Universal Healthcare= Slavery (Libertarians Are Trolling Us)

[PLAYER57832]

And I think PLAYER is talking about universal public health care. The ACA is not universal public health care. It is corporate welfare.

This is true.

I do say that the new law is better than what was there before, mostly because companies can (or will in 2012 for adults) no longer exclude all "preexisting conditions",(which, per Blue Cross, healthnet, etc basically means that if you had a hangnail and then go 60 days without insurance they no longer have to cover you for much of anything).

[thegreekdog]

Right doctors don't turn down requests for care if you don't have the money,this is why the homeless never die due to treatable ailments. very amusing tell me another.

The homeless are dying due to treatable ailments because doctors are turning down their request for healthcare? I've heard this before but have yet to see any data on this. If you could please provide, that would be helpful.

Oh so you can show up at a us hospital and get cancer treatments without paying a dime?

Well, I can't because I have money and health insurance. Someone without money and health insurance can most assuredly show up at a United States hospital and get cancer treatments without paying a dime.

A child on Medicaid.. yes. A homeless person has a hard time getting Medicaid, because they have no address. Also, because of all that is involved with cancer treatments, it is questionable whether a homeless person could sustain the care needed post treatment.

Medicaid is also not free healthcare. I have worked in hospitals, I have clients that run hospitals, I know a number of doctors, no one is not treated, whether they need continuing treatment or not, based upon his or her ability to pay. No one.

[

Ten years ago, healthcare was not a right. Now it is. Right now oil is not a right (according to most). At the pace we're going, ten years from now it will be.

Well, flash back a bit..... And if we don't stop this communist plague it will spread like dominoes falling. (paraphrased a tad, cannot find the original quote).

Anyway, greekdog, that is argument (or similar ones) have been used to justify the most horrific acts throughout history. i thought you were smarter than that.

Plus, the evidence shows the risk is not people demanding too much, it is the corporations stifling and taking more and more for the bigwig's pockets to our detriment.

We did stop the communist plague so that it didn't spread like dominoes (or whatever). Did we do too much? Probably, but you're trying to apply a different issue to this issue, as per usual.

What argument am I making that has been used to justify "the most horrific acts throughout history." Was the Holocaust justified by "if we don't stop them now, they'll keep taking more and more from us?" Was slavery justified by "if we set them free, they'll keep wanting more and more rights?" I'm trying to figure out what you're saying here. What I'm saying is that taking something from someone to give it to someone else is not a right by any stretch of the imagination. It has never been a right to take something from someone so that someone else may live a better life. Have we done this? Yes. Has it been successfull? Sometimes. Is it advisable or admirable to give everyone access to healthcare in equal amounts? Most people think so, we just have different ways of getting there. But healthcare is most assuredly not a right.

[GreecePwns]

Ten years ago, healthcare was not a right.

This is very creative history.

[thegreekdog]

Ten years ago, healthcare was not a right.

This is very creative history.

Okay, twenty years ago.

[GreecePwns]

Ten years ago, healthcare was not a right.

This is very creative history.

Okay, twenty years ago.

Nope. No one had argued that health care was a right before 1990. It came out of thin air. It's a good thing conservatism has its basis in Enlightenment thinkers, while the concept of universal healthcare does not.

[thegreekdog]

Ten years ago, healthcare was not a right.

This is very creative history.

Okay, twenty years ago.

Nope. No one had argued that health care was a right before 1990. It came out of thin air. It's a good thing conservatism has its basis in Enlightenment thinkers, while the concept of universal healthcare does not.

Enlightenment thinkers, you say? Hmm... I will have to research this. If you could help (with links and such) that would be awesome.

Also, if there is other stuff that enlightenment thinkers think is a right, I'd appreciate that as well.

[PLAYER57832]

Medicaid is also not free healthcare.

Why do you keep bringing this up. No one but you is talking about "free" healthcare. Some care might be available free to some people, particularly in bigger cities, but its hardly truly free.

I have worked in hospitals, I have clients that run hospitals, I know a number of doctors, no one is not treated, whether they need continuing treatment or not, based upon his or her ability to pay. No one.

Not everyone can get Medicaid.

