Healthcare is NOT a basic human right.

[Asystole RN]

If one were to read the Constitution one would realize that the Constitution does not grant anyone freedoms, liberties, or rights. The Constitution only protects freedoms, liberties, and rights from transgressions on part of the government. A right is something that is inherent to the individual, comes from that individual, and is maintained by the individual. You are born with such rights like the right to speak freely, the only thing that can be done to that right is to have it infringed. No one can grant a right to another, only limit or impede the exercise of that right.

Healthcare is a human invention that does not exist in the natural environment. Only through the work of others and through the taking of resources from one party and giving to another does healthcare exist. You cannot force someone to give effort and resources to another and call that a right. In the absence of human intervention the individual would live their lives and succumb to the natural forces which would act upon their bodies.

Do I think we should provide preventative care and basic primary care? Sure. Do I think that we can? Maybe. Do I think that healthcare is a basic human right? Absolutely not.

[Asystole RN]

True, but I find it ironic for immigrants who are taking American jobs to complain about immigrants taking American jobs.

Those who took the time, money and effort to immigrate here LEGALLY tend to object to those who commit felonies to cheat there way into the country.

My mother (legal immigrant) is a viscous anti-illegal immigration proponent. My former roommate (legal immigrant) is also a viscous anti-illegal immigration proponent. My former roommate actually worked for the New Zealand Consulate and dealt with legal and illagal immigration regarding New Zealand immigrants in the United States. He LOVED to find and assist in the deportation of illegal immigrants, he thought it was shameful and dishonorable to his country.

I personally do not hold the zealous ideals of those I mentioned, but I certainly understand it.

I for one am not an immigrant. I was born here. I am native.

[FMF Corpsman, MSN, RN]

As for the slaughter of Natives. Yes, there was slaughter. It went both ways. But how many conquering people do you know who give the conquered land, benefits, tax exemptions, and apologize every chance they get?

I'm sorry Jeweles26; it took me about ten times reading this, before I understood what you meant. I still am not certain about the “it went both ways" part. If you are referring to the Native Indians slaughtering the White man, I'm afraid you've been misinformed. I realize we are somewhat off topic here, but I feel the dire need to correct the misconception. While there were indeed white people killed by Indians, the miniscule amount is barely a drop in the bucket compared to the number of Native American's butchered at the hands of the White man. While it is impossible to nail down an accurate number, there are guesstimates of between 75-112 million Indians were massacred at the hands of the White man, between the years of 1772 and 1896. So in choosing your words, I would say it went more one-way than the other. So I damn well think an apology is in order, don't you? Maybe a little more even. AND, about that giving them LAND, WOW, kinda tough to give them what belonged to them and they killed everyone to take it away from them and then, they are making like it's a BIG deal to give it back to them? BS. I think maybe the White boys are trying to change the History Books.

[cdsga]

Would US citizens be willing to take jobs that paid minimum wage or less when they can be on the dole and get more money to live on?

Simple answer for the majority no.

Until we raise wages to a reasonable level where people don't need public assistance the incentive to do real labor that may cause sweat and sore muscles is just a dream.

People take crappy jobs-back breaking jobs-like migrant workers, because they want cash-no taxes taken out, no tracing of the money and they want to take care of their livelihood no matter how hard it may be.

On an honorable note-if there's any left out there...There is no substitute for hard work, the satisfaction of getting paid for something you accomplished, except a handout. We're becoming the island of misfit boys (Peter Pan) style.

I am amazed that people would accept higher taxes-decreasing your own livelihood-to help others who may be able to contribute to society but won't. God forbid if you have to pay a higher price for tomatoes at the store because farmers use US pickers (contributors to the society) And Lord knows I'll pay 150$+ for designer bluejeans and wouldn't be caught dead in a pair of Rustler's.

It's all about what effects you directly.

