Voice of !WisdomHsuU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later[^][v]#123,997
> constitution MANDATES the protection of LIFE, liberty, and pursuit of happiness > fail to provide for the health of all in the nation and risk the lives of millions of Americans
protip !!pMmAiEwOm joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 28 minutes later, 39 minutes after the original post[^][v]#124,043
@previous (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
Is there, by chance, a nation-state that has successfully done this and can serve as an example for us all?
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 46 minutes after the original post[^][v]#124,047
@previous (protip !!pMmAiEwOm)
I suppose France is a decent example.
protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 49 minutes after the original post[^][v]#124,053
@previous (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
Has Southeast Asia, by chance, solved this?
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 51 minutes after the original post[^][v]#124,058
@previous (protip !!pMmAiEwOm)
I don't see where you're getting at, but Japan has a rather fantastic healthcare system.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 20 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#124,089
@previous (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
The point he's making is that "life" is too broad. When the constitution refers to "life" as a right, it means it mostly as a negative right. The constitution is meant to put limits on what the government is allowed to do. In this case, it means that the government should not take action that unnecessarily jeopardizes or violates the lives of its citizens, and it should take action to enforce justice and ensure that others do not wrongly jeopardize or violate the lives of others. In other words, if someone is trying to murder you, it is the government's job to try to protect you, but if you're in a horrible car accident and the only way you will live is if the government spends $100,000,000 to save you, the government is not committing a human rights violation by not spending those tax dollars to save you. It's a matter of distinguishing between positive and negative rights, rights and privileges, injustice and misfortune. It's not fair to say that we must forgo all other rights to ensure that no one ever dies for any reason.
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#124,102
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Is a person's disease not infringing on my right to live?
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#124,114
@previous (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
That is why the government encourages, and often subsidizes, vaccinations. They will also quarantine people if it comes to that.
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 45 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#124,117
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Is there a reason not to go one step further to give people the liberty of health?
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#124,121
@previous (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
What do you mean by one step further and what do you mean by "liberty of health"? And yes, there is, because it's a slippery slope. You have to balance other rights. It's like I said here: @124,089 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4) > It's a matter of distinguishing between positive and negative rights, rights and privileges, injustice and misfortune. It's not fair to say that we must forgo all other rights to ensure that no one ever dies for any reason.
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#124,125
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
I did not ask for disease to infect me. It is better for all if all had mandated healthcare.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#124,135
@previous (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
OK, maybe. I don't see how that goes against anything I said though. And mandated healthcare /= universal healthcare.
Also, what if I were in a terrible car accident and said "I did not ask for this horrible car accident to maim me for life. No one should be allowed to drive cars." Your statement is making a leap and you're not really explaining your logic or directly answering any of my questions thus far.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#124,435
> mfw when healthcare is so expensive BECAUSE of government intervention but democrats think the answer is MORE government intervention