What is health care, except a blessing?

It’s a more constructive way to think of it, rather than a “privilege” or a “right”

They ask tougher, more politically relevant questions of the Miss USA contestants than they do the presidential candidates.

 

Why in the world?


See Also


Do these pageant people think we may have to call on Miss USA in a geopolitical crisis? Does she figure into the constitutional line of succession, just after speaker of the House?

Rest assured, she is safe from Russian hacking. They don’t much care what her political views are, and neither should we.

Truth is, the pointed questions asked of Miss USA contenders are intended as a bludgeon of political correctness: You may exhibit Olympian features above those of us mere mortals, but you darn well better think like the rest of us (meaning, of course, “the rest of us elites”).

Miss District of Columbia Kara McCullough, while somehow still being crowned Miss USA, alas failed the liberal litmus test – when she was asked if health care is a right or a privilege.

“As a government employee, I’m granted health care – and I see firsthand that for one to have health care, you need to have jobs,” said the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission scientist.

Clearly she’s right – intellectually. But that doesn’t sit well with her liberal monitors around the country, who’ve been blasting her in social media for being so “uncaring” as to not declare health care a right.

You know, as a cosmopolitan young woman born in Italy and employed in the sciences, she could’ve been asked a lot more questions relevant to her station in life.

As an NRC superstar, she has a lot to say, particularly to young girls about making their way in life and getting educated in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

But no. We’ve got to ask her a “gotcha” question.

So be it. She knocked it out of the park, and they couldn’t deny her the crown.

Maybe the logic of her answer ensared the judges in their own trap: “For one to have health care, you need to have jobs.”

What a mature, well-thought-out and perceptive response – not to mention courageous, standing up to political correctness. It’s true: In order for one person to obtain free health care, another must pay for it. It’s that simple.

It’s a little dicey to start saying that one person has a “right” to make someone else pay for something he or she needs or desires.

Perhaps a more constructive way to put it is that health care for all, regardless of ability to pay, is a blessing. A blessing made possible first by God, and secondarily through the training and labors of others, and a society that cares enough to leave no one behind.

Rather than talk of a recipient’s rights, which immediately erects barriers between people and sets one versus another politically, perhaps we should focus on the moral obligations of those who are affluent, able-bodied, industrious and – yes, blessed – enough to be able to provide for others.

However that shakes out politically is a question for our elected leaders – not beauty queens or nuclear scientists or those who happen to check both boxes.

Dee STAFFORD 14 days ago
Man cannot bestow rights. Man can bestow privileges. If a man can bestow right, man can take away rights.

We in America believe that only God can bestow rights.

When something such as healthcare is made a "right" that make all the people working in the healthcare arena slaves of the government because when the government says "jump" they have to jump.

All our founding documents...that the left refuse to read...talk about Nature's rights. Nature's rights are rights bestowed by God.
Tom Golden 14 days ago
First of all Dee, they are natural rights, not "Nature's rights." It is not being "bestowed by God" that defines natural rights. Law "bestowed by God" is divine law. Natural law, and natural rights, on the other hand, are defined by their ability to be discovered purely through reason, and their universal applicability to all people at all times.

John Locke was a primary influence on our founding documents, so I'm using his views on this: natural rights arise from natural law, and Locke differentiated between natural law and divine law. He pointed out, as an example, that the Ten Commandments began with "Hear O Israel," and therefore only apply to those to whom they are directed. Thus divine law is contrary to natural law, in that divine law is specific in scope, while natural law applies to all.

Locke did hold that natural law came from God, as that was a part of his Christian faith. But nothing about natural law, and natural rights, require a faith in God. Again, natural rights are defined by their ability to be discovered through pure reason, and their universal applicability to all people at all times. Nothing in that definition requires the belief that only God can bestow rights. That is your belief, and you are welcome to it, but when you say "we in America" think that, you are making a blanket assumption that is false in its claim of universality. 

Secondly Dee, why do you say things like the left refuses to read our founding documents? It does nothing to advance intelligent conversation. It is purely divisive. It's a blatant lie. 

People in disagreement can have intelligent conversations without lying about one another. Why contribute to that type of division? Is it more important to create enemies than to understand other views? Are other perspectives that threatening to you?
Karen Goodwin 14 days ago

Great response Tom.  Lots of blanket statements coming from posters.

