Rand Paul: a right to healthcare turns doctors and hospital janitors into slaves

[hst2]

“[Y]ou have realize what that implies. It’s not an abstraction. I’m a physician. That means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery. It means that you’re going to enslave not only me, but the janitor at my hospital, the person who cleans my office, the assistants who work in my office, the nurses. “Basically, once you imply a belief in a right to someone’s services — do you have a right to plumbing? Do you have a right to water? Do you have right to food? — you’re basically saying you believe in slavery.

“I’m a physician in your community and you say you have a right to health care. You have a right to beat down my door with the police, escort me away and force me to take care of you? That’s ultimately what the right to free health care would be.”

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

I know of at least one poster who will nod in agreement with this idiot.

[SemiAuto]

Why is it idiotic? If you have a right to health care and a doctor doesn't treat you then has he violated your rights?

[soulflower]

If you have a right to health care and a doctor doesn't treat you then has he violated your rights?

In extreme circumstances, Yes. Its sad that this is even being debated

[hst2]

Hi semi.

Slaves with the police knocking down their doors?

Put down the Ayn Rand fantasy books.

[soulflower]

Hi semi.

Slaves with the police knocking down their doors?

Put down the Ayn Rand fantasy books.

Who knew that you could get paid to be a slave? ;-)

[SemiAuto]

In extreme circumstances, Yes. Its sad that this is even being debated

Rights should not depend on circumstances. What is being done here is creating a right to someone else's labor without their voluntary consent. There is a word for that. Want to guess what it is?

[douger]

Rights should not depend on circumstances. What is being done here is creating a right to someone else's labor without their voluntary consent. There is a word for that. Want to guess what it is?

...and paid a rate that is not agreeable...

[hst2]

Rights should not depend on circumstances. What is being done here is creating a right to someone else's labor without their voluntary consent. There is a word for that. Want to guess what it is?

Its called absurd la-la land reasoning. Thanks for sharing.

this is the sort of madness we see when everything in life is reduced to buying and selling. Its a narrow, shallow world, but some people embrace it with every fiber of their being.

[SemiAuto]

Who knew that you could get paid to be a slave? ;-)

How much of your labor, time out of your life, do I have a right to? Even if I pay you.

[SemiAuto]

Its called absurd la-la land reasoning. Thanks for sharing.

A right to some one else's labor is absurd. Thanks for sharing.

this is the sort of madness we see when everything in life is reduced to buying and selling. Its a narrow, shallow world, but some people embrace it with every fiber of their being.

Embracing force as a right is what is shallow and narrow. What ever happened to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Is there a doctor exemption?

[douger]

Its called absurd la-la land reasoning. Thanks for sharing.

this is the sort of madness we see when everything in life is reduced to buying and selling. Its a narrow, shallow world, but some people embrace it with every fiber of their being.

Really?

What business does the government have in deciding how many patients a doctor has in his practice?

[hst2]

Really?

What business does the government have in deciding how many patients a doctor has in his practice?

Show me where the government dictates how many patients a doctor has in his practice.

[hst2]

A right to some one else's labor is absurd. Thanks for sharing.


Embracing force as a right is what is shallow and narrow. What ever happened to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Is there a doctor exemption?

Don't want patients? Don't become a doctor. No one put a gun to his head. His choice.

[SemiAuto]

Show me where the government dictates how many patients a doctor has in his practice.

If a doctor doesn't have to see even one patient then the right to health care is hollow because it can be ignored at will.

[SemiAuto]

Who said he had to become a doctor? If he doesn't want patients, don't become one.

The man is an idiot.

That is thuggish. If you make health care a right it is not matter of wanting to see patients, it is a matter of being forced to see patients because refusing to do so would violate their rights.

[SemiAuto]

Don't want patients? Don't become a doctor. No one put a gun to his head. His choice.

But if he does become a doctor does he loses that freedom to choose?

[ms maggie]

Rights should not depend on circumstances. What is being done here is creating a right to someone else's labor without their voluntary consent. There is a word for that. Want to guess what it is?

So all doctors in Europe, Japan, all the rest of the world that believes in a universal right to healthcare, these doctors are all slaves?

Sure would like to see a real life example of a person in one of these countries beating down a doctor's home door with the police and demanding care. There must be tons of those, right?

[douger]

Don't want patients? Don't become a doctor. No one put a gun to his head. His choice.

Yes...it was his choice. Why shouldn't be his choice what patients to see and how many of them he cares for?

[HowAreWeGoingToPay]

But if he does become a doctor does he loses that freedom to choose?

Also who in the future will pay for the Doctors outrageous Schooling costs? Will we have Government run medical schools? Since if the price of medical services is dictated by Government how will existing doctors pay off their student loans?

Do you think smart young people will choose to be Doctors if they get paid the same as a Janitor?

[soulflower]

Rights should not depend on circumstances. What is being done here is creating a right to someone else's labor without their voluntary consent. There is a word for that. Want to guess what it is?

If a child is dying in front of you and you have the means to save the child's life but choose not to are you not violating human rights? I find it hard to believe that a person who would answer 'no' to the above question would go into the medical profession.

Bear in mind that if the patient can't pay for the life-saving procedure, the state will...