andi9899
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 6, 2011 10:22:29 GMT -5
Posts: 31,599
|
Post by andi9899 on Jan 2, 2024 15:46:18 GMT -5
You want them to exploit them? They want good jobs and decent housing ...... why wouldn't they get that? As I understand it, the US does give out permits to people from central America in accordance with availability of resources (jobs, accommodation) Why don't they arrive legally? Where did I say exploiting them was a goal? They come here to escape a horrible life in their country of origin for one reason or another. They come here with basically nothing but whatever skill they had in their country. They get a job that they can based of their skillset and sometimes not being a citizen is a disqualifier. So they get the job they can. Do I think they should be able to get better if qualified, hell yes. It just doesn't work that way. American citizens can just sit on their asses and collect unemployment and food stamps, they can't, so they do the jobs they can get. Those are the shit jobs Americans won't do. Not that all Americans that are on assistance are gaming the system, but some definitely are. Why would they (Americans) do those jobs when our taxes are paying their bills? |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,710 
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 2, 2024 16:58:41 GMT -5
They want the jobs Americans won't get off their asses to do for a fraction of the pay Americans want. They pay taxes on the money they make, so their children should get the same public education our tax dollars pay for. Healthcare is a human right. It should not be a business like it is in the US. Are you suggesting we just let them die on principle alone? They pay for their own housing with the money they make doing the jobs Americans won't do. They buy cars and houses too. Undocumented immigrants do way more for our economy than Americans do and they get none of the benefits. They can't collect SS, Medicaid or disability like Americans can. Americans just cost the government at the end of the day when you think about it. We need them. Wrong heathcare is not a human right. So called undocumented immigrants which is a watered down term for being illegal should not even have the ability to work here. Justifing it saying they do more for the economy is the same as saying a child molestor is ok to keep on doing it because they pay taxes on their job. TG and i both agree with that. in fact, this is the way to stop "illegal immigration" in its tracks. by making it impossible for them to be employed here (except on a work visa, or a traveling visa, to the extent they are (either) available). and no, it is not at all the same as a child molester. a child is incapable of consent. an adult worker and an adult employer CAN consent, even if what they consent to is "illegal". |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,710
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 2, 2024 17:05:15 GMT -5
They want the jobs Americans won't get off their asses to do for a fraction of the pay Americans want. They pay taxes on the money they make, so their children should get the same public education our tax dollars pay for. Healthcare is a human right. It should not be a business like it is in the US. Are you suggesting we just let them die on principle alone? They pay for their own housing with the money they make doing the jobs Americans won't do. They buy cars and houses too. Undocumented immigrants do way more for our economy than Americans do and they get none of the benefits. They can't collect SS, Medicaid or disability like Americans can. Americans just cost the government at the end of the day when you think about it. We need them. Wrong heathcare is not a human right. according to the UDHR, it is. and in case you are wondering, we are signatory. in 1948. so, yes, healthcare is a right, and has been longer than most of us have been alive. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,710
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 2, 2024 17:07:09 GMT -5
Wrong heathcare is not a human right. So called undocumented immigrants which is a watered down term for being illegal should not even have the ability to work here. Justifing it saying they do more for the economy is the same as saying a child molestor is ok to keep on doing it because they pay taxes on their job. Your stance is BS and you know it. First of all, healthcare is most definitely a human right regardless of a person's immigration status, race, religion, sexual orientation or economic status. Full stop. Undocumented immigrants definitely do more for the economy than Americans. They work back breaking jobs for pennies. They put those pennies back into the economy. They'll never receive any entitlement programs like American citizens do. So they're basically paying into a system for us that they'll never collect from. We would see a huge economic issue if they just disappeared tomorrow. Look at how Florida is suffering under Ron D's immigration stance. Where are the Americans stepping up to take over those jobs? There are none. Florida is circling the drain and will likely collapse at some point if they can't get someone else to replace him. it is soft slavery. i am not just being "emotional", as bill might say. i really believe that. then again, i also think FMW is soft slavery. any job that pays less than a living wage, if you want to know the truth. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,710