ROY WHITLEY 14 days ago
Dudette, you are off of your meds. Head to the emergency room and hurry before it affects someone who is rational.
William O. Darby 14 days ago
And you think Tommy's professorial  rant (obfuscation) doesn't fall into that same category?
ROY WHITLEY 14 days ago
Dude, have you lost your mind or do you always speak in forked-tongues?
William O. Darby 14 days ago
"Secondly Dee, why do you say things like the left refuses to read our founding documents? It does nothing to advance intelligent conversation. It is purely divisive. It's a blatant lie."
.
They don't even bother to read their own legislation before they get into lock-step and vote for it. Why would  you assume for a New York minute that they bother to read the Constitution?  (Just ask Nancy P.)

"A blatant lie"?  Only from your jaundiced point of view. 
Dee STAFFORD 14 days ago
One cannot have a right that requires someone else to do something for them.  There is only one of the ten Bill of Rights that require a person to do something for another and that is VII which requires a person to serve on jury duty.  Any "right" other than that is involuntary servitude. 
Angie Hicks 14 days ago
You are correct.  If you have a right to healthcare, then the government must have the power to compel someone to be a doctor if necessary.
Karen Goodwin 14 days ago
That argument makes no sense.  Everyone does have a right a healthcare.  What about the disabled?  Maybe we should just throw them in the ocean, since they need a JOB to get health insurance.  This is a totally republican view, that is very anti-human rights.
Dee STAFFORD 14 days ago
Karen, no one is saying not take care of the  disabled. That is done with volunteer charity and not something forced on people.  

Before the federal government got involved with healthcare people were taken care of by charity by the locals and the laws passed by the states as acts of charity.

Just because the federal government doesn't do something does not mean it won't get done.

We have to get out of this mind-set that the feds have to do things.  Let's start, as we did for hundreds of years, with charity beginning at the local level.

It used to be that hospitals were run by churches and they took care of the disabled as charity.

Healthcare by the government is unconstitutional as the Constitutional was written by the Founders.  I suggest reading what James Madison said about the federal government providing charity.
Tom Golden 14 days ago
"Karen, no one is saying not take care of the  disabled. That is done with volunteer charity and not something forced on people. "
-------
Dee, you exist in a fantasy world. The disabled are cared for primarily through redistributing tax revenue as payments to provide them a basic income when they cannot do so themselves. This is the case because private charity in the past did not fully provide for the needs of our disabled. This is plain, simple fact.

We have decided to do this as a society because we view it to be our moral obligation to provide for those that cannot provide for themselves when we have the means to do so. Many of us believe that this moral obligation applies to healthcare generally.

As to Constitutionality? Please. I have NEVER seen you argue that the Medicare that is YOUR healthcare must be immediately stopped due to its unConstititionality. I have never seen you acknowledge that with a 3 to 1 payout of what seniors paid in, Medicare is Federal charity. 

As a working age individual, I HELP PAY FOR YOUR HEALTHCARE. Your hypocritical views are tiresome. Your white (excuse me, "Anglosaxon") nationalism is repulsive. But I still hold that you have a moral right to healthcare, and I will continue to contribute to the charitable redistribution that you and other senior Americans rely on. It is basic, fundamental human decency. 


Angie Hicks 14 days ago
"We have decided to do this as a society because we view it to be our moral obligation to provide for those that cannot provide for themselves when we have the means to do so."

You keep using that word "we."
Angie Hicks 14 days ago
"As to Constitutionality? Please. I have NEVER seen you argue that the Medicare that is YOUR healthcare must be immediately stopped due to its unConstititionality."

You refund all the money that I PAID into medicare, and I'll never ask for a dime of it.
Angie Hicks 14 days ago
If you have a RIGHT to health care, and there aren't enough doctors, do you no longer have that right, or does  the government have the power to compel people to become doctors against their will?
Tom Golden 14 days ago
"You refund all the money that I PAID into medicare, and I'll never ask for a dime of it."
-----
3:1 (and increasing) payout. Anti-federal-healthcare-charity Republicans will NEVER abolish their Federal healthcare charity. 

Words are cheap. Excuse my skepticism that you will reject guaranteed, subsidized healthcare through your retirement age in order to receive a fraction of its value.