The rules are that anyone in labor, needing pregnancy help, or in a life-threatening situation cannot be denied. Anyone else is expected to pay. They don't demand payment right then, but they are EXTREMELY persistant in demanding payment when it is due.

The best local hospitals and such will offer to anyone over 18 who lacks insurance are payment plans, which usually mean dealing with a finance company. When we had insurance and had to take my son down for some tests before we hit our "deductable" (over 1000 then), I had to deal with one in Pittsburgh who was so "nice and caring" that when I told them I would pay 1/2 then and 1/2 in another month.. their response was to refer me to collections. It turned out it was not a "real' collections, but an internal group made to look like and pressure patients as if it were a "real" collections agency (the only difference is that we were not listed on credit reports as being put into collections, only as being behind, which was bad enough).

BUT... enough on me.

Things you generally cannot get unless you are insured or have the money:
vaccinations, other than flu shots (available free to many seniors, others.. but also only cost $20-30, so no bad.

mammograms and papsmears: There was just a "free screening" day, but they get booked early around here... and of course, if you get diagnosed and don't have insurance, then you not only have to pay for the treatments, but risk losing future insurance because you have been diagnosed with cancer. That last is the touchiest and most difficult part. If you don't have insurance, but expect to have it soon, you play a gamble... go undiagnosed and hope the insurance company will cover you or go get diagnosed right away and know the insurance company won't cover you.

[

Ten years ago, healthcare was not a right. Now it is. Right now oil is not a right (according to most). At the pace we're going, ten years from now it will be.

Well, flash back a bit..... And if we don't stop this communist plague it will spread like dominoes falling. (paraphrased a tad, cannot find the original quote).

Anyway, greekdog, that is argument (or similar ones) have been used to justify the most horrific acts throughout history. i thought you were smarter than that.

Plus, the evidence shows the risk is not people demanding too much, it is the corporations stifling and taking more and more for the bigwig's pockets to our detriment.

We did stop the communist plague so that it didn't spread like dominoes (or whatever). Did we do too much? Probably, but you're trying to apply a different issue to this issue, as per usual.

I see, so you consider Vietnahm to have been a success? Or simply that it was a good idea? Because that is where the reference is from...

No, WE did not stop communism. Communist countries self-imploded. The exception was/is Cuba, which is changing now anyway.

What argument am I making that has been used to justify "the most horrific acts throughout history." Was the Holocaust justified by "if we don't stop them now, they'll keep taking more and more from us?" Was slavery justified by "if we set them free, they'll keep wanting more and more rights?" I'm trying to figure out what you're saying here. What I'm saying is that taking something from someone to give it to someone else is not a right by any stretch of the imagination. It has never been a right to take something from someone so that someone else may live a better life. Have we done this? Yes. Has it been successfull? Sometimes. Is it advisable or admirable to give everyone access to healthcare in equal amounts? Most people think so, we just have different ways of getting there. But healthcare is most assuredly not a right.[/quote]

[thegreekdog]

Why do you keep bringing this up. No one but you is talking about "free" healthcare. Some care might be available free to some people, particularly in bigger cities, but its hardly truly free.

Free healthcare is what a right to healthcare means. It means that the person receiving the healthcare is receiving it as a right that is free. I have the right to speak guaranteed by the First Amendment. No one pays for me to have that right. No one has to give up their property for me to have that right.

And of course healthcare is not free; that's Rand Paul's point. And, again, he's not arguing against the Affordable Care Act or against the idea that all people should be provided healthcare. He's arguing against the new theory that healthcare is now something that everyone has a right to receive.

Your second paragraph is irrelevant to this discussion.

I see, so you consider Vietnahm to have been a success? Or simply that it was a good idea? Because that is where the reference is from...

I do not think the Vietnam War was a success. I'm not sure whether it was a good idea or not. Given what happened, it does not appear to have been a good idea. Anyway, that's why I qualified my statement with this -

Did we do too much? Probably, but you're trying to apply a different issue to this issue, as per usual.

In any event, your point about Communism is, again, completely irrelevant and misplaced and you're either purposefully or ignorantly confusing the discussion.

