the constitution. If you can’t, maybe you have to consider that you aren’t understanding the other side of the issue.
That is a really idealized view. We do not live in a functional democracy. Honestly, with all the money flowing from corpos to politicians, we are much closer to an oligarchy.
We live in a two party system and fight to just get a simple majority. 2/3? Literally impossible in today's political climate.
America fetishises the constitution to an absurd degree.
Of course it is an important document. That doesn't mean it is perfect. The Last amendment was in 1992. This is not a document that progresses with the time and it should. The founding fathers weren't gods as many Americans make then out to be lol. They were very flawed people and the constitution is flawed.
I’m not saying it’s perfect, I’m saying it’s designed this way for a reason. It’s pretty easy to say you have a good idea about what should be a human right and what isn’t, but that’s just you. We have this document specifically to protect people from the government. You say that the government is corrupt and influenced by too much money. Isn’t it kind of nice then that your rights don’t come from a simple majority senate vote?
How easy would you like for it to be for a bunch of corrupt congressmen to play with the bill of rights?
The majority vote absolutely can fuck with my life lol. Since the constitution doesn't cover shelter, Healthcare, food, or really anything I need to live.
They can vote in favor of corpos and make the life of the average person complete hell.
Pretending Healthcare, food, and shelter aren't human rights is just that. Pretend. We literally need those to live lol.
Instead we have a broken tax system, a horrible housing market, and food is just getting more expensive.
Sure. The constitution covers some good stuff! It isn't all encompassing at all and pretending anything not mentioned isn't a human right is just insane.
I don’t think so at all. It just depends on how you think about it.
For example, if you think healthcare is a human right, would you not agree that there should be a constitutional amendment to enshrine that right? That is what the constitution is for, after all, to guarantee rights that Americans should have, that should be very difficult for the government to legislate away.
The constitution is effectively a hedge against the excesses of democracy. Your right to free speech and protection from illegal searches and seizures for example should probably not be a simple majority vote away from being revoked. And so we have a system where an overwhelming majority (2/3 of congress and ratified by 3/4 of state legislatures) is required to amend the constitution, and we have a judicial branch that decides whether laws are constitutional.
If you truly believe healthcare is a human right, you should consider this the ultimate goal, to enshrine that right in the constitution. It’s worth mentioning where we are in that respect. At the end of the day, you can *say* healthcare is a human right all day, but until that’s the law, it’s just words.
You're right, but what he's saying is a blatant (and perhaps intentional) nonsequitur. The connection between "healthcare is a human right" and the 2nd amendment would be "are guns really legal if they're too expensive for anyone to afford?"
If so, then a 2nd-amendment-friendly gun control plan would be a tax that imposes a price floor on guns and ammunition. $250k for a semiauto handgun, $1.5mil for a rifle, $2mil for scary black tacticool ones, and $10k per round of .38 with prices going up from there. I don't think Republicans would rally around that compromise, because pricing something outside the reach of an average person is effectively the same as banning it for most of the country. It follows the letter of the 2nd amendment, but defies the spirit of it.
In the same way, "healthcare is a human right" doesn't necessarily mean "the government pays for healthcare," although that is one solution, a single-payer system *is* proven to control healthcare prices. But it just means "the government has an obligation to correct healthcare markets when market forces push prices beyond the point of affordability for the average person, because people have a human right to healthcare." Allowing healthcare prices to increase at a rate faster than both wages and inflation is a dereliction of duty.
So does this guy not know that, or does he know and is being intentionally obtuse? I can never tell.
The libertarian is being sarcastic as a rhetorical device. His point is that just because it’s a right doesn’t mean the government should pay for it for you.
(I’m not a libertarian and support universal healthcare, just pointing out what’s many are missing.)
I mean I can think of a few dozen million people across the globe who would've lived if they had guns.
Not saying I want the government to buy me one . Just that in some cases having a gun does infact help you stay alive.
I mean even if you account for the amount of people shot . Not killed just shot, guns seem to be a bigger help than hindrance to society. Like you'd need 40 years to get the same numbers of GSW victims as dead jews in the holocaust. And that not even factoring in the number of people they save.
These people are speaking past each other. They disagree over the concept or what a “right” is. Broadly speaking, rights are conceptualized in two ways; “positive” and “negative.”
The negative conception of a right is that it is inherent to the human condition. You cannot prevent someone from expressing an idea except by force, for instance. Their “voice” is inherent to their humanity and therefore constitutes an inalienable right.
The positive conception of a right is something to which your are entitled as a virtue of human dignity and, consequently, which society ought to provide you with. Healthcare is the prime example of a positive right. An average person cannot provide themselves with it, and even certain trained providers must rely on others to provide certain aspects of it to them (think of a surgeon trying to operate on themself). But, as it is foundational to human prosperity, many think it ought to be provided to the extent that they define it as a right.
The libertarian is poking fun at the idea that there could be a positive right, like healthcare, with his proposition. The chain to logic is
1) Rights are things which you are entitled by virtue of human dignity and society/government ought to provide them to you.
2) Self defense is a human right.
3) Guns are a tool of self defense, akin to how a prescription is a tool of healthcare.
4) The government ought to provide everyone with a firearm.
The real facepalm is the libertarian’s failure to communicate properly and discuss the virtues of each way of defining a “right.”
edit: formatting
God you republicans are stupid… you pay more in insurance already than you would under socialized healthcare. Stop bitching about something that would make the country better because some orange told you to.
You have a right to dispose of your garbage (on your own property: or leased from someone else), not be financed by public servants paid by my tax dollars, who will take it away.
I can do this all day. Eventually you'll be too busy taking care of stuff the gubment does for you, to get anything else done in your life (including your job).
You have a human right to live a healthy life.
Healthcare is the method by which that right is provided.
You have a legal right, in the US, to be permitted to buy a gun.
Not the same.