Perhaps you would. Most voters would not. And I have no problem with making caring for people in retirement a national priority. My problem is with the blatant hypocrisy of people that benefit from such a system of care who then claim it is unConstitutional and immoral. 
Angie Hicks 14 days ago
Be skeptical all you want.  I'm quite sure I can be more responsible with MY money that the government.  I know that's a hard concept for a cradle to grave progressive, but I manage my savings now under the assumption that I will have no pension, no medicare, and no social security.  If they are there when I retire, they will be a bonus, but I don't need them, so I would be better off with what I paid in.
Tom Golden 14 days ago
"If you have a RIGHT to health care, and there aren't enough doctors, do you no longer have that right, or does  the government have the power to compel people to become doctors against their will?"
------
Does any right continue to exist if there are not the resources available to enforce it?

Do you no longer have the rights to life or liberty if there aren't enough police or military? Is it okay for the government to conscript police and soldiers against people's will? 

And if so, why would doctoring be so different from policing? How is protection of health fundamentally different from protection of life? Given that poor health often leads to death, how is policing to protect against murder fundamentally different from doctoring to prevent lethal health conditions?

chas cushman 14 days ago
I would be surprised if ole Tom pays ANY taxes.
Tom Golden 14 days ago
"I would be surprised if ole Tom pays ANY taxes."
--------
As a member of the middle class, I pay a higher effective tax rate than the last two millionaire/billionaire Republican candidates for president.

If you want to talk taxes, start with that disgusting fact.

chas cushman 14 days ago
'I pay a higher effective tax rate than the last two millionaire/billionaire Republican candidates for president'
And I am supposed to take your word for it? I DO NOT believe anything you say and for a good reason.
Dee STAFFORD 14 days ago
Tom, I don't use medicare and I think medicare is unconstitutional as far as looking at the originality of the Constitution.  There is no clause or article that authorizes it.  

Charity hospitals and local charities took care of the elderly and disabled before medicare. 

 I say the FEDERAL government should not be involved. If the state wants to do that, fine.
Dee STAFFORD 14 days ago
Tom, just because the government has got people addicted to something does not make it right.

There is no way medicare will ever be eliminated because the politicians have addicted people to it and that is the reason it was put in---get people hooked on a "freebie" and they will vote out anyone who goes against that "freebie".

Many of us put forth that argument when medicare was first proposed. It has been a goal of the Democrats all the way back to Truman and FDR.

Remember, the politicians have two goals: get elected and then get re-elected.  That is why we have strayed from the intention of the Constitution.
William O. Darby 13 days ago
Tommy - It's YOU who lives in a fantasy world and you prove it every day, regurgitating the leftist pap that you do so well.

You say that "private charity in the past did not fully provide for the needs of our disabled".

News flash, Tommy... the government does an EVEN WORSE JOB.  It's a remarkably inefficient system designed by politicians to enrich themselves and grow their power.

If the government were a capitalist corporation, every dipstick in D C would be out of work and begging on some street corner.

Your socialist-communist (excuse me, "Democrat-socialist") nationalism is repulsive to me, but I will continue to support your right to hallucinate.

BTW - You should stop reading Huffington Post because as I've informed you SO MANY times before, that crap they spoon feed you about Medicare  and Social Security is just that, crap.

I'm retired, but still productive and still earning so I STILL pay into both. On top of that, I pay taxes on my Social Security. And I'm NOT alone either.

You just don't learn. Never will, I suspect.


Angie Hicks 13 days ago
I think Tom should turn over his tax returns.
William O. Darby 14 days ago
"It used to be that hospitals were run by churches and they took care of the disabled as charity."
.
Dee, it STILL works that way. That's why I paid $30 for a small, $1.98 bottle of Afrin in Trinity Hospital recently. Where do you think the extra ($28.02 went?).
Val White 14 days ago

And just where does it say everyone has a right to healthcare?


Typical.  First of all, healthcare should NOT be dictated by the government.  


The left automatically makes up crap like the right is going to let people die or go without care.


Maybe if you all stopped listening to "fake news" and actually listened to what the Republicans are saying instead of taking what your biased MSM and lying dems fill your heads with, you may know what is and isn't fact. 

Tom Golden 14 days ago
Val, the only difference between Republicans and Democrats on single-payer healthcare, as exhibited by the Medicare sacred cow, is that Democrats recognize that it isn't free. 

