John Boehner: Health care is NOT a right …

[Update]

I am sorry, it looks like I was taken in and it was a hoax (the twitter account has been suspended].

[End Update]

Quite amazing this:

Health care is NOT a right, it's a PRIVILEGE for those who earn an honest living. If you gangbang&listen to rap all day you don't deserve it

Twitter / John Boehner: Health care is NOT a right ….

This is from the US House Republican Leader. Many of his tweets are surprising in tone even vitriolic. I wished I could believe that this is someone pretending to be him.

I am still taken by surprise by attitudes like this. I can't quite believe that anyone can convince themselves that the millions of people without healthcare (isn't it about 40 million people) all deserve to have no health care.

For that matter I don't understand why people can think that anyone else does not deserve health care.

So very glad not to be a US Citizen and as always very glad we have the NHS.

11 thoughts on “John Boehner: Health care is NOT a right …

  1. PamBG

    I don’t even know swear words strong enough to do this opinion justice. Mr. Boehner apparently doesn’t have a flipping clue about either the current economy – in terms of pay, available jobs, and willingness to give health insurance (about zero, IME) – or about the cost of private health insurance. About 90% of our current take-home pay, so not really a viable option. So I’m a gangbanger who doesn’t deserve healthcare. &£%$!

    Reply
  2. PamBG

    It looks like this may have been a hoax. I hope that it was. I’d actually prefer to think that even the politicians that I don’t agree with have a bit more common sense than this Tweet implies.

    Reply
  3. Dave

    Pam,
    Looks like you are right, it appears to be a scam.
    I was thinking of you when I found it.
    I have not studied what is going to happen to healthcare (except to read a bit about the anti women bits on abortion) I hope that it works out better for you.

    Reply
  4. PamBG

    Dave, the current legislation is a start but, ironically, would probably make things worse for us if we still don’t have employer-provided healthcare when it comes in force.
    The current legislation will require insurers to cover everyone, “even” those with pre-existing medical conditions who companies are not required to cover. It will also require everyone to have some form of insurance in order to prevent a situation where healthy people opt out of buying insurance and only ill ones purchase it.
    However, in my view, the fundamental underlying problem has not been addressed: that we have a healthcare system that is run on the basis of business. As if it’s central purpose were to make money rather than to help ill people. This battle, I fear, is going to be a long one. Because I think most Americans either don’t “get” the fact that the system runs on the ethos of “profits before people” or they think that “profits before people” is the right way to do it.
    I do hope the changes go further.

    Reply
  5. Milton Stanley

    Dave, you write that “I don’t understand why people can think that anyone else does not deserve health care.” If you’re honestly interested in an explanation, offered in a spirit of understanding, from an American, I might be able to shine some light on the matter. What do you say?

    Reply
  6. Milton Stanley

    Good. I have not interest in converting anybody (politically, that is). I just hate to see people of goodwill talking past each other. I’ll put something together and leave a comment, probably tomorrow. Peace.

    Reply
  7. Milton Stanley

    How could someone believe millions of other human beings don’t deserve health care?
    Answering that question requires untangling a couple of conflations. One such conflation is found in the false-flag tweet quoted above, which combines a reasonable if arguable proposition (health care is not a right) with an odious attempt (the second sentence) to smear Mr. Boehner as a racist and elitist. That conflation, clearly, was malicious.
    The second conflation is honest and understandable, but still unfair: that denying that health care is a right is the same as saying someone does not deserve health care. Let’s untangle the issue a little bit by dropping the word “deserve” and looking at the two different concepts it bridges. The issue at hand is not whether or not everyone deserves health care; it’s whether or not everyone has a right to it. The difference is far more than a nicety of word choice; it goes to the heart of the United States’ political system.
    At bottom, political rights in the United States (and elsewhere, I would think) are based quite simply on being left alone. Thus all Americans have a right to life (in that no one is allowed to take someone else’s) but not a right to food (we have to work for that or have someone give it to us voluntarily). The same goes for health care.
    That doesn’t mean Americans take a “Sorry, sucker, you’re on your own” approach to these matters. Most of us, in fact, certainly do not. As a rule Americans are more than willing to help our neighbors, even those in other nations. We just don’t want to be coerced into doing it against our will (viz., through taxes). One could argue quite rightly that men and women have obligations to help their fellow human beings in need, but obligations are not the same as rights. That’s another conflation we need to untangle.
    The United States’ defining political document, the Declaration of Independence, declares that all men (sorry, ladies; it was written in the 18th century) are created equal and have rights granted by God. Those rights are essentially what we have inherent in simply breathing: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Rights, in other words, are preserved not by what others do for us, but what they do not do to us.
    Health care, on the other hand, is provided to an individual by other men and women. That doesn’t mean that health care should not be a right; it means health care cannot be a right. It may be good for the government to provide many things–court systems, schools, even health care–but they are by definition not rights.
    When we talk about providing every citizen with health care, it usually means providing services to one person through the work done by another. That’s not always a bad thing, but when one citizen is compelled to provide some good or service–health care, for example–to another, Americans intuitively recoil from such a concept. Historically our system of government with attendant “rights” has supported that view.
    Most Americans, on the other hand, strongly believe we ought to help everyone be fed and their health cared for. We don’t say it’s a human right to be helped, but most of my countrymen delight in helping others voluntarily (and the poorer we are, the more likely we are to help). We believe in helping others, and many of us feel positively obligated to do so; we just want to do it voluntarily, not by compulsion. For the average American that’s a distinction with a very significant difference.
    With all that said, I have to second what Pam wrote about take-home pay and health insurance. I work three part-time jobs, none of which provides health insurance. I really can’t afford to pay even routine medical bills, and the most basic health insurance coverage would eat probably two-thirds of my very, very modest total income. Praise God that as a financially poor family the Stanleys have our health insurance paid for by the taxpayers of Tennessee (at least for now). Am I being hypocritical to accept such a benefit that I don’t think I’m entitled to as a right? Maybe. By no means do I consider free health insurance a right, but by no means am I going to turn it down, either.
    Up to this point I’ve been writing from a purely political standpoint in an effort to shed light on the USA’s political DNA. Now, in case you’re interested, I’ll tell you what I really believe as a Christian. (And what follows are not even my original ideas but rather come from Alasdair MacIntyre’s After Virtue).
    The very concept of rights is a sub-Christian concept that grew out of Enlightenment thinking. For most of its history the church based its moral teaching not on human rights but on the obligations as expressed in the revealed Word of God. That distinction is quite significant and is at the heart, I think, of the issue at hand. Modern, rights-based morality says, “I have a right to health care.” Historical Christianity says, “I have an obligation to care for my neighbor.” The difference is fundamental and paradigmatic: whether my outlook is based on what others owe me, or on what I owe my neighbor and, in the fullest sense, Jesus Christ.

    Reply
  8. Milton Stanley

    Well, I muddled the final line of my comment with the extraneous final five words, but I trust you understand what I meant to write. Peace. [Ed: I have removed the extra words]

    Reply
  9. Mark

    Godbless America. Earn enough or die! This applies to children as well. What a great country. We are scum.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>