[mc3, ASN, RN]

So what of the way this country was founded...were we not all "illegal" immigrants at some point? How do you define "legal"/"illegal" all vague, societal contracts anyway. We need more post-conventional thinking in this world not less! Why are you so selectively forgetful? Not to mention the slaughter of so many native people...was it not also there right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Or do only "we" (actually you) have these desires/rights/ (whatever configuration we are using now...)What do you suppose we do now...send them all back? And then what? How do we test(uniformly mind you...we must be "fair") who is a "real" American and who is not. Wow...it could be worse than the "death panels" this line of thought always seems to gravitate toward. Sounds vaguely/if not directly like the rhetoric of so many "supremacists" who want to send so many "back to Africa." I imagine with groups like FAIR and people like J. Tanton, you are bound to see things in a way that discounts the fact that the world is no longer flat...

Oh no, the race card! I was wondering when this would happen.................

mc3

[Asystole RN]

I'm sorry Jeweles26; it took me about ten times reading this, before I understood what you meant. I still am not certain about the “it went both ways" part. If you are referring to the Native Indians slaughtering the White man, I'm afraid you've been misinformed. I realize we are somewhat off topic here, but I feel the dire need to correct the misconception. While there were indeed white people killed by Indians, the miniscule amount is barely a drop in the bucket compared to the number of Native American's butchered at the hands of the White man. While it is impossible to nail down an accurate number, there are guesstimates of between 75-112 million Indians were massacred at the hands of the White man, between the years of 1772 and 1896. So in choosing your words, I would say it went more one-way than the other. So I damn well think an apology is in order, don't you? Maybe a little more even. AND, about that giving them LAND, WOW, kinda tough to give them what belonged to them and they killed everyone to take it away from them and then, they are making like it's a BIG deal to give it back to them? BS. I think maybe the White boys are trying to change the History Books.

I did not kill anyone. Jeweles has not killed anyone (I hope). Anyone involved in the Indian wars is dead.

Leave it alone.

BTW, I'm not white.

[Armygirl7]

It does say in the constitution that all men are created equal.

It does not say that in our Constitution.

That is only found in The Declaration of Independence! Not tryin' to play "gotcha!" But they are two different very important docs created for 2 different very important purposes. :-)

[uRNmyway, ASN, RN]

I'm sorry Jeweles26; it took me about ten times reading this, before I understood what you meant. I still am not certain about the “it went both ways" part. If you are referring to the Native Indians slaughtering the White man, I'm afraid you've been misinformed. I realize we are somewhat off topic here, but I feel the dire need to correct the misconception. While there were indeed white people killed by Indians, the miniscule amount is barely a drop in the bucket compared to the number of Native American's butchered at the hands of the White man. While it is impossible to nail down an accurate number, there are guesstimates of between 75-112 million Indians were massacred at the hands of the White man, between the years of 1772 and 1896. So in choosing your words, I would say it went more one-way than the other. So I damn well think an apology is in order, don't you? Maybe a little more even. AND, about that giving them LAND, WOW, kinda tough to give them what belonged to them and they killed everyone to take it away from them and then, they are making like it's a BIG deal to give it back to them? BS. I think maybe the White boys are trying to change the History Books.

I didn't say the massacres were equal, I said it went both ways.

And like I said, how many peoples do you know who not only let the people they conquered keep land, but gave them benefits and kept apologizing. That was how things were in those times. They explored, they conquered, they took over. Not many conquerors did what the Europeans did. Im not saying what they did was right. By our standards, it was a thousand different kinds of messed up. I am just saying that for that day and age, what they did was pretty humane.

[uRNmyway, ASN, RN]

Would US citizens be willing to take jobs that paid minimum wage or less when they can be on the dole and get more money to live on?

Simple answer for the majority no.

Until we raise wages to a reasonable level where people don't need public assistance the incentive to do real labor that may cause sweat and sore muscles is just a dream.

People take crappy jobs-back breaking jobs-like migrant workers, because they want cash-no taxes taken out, no tracing of the money and they want to take care of their livelihood no matter how hard it may be.