Republicans want single-payer healthcare as much as anyone. Republican voters consistently reject calls to privatize Medicare. They want pre-existing condition exemptions. They want kids on family plans until age 26. 

They just don't want to pay for it.

We hear what Republicans are saying. It makes no mathematical sense, as they want to keep all of the benefits of Obamacare while removing the mandate and block grant funding mechanisms. It makes no rational sense as they claim to be unConstitutional and immoral the exact type of healthcare their voters enjoy with Medicare.

Believe me, the Republicans are being heard. You have to excuse us if we have difficulty making sense of the completely opposite things they are saying. 
Angie Hicks 14 days ago
"...Democrats recognize that it isn't free."

That's one of the funniest statements of the day.
Angie Hicks 14 days ago
"You have to excuse us if we have difficulty making sense of the completely opposite things they are saying. "

Comey must be fired!!!

OMG.....he fired Comey!!!
Tom Golden 14 days ago
"That's one of the funniest statements of the day."
-------
It's unfortunate that you don't recognize the basic truth of it.

Democrats are the party of tax and spend.

Republicans are the party of spend and don't tax.
chas cushman 14 days ago
'is that Democrats recognize that it isn't free.'
Angie I disagree, it is not the funniest it was the dumbest. 
Dee STAFFORD 14 days ago
Tom, We have some sorry Republicans in the House and Senate.  About half of them are non-conservative and are really Democratic lite.
Johnny Rio 14 days ago
" Everyone does have a right a healthcare." Everyone? All over the planet? Healthcare where CT scans are used or Cuba like barefoot doctors?

Karen, you say conservatives are throwing out blanket statements, but you offer nothing...nada. Ad hominin attacks? Look it up.
William O. Darby 14 days ago
"Everyone does have a right a healthcare."
.
For the life of me, I can't find that written anywhere other than in reckless statements from one uninformed individual or another. 

I'll admit that everyone should, at least, have ACCESS to health care, but their "right" must be secured by a serious effort on their own part to provide for themselves.

Otherwise, you end up with just one more huge, unmanageable, ultra-expensive government  boondoggle, overrun and burdened to the point of ultimate failure by the parasitic nature of the human animal..........   (We call such folks Democrat-Socialists.)

Kids and a number others who are unable to take care of themselves without assistance..... we can provide for them without breaking the back of the taxpayers.

Those who would refuse to strive to provide for themselves should be allowed to perish.

Yeah, Karen, "just throw them in the ocean".
Jerry Whitcomb 14 days ago
Exactly Dee. Forced servitude....forced confiscation.....is Communism. 

They have the "right", and every opportunity, to go out and get it...........not the right to force me to give it to them. 
Johnny Rio 14 days ago
Tom Golden, John Locke believed atheists should be thrown in jail. But to the subject, if you say man and government can determine what are rights, can you also tell us who pays for these made-up rights? What if government declares everyone is a king with the rights of kings? Wouldn't that actually be making everyone serfs to government?  
Tom Golden 14 days ago
Johnny, natural rights are defined, first and foremost, by their ability to be determined through the application of human reason.

I challenge you to rationally defend the statement that everyone is a king with the rights of kings.
Johnny Rio 14 days ago
You didn't comprehend my comment. I said if government declares everyone is a king. The point is where do you stop with these rights that government can bestow?
William O. Darby 13 days ago
He reads a lot, comprehends little.
Roland SASSER 14 days ago

These liberal beauty queen judges just had to make it political. I think she did a fine job navigating that mine field. I too believe health care is a privilege that is earned. I look at socialistic leaning countries where health care is considered a right not a privilege and must be paid for with other people's money. As one of those "other people's", I want to hang on to my money. Those socialistic countries despite oppressive personal taxes are still running out of other people's money. Their system is not sustainable. I'm not being heartless here, I just want to opportunity to pick and choose where my surplus funds go.


Obama Care despite all the hoopla, didn't work and still left about 10 - 15 million uninsured. Nobody likes the Republican replacement and that includes Republicans. Maybe it's time to consider what we had before Obama Care. It wasn't perfect, but for the vast majority of Americans it worked just fine. Yes there were uninsured and those with preexisting conditions had to pay more, but it worked better for more people than our current garbage.

