Who was in the wrong here?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.PUBL.ZS?view=map
youtube.com/watch?v=YUXwDMqjC-A
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Both

Sanders would be correct if he were talking about it in terms of negative rights. Paul is correct because he is saying it is not a positive right, but should clarify his language to make it clear that he does indeed see healthcare as a negative right.

I don't understand the second guys point, is he saying that in order to guarantee everyone health care you would need to be guaranteeing workers which would be forced work aka slavery?

If so, that doesn't make sense. A lot of jobs have a contract, so why would it be any different for this? And it's not like he wouldn't be getting payed, it's just that it would be in a collective way instead of direct.

Maybe I'm interpreting this wrong.

As for the point, socialised health care is a shit meme. Its slow and low quality, to where if you actually want treatment for anything that's not super basic you have to pay anyway, on top of your tax that is funding NHS.

He's arguing against the idea that one must be provided healthcare simply for existing, since the healthcare isn't a resource that exists by itself, but is provided by other humans with free will. Pay is somewhat irrelevant on that matter. If I rape you and toss a cheeky tenner your way afterwards, it's still rape (no homo).

Pretty sure Bernie Sanders is wrong about everything.

Rand Paul was correct on this one.

But I mean someone in the position to do the health care has probably signed a work contract like many other careers require so I don't see how it's different than any other job.

I think if you want free heart surgery go to the local high school and get it.

If you want heart surgery from the guy who makes 900,000$ a year and spends half his waking summer on a boat banging whores be one of the 200 people a year he works on by providing value to society so society deems you worth that mans time.

>police officers, firemen, and elected officials are slaves
Doctors don't get to pick and choose their patients already. If anyone is a slave in this situation its the taxpayers who pay for the bums that can't pay their hospital bill.

Repeat: you are already paying for universal healthcare RIGHT NOW. Americans are just 110 percent cucked by big pharma and hospital gouging because healthcare is not a free market: customers don't demand a broken arm to be fixed, they NEED it period.

>healthcare is a right == healthcare must not pay for doctors/nurses

America truely obesesica

The US already pays more per capita in taxes for your shitty healthcare than most other countries with single payer healthcare that costs even more privately on top of that.
This isn't even a moral issue, just a question of efficiency.

right implies that even if you cannot pay, you must have access to health care so yes.

Here's the problem though.

Nothing is free. When Sanders says free he means "the working class picks up the tab" at best.

So if you work, your taxes still pay for it and they go up to budget for it as a result.

Which means you still pay for it whether you use it or not. Just like insurance.

Meanwhile Tyquandese, Sharkiesha and their 14 feral nigglets that live off pure gibs get it free because they have no taxable income.

Rand, why even ask.

So it's like the right to bear arms doesn't mean free guns.

Hyppocrates oath
Nuff said
The only reason universal healthcare is infeasible in America is because it's corrupted as fuck
Don't want to wait for an appointment? You pay.
Admit it. You don't want universal healthcare because of niggers if you lived in an homogenous country you would be open to it.

You're half right. We don't want it because of how niggers openly and happily abuse any and all systems that involve gibs me dat.

I don't even have to read what they said. Bernie is wrong.

You're working within an assumed premise. If we take the argument to a logical extreme and say that nobody in the whole country wants to be a doctor, a right to healthcare would involve forcing people into medical professions.

Rand Paul is making a stupid (and intentionally misleading) argument here. A citizen having a right to healthcare does not imply any of the things he claims it does. The right to free healthcare just means that the health care provider is invoicing the government for his/her services instead of the individual patient. That bit about slavery is nonsense

pic related answers everything

>If we take the argument to a logical extreme and say that nobody in the whole country wants to be a doctor, a right to healthcare would involve forcing people into medical professions.
The same could be said for soldiers in times of war.
What's your point?

If we didn't have niggers clogging up hospitals with drug usage, gang warfare, obesity, and general gibsmedat we probably could afford it.

It doesnt have to be white or black. The solution is to find the middle ground

My point is he's correct. Conscription is also slavery.

Both wrong.
You need some sort of NHS.

Except you don't fuck it in the ass with Debt like good ol' Tony Blair did.

MFW American bros tell me of how they are in shit tonnes of debt (life long) for simply getting a fucking biopsy done.

randcucks argument is horrible. medics in freehealthcare countries get paid a salary, its their job.

berncucks argument is also horrible. usa's need of healthcare is in result to lowering salaries and quality of life. he just says that because he wants to implement his communist phantasy

so you have the right to force other people to pay for your healthcare under the threat of coercive force?

>The only reason universal healthcare is infeasible in America is because it's corrupted as fuck
Actually, let's be honest.
The only reason we don't have universal healthcare in America is because no one wants to foot the nigger's bill.

Oh so it's just paid for by the free magical and unlimited government money that comes from no where and is given by the void voluntarily

Paul is correct. Health care is not a right. Rights do not have to be earned. Healthcare has to be earned (doctors trained, medicines developed, hospitals built). This healthcare cannot be a right.

Access to healthcare could be a right, but not healthcare itself.

Have a you faggot and read why you're wrong.

lmao there are a lot less trained physicians than there are willing meat shields. also your life is in the hands of these men, if the best doctors decided to quit their practices due to profitability losses you will see an influx of second hand beaner brain surgeons and I'd rather not see the nightmare consequences of that. I'd much rather keep salaries of doctors as competitive as they can get, to incentivise constant growth and innovation.

