Friday, May 25, 2012

Would You Rather Have A “right To Health Insurance” Or A “right To Medical Freedom” In The Constitution?

Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,
Monday, November 23, 2009, 0:42
This news item was posted in Medical Information category and has 8 Comments so far.

Right to Medical Insurance – the right for everyone to have third-party coverage.
Right to Medical Freedom – the right to choose your own health care, even if it means being uninsured.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

8 Responses to “Would You Rather Have A “right To Health Insurance” Or A “right To Medical Freedom” In The Constitution?”

  1. Obama Lied Grandma Died said on Monday, November 23, 2009, 7:19

    Right to Medical Freedom. Recent studies have shown that a large number of uninsured Americans are uninsured by choice, not circumstance.

  2. Spud said on Monday, November 23, 2009, 11:33

    The ONLY real option would be the”Right to Medical Insurance – the right for everyone to have third-party coverage” since the second choice simply can’t happen. Assume the following, very real scenario: you’re unemployed, homeless, and wandering the streets in a drunken stupor. You step of the curb (against the light) and get hit by a car. Some one who doesn’t know you calls 911. An ambulance arrives, takes you to a hospital and you’re treated for your two broken legs, cracked ribs, and concussion. After a week or so you’re released.After being presented with the bill you tell them you have no money and no insurance.Guess who picks up the tab?

  3. Fight Communism Turn To God said on Monday, November 23, 2009, 16:09

    I think having medical clinics would be good for the uninsured, but I don’t think forcing a state insurance will work because the sick, weak, and old will be second class citizens as they would be considered a drain on resources. The government does not have a right to play God with our health. Ezekial Emmanual (Rahm’s brother) has already asked to change the hippocratic oath (euthanasia will be offered to rid U.S. of old, sick, weak, or costly citizens.
    Obama has hired Holdren, who wrote a book about forced sterilizations by contaminating our water, forced abortions, euthanasia intead of treatment, etc.
    Be very afraid. Vote out Democrats so they don’t force this crap on us.

  4. Rayne Storm said on Monday, November 23, 2009, 20:40

    I can provide insurance for myself (if I choose to).
    I’d rather have the freedom…Considering that’s something that we can’t obtain for ourselves, and is a privilege that could potentionally become more difficult to retain, as well.

  5. DAR said on Tuesday, November 24, 2009, 2:21

    The right to medical freedom is already there. The federal government has only enumerated powers, the rest are reserved to the states and the people. Health care is not enumerated.

  6. EmmCee said on Tuesday, November 24, 2009, 8:17

    Medical Insurance
    If you can’t afford the insurance you don’t have the freedom either way.

  7. Elkin G said on Tuesday, November 24, 2009, 8:29

    I would rather have the right of medical FREEDOM
    Liberty should know NO bounds.

  8. TheKitte said on Tuesday, November 24, 2009, 11:34

    Freedom is one of the most abused words in the English language.
    Being thrown from an airplane is also called free-falling.
    With a little propaganda, you could probably have most extreme right-wingers demand the right to free-fall and the declaration that parachutes are communist devices.
    Universal coverage makes sense for a modern country.

Leave a Reply