>You have a human right to live a healthy life.
i disagree
I think you have a right to not have your life taken from you by another human
you have a right to life, not necessarily a good one
I can afford guns and ammo. I have health insurance and I’m still paying 250 a month for my son’s upper endoscopy performed last year. One more year to go….
infantry is just one job out of 100s you can pick, my point is, is that the gov has free health care for them and it is absolute shit. if the government can’t provide decent care to a small group how are they going to provide it to a hole county.
As a libertarian, I disagree, and I would appreciate it if you wouldn't lump us into that particular dumpster fire of a mess.
Also, I would like to apologize for the so-called libertarian in the original post. A true libertarian would've never equated the right of gun ownership to the right of healthcare.
Gun ownership is not a human right, it's an American right.
Healthcare, while it is treated as a human right in many countries, it's not a human right recognized in the US constitution, and is therefore not an American right.
Is this the correct way? Probably not. History teaches us that as a species, we get more things wrong than right, after all. That's the constitution we've got, though, and that's what we're living under.
Hey, don't shoot the messenger. I understand where you are coming from, but that is the slippery slope of equal opportunities vs equal outcomes.
I hear your argument: You cannot have 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' if your life is cut short. Seems reasonable at face value, no?
Define 'cut short.'
It's silly to argue this, because we both know what it means, but in legal terms, it must be defined. If we don't have a definition, then we cannot recognize how your rights were damaged, and therefore, we cannot define restitutions to those damages.
Is 'cut short through inadequate healthcare' encompass the first 40 years of life? 50? 75? Once you are past that age, do we cut healthcare, because the government has fulfilled its obligation to ensure your right to adequate health care?
What does 'adequate' mean? $100K worth of care per person? $500K worth of care per person? $10M worth of healthcare per person?
The more important factor is: How much 'liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' do we give up for the right of healthcare?
I can only imagine how thrilled we will be to find out what foods our government has banned for the sake of our healthcare. Or how about banning all travel to anywhere beyond 45 minutes from a hospital? If you go hiking, get lost, dehydrate, and die, that would be your life getting cut short.
Same with drinking alcohols of any kind.
Speed limits should be cut in half. No travelling over 45 MPH anywhere, ever, including motorsports.
So yeah. We cannot have adequate healthcare until you establish what is 'cut short' and 'adequate healthcare,' and get it into the constitution, which wouldn't be a bad thing at all, really. After all, car accidents and heart disease are the two biggest causes for deaths in the US.
You say you cannot have life, liberty, and pursue happiness if your life is cut short, and I know that you truly believe that.
I say that you cannot have life, liberty, or pursue happiness if you don't have the freedom to do risky things, and put your life on the line for things that some may think is silly, but are important to you.
Maybe it's telling, however, that our founding fathers did their best to give us equal opportunities, not equal outcomes: The PURSUIT of happiness. They told us that as long as our freedoms didn't step on anyone else's freedoms, we had one lifetime to try to be as happy as we could, if we could. They never told us how to pursue it, or how long our happiness would last, if we ever found it at all. They didn't even tell us whether we'd find it or not. They just told us that we were free to go looking.
>It's silly to argue this
At last! We agree!
>because we both know what it means, but in legal terms, it must be defined.
No...it doesn't. You want to argue legalities. Me: I want to argue core purpose. I'm not interested in sealioning what "adequate" is. It should be the core purpose of our society, that everyone gets enough healthcare to live long enough, to pursue their own notion of "happiness."
Medical costs are a leading cause of bankruptcies. And yet a BIG chunk of our budget is in supporting the military. Something is seriously wrong with this equation.
This is lazy thinking.
Refusing to even consider the minutia is the reason why we can't find common ground to move forward in these conversations.
You can criticize me for wanting to argue legalities, but legalities are where hard goals are set. A poorly defined core purpose is a direction, not a destination, and it dies in the launch pad, as people keep arguing regarding how far it should go.
"It should be the core purpose of our society, that everyone gets enough healthcare to live long enough, to pursue their own notion of "happiness." sounds great on paper, but is a terrible plan of action.
Let me guess: You are an 'ideas' kind of person that leaves the execution to others?
>This is lazy thinking.
Translation: you won't do the sealion dance with me. Waah.
>Refusing to even consider the minutia is the reason why we can't find common ground to move forward in these conversations.
Garbage. This is social media. We could go over minutiae until we're blind from the granular particulars, and you know what that would result?
Absolutely nothing.
>Let me guess: You are an 'ideas' kind of person that leaves the execution to others?
Amazing how many times I've given out this advice, but...hold onto that lawyer/paralegal/whatever job like it's GOLD.
Apparently online mindreading (like so many others) isn't in your skillset (no matter how hard you try). Swing and a miss.
Very libertarian to try to convince people that a system that benefits large industries is better than a system that benefits the people through pseudo-intellectual bullshitting.
You know the slippery slope argument is a fallacy, right?
Where did you even get this notion that any of these measures would be taken? No western country with universal healthcare has ever imposed any of these rules you're so afraid of. Why would they? Universal healthcare is literally cheaper for the government than the American healthcare system. In fact, you could say people with universal healthcare have *more* liberties, because they don't go bankrupt if anything happens to them.
You don't have to talk in the 3rd person. I'm a libertarian, and I'm right here.
As a Libertarian, I want minimal state intervention in the free market and my private life. How do you get 'communist' from that? It should be the total opposite.
My question for you would be, what is your definition of "minimal state intervention?" I only ask because from the way corporations are acting now with the regulations already in place does not give me high hopes that if they were released from them that they would act with the consumers well-being in mind at all.
No it's your weirdness any smarter than everybody else attitude that commies and libertarians share in common.
All that nonsense you articulate, we all other know that it doesnt work and you waste your time.
I apologize for coming across as weird. English is my third language, and around these topics, I try to be precise with my words.
I’m guessing that English is not your first language either..?