Karen Goodwin 14 days ago
Hopefully you don't have a pre-existing condition.  And I am glad to hear that all of your loved ones are healthy too.  You are a lucky man.
Dee STAFFORD 14 days ago
Karen, Have you looked at the proposed healthcare program as it pertains to pre-existing conditions that are covered?

Is it right that you can add fire insurance to your homeowners after it burns down? Or car insurance after you have a wreck?  

It is an individual's responsibility to get and maintain insurance.  One should not wait until they get an illness or disease to get insurance.

By the way, only less than 10% have a pre-existing condition.  That is just a red herring not to do anything to Obamacare. 

Just as only about 15% were uninsured before Obamacare the other 85% had their healthcare destroyed.  It is not about healthcare.  It is about government control of the citizens.


Val White 14 days ago

Why should I or anyone pay for someone else's healthcare any more than we should pay for auto or homeowners insurance?  After all, if people can't pay their auto insurance, they may not be able to get to work and may starve.  If a homeowner can't pay his insurance and his home burns down, he'll be homeless.  Are those good arguments for the government to make us pay for those policies also?


People with pre-existing conditions need to find an insurer that will accept them - they will pay a higher premium, but that's their obligation, not anyone else's.


Roland SASSER 14 days ago
I just wish the Republicans would drop all desire to replace Obama Care. Without massive subsidies (other people's money" it will collapse. When it's completely gone, then maybe all parties can sit down and come up with something that is fair for the majority. Will health care ever be perfect for 100 % of Americans, NO! Perfection is not obtainable nor sustainable.  I still say what we had prior to Obama Care was better than what we have now.
Dee STAFFORD 14 days ago
Roland, You are so right.  The feds ought to get completely out of healthcare and leave it to the states and then if people don't like the way their state handles healthcare they can then vote with their feet.

Unfortunately, the Obamacare  has been so successful in getting its tentacles so entwined with the system that too many have become addicted so strongly that the Republicans value their elected positions so strongly that they are afraid of doing what's right.
Val White 14 days ago

I hope the blessings you are talking about are those bestowed by charitable donations.  In the good old days, community, friends, family, churches and other charities took care of those who could not take care of themselves.  And back in the good old days, those who needed help really did need help.


Unlike today, too many wanting free healthcare, too few to providing the funds.  "Able-bodied, industrious" are almost becoming a disappearing citizenry.  The left wants to give cradle to grave care but - as in many of the socialist countries who have this form of government - eventually the government runs out of other people's money.  When that happens, NO ONE will be taken care of.

Karen Goodwin 14 days ago

So, let me get this straight.  You think government should stay out of healthcare.  Okay  then, I think they should stay out of the birth control business, and the gay marriage issue.  Those are personal , moral issues for the individual to decide.  Not for government.  You can't have it both ways


Angie Hicks 14 days ago
What conservative thinks that the government should be involved in marriage or birth control?  It's the liberals that want the government to force others to pay for someone's birth control....and as far as marriage, gay, straight or otherwise, I see no reason why the Government should be involved at all.
chas cushman 14 days ago
''Okay  then, I think they should stay out of the birth control business, and the gay marriage issue.''
Karen, I agree but the killing of an unborn baby is murder not birth control.  
Roland SASSER 14 days ago

Karen,

        Without birth control, abortions would skyrocket and cost "other people" even more money. As far as gay marriage goes, I believe the government (Supreme Court) has already weighed in on that. I personally couldn't care less about one's gay lifestyle, however the resultant unhealthy habits seem to lead to more self inflicted preexisting conditions. Here we go again, "other people's" money!

chas cushman 14 days ago
'however the
I agree perversions 'resultant in unhealthy habits seem to lead to more self inflicted preexisting conditions'
William O. Darby 13 days ago
"As a member of the middle class, I pay a higher effective tax rate than the last two millionaire/billionaire Republican candidates for president."
.
So do I, but that because they are smart enough to live off capital gains which is taxed a lower rate. 

Maybe you could learn something from that and stop belly-aching. (And whining.)
.
Note: You ALSO pay a higher effective than Bill or Hillary, or OzBama. Strange that you failed to mention that.

More

Mon, 05/29/2017 - 18:10

Miraculous recovery

Around the Web