My point is that we need to stop making everything we WANT a right. We've become an Entitlement Society. We feel we're entitled to certain things and when we don't get them, we redefine that entitlement as a right to make everyone feel bad that we're not getting something we have a supposed right to. It's ridiculous and it needs to stop. It started with President Roosevelt and it has not let up since then. And we've become a worse nation because of it. We've tried the welfare state thing for 80 years and we're worse now than we were before President Roosevelt. Most US citizens are poorly educated, unintelligent, uncreative, lazy, shiftless, and uninformed, no matter their wealth or the wealth of their parents. We've lost many of our freedoms and we've relied on the federal government to look after us on such myriad topics as what food, drink, and drugs we ingest, how we learn, how we make our money, how we provide for ourselves on retirement, and how we raise our children. We literally have government employees telling us we cannot drink unpasteurized milk on pain of imprisonment. We literally have Congress, because people are whining about gasoline prices, calling oil company CEOs to the carpet. We literally have representatives who think that pouring more money into education is the only way to improve it. We literally have people saying that healthcare is a right, just like free speech, free religion and privacy. We literally have a police state now thanks to the King decision. I suspect that it is too late for the federal government to stop, but I hope most Americans in my generation are waking up to the reality of the country we live in. I hope that we can do something soon, but sometimes I lose faith in the people of the United States. Because as long as American Idol is on and football players aren't locked out, who cares whether our country is going down the shitter?

[PLAYER57832]

Why do you keep bringing this up. No one but you is talking about "free" healthcare. Some care might be available free to some people, particularly in bigger cities, but its hardly truly free.

Free healthcare is what a right to healthcare means. It means that the person receiving the healthcare is receiving it as a right that is free.

by that measure Medicaid is free.

No, its more like food. Food is not free, but it is so important that we, as a society, pay to provide it for those who cannot. I put healthcare into that category.

I have the right to speak guaranteed by the First Amendment. No one pays for me to have that right. No one has to give up their property for me to have that right.

This is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with whether everyone in our country should have access to basic healthcare (limited) as part of being a just and moral country.

And of course healthcare is not free; that's Rand Paul's point. And, again, he's not arguing against the Affordable Care Act or against the idea that all people should be provided healthcare. He's arguing against the new theory that healthcare is now something that everyone has a right to receive.

Except these are strawman points. They have nothing to do with those advocating for universal healthcare and very little to do with those wanting to keep the healthcare reform act.

They are, instead the fiction that those opposed present so they can pretend they are on the good side of this argument.

I see, so you consider Vietnahm to have been a success? Or simply that it was a good idea? Because that is where the reference is from...

I do not think the Vietnam War was a success. I'm not sure whether it was a good idea or not. Given what happened, it does not appear to have been a good idea. Anyway, that's why I qualified my statement with this -

Did we do too much? Probably, but you're trying to apply a different issue to this issue, as per usual.

No, the above is why your argument is falacious. It is an old saw trotted out constantly to justify bad actions.

In any event, your point about Communism is, again, completely irrelevant and misplaced and you're either purposefully or ignorantly confusing the discussion.

My point is that we need to stop making everything we WANT a right.

Basic healthcare means the difference between living and dying. That is generally a line between "want" and "need".
You are intelligent enough to understand the distinction, yet you persist in arguing against it.

We've become an Entitlement Society. We feel we're entitled to certain things and when we don't get them, we redefine that entitlement as a right to make everyone feel bad that we're not getting something we have a supposed right to. It's ridiculous and it needs to stop. It started with President Roosevelt and it has not let up since then. And we've become a worse nation because of it. We've tried the welfare state thing for 80 years and we're worse now than we were before President Roosevelt. Most US citizens are poorly educated, unintelligent, uncreative, lazy, shiftless, and uninformed, no matter their wealth or the wealth of their parents. We've lost many of our freedoms and we've relied on the federal government to look after us on such myriad topics as what food, drink, and drugs we ingest, how we learn, how we make our money, how we provide for ourselves on retirement, and how we raise our children. We literally have government employees telling us we cannot drink unpasteurized milk on pain of imprisonment. We literally have Congress, because people are whining about gasoline prices, calling oil company CEOs to the carpet. We literally have representatives who think that pouring more money into education is the only way to improve it. We literally have people saying that healthcare is a right, just like free speech, free religion and privacy. We literally have a police state now thanks to the King decision. I suspect that it is too late for the federal government to stop, but I hope most Americans in my generation are waking up to the reality of the country we live in. I hope that we can do something soon, but sometimes I lose faith in the people of the United States. Because as long as American Idol is on and football players aren't locked out, who cares whether our country is going down the shitter?