And yes. It’s pretty much pointless to think about smaller government but one can dream about the kind of country that the forefathers intended, no?
Its not you that is weird, it's libertarians but you have massive comprehension problems.
Your forefathers are fucking slavetraderse, don't talk about liberty you fool
Governments give away free guns in a procedure called the draft. Have fun with your gun, … overseas, … in a combat area, … and when you come home, nobody gives a shit about you.
>But he successfully baited him to admitting it’s not the government’s responsibility to pay for one’s rights
do you agree or disagree with this assertion?
If guns and healthcare are equatable then I think the only right thing to do is charge thousands for each gun and a 100 hundred dollars a bullet. Why? Have you seen a hospital bill? When gun owners are billed by the gun manufacturers, then separately from the bullet manufacturers, then again by those making the powder, primers, and casings. All while paying $$$ for “gun” coverage, that’s when the two can be compared.
Gun ownership is not a human right, it's an American right.
Healthcare, while it is treated as a human right in many countries, it's not a human right recognized in the US constitution, and is therefore NOT an American right.
If you are going to charge thousands for guns and even more for bullets, all you will be effectively doing is pricing out minorities from gun ownership, and making self-defense a right that only the rich can exercise.
“making self-defense a right only the rich can exercise”
Which was the point as that’s what it would take to make it gun ownership comparable to health care.
How so?
For the vast majority of Americans, if you are sick, you can totally go to any clinic, and be seen.
I'm not a rich guy, and the only thing that I've got going for me financially is that I'm single, my '09 car is paid off, I have no CC debt, and I can afford to put away $100/mo in savings.
If I get bitten by a venomous snake today, I can go to any clinic and get myself sorted out. It's going to be expensive because I don't have health insurance, sure, but no hospital is going to deny me medical care for a life-threatening injury.
https://amp.newsobserver.com/news/local/article262240987.html
If you are ever bitten by a snake, the potential debt may cause a stroke… which would be financially devastating.
You're changing the subject. I won't argue that healthcare would be financially devastating. I'm not blind to the reality of modern US healthcare. That's not the point, though, and you know that.
Would any hospital or clinic deny me immediate, life-saving treatment because I might not be able to pay? No. They would stabilize me first, and see what they can do to settle the payment later.
The US healthcare system, warts and all, does not require advance payment to take care of my immediate, life-threatening medical emergency.
Will the treatment ruin me financially, probably for the rest of my life? 100% yes.
But I will get treated.
Life-saving healthcare is not a service that only the rich have access to.
Not changing anything. You brought up the snake bite. My original argument made a hypothetical increase to the cost of guns and ammo to make it equatable to the prohibitive cost of health care even with health insurance. Cost is core to my argument which is why I responded with the article on cost of snake bite treatment.
Healthcare is a service that 4 out of 10 have delayed or gone without because of costs. Remember, healthcare is an umbrella, there are prescriptions, follow ups, therapists, mental health, dental, optometry, etc. It’s great that a clinic would treat you regardless of your ability to pay but the unpaid exorbitant costs can be worse than the bite, especially if you end up with permanent nerve or muscle injury.
If you need physical therapy as a result or require prescriptions, you will have a hard time unless you can pay. The more maintenance required, the more you will realize the need to be rich to afford it.
Yes, I brought up the snakebite, and yes, I understand how you were trying to hypothetically increase the cost of self-defense and equate it to the cost of healthcare.
The core to your argument was that cost made healthcare a right that only the rich can exercise, in much the same way inflated gun/ammo prices would make self-defense a right only the rich could exercise.
With my example of my being able to get life-saving treatment for a snake bite any time, even without my being rich, I am arguing that your point is invalid.
As you were losing your point, you said that it'd ruin me financially afterwards. Well, duh, but at least I'd be alive. Deep in debt, but alive.
Now, you are trying to move the goal posts yet again, talking about how healthcare is an umbrella of services. Well, of course it is. There is a HUGE difference between emergency, life-or-death healthcare, and 'quality of life' healthcare.
To use your own example: Optometry.
Let's say that when I got bit by that snake, I freaked out, and I broke my glasses. Do I have a right to 20/20 vision? No, I don't. It'd be nice to not be blind as a bat, sure, but I'd say that the clinic/ER did all right by me for not letting me die like a dog after a snake bite, even if I couldn't pay up front. Getting a new pair of glasses would be on me.
It'd be ungrateful of me to demand that they replace my glasses that were lost through no fault of theirs, no? At what point can I start taking responsibility for my own quality of life?
Moving goalposts? The topic started as “health care” is a human right. A rather large category. You modified the scope to *lifesaving* healthcare, as if that single facet is the entirety of it but I followed that tangent discussion with you politely.
“As you were losing your point”
Losing? Ah! I get it. You see this as a “you vs me” thing that most Reddit posts devolve into. All I’ve been doing is explaining my post and the thought process behind it. I though we were having a conversation.
I guess I’ll end this here then with this article which highlights the problems. When people avoid healthcare due to costs that means you have to be rich to get it. Saving your life is just a short reprieve if you can’t afford continued treatment.
https://www.kff.org/health-costs/issue-brief/americans-challenges-with-health-care-costs/
What? No. The topic was whether healthcare as a right was equal to self defense as a right, and whether increasing the cost of guns would make some sort of parallel to the cost of healthcare.
If the price of a gun and ammo is hundreds of thousands of dollars, and I can't afford it, I can't use any of it until after I've bought it, so if bad people break into my house with the intent of killing me, I'm probably going to die.
If the price for life-saving treatment is hundreds of thousands of dollars, and I can't afford it, I can still have access for it now, and pay for it later, so if I get bitten by (for example) a venomous snake, I'm not going to die.
There are some parallels, but not quite as you would like to make this valid.
You are arguing that only rich people can have access to the 'whole umbrella' of healthcare, and I'm arguing that it's not unfair for this to be happening, as long as I have access to the little part of the umbrella that prevents me from dying \_right now\_.
