Religious conscience and providing services

[FuzzyBunnySlippers]

Sure, that's the whole point of Obamacare.

True. While car insurance is mandatory when the car is being driven. While non-compliance, or not having car insurance, does not result in the IRS imposing a fine due to there being an individual mandate in the law that permits that.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The difference there is that driving is a privilege and the insurance is to protect the people you might harm

Whereas life (one would assume, a healthy life) is a fundamental human right and the insurance is to protect a person you (or someone else) might harm -- yourself.

Or are you suggesting that our rights deserve less protection than our privileges?

 

[MachZer0]

Whereas life (one would assume, a healthy life) is a fundamental human right and the insurance is to protect a person you (or someone else) might harm -- yourself.

Or are you suggesting that our rights deserve less protection than our privileges?

A healthy life is not a right, thus burns that straw man

 

[TLK Valentine]

A healthy life is not a right, thus burns that straw man

If we're not healthy, sickness/injury might lead to death.

It's the car insurance analogy -- insurance covers injury as well as death, even though you're now claiming we have no right to be healthy.

 

[MachZer0]

If we're not healthy, sickness/injury might lead to death.

Being healthy also leads to death

It's the car insurance analogy -- insurance covers injury as well as death, even though you're now claiming we have no right to be healthy.

Factually, you aren't
required to have auto insurance, in any state

 

[TLK Valentine]

Factually, you aren't
required to have auto insurance, in any state

Factually, if you own a car in my state, you are required to have insurance for it.

Factually, under the ACA, if you own a body, you are required to have insurance for that, too.

 

[SolomonVII]

You don't own your body.
You are your body.

 

[MachZer0]

Factually, if you own a car in my state, you are required to have insurance for it.

Factually, under the ACA, if you own a body, you are required to have insurance for that, too.

Of course, you don't have to own a car but you do have to "own a body"

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

A healthy life is not a right, thus burns that straw man

The overwhelming majority of developed countries consider health care to be a basic human right.

 

[MachZer0]

The overwhelming majority of developed countries consider health care to be a basic human right.

Even of health care is a right (which it is not), a healthy life is not a right

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

Even of health care is a right (which it is not), a healthy life is not a right

I'm assuming that "a healthy life" means a life as healthy as possible given a person's circumstances and how well they choose to take care of themselves. The idea that you have a right to a life healthier than possible is patently absurd, so that's the most logical reading of that. We recognize that you don't have a right to cause medical harm to someone without their consent (ex., you can sell someone cigarettes, but you can't sneak nicotine into their chewing gum), so we do recognize a right to a healthy life in that sense. Most countries recognize that health care is a part of that.

 

[MachZer0]

I'm assuming that "a healthy life" means a life as healthy as possible given a person's circumstances and how well they choose to take care of themselves. The idea that you have a right to a life healthier than possible is patently absurd, so that's the most logical reading of that. We recognize that you don't have a right to cause medical harm to someone without their consent (ex., you can sell someone cigarettes, but you can't sneak nicotine into their chewing gum), so we do recognize a right to a healthy life in that sense. Most countries recognize that health care is a part of that.

That was neither stated nor implied so there is no reason to assume that is what was meant

 

[TLK Valentine]

Even of health care is a right (which it is not), a healthy life is not a right

You're saying we have no right to be healthy?

 

[MachZer0]

You're saying we have no right to be healthy?

No, we don't, otherwise, fewer of us would be sick

 

[TLK Valentine]

No, we don't, otherwise, fewer of us would be sick

That would mean -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- that health is a privilege, not a right (debatable, but I'll play along for the moment).

Same as, let's say... ownership of a motor vehicle is a privilege, not a right (which I happen to agree with, by the way).

Now that you see where I'm going, you have no choice but to claim "apples and oranges" -- furthermore, you have no choice but to not explain what the difference is.

Let the waffling begin...

 

[MachZer0]

That would mean -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- that health is a privilege, not a right (debatable, but I'll play along for the moment).

Same as, let's say... ownership of a motor vehicle is a privilege, not a right (which I happen to agree with, by the way).

Now that you see where I'm going, you have no choice but to claim "apples and oranges" -- furthermore, you have no choice but to not explain what the difference is.

Health is neither a right or a privilege. It's more a case of good or bad "fortune". You get what you get. You can help your health or hurt your health to a degree, but ultimately it's out of your control. Each of us will experience bad health at one time or another whether we choose it or not

Let the waffling begin...

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

That was neither stated nor implied so there is no reason to assume that is what was meant

It's logically implied when the alternative interpretation is ridiculous for anyone to say if they have a familiarity with the basic facts of human life. If I say that you have a right to life (part of the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" formulation), I obviously don't mean that a natural death at an old age from unavoidable issues is a violation of your natural rights. I also obviously don't mean that you have no right to opt for hospice care if you're in a situation where other treatments would decrease the quality of your life while prolonging it. I mean that no one else can take your life without violating your natural rights in the most profound of all possible ways. Analogously, being born with a genetic illness is not a violation of a right to health, and neither is your own personal decision to endanger your health.

 

[MachZer0]

It's logically implied when the alternative interpretation is ridiculous for anyone to say if they have a familiarity with the basic facts of human life. If I say that you have a right to life (part of the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" formulation), I obviously don't mean that a natural death at an old age from unavoidable issues is a violation of your natural rights. I also obviously don't mean that you have no right to opt for hospice care if you're in a situation where other treatments would decrease the quality of your life while prolonging it. I mean that no one else can take your life without violating your natural rights in the most profound of all possible ways. Analogously, being born with a genetic illness is not a violation of a right to health, and neither is your own personal decision to endanger your health.

And yet that is what was stated

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

And yet that is what was stated

So, when the constitution says that you have a right to life, it means that you have a right to be an immortal?

 

[MachZer0]

So, when the constitution says that you have a right to life, it means that you have a right to be an immortal?

Where does the Constitution say that