On an honorable note-if there's any left out there...There is no substitute for hard work, the satisfaction of getting paid for something you accomplished, except a handout. We're becoming the island of misfit boys (Peter Pan) style.

I am amazed that people would accept higher taxes-decreasing your own livelihood-to help others who may be able to contribute to society but won't. God forbid if you have to pay a higher price for tomatoes at the store because farmers use US pickers (contributors to the society) And Lord knows I'll pay 150$+ for designer bluejeans and wouldn't be caught dead in a pair of Rustler's.

It's all about what effects you directly.

And on that note...how is it ok to raise taxes for everyone to pay for social aid, but not ok to pay a bit more at the grocery store so that more American people would have jobs?

[cdsga]

It's not OK, it's hypocrisy.

When you investigate and take it to a personal level, you then see it for what it is. Will you tolerate it or not? What will you concede to? That's the question. When is enough enough?

[toekneejo, ADN]

Americans are going to pay whatever the price is, to have what they want. I am with Jeweles26, I would rather pay for produce at a given rate than to stand idly by allowing inhumane conditions from a people who aren't suppose to even be here. But people turn a blind eye so we can exploit another group of people. Also I am much more willing to pay an increase for my groceries than to pay an increase in taxes allowing another group of people to become politically correct dead beat Americans. Mention dead beat dads and the country is up in arms.

[cdsga]

That is the truth-we all have to start with our selves-what is a reasonable taxation, what is fair, what is a reasonable wage for work,and not be abused.

I can suggest a book called "Guns, Germs and Steel" if you want to see how history repeats itself, and how some people conquer others and how they do it.

[Susie2310]

Would US citizens be willing to take jobs that paid minimum wage or less when they can be on the dole and get more money to live on?

Simple answer for the majority no.

Until we raise wages to a reasonable level where people don't need public assistance the incentive to do real labor that may cause sweat and sore muscles is just a dream.

People take crappy jobs-back breaking jobs-like migrant workers, because they want cash-no taxes taken out, no tracing of the money and they want to take care of their livelihood no matter how hard it may be.

On an honorable note-if there's any left out there...There is no substitute for hard work, the satisfaction of getting paid for something you accomplished, except a handout. We're becoming the island of misfit boys (Peter Pan) style.

I am amazed that people would accept higher taxes-decreasing your own livelihood-to help others who may be able to contribute to society but won't. God forbid if you have to pay a higher price for tomatoes at the store because farmers use US pickers (contributors to the society) And Lord knows I'll pay 150$+ for designer bluejeans and wouldn't be caught dead in a pair of Rustler's.

It's all about what effects you directly.

cdsga, I have been thinking about the first sentence of your last paragraph and I wished to express my thoughts on this subject as being different to yours. I have to admit I find it surprising when anyone says that they are "amazed that people would accept higher taxes - decreasing your own livelihood - to help others who may be able to contribute to society but won't" because even if one is thinking just of oneself I wonder if people who are currently fortunate to have jobs, income, support systems and health care are unable to conceive of the possibility that their fortunate life circumstances could change i.e. they could lose their job, their health, their health insurance, have a catastrophic health problem and be unable to work, and be in need of health care. Wouldn't it be a comfort to you if you were in this situation, to know that because everyone who is working is contributing tax monies towards a health care system (including your own contributions when you were working) that you are able to receive medical care without being concerned about your ability to pay? I don't understand concern about the people who don't contribute to society putting one off from supporting higher taxes to pay for health care (I assume you are speaking of people who do not work because they are lazy) as I am much more concerned that the majority of people who do make their best effort have access to health care.

I think the people who are willing to pay higher taxes for everyone to have access to health care are willing partly because they know that in contributing towards other people's health care they will also be provided for when they are in need of health care and thus they perceive the higher taxes as fair (sharing) and do not resent contributing to other people's health care, and also because they want to live in a society where people are able to visit doctors and receive health care for themselves and their families when they need it, throughout their lives. But I come from the UK, where this system is in place.