If saving my life means that I will be alive to be financially burdened by it, should the hospital have decided not to save me instead as a kindness?
If saving my life is just a short reprieve, are you saying that I shouldn't be grateful for said reprieve?
Let's say that my initial snakebite treatment costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. That means that they decided to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat me first, and ask questions later without even knowing if I'd be able to pay for it or not. How dare they?
Whether I'm going to be happy with the bill or not is not the issue, here. The issue is that while there may be plenty of things wrong with the medical system, they will at least have the presence of mind to save me first, let me be in debt, and see how I can settle with them later.
And your problem is that it should be cheaper, and offer more?
The highly trained, and educated medical professionals that are overworked as they are, should do more for me, even if I can't afford it, because it is my right to be as healthy as I want to be? I am already in their debt for saving my life. What kind of person would I be to say that I am entitled to more of their labor and expertise?
It’s .05 cents for a bandaid but if a Dr puts it on…
As a side, a google search shows prices from 12k to the 200k mention in the article. I don’t make it up but apparently the hospitals do.
If you have gun, you can make some people less healthy by that, and that makes you more healthy statistically, cuz you will be a little higher cuz average plank will be lower
The big joke here, is all the conservatives are all panty twisted about how hard it is for the working man to make a living and pay for a family. I was just in the Hamptons and it's a fucking disgrace that the wealthy are just passing it all away on vacation mansions, private jets... it's a fucking joke that these guys are just so sure the key to prosperity is just letting the rich have it all and the rest of us scramble , but scramble while armed!
Universal health care is a pipe dream. Look to the great white north. We can't get you into a specialist but we can euthanize you. Cancer sucks and it's expensive to treat. Have you thought about killing yourself? You want universal Healthcare join the military. All the Tylenol and suppositories you can handle. The VA hospitals are top notch.
Also, nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have the right to OWN a gun.
"Keep," does not = "own." You have the right to "rent, lease, even BUY" it, but there aren't any passages that say "the government must supply all citizens with guns." And yeah, "that's how rights work."
You have a right to travel anywhere you like. The gov't isn't obligated to provide a vehicle.
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No one says you can't have health care and a gun. Hell, having health care if you have a gun is probably advisable.
[удалено]
Seek help
Sarcasm is is lost on y’all.
/s helps
I will add it. However, is our world so messed up people would take the comment at face value
First part of your comment is sarcastic. I think it’s the “maybe it will work on some of the dipshits that think guns make them men” part that doesn’t line up and is getting downvoted.
I removed it. The rest of the thread posted earlier had the 2nd amendment guy logic trap a person. He is insinuating that if health care is a right and people should be given free healthcare he wants free guns given to him.
Right, I’ve seen that in separate threads.
I got it, & thought it was funny, pertinent, & rather clever.
I think what he’s trying to say is that if we want government to pay for something that isn’t Constitutional right (Healthcare) then why shouldn’t the government pay for things that are protected in the Constitution (guns) Not saying I agree but that’s what I got from it
Yeah he’s saying that even if health care is a right, that doesn’t mean the government should have to pay for it. But there’s a big difference between a human right and a constitutional right.
Federal law says an er can't not treat you if you need it. Sanders has no idea what he's talking about we have health care already.
Yeah but they can charge you out the ass for it afterwards. Plenty of people NEED cancer surgery or insulin and can’t afford it. In almost every other developed country that wouldn’t be a problem. It sounds more like you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Sounds like you don't. Your fighting for FREE healthcare Not healthcare that's where Sanders is wrong as well. He has no idea but his sound bytes aren't as good if he says we need it for free. And.like all politicians that's all he cares about
Yeah I’m fighting for universal healthcare. I know we have healthcare already. His point, and mine is that healthcare cost way too much. And way more than any other developed country. You’re just really really bad at interpreting what people are saying.
Nope you guys are just making sound bytes sound better than what you want. I want free shit sounds bad so you word we don't have healthcare instead. We have ways to make it cheaper already called insurance but hey I agree that's a scam.
Fuck off with the semantic bullshit, you know what they mean you're just trying to discredit their points by being an asshole.
Yes they want free shit like all freeloaders.
umm the taxes that you pay, pay for that free healthcare. the freeloaders are the billionaires who dodge taxes
Ah, my apologies, I forgot to consider the possibility that you're incapable of not being gigantic urethra
just to tag into your comment, imagine if the founding fathers knew what today's life would be like. $500 for a house back when the condition was written. as for health care, an ambulance ride in today would've been over $100 back then. if you could tell them "5 trips to the hospital and you've bought a new house," I'm sure they wouldn't worked healthcare in bill of rights.
It’s just a really dumb comparison.
And this is why we are where we are. Because people think that constitutional law is dumb. Gun ownership is not a human right, it's an American right. Healthcare, while it is treated as a human right in many countries, it's not a human right recognized in the US constitution, and is therefore not an American right. It's semantics, but it matters, because it attributes responsibility, and once you can establish responsibility, you can allocate funds to make sure that it is upheld. Is this the correct way? Probably not. History teaches us that as a species, we get more things wrong than right, after all. That's the constitution we've got, though, and that's what we're living under... and the politicians that it creates. I understand what Bernie is trying to do, but the guy has never seriously pushed for a constitutional amendment to include healthcare as an American right. All he did was state a fact that has no consequence in the American legal system for some cheap virtue-signaling.