i agree with much of what you have written, but firmly disagree on it beginning with Roosevelt. I put it more to the prosperity of the 50's. Folks came to expect that that level and more could be maintained forever without cost... and it just is not so. Mostly, not so because of the heavy environmental costs that were ignored, along with ignoring the dependence on taking advantage of what used to be called the "third world".

Also, while you are quick to harp on the individuals, you continue to ignore the largess we afford companies and the wealthy. Sometimes outright gifts and sometimes just declining to assess them full costs.

Per the rest... education is a fundament to any democracy. Except, education has not been truly maintained in this country for several decades.

[Timminz]

The rest of the developed world seems to consider healthcare a basic human right. Eventually the US will come around as well, no matter how much the currently privileged class complains about it.

[PLAYER57832]

The rest of the developed world seems to consider healthcare a basic human right. Eventually the US will come around as well, no matter how much the currently privileged class complains about it.

Except, in this case, the "priviliaged class" is really anyone who believes the Tea Party and Republican rhetoric. Or, a lot of people who would ironically be helped the most by having universal healthcare.

[Night Strike]

The rest of the developed world seems to consider healthcare a basic human right. Eventually the US will come around as well, no matter how much the currently privileged class complains about it.

That's fine if it's a basic human right. That doesn't mean it's the job of our federal government to enforce that right. If our federal government thinks they need to provide that new right, they need to amend the Constitution. What I was saying is that their attempts to amend the Constitution will fail because more than half the states are suing the federal government, meaning they definitely wouldn't pass a proposed amendment (which that point obviously flew way over player's head). If states want to take on that role of providing health care for its citizens, they have the complete freedom to do so (as Massachusetts already has). But it is completely unconstitutional for the federal government to do so.

[PLAYER57832]

Ten years ago, healthcare was not a right.

This is very creative history.

Okay, twenty years ago.

Nope. No one had argued that health care was a right before 1990. It came out of thin air. It's a good thing conservatism has its basis in Enlightenment thinkers, while the concept of universal healthcare does not.

Partly, this is because social supports were still in place up through the 80's. Then we began to see hunger making a comback and cuts in things like healthcare became "options".

[PLAYER57832]

The rest of the developed world seems to consider healthcare a basic human right. Eventually the US will come around as well, no matter how much the currently privileged class complains about it.

That's fine if it's a basic human right. That doesn't mean it's the job of our federal government to enforce that right.

Actually, enforcing human rights is generally listed as a legitimate role of government, even by most of the far right.

[thegreekdog]

The rest of the developed world seems to consider healthcare a basic human right. Eventually the US will come around as well, no matter how much the currently privileged class complains about it.

They do? That's news to me. Explain to me how Canada, the UK, and Germany, as examples, treat healthcare as a right. Is it because they have nationalized healthcare? That doesn't make healthcare a right.

No, its more like food. Food is not free, but it is so important that we, as a society, pay to provide it for those who cannot. I put healthcare into that category.

Yes... YES! Finally yes! It is exactly like food (or shelter). It is very important. I think it's important that everyone has access to healthcare. It's not a right.

This is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with whether everyone in our country should have access to basic healthcare (limited) as part of being a just and moral country.

Oh my goodness! You're getting the point! I'm so excited I can hardly contain myself.

Except these are strawman points. They have nothing to do with those advocating for universal healthcare and very little to do with those wanting to keep the healthcare reform act.

They are, instead the fiction that those opposed present so they can pretend they are on the good side of this argument.

They aren't strawman points Player. This is exactly what Dr. Paul is saying. He says nothing about the Affordable Care Act. He's firing back at those people who say that healthcare is a right. And yes, he's on the good side of the argument. He doesn't have to pretend.

Basic healthcare means the difference between living and dying. That is generally a line between "want" and "need".
You are intelligent enough to understand the distinction, yet you persist in arguing against it.