But it is sometimes necessary.
If tomorrow all the doctors/farmers/electric plant workers or any other profession necessary to maintain society decided to stop working it would be morally right to force them to work or face even more damage to your society.

>it would be morally right to force them to work or face even more damage to your society
Well, you can argue morals: Paul obviously thinks that it would be immoral while you don't. It's slavery regardless though.

Why not simply give the doctors the choice:
[ ] I would like to treat people regardless of wether or not they're paying for it
[ ] Don't step on snek

There is no coercive force. Doctors would do the same shit they've always done, but at the end they just send the bill to a different place. Where does the coercive force and slavery come in?

It's paid for by tax dollars. This isn't a new system, lots of countries do it. You may not like the idea, and that's fine, but don't pretend like it is some brand new, untested system

no you simply make it so profitable that SOMEONE will do it because everyone would be a complete fucking moron not to. and if it is so badly needed that we would be morally correct to physically force people to do it, then I'd wager people probably would also be willing to pay a lot of money for it and so no force is required at all.

Rand Paul's argument is retarded. The issue is to provide a basic level of healthcare for everyone, paid for by the public. Doctors wouldn't be doing it for free, as they aren't in _any_ country with universial/ socialized healthcare. (Cuba is not an argument, they pay the doctors there too, although not as much as in other countries.)

>slavery is ok when it benefits me

correct
You already pay for it but you get less in return.data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.PUBL.ZS?view=map

>Where does the coercive force and slavery come in?
From the minds (or arses) of libtards, of course. Are you really that new?

Rand acts like doctors aren't being paid for their work.

Slavery is ok when it's necessary for society to survive.
>no you simply make it so profitable that SOMEONE will do it because everyone would be a complete fucking moron not to
Yes, that's whats done in pretty much every country with a single payer healthcare system.

Is Bernie or Person X right?

Person X. always

Again, pay is irrelevant. If I force you to do something then pay you for it, it's still forced.

>is provided by other humans with free will
And how would a different healthcare system change that? It wouldn't force him to work against his will.

paul's point is a bit dramatic because you can quit a job or be fired or so on, plus you are paid. slavery would be removing any opportunity to leave or have a say in the matter and not paying the person performing the valued task. universal healthcare is a bad idea nonetheless.

Full video here. Spoiler: Rand was hyperbolic. Bernie BTFOs him at the end.
youtube.com/watch?v=YUXwDMqjC-A

i dont know who the guy in the left is, but man, what bunch of shit he said lol

how can healthcare be a right if theres any possibility for doctors to not be available

The same way freedom is a right even though there's the possibility some Fritzl locks you up in his basement

welfare is how you guarantee 0 competition

I'm not a Bernie fan at all, as he doesn't live in the real world, but I do think he is right about this. Treating healthcare as a business is so open to greed, the cheapest bidders, corruption and ultimately at the expense of the poorest people.. Having socialist healthcare does not hold the doctor as a slave, that is so regarded. Doctors have contracts with whatever NHS trust they are employed with, and they are obliged to do their job as stipulated in their contracts. That is all.

Because its not a right to instant service, which is why we have long wait times for popular, non life threatening procedures up here. In fact we set a maximum number of those services a doctor is allowed to do per year.

What Rand is saying is logically correct.

What would happen in reality depends on what kind of policies were made to enforce the """right""" to """free""" healthcare.

You either end up with constantly rising taxes, the overall quality of services declining rapidly, or Rand's scenario. Maybe even a combination of any of the above.

Rand

>derailing conversation because he does not have any arguments left
Everything would be welfare according to you apparently.
>public schools
welfare
>public police
welfare
>roads without tolls
welfare
The fact that people don't have to spend 50k$ on an operation does not make people stop working.
If that were the case please tell me how the UK, Canada, Denmark and many other countries with publicly funded healthcare haven't collapsed yet.

But nobody forces them to do it? You become a doctor by choice. You can become something else if you don't want to become a doctor?

I'm absolutely all for private healthcare and there are really good arguments for that but I never understood the slavery argument that Rand is making. Can someone explain it to me?

Rand Paul is right but did a poor job at explaining himself, most normal people would think he is a looney for putting it like that.

Sanders response to that was devastating.

Only the strong survive. Nothings free peasants. No worthy man will ever ask for someone else to support them. I.e socialist and commies. Death to both.

>I'm not a Bernie fan at all, as he doesn't live in the real world, but I do think he is right about this. Treating food as a business is so open to greed, the cheapest bidders, corruption and ultimately at the expense of the poorest people.. Having socialist food does not hold the farmer as a slave, that is so retarded. Farmhands have contracts with whatever farmer they are employed with, and they are obliged to do their job as stipulated in their contracts. That is all.

What happens when there are no doctors? (or for that matter, no lawyers?)

Rand Paul is still in the dorm room. That's not to say that Sanders is correct, but Paul is terribly unimpressive.

bernie of course. if you give healthcare to everyone the quality is going to be shit.

It's what happens in every country with public healthcare, ridiculous long waiting times and people dying while waiting for an op
Still, the only slaves are the taxpayers