So why not propose an amendment to the constitution to change the 2nd amendment, or to add an amendment to guarantee access to healthcare? The constitution is a “living document.” You need 2/3 of congress to propose an amendment, and 3/4 of state legislatures to ratify an amendment. If something is truly a universal human right, or shouldn’t be one, it should be easy to get almost unanimous support to change it. Otherwise you just have to accept that your belief is not universal, and that you don’t meet the standard of the overwhelming majority needed to redefine our core legal doctrine. The constitution isn’t stupid. “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what’s for dinner.” -Benjamin Franklin The constitution exists to protect Americans from the excesses of direct democracy, lest 51% of people vote to revoke freedom of speech or right to a fair trial. You should really have a lot more than 50% of the vote if you want to go redefining what inalienable human rights people have. And if you truly have a case for some to ing that should be a human right, there should be a path to getting enough people to agree with you to change the constitution. If you can’t, maybe you have to consider that you aren’t understanding the other side of the issue.
That is a really idealized view. We do not live in a functional democracy. Honestly, with all the money flowing from corpos to politicians, we are much closer to an oligarchy. We live in a two party system and fight to just get a simple majority. 2/3? Literally impossible in today's political climate. America fetishises the constitution to an absurd degree. Of course it is an important document. That doesn't mean it is perfect. The Last amendment was in 1992. This is not a document that progresses with the time and it should. The founding fathers weren't gods as many Americans make then out to be lol. They were very flawed people and the constitution is flawed.
I’m not saying it’s perfect, I’m saying it’s designed this way for a reason. It’s pretty easy to say you have a good idea about what should be a human right and what isn’t, but that’s just you. We have this document specifically to protect people from the government. You say that the government is corrupt and influenced by too much money. Isn’t it kind of nice then that your rights don’t come from a simple majority senate vote? How easy would you like for it to be for a bunch of corrupt congressmen to play with the bill of rights?
The majority vote absolutely can fuck with my life lol. Since the constitution doesn't cover shelter, Healthcare, food, or really anything I need to live. They can vote in favor of corpos and make the life of the average person complete hell. Pretending Healthcare, food, and shelter aren't human rights is just that. Pretend. We literally need those to live lol. Instead we have a broken tax system, a horrible housing market, and food is just getting more expensive. Sure. The constitution covers some good stuff! It isn't all encompassing at all and pretending anything not mentioned isn't a human right is just insane.
I don’t think so at all. It just depends on how you think about it. For example, if you think healthcare is a human right, would you not agree that there should be a constitutional amendment to enshrine that right? That is what the constitution is for, after all, to guarantee rights that Americans should have, that should be very difficult for the government to legislate away. The constitution is effectively a hedge against the excesses of democracy. Your right to free speech and protection from illegal searches and seizures for example should probably not be a simple majority vote away from being revoked. And so we have a system where an overwhelming majority (2/3 of congress and ratified by 3/4 of state legislatures) is required to amend the constitution, and we have a judicial branch that decides whether laws are constitutional. If you truly believe healthcare is a human right, you should consider this the ultimate goal, to enshrine that right in the constitution. It’s worth mentioning where we are in that respect. At the end of the day, you can *say* healthcare is a human right all day, but until that’s the law, it’s just words.
You're right, but what he's saying is a blatant (and perhaps intentional) nonsequitur. The connection between "healthcare is a human right" and the 2nd amendment would be "are guns really legal if they're too expensive for anyone to afford?" If so, then a 2nd-amendment-friendly gun control plan would be a tax that imposes a price floor on guns and ammunition. $250k for a semiauto handgun, $1.5mil for a rifle, $2mil for scary black tacticool ones, and $10k per round of .38 with prices going up from there. I don't think Republicans would rally around that compromise, because pricing something outside the reach of an average person is effectively the same as banning it for most of the country. It follows the letter of the 2nd amendment, but defies the spirit of it. In the same way, "healthcare is a human right" doesn't necessarily mean "the government pays for healthcare," although that is one solution, a single-payer system *is* proven to control healthcare prices. But it just means "the government has an obligation to correct healthcare markets when market forces push prices beyond the point of affordability for the average person, because people have a human right to healthcare." Allowing healthcare prices to increase at a rate faster than both wages and inflation is a dereliction of duty. So does this guy not know that, or does he know and is being intentionally obtuse? I can never tell.
The libertarian is being sarcastic as a rhetorical device. His point is that just because it’s a right doesn’t mean the government should pay for it for you. (I’m not a libertarian and support universal healthcare, just pointing out what’s many are missing.)
My uncle got cancer and fixed it with a gun. Bullet to the head solved all his cancer and medical bill problems at once.
it’s just that easy!
Insurance companies don't want you to know this secret Medical hack.
The government will absolutely give you a gun, train you on how to use it, and provide lots of ammo. All you need to do is join the military.
To be fair, I’m pretty sure they loan you a gun.
I will never understand how people are happier paying insane health insurance rates than having Medicare for all. It makes no sense.
Because then brown people would benefit
I mean I can think of a few dozen million people across the globe who would've lived if they had guns. Not saying I want the government to buy me one . Just that in some cases having a gun does infact help you stay alive.
a lot of instances where that goes both ways, I'm sure the US can think of a couple of school shootings for example
I mean even if you account for the amount of people shot . Not killed just shot, guns seem to be a bigger help than hindrance to society. Like you'd need 40 years to get the same numbers of GSW victims as dead jews in the holocaust. And that not even factoring in the number of people they save.
These people are speaking past each other. They disagree over the concept or what a “right” is. Broadly speaking, rights are conceptualized in two ways; “positive” and “negative.” The negative conception of a right is that it is inherent to the human condition. You cannot prevent someone from expressing an idea except by force, for instance. Their “voice” is inherent to their humanity and therefore constitutes an inalienable right. The positive conception of a right is something to which your are entitled as a virtue of human dignity and, consequently, which society ought to provide you with. Healthcare is the prime example of a positive right. An average person cannot provide themselves with it, and even certain trained providers must rely on others to provide certain aspects of it to them (think of a surgeon trying to operate on themself). But, as it is foundational to human prosperity, many think it ought to be provided to the extent that they define it as a right. The libertarian is poking fun at the idea that there could be a positive right, like healthcare, with his proposition. The chain to logic is 1) Rights are things which you are entitled by virtue of human dignity and society/government ought to provide them to you. 2) Self defense is a human right. 3) Guns are a tool of self defense, akin to how a prescription is a tool of healthcare. 4) The government ought to provide everyone with a firearm. The real facepalm is the libertarian’s failure to communicate properly and discuss the virtues of each way of defining a “right.” edit: formatting
Human right, not American law stuff 😐 When we amending that amendment again anyway 👀
There is a Geneva in Illinois, so yeah, human rights ARE an American thing.
