<p>No, I don’t think either one is an infringement on rights.</p>
<p>Well, would it be an infringment on rights if I walked into a grocery store and said “give me some food, I’ll pay later” and then never paid?</p>
<p>^ What right would that be?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That still doesn’t answer romani’s question. How do you distinguish the right to life from the right to live the longest, most successful life possible? If a perfectly healthy 40-year-old suddenly gets a heart attack, is it ok for a hospital not to treat them? OR to take it to the extreme, is it ok for me to start popping bullets into people as soon as they leave the confines of their parents’ home? You aren’t making this clear enough.</p>
<p>pro, I gave up. He’ll ONLY answer questions the way he wants to- never to actually ANSWER the question.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I suppose stealing food would be an infringement on the shop owners’ rights… whether it is or isn’t doesn’t change the fact that the freedom to steal would cause not inconsiderable harm to many people and would be abolished in any just country.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The right to the enjoyment of the value he created by working.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To me there is a big distinction between shooting someone and not giving them something for free. At the basic state, before you add society, every person owns their own life and the things they can create with that life. Nobody can take either of those things away without giving something in return, so that both people agree to the trade. The doctor creates protection from illness, which he trades for the things he need/wants like food and iPhones. If somebody takes the things the doctor produces, and he gets nothing in return, then his rights are being violated.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And wouldn’t it be equally unfair if the shopkeeper barged into your house, unloaded some salmon, tomatoes, canned pears, and mushrooms and handed you a bill, even though you didn’t like salmon and had found a better price on mushrooms down the road?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So…you should just hope there’s never any point at which you have a fatal disease and no insurance (before the passage of the health-care bill, this was pretty likely to happen right after you turned 23), because then you’re pretty much going to die.</p>
<p>You know, you’re technically condemning hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of people to death.</p>
<p>And not to mention that if an ambulance picks up a guy collapsed on the streets with a stroke, they have no idea if he has insurance or not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But it’s OK because in MM’s world, apparently, the only people who should be able to get the outrageously overpriced medical care are the rich.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How am I condemning them to death? if they want coverage, they can buy it. And if they can’t afford it, that’s why we have programs like medicaid. If they can afford it and choose not to buy it, they shouldn’t expect the rest of society to foot the bill.</p>
<p>^ Medicaid is a VERY strict thing to qualify for. </p>
<p>I don’t qualify for medicaid (even though we make poverty-level income). But if I married my fiance, then we would qualify. Awesome system :rolleyes:</p>
<p>^ Well, I’m all for extending medicaid to more people if we have the resources to do so. Not sure how forcing everyone to buy insurance helps with that, though.</p>
<p>^See? Preserving the sanctity of marriage! The system does work!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure, unless you had a prior agreement with him. I guess an analogy there would be that as a citizen/resident of the US, you’re bound to the laws of the country.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But that’s not what the health care bill does. You still have plenty of choices.</p>
<p>^ What choices? By the requirements of the new bill, ALL healthcare plans MUST cover everything listed on the “Essential Care Package” which is basically everything except facelifts and sex-changes. So the analogy is I get to choose WHICH grocer will dump his stuff on me, but they all have the same assortment. The only exception is religious groups, and I don’t think everyone who wants freedom of healthcare choice should have to join a recognized religion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We’re not talking about whether I should have to obey the law, were talking about whether it should be a law in the first place. If the law allowed grocers to do that, then that would be the law of the land, but don’t you agree it would be a law that should be removed?</p>
<p>Ok we’ve beaten this horse to death for a week. Anyone with me to let this thread die? Because everyone is running around in circles.</p>
<p>^ Just remember that if you don’t have an answer you shouldn’t look down upon those who believe differently than you.</p>