So is food. And shelter. And clothing. Are they rights? Is education a right (I've heard people say that it is)? Actually, let's talk about education. I think public education should be the foremost priority of our country. I think the government should spend 50% of its budget on public education. I think it's the most important thing we can possibly do as a country. Do I think it's a right? No, it's not.

i agree with much of what you have written, but firmly disagree on it beginning with Roosevelt. I put it more to the prosperity of the 50's. Folks came to expect that that level and more could be maintained forever without cost... and it just is not so. Mostly, not so because of the heavy environmental costs that were ignored, along with ignoring the dependence on taking advantage of what used to be called the "third world".

Also, while you are quick to harp on the individuals, you continue to ignore the largess we afford companies and the wealthy. Sometimes outright gifts and sometimes just declining to assess them full costs.

Per the rest... education is a fundament to any democracy. Except, education has not been truly maintained in this country for several decades.

Okay, let's take FDR off the table. It makes no difference when it began.

And I'm not igorning the largess afforded corporation, I just choose to focus lately on individuals. Did you know, for example, that a number of large corporations have received exemption from the Affordable Care Act? I can talk about how corporations get benefits all day.

[natty dread]

I'm just wondering... Is "being a sanctimonious prick" a right?

Is it in the US constitution?

[natty dread]

They do? That's news to me. Explain to me how Canada, the UK, and Germany, as examples, treat healthcare as a right. Is it because they have nationalized healthcare? That doesn't make healthcare a right.

In my country, healthcare is considered a basic right, everyone has the right to receive medical treatment, regardless of their ability to pay for it.

My country has yet to face doom & destruction because of it. Go figure.

[thegreekdog]

I'm just wondering... Is "being a sanctimonious prick" a right?

Is it in the US constitution?

Yes. The government cannot infringe upon your right to free speech. If you choose to exercise your free speech by being a sanctimonious prick, the government can do nothing to stop you.

They do? That's news to me. Explain to me how Canada, the UK, and Germany, as examples, treat healthcare as a right. Is it because they have nationalized healthcare? That doesn't make healthcare a right.

In my country, healthcare is considered a basic right, everyone has the right to receive medical treatment, regardless of their ability to pay for it.

My country has yet to face doom & destruction because of it. Go figure.

Good for you!

So I have some related questions:

(1) Are your doctors, nurses, and other medical staff paid?
(2) If the answer to (1) is no, how do they survive?
(3) If the answer to (2) is yes, who pays them?
(4) If the answer to (3) is "the government," who pays the government?
(5) If the answer to (4) is "taxpayers," then healthcare is not a basic right. Instead, healthcare is something that the voters in your country have decided should be provided to all citizens by the largess of other citizens. The voters in your country could decide that all citizens should receive a computer or Internet access provided by the largess of other citizens. This does not make a computer or Internet access a right. Those things have to be provided by others.

[Symmetry]

I'm just wondering... Is "being a sanctimonious prick" a right?

Is it in the US constitution?

Yes. The government cannot infringe upon your right to free speech. If you choose to exercise your free speech by being a sanctimonious prick, the government can do nothing to stop you.

We've been over this one a few times- if Westboro Baptist church try to be sanctimonious pricks within 300(?) feet of a funeral, then they are breaking the law and will be stopped by the government.

They do? That's news to me. Explain to me how Canada, the UK, and Germany, as examples, treat healthcare as a right. Is it because they have nationalized healthcare? That doesn't make healthcare a right.

In my country, healthcare is considered a basic right, everyone has the right to receive medical treatment, regardless of their ability to pay for it.

My country has yet to face doom & destruction because of it. Go figure.

Good for you!

So I have some related questions:

(1) Are your doctors, nurses, and other medical staff paid?
(2) If the answer to (1) is no, how do they survive?
(3) If the answer to (2) is yes, who pays them?
(4) If the answer to (3) is "the government," who pays the government?
(5) If the answer to (4) is "taxpayers," then healthcare is not a basic right. Instead, healthcare is something that the voters in your country have decided should be provided to all citizens by the largess of other citizens. The voters in your country could decide that all citizens should receive a computer or Internet access provided by the largess of other citizens. This does not make a computer or Internet access a right. Those things have to be provided by others.