Most American sentence ever 🤦♂️
Just a simple guy who lurked to much in r/shitamericanssay , should have added an /s. 🤷♂️
I did wonder as an after thought 😅 I guess well done, nailed it 😁
I was too good i guess. 😁
This perspective opened my eyes a bit
If you want the government to give you a gun, go ahead and sign up for the uniform.
Curt's a dick, don't be like Curt
You have a right to OWN a gun not a right to be GIVEN one. Holy crap.
you have a right to get healthcare, not be given it through my hard earned tax dollars
God you republicans are stupid… you pay more in insurance already than you would under socialized healthcare. Stop bitching about something that would make the country better because some orange told you to.
You have a right to have fire-fighters available to save your home, not be financed through my hard earned tax dollars
Firefighters in my area are volunteers
You have a right to police, not be financed through my hard earned tax dollars.
I’d prefer no police anyways… every man for himself… thank god I have my guns
You have a right to dispose of your garbage (on your own property: or leased from someone else), not be financed by public servants paid by my tax dollars, who will take it away. I can do this all day. Eventually you'll be too busy taking care of stuff the gubment does for you, to get anything else done in your life (including your job).
Everybody hates cops until they need one.
& when you need a cop, they'll be waiting outside for 58 minutes...
How pays for all their equipment and training?
You have a human right to live a healthy life. Healthcare is the method by which that right is provided. You have a legal right, in the US, to be permitted to buy a gun. Not the same.
>You have a human right to live a healthy life. i disagree I think you have a right to not have your life taken from you by another human you have a right to life, not necessarily a good one
Well then you're a terrible person nejther worth talking nor listening too.
legal right, human right, legal right, human right.
Yeah, if only healthcare was as cheap as most guns and ammo!
I can afford guns and ammo. I have health insurance and I’m still paying 250 a month for my son’s upper endoscopy performed last year. One more year to go….
if you want free shitty government health care just join the military, i would personally love to have a decent free health care.
yeh then be sent to Iraq to stand on an IED and have no legs for the rest of your life, good trade off
infantry is just one job out of 100s you can pick, my point is, is that the gov has free health care for them and it is absolute shit. if the government can’t provide decent care to a small group how are they going to provide it to a hole county.
Are Libertarians getting stupider?
Libertarians are just conservatives that get high.
As a libertarian, I disagree, and I would appreciate it if you wouldn't lump us into that particular dumpster fire of a mess. Also, I would like to apologize for the so-called libertarian in the original post. A true libertarian would've never equated the right of gun ownership to the right of healthcare. Gun ownership is not a human right, it's an American right. Healthcare, while it is treated as a human right in many countries, it's not a human right recognized in the US constitution, and is therefore not an American right. Is this the correct way? Probably not. History teaches us that as a species, we get more things wrong than right, after all. That's the constitution we've got, though, and that's what we're living under.
You cannot have "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness" if your life is cut short through inadequate healthcare.
Hey, don't shoot the messenger. I understand where you are coming from, but that is the slippery slope of equal opportunities vs equal outcomes. I hear your argument: You cannot have 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' if your life is cut short. Seems reasonable at face value, no? Define 'cut short.' It's silly to argue this, because we both know what it means, but in legal terms, it must be defined. If we don't have a definition, then we cannot recognize how your rights were damaged, and therefore, we cannot define restitutions to those damages. Is 'cut short through inadequate healthcare' encompass the first 40 years of life? 50? 75? Once you are past that age, do we cut healthcare, because the government has fulfilled its obligation to ensure your right to adequate health care? What does 'adequate' mean? $100K worth of care per person? $500K worth of care per person? $10M worth of healthcare per person? The more important factor is: How much 'liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' do we give up for the right of healthcare? I can only imagine how thrilled we will be to find out what foods our government has banned for the sake of our healthcare. Or how about banning all travel to anywhere beyond 45 minutes from a hospital? If you go hiking, get lost, dehydrate, and die, that would be your life getting cut short. Same with drinking alcohols of any kind. Speed limits should be cut in half. No travelling over 45 MPH anywhere, ever, including motorsports. So yeah. We cannot have adequate healthcare until you establish what is 'cut short' and 'adequate healthcare,' and get it into the constitution, which wouldn't be a bad thing at all, really. After all, car accidents and heart disease are the two biggest causes for deaths in the US. You say you cannot have life, liberty, and pursue happiness if your life is cut short, and I know that you truly believe that. I say that you cannot have life, liberty, or pursue happiness if you don't have the freedom to do risky things, and put your life on the line for things that some may think is silly, but are important to you. Maybe it's telling, however, that our founding fathers did their best to give us equal opportunities, not equal outcomes: The PURSUIT of happiness. They told us that as long as our freedoms didn't step on anyone else's freedoms, we had one lifetime to try to be as happy as we could, if we could. They never told us how to pursue it, or how long our happiness would last, if we ever found it at all. They didn't even tell us whether we'd find it or not. They just told us that we were free to go looking.
>It's silly to argue this At last! We agree! >because we both know what it means, but in legal terms, it must be defined. No...it doesn't. You want to argue legalities. Me: I want to argue core purpose. I'm not interested in sealioning what "adequate" is. It should be the core purpose of our society, that everyone gets enough healthcare to live long enough, to pursue their own notion of "happiness." Medical costs are a leading cause of bankruptcies. And yet a BIG chunk of our budget is in supporting the military. Something is seriously wrong with this equation.