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 2, 2024 17:09:16 GMT -5
Your stance is BS and you know it. First of all, healthcare is most definitely a human right regardless of a person's immigration status, race, religion, sexual orientation or economic status. Full stop. Undocumented immigrants definitely do more for the economy than Americans. They work back breaking jobs for pennies. They put those pennies back into the economy. They'll never receive any entitlement programs like American citizens do. So they're basically paying into a system for us that they'll never collect from. We would see a huge economic issue if they just disappeared tomorrow. Look at how Florida is suffering under Ron D's immigration stance. Where are the Americans stepping up to take over those jobs? There are none. Florida is circling the drain and will likely collapse at some point if they can't get someone else to replace him. Really is it in the constitution? yes. Article 2, Section 2. |
|
scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,762
|
Post by scgal on Jan 2, 2024 17:10:38 GMT -5
Wrong heathcare is not a human right. according to the UDHR, it is. and in case you are wondering, we are signatory. in 1948. so, yes, healthcare is a right, and has been longer than most of us have been alive. Sorry the UDHR does not matter, in fact nothing with the united nations does. There is nothing in the US constitution that says healthcare is a human right. The US constitution is the only thing that matters in the US anything with the united nations or anything as the world in whole does not matter. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,710
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 2, 2024 17:11:02 GMT -5
You want them to exploit them? They want good jobs and decent housing ...... why wouldn't they get that? As I understand it, the US does give out permits to people from central America in accordance with availability of resources (jobs, accommodation) Why don't they arrive legally? again, over half of them do. very few "illegals" are the kind we are seeing on TV these days. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,710
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 2, 2024 17:15:39 GMT -5
according to the UDHR, it is. and in case you are wondering, we are signatory. in 1948. so, yes, healthcare is a right, and has been longer than most of us have been alive. Sorry the UDHR does not matter, in fact nothing with the united nations does. There is nothing in the US constitution that says healthcare is a human right. The US constitution is the only thing that matters in the US anything with the united nations or anything as the world in whole does not matter. Article 2, Section 2 of the constitution asserts that the UDHR is part of US law. therefore, yes, healthcare is a human right, as recognized by the constitution. nobody has the right to deny it. this was one of the main reasons that Reagan stepped in and created his unfunded mandate. he recognized that to NOT do so was a violation of international law. i get that you don't like the UN. that is fine. but for sixty years, people DID like the UN, and the US made a shitload of human rights agreements with them. that stopped in 2004. i don't think the US (or really anywhere else) has become a better place since then. do you? |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,710
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 2, 2024 17:16:47 GMT -5
Really is it in the constitution? It doesn't matter what the illegals do for the economy. They shouldn't have the opportunity since they are illegal Human decency doesn't have to be written in the constitution to exist. no need to play footsie, in this case. it IS written into the constitution. |
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 8,044
Member is Online
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Jan 2, 2024 17:19:42 GMT -5
Apparently honoring a treaty is no longer necessary according to conservatives. Wonder what other agreements they want to ignore. We already know that they will ignore the parts of the constitution Trump violated or doesn't like.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,710
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 2, 2024 17:41:38 GMT -5
Apparently honoring a treaty is no longer necessary according to conservatives. Wonder what other agreements they want to ignore. We already know that they will ignore the parts of the constitution Trump violated or doesn't like. technically, it is an agreement, so it doesn't have the same force of law. but what it means to be PART of that agreement is that we agree (for one thing) that healthcare is a human right. how we ADDRESS that is another matter entirely. we can say (truthfully) that a person does not need insurance to get healthcare in the US. please feel free to correct me if am wrong. there might be teeth somewhere that i don't know about. conclusion: it is not a major concession to agree with the very simple language of the UDHR. we should at LEAST do that. |
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 8,044
Member is Online
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Jan 2, 2024 17:47:03 GMT -5
Emtala requires emergency treatment and stabilization. That is the bare minimum of providing healthcare, but it may technically fit the bill. Good luck getting healthcare for non-emergency conditions in the US if you do not have insurance.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,710