This seems a bit silly- what would you call a "right"? How would you define it? Is education a right? How about freedom of speech? Should taxpayers pay the wages of policemen? Or judges to decide if their freedom of speech has been infringed?

[natty dread]

Good for you!

So I have some related questions:

(1) Are your doctors, nurses, and other medical staff paid?
(2) If the answer to (1) is no, how do they survive?
(3) If the answer to (2) is yes, who pays them?

(1) yes, they are paid
(2) the answer to (1) is yes so I don't need to answer this one
(3) It's a bit trickier to answer this one. It's not like the government automatically pays all your medical bills here. But treatment (any treatment that you need) cannot be denied from you just because you can't pay for it.

Basically, you are expected to pay for your treatment (or part of it, if you're poor (or even none of it, depends on the situation)). If you can't pay, then you won't pay, and you'll owe the government. If you never pay the government back, then, in the end, yes, the government picks up the bill.

(5) If the answer to (4) is "taxpayers," then healthcare is not a basic right. Instead, healthcare is something that the voters in your country have decided should be provided to all citizens by the largess of other citizens. The voters in your country could decide that all citizens should receive a computer or Internet access provided by the largess of other citizens. This does not make a computer or Internet access a right. Those things have to be provided by others.

Good sir, I'm afraid I must dispute your somewhat clever yet convoluted logic.

That someone has to pay for something, does not mean it's not a right. Something does not cease to be a right just because it has to be provided by others.

By your logic, all rights are only rights as long as other people allow you to have those rights. However... The distinction of whether "someone has to pay for it" is arbitrary. A society decides what it wants to consider a fundamental right. There are no natural laws of the universe that specify what the fundamental rights are. If a society decides (by vote or by other means) that they want a certain thing to be a right in their society, then that thing is a right in their society.

Let's take freedom of speech, for example. If there was a situation where your excercising of your freedom of speech causes some other people to lose money, then those people are, in practice, paying for your right of free speech. Now, free speech is no longer a right! How did this happen?

See, whether someone has to pay for it or not, has nothing to do whether something is a "right" or not. It's all decided by people. It's a sort of social contract.

[b.k. barunt]

As far as rights go, i pay taxes. That gives me the right to expect something for those taxes - basic things like health care. Too simple?


Honibaz

[thegreekdog]

We've been over this one a few times- if Westboro Baptist church try to be sanctimonious pricks within 300(?) feet of a funeral, then they are breaking the law and will be stopped by the government.

I bolded the key portion of that statement.

Is education a right?

- No

How about freedom of speech?

- Yes

Should taxpayers pay the wages of policemen? Or judges to decide if their freedom of speech has been infringed?

I don't understand what this means.

This seems a bit silly- what would you call a "right"? How would you define it?

It's not silly at all. Maybe it's time for me to reset a little bit because we've become muddled in the last few pages.

I would define a right as "the sovereignty to act without the permission of others." A right is universal in that it applies to everyone, not just a few people. There are no special rights for some people and not others. A right can only be exercised through one's own initiative and action (I'll get to this concept later). Wikipedia defines a right as a "legal, social, or ethnical principle of freedom or entitlement." There are apparently a wide variety of meanings, but my definition of a "right" is taken from the context of the United States Constitution which, most people acknowledge, is not only the founding document of the United States, but provides protection from the government intervening in our basic and natural rights.

As I indicated above, a right is something exercised through one's own initative and action. It is not a right to claim something from other people. One does not have the right to other people's money or property. A number of people in the US have claimed that the following items are rights: housing, jobs, healthcare, education, and a minimum wage. These aren't rights as I've defined them. Are these things we want everyone to have? Sure. But they are not rights. People claim they are rights because it's more preferable to argue in favor of a right than to argue against a right. To call something a right is to give it an extra weight in an argument.

Thus, while I believe education is important and should be our focus, it is certainly not a right.

[PLAYER57832]

No, its more like food. Food is not free, but it is so important that we, as a society, pay to provide it for those who cannot. I put healthcare into that category.

Yes... YES! Finally yes! It is exactly like food (or shelter). It is very important. I think it's important that everyone has access to healthcare. It's not a right.