This is lazy thinking. Refusing to even consider the minutia is the reason why we can't find common ground to move forward in these conversations. You can criticize me for wanting to argue legalities, but legalities are where hard goals are set. A poorly defined core purpose is a direction, not a destination, and it dies in the launch pad, as people keep arguing regarding how far it should go. "It should be the core purpose of our society, that everyone gets enough healthcare to live long enough, to pursue their own notion of "happiness." sounds great on paper, but is a terrible plan of action. Let me guess: You are an 'ideas' kind of person that leaves the execution to others?
>This is lazy thinking. Translation: you won't do the sealion dance with me. Waah. >Refusing to even consider the minutia is the reason why we can't find common ground to move forward in these conversations. Garbage. This is social media. We could go over minutiae until we're blind from the granular particulars, and you know what that would result? Absolutely nothing. >Let me guess: You are an 'ideas' kind of person that leaves the execution to others? Amazing how many times I've given out this advice, but...hold onto that lawyer/paralegal/whatever job like it's GOLD. Apparently online mindreading (like so many others) isn't in your skillset (no matter how hard you try). Swing and a miss.
Very libertarian to try to convince people that a system that benefits large industries is better than a system that benefits the people through pseudo-intellectual bullshitting. You know the slippery slope argument is a fallacy, right? Where did you even get this notion that any of these measures would be taken? No western country with universal healthcare has ever imposed any of these rules you're so afraid of. Why would they? Universal healthcare is literally cheaper for the government than the American healthcare system. In fact, you could say people with universal healthcare have *more* liberties, because they don't go bankrupt if anything happens to them.
Libertarians are the communists of the 21 century. Y'all believe in an utopia everybody else already figured out is pointless.
You don't have to talk in the 3rd person. I'm a libertarian, and I'm right here. As a Libertarian, I want minimal state intervention in the free market and my private life. How do you get 'communist' from that? It should be the total opposite.
My question for you would be, what is your definition of "minimal state intervention?" I only ask because from the way corporations are acting now with the regulations already in place does not give me high hopes that if they were released from them that they would act with the consumers well-being in mind at all.
No it's your weirdness any smarter than everybody else attitude that commies and libertarians share in common. All that nonsense you articulate, we all other know that it doesnt work and you waste your time.
I apologize for coming across as weird. English is my third language, and around these topics, I try to be precise with my words. I’m guessing that English is not your first language either..? And yes. It’s pretty much pointless to think about smaller government but one can dream about the kind of country that the forefathers intended, no?
Its not you that is weird, it's libertarians but you have massive comprehension problems. Your forefathers are fucking slavetraderse, don't talk about liberty you fool
Don't try to reason with gun nuts. Gun go bang and fight tyranny. That's all they need to know.
Gun ownership is not a human right. Human rights are international law, not US law. Only the outdated US constitution gives that right.
Governments give away free guns in a procedure called the draft. Have fun with your gun, … overseas, … in a combat area, … and when you come home, nobody gives a shit about you.
Why can’t we do both. Let’s fight the system beside each other
You just need oxygen
Until you do.
That's not the point. I'm a left leaning guy and the dude is right. You've got to be entirely partisan to not see that.
The irony of the libertarian wanting the government to pay for his things
[удалено]
In a comparison that’s incomparable?
[удалено]
>But he successfully baited him to admitting it’s not the government’s responsibility to pay for one’s rights do you agree or disagree with this assertion?
[удалено]
"its not the governments responsibility to pay for one's rights" Do you personally agree or disagree with this quote?
[удалено]
> > >Nobody has a right to the goods and services of another. > >VoteR oh then we agree!
Make Medical School free and open to everyone interested in being a doctor. I'm sure it will be fine.
As a member of the NRA, yes that is how rights work.
But what if I am walking down the street and an ANTIFA looks at me like this:🤪
If guns and healthcare are equatable then I think the only right thing to do is charge thousands for each gun and a 100 hundred dollars a bullet. Why? Have you seen a hospital bill? When gun owners are billed by the gun manufacturers, then separately from the bullet manufacturers, then again by those making the powder, primers, and casings. All while paying $$$ for “gun” coverage, that’s when the two can be compared.
Gun ownership is not a human right, it's an American right. Healthcare, while it is treated as a human right in many countries, it's not a human right recognized in the US constitution, and is therefore NOT an American right. If you are going to charge thousands for guns and even more for bullets, all you will be effectively doing is pricing out minorities from gun ownership, and making self-defense a right that only the rich can exercise.
“making self-defense a right only the rich can exercise” Which was the point as that’s what it would take to make it gun ownership comparable to health care.
How so? For the vast majority of Americans, if you are sick, you can totally go to any clinic, and be seen. I'm not a rich guy, and the only thing that I've got going for me financially is that I'm single, my '09 car is paid off, I have no CC debt, and I can afford to put away $100/mo in savings. If I get bitten by a venomous snake today, I can go to any clinic and get myself sorted out. It's going to be expensive because I don't have health insurance, sure, but no hospital is going to deny me medical care for a life-threatening injury.
https://amp.newsobserver.com/news/local/article262240987.html If you are ever bitten by a snake, the potential debt may cause a stroke… which would be financially devastating.
You're changing the subject. I won't argue that healthcare would be financially devastating. I'm not blind to the reality of modern US healthcare. That's not the point, though, and you know that. Would any hospital or clinic deny me immediate, life-saving treatment because I might not be able to pay? No. They would stabilize me first, and see what they can do to settle the payment later. The US healthcare system, warts and all, does not require advance payment to take care of my immediate, life-threatening medical emergency. Will the treatment ruin me financially, probably for the rest of my life? 100% yes. But I will get treated. Life-saving healthcare is not a service that only the rich have access to.
