This really shows how out-of-touch the anti-freedom movement is in America:
Of course the image is propaganda so we see that the letters NRA are blood-stained, but other than that the image is straight forward.
First up, both are a right. The right to keep and bear arms is a right outlined in our 2nd Amendment, the right to medical attention is outlined in the Declaration of Independence under the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
But notice the biggest difference in those two panels. One has a single individual with an item he has acquired with his own funds. That is without dispute, as 2nd Amendment activists are NOT demanding that we make the government of the United States pay for our guns, ammo, and accessories.
The other has TWO people, one the person receiving care, and a worker rendering that care. But in the debates for health care in this nation, nobody is saying we can’t pay for health services, instead the issue is that the recipient HAS to pay at all.
So who buys the stretcher, the IV, and who compensates the doctor or nurses for their time? For them it must be all of us, whether we want to or not, further they believe the government should set a value on that care, no matter how the worker values their time.
In one panel we have a person enjoying their own freedom, in the other we have slavery.
This is considered “Progress”.
To the progressives, if it’s a right then it has to be provided by the government if you can’t afford one.
Where are the low income subsidies for ARs and Glocks?
Yeah, Alan, but the Constitution is a living document so all these rights are in the HEARTS of “Progressives” not on some old gross piece of paper!
It’s called a Hi-Point… XP
SNERK!!!!
If healthcare is a right, then that means that I can get whatever treatment, surgery, or doctor. Provided that there is no theft of property involved in the good or service.
If it’s a right, then the government can only restrict the right due to a due process conviction following criminal activity on my part.
With private care the limiting factor is money.
On Single Payer it becomes a crime for myself (or a private 3rd party) to pay for my own medical service.
But in a single payer system can I get whatever medical procedure I want? See whatever doctor I want? Get whatever surgery I want?
If healthcare is a right then ANY sort of rationing on the part of single payer is a violation of my rights.
Yep, a prime example of Healthcare NOT being a right is Nazi Germany. Doctors would be jailed or executed for treating an ill Jew.
Also yes Single-Payer is a violation of the right to Healthcare because the .gov is now telling you what you “Need” and what you “Don’t Need”.
People clamoring for Single Payer by saying that healtcare is a right are like those demanding nationalization of all publication and media because Free Speech is a Right.
Its sad that i can see them saying that
You confused me a little in the post, but based on the comments I think we’re on the same page.
Early in the post, you say “both [healthcare and gun ownership] are rights” but then virtually every difference you mention between the two illustrates exactly why health care is not a right.
If healthcare were a right, then healthcare providers would necessarily have no right to their own knowledge, experience and labor.
The rights of one cannot trump the rights of another, that in itself demonstrates clearly that healthcare is not a right.
You CANNOT have a “right” to something that must be provided by someone else. If that were a possibility, then slavery is alive and well.
Interestingly, there are rights related to health care. For example, you have the right to choose what doctor you want to pay for your care, what prescription drugs you are willing to purchase, what tests and treatments you are willing to pay for. When the government takes over health care, they become responsible for making those decisions, thus denying you the right to make your own health care decisions based on your needs and resources.
I see why you might have gotten confused, but indeed we are 100% on the same page.
Just like the right to bear arms means you get to choose which guns you want, and when and where your bear them, further if you don’t actually LIKE guns, or want one, you can simply choose to NOT keep or bear arms…or just keep them.
Same goes with why Obamacare is an infraction on your right to health care. You have the right to get whatever health care you want. You can choose your doctor, and if you don’t like the advise they give, you can walk away and ignore them, or seek a second opinion.
Obamacare DEMANDS under penalty (and deadly force if you continue to refuse) you take a form of insurance that is pre-determined for you, and at the price they deep “proper”. For the time being the only demand is on insurance, but soon people won’t be able to say “No thanks Doc, I’ll see if this clears up on its own!”.
Essentially if the two panels were equal, the NRA would have DEMANDED that an AK pattern rifle was what I should own, and that I shouldn’t have a sling for it. This Rifle would be supplied by tax payers, unless I’m in my modest income bracket, then I would pay the “Affordable” price of $4,000 for the rifle, and $100 for new magazines. Also I would require to buy a case of ammo (at $2,000) every month, if I wanted to log that amount of trigger time or not.
No one on the progun side of the argument is saying that everyone has a RIGHT to a gun. We are saying that we have a right to KEEP AND BEAR those arms. Nowhere have I, or anyone else I have heard of, said that arms are to be provided to us.
For in order for someone to have a right to a good or service, that good or service must be provided by someone else, by force if necessary. That is what the health care debate boils down to: as a health care provider, what happens if I refuse?
Pingback: Tuesday News | Shall Not Be Questioned
Pingback: SayUncle » Speaking of rights