Except I do believe food, shelter and healthcare ARE human rights.

This is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with whether everyone in our country should have access to basic healthcare (limited) as part of being a just and moral country.

Oh my goodness! You're getting the point! I'm so excited I can hardly contain myself.

Except these are strawman points. They have nothing to do with those advocating for universal healthcare and very little to do with those wanting to keep the healthcare reform act.

They are, instead the fiction that those opposed present so they can pretend they are on the good side of this argument.

They aren't strawman points Player. This is exactly what Dr. Paul is saying. He says nothing about the Affordable Care Act. He's firing back at those people who say that healthcare is a right. And yes, he's on the good side of the argument. He doesn't have to pretend.

The argument that NO ONE is truly making .. ergo "strawman".

Basic healthcare means the difference between living and dying. That is generally a line between "want" and "need".
You are intelligent enough to understand the distinction, yet you persist in arguing against it.

So is food. And shelter. And clothing. Are they rights? Is education a right (I've heard people say that it is)?

Yes, I believe the basics are rights.

Actually, let's talk about education. I think public education should be the foremost priority of our country. I think the government should spend 50% of its budget on public education. I think it's the most important thing we can possibly do as a country. Do I think it's a right? No, it's not.

I don't think you truly want 50% of our government budget to go to education, nor do I (doesn't need that much, just a tad more than the 2% they now spend (42% of which are Title 1 funds... that is for disadvantaged students).

And I also believe that education is SUCH a fundamental need, it is a right. You can have all the free speech, free elections and so forth you want, but without education it is meaningless. Education is the absolute fundament to freedom.

And, while universal public education was not written into the constitution, you also have to know that education is a primary reason WHY we have free press and free speech. Also, remember that most education back then was at home, that many groups were considered just "uneducable". Maintaining free press and free speech was maintaining education.
(also, there was disagreement over the type of education, which is why it is left to states... that doesn't mean its not a right.)

i agree with much of what you have written, but firmly disagree on it beginning with Roosevelt. I put it more to the prosperity of the 50's. Folks came to expect that that level and more could be maintained forever without cost... and it just is not so. Mostly, not so because of the heavy environmental costs that were ignored, along with ignoring the dependence on taking advantage of what used to be called the "third world".

Also, while you are quick to harp on the individuals, you continue to ignore the largess we afford companies and the wealthy. Sometimes outright gifts and sometimes just declining to assess them full costs.

Per the rest... education is a fundament to any democracy. Except, education has not been truly maintained in this country for several decades.

Okay, let's take FDR off the table. It makes no difference when it began.

And I'm not igorning the largess afforded corporation, I just choose to focus lately on individuals. Did you know, for example, that a number of large corporations have received exemption from the Affordable Care Act? I can talk about how corporations get benefits all day.

You are obviously in a position to know more ways that corporations benefit. Even so, you choose to argue the point and claim that corporations and the wealthy are paying their fair share of taxes. I can only surmise you are too close to see the issue clearly.

[Symmetry]

Should taxpayers pay the wages of policemen? Or judges to decide if their freedom of speech has been infringed?

I don't understand what this means.

As I indicated above, a right is something exercised through one's own initative and action. It is not a right to claim something from other people. One does not have the right to other people's money or property.

Payment of judges via taxation would surely constitute taking away people's money. Would you also consider that an infringement of your individual rights? You might never need a judge.

[BigBallinStalin]

It is as much a right as your right to make a profit from a business.
That is, not a right, but something as part of our governmental system.

Private property rights (retaining one's own money earned) fundamentally differ from legally mandated price controls like minimum wage.

Who defines "earning" money as money you plop down to get interest and money received for doing labor "not earned [unless the employer decides to pay]"?

Not so long ago the first would be called "usery" and the second "work".
If you hire someone fulltime, you pay them enough to live on or it is abuse.
But anyway, in a technical sense, neither is a right. However, you keep insisting that owning a business, taking whatever profit you have is a "right". I say if that is a "right", then getting at least a livable wage for work is also a right.

The labor was the act of taking one's own money and investing it.

You called Weber unreasonable?

I'm not much of a rah-rah fan for statists, but please tell me what Weber thinks.