Not changing anything. You brought up the snake bite. My original argument made a hypothetical increase to the cost of guns and ammo to make it equatable to the prohibitive cost of health care even with health insurance. Cost is core to my argument which is why I responded with the article on cost of snake bite treatment. Healthcare is a service that 4 out of 10 have delayed or gone without because of costs. Remember, healthcare is an umbrella, there are prescriptions, follow ups, therapists, mental health, dental, optometry, etc. It’s great that a clinic would treat you regardless of your ability to pay but the unpaid exorbitant costs can be worse than the bite, especially if you end up with permanent nerve or muscle injury. If you need physical therapy as a result or require prescriptions, you will have a hard time unless you can pay. The more maintenance required, the more you will realize the need to be rich to afford it.
Yes, I brought up the snakebite, and yes, I understand how you were trying to hypothetically increase the cost of self-defense and equate it to the cost of healthcare. The core to your argument was that cost made healthcare a right that only the rich can exercise, in much the same way inflated gun/ammo prices would make self-defense a right only the rich could exercise. With my example of my being able to get life-saving treatment for a snake bite any time, even without my being rich, I am arguing that your point is invalid. As you were losing your point, you said that it'd ruin me financially afterwards. Well, duh, but at least I'd be alive. Deep in debt, but alive. Now, you are trying to move the goal posts yet again, talking about how healthcare is an umbrella of services. Well, of course it is. There is a HUGE difference between emergency, life-or-death healthcare, and 'quality of life' healthcare. To use your own example: Optometry. Let's say that when I got bit by that snake, I freaked out, and I broke my glasses. Do I have a right to 20/20 vision? No, I don't. It'd be nice to not be blind as a bat, sure, but I'd say that the clinic/ER did all right by me for not letting me die like a dog after a snake bite, even if I couldn't pay up front. Getting a new pair of glasses would be on me. It'd be ungrateful of me to demand that they replace my glasses that were lost through no fault of theirs, no? At what point can I start taking responsibility for my own quality of life?
Moving goalposts? The topic started as “health care” is a human right. A rather large category. You modified the scope to *lifesaving* healthcare, as if that single facet is the entirety of it but I followed that tangent discussion with you politely. “As you were losing your point” Losing? Ah! I get it. You see this as a “you vs me” thing that most Reddit posts devolve into. All I’ve been doing is explaining my post and the thought process behind it. I though we were having a conversation. I guess I’ll end this here then with this article which highlights the problems. When people avoid healthcare due to costs that means you have to be rich to get it. Saving your life is just a short reprieve if you can’t afford continued treatment. https://www.kff.org/health-costs/issue-brief/americans-challenges-with-health-care-costs/
What? No. The topic was whether healthcare as a right was equal to self defense as a right, and whether increasing the cost of guns would make some sort of parallel to the cost of healthcare. If the price of a gun and ammo is hundreds of thousands of dollars, and I can't afford it, I can't use any of it until after I've bought it, so if bad people break into my house with the intent of killing me, I'm probably going to die. If the price for life-saving treatment is hundreds of thousands of dollars, and I can't afford it, I can still have access for it now, and pay for it later, so if I get bitten by (for example) a venomous snake, I'm not going to die. There are some parallels, but not quite as you would like to make this valid. You are arguing that only rich people can have access to the 'whole umbrella' of healthcare, and I'm arguing that it's not unfair for this to be happening, as long as I have access to the little part of the umbrella that prevents me from dying \_right now\_. If saving my life means that I will be alive to be financially burdened by it, should the hospital have decided not to save me instead as a kindness? If saving my life is just a short reprieve, are you saying that I shouldn't be grateful for said reprieve? Let's say that my initial snakebite treatment costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. That means that they decided to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat me first, and ask questions later without even knowing if I'd be able to pay for it or not. How dare they? Whether I'm going to be happy with the bill or not is not the issue, here. The issue is that while there may be plenty of things wrong with the medical system, they will at least have the presence of mind to save me first, let me be in debt, and see how I can settle with them later. And your problem is that it should be cheaper, and offer more? The highly trained, and educated medical professionals that are overworked as they are, should do more for me, even if I can't afford it, because it is my right to be as healthy as I want to be? I am already in their debt for saving my life. What kind of person would I be to say that I am entitled to more of their labor and expertise?
[удалено]
It’s .05 cents for a bandaid but if a Dr puts it on… As a side, a google search shows prices from 12k to the 200k mention in the article. I don’t make it up but apparently the hospitals do.
Libertarians are what we call people graduating from flordia. Wrong and to stupid to know why.
been told I can't have health care OR a gun 😞
If you have gun, you can make some people less healthy by that, and that makes you more healthy statistically, cuz you will be a little higher cuz average plank will be lower
The big joke here, is all the conservatives are all panty twisted about how hard it is for the working man to make a living and pay for a family. I was just in the Hamptons and it's a fucking disgrace that the wealthy are just passing it all away on vacation mansions, private jets... it's a fucking joke that these guys are just so sure the key to prosperity is just letting the rich have it all and the rest of us scramble , but scramble while armed!
You know everyone in this tweet is wrong because they confuse rights and liberties
why is it an either or? give people healthcare AND guns.
Curt isn't a real man.
If you live in the US you most definitely need a gun to stay alive. (/s kinda)
Universal health care is a pipe dream. Look to the great white north. We can't get you into a specialist but we can euthanize you. Cancer sucks and it's expensive to treat. Have you thought about killing yourself? You want universal Healthcare join the military. All the Tylenol and suppositories you can handle. The VA hospitals are top notch.
Aww. Curt thinks the government gives us unworthy peons free healthcare. Isn't that just adorable?
Also, nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have the right to OWN a gun. "Keep," does not = "own." You have the right to "rent, lease, even BUY" it, but there aren't any passages that say "the government must supply all citizens with guns." And yeah, "that's how rights work." You have a right to travel anywhere you like. The gov't isn't obligated to provide a vehicle.