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 2, 2024 17:58:20 GMT -5
Emtala requires emergency treatment and stabilization. That is the bare minimum of providing healthcare, but it may technically fit the bill. Good luck getting healthcare for non-emergency conditions in the US if you do not have insurance. Reagan felt (and was probably correct in feeling this) that it was the MAXIMUM that could be done at the time. hopefully someone can build on the ACA, or simply expand MC to fill the void that STILL persists. |
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 8,044
Member is Online
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Jan 2, 2024 18:01:17 GMT -5
Emtala requires emergency treatment and stabilization. That is the bare minimum of providing healthcare, but it may technically fit the bill. Good luck getting healthcare for non-emergency conditions in the US if you do not have insurance. Reagan felt (and was probably correct in feeling this) that it was the MAXIMUM that could be done at the time. hopefully someone can build on the ACA, or simply expand MC to fill the void that STILL persists. True, he was probably correct on that assumption. It is a huge unfunded mandate however, something conservatives rail against. Not very conservative of him. And based on today's conservatives, it would be better to let these people rot in the street than to treat them. |
|
scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,762
|
Post by scgal on Jan 3, 2024 8:41:39 GMT -5
Sorry the UDHR does not matter, in fact nothing with the united nations does. There is nothing in the US constitution that says healthcare is a human right. The US constitution is the only thing that matters in the US anything with the united nations or anything as the world in whole does not matter. Article 2, Section 2 of the constitution asserts that the UDHR is part of US law. therefore, yes, healthcare is a human right, as recognized by the constitution. nobody has the right to deny it. this was one of the main reasons that Reagan stepped in and created his unfunded mandate. he recognized that to NOT do so was a violation of international law. i get that you don't like the UN. that is fine. but for sixty years, people DID like the UN, and the US made a shitload of human rights agreements with them. that stopped in 2004. i don't think the US (or really anywhere else) has become a better place since then. do you? I don't see where it article 2, section 2 is part of this since the UDHR is not a tready and it does have any law abiding power to do so |
|
Spellbound454
Senior Member
"In the end, we remember not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends"
Joined: Sept 9, 2011 17:28:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,107
|
Post by Spellbound454 on Jan 3, 2024 11:44:53 GMT -5
Your stance is BS and you know it. First of all, healthcare is most definitely a human right regardless of a person's immigration status, race, religion, sexual orientation or economic status. Full stop. Undocumented immigrants definitely do more for the economy than Americans. They work back breaking jobs for pennies. They put those pennies back into the economy. They'll never receive any entitlement programs like American citizens do. So they're basically paying into a system for us that they'll never collect from. We would see a huge economic issue if they just disappeared tomorrow. Look at how Florida is suffering under Ron D's immigration stance. Where are the Americans stepping up to take over those jobs? There are none. Florida is circling the drain and will likely collapse at some point if they can't get someone else to replace him. it is soft slavery. i am not just being "emotional", as bill might say. i really believe that. then again, i also think FMW is soft slavery. any job that pays less than a living wage, if you want to know the truth. I think it is too. Americans sitting on their asses, whilst some poor foreign sap does all the dirty work for less than their worth, is exploitative. We have had problems with agricultural gangs coming in for the harvest.... and then finding out they are only given a fraction of their earnings, whilst their task masters clean up. Women being brought in to work in the service industry, only to find they are in a brothel with no way of escape. We call it modern slavery.... and people have gone to prison for being involved. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,710
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 3, 2024 14:19:34 GMT -5
Article 2, Section 2 of the constitution asserts that the UDHR is part of US law. therefore, yes, healthcare is a human right, as recognized by the constitution. nobody has the right to deny it. this was one of the main reasons that Reagan stepped in and created his unfunded mandate. he recognized that to NOT do so was a violation of international law. i get that you don't like the UN. that is fine. but for sixty years, people DID like the UN, and the US made a shitload of human rights agreements with them. that stopped in 2004. i don't think the US (or really anywhere else) has become a better place since then. do you? I don't see where it article 2, section 2 is part of this since the UDHR is not a tready and it does have any law abiding power to do so i already said that the UDHR is not a binding agreement. however, the language of the agreement stands. in other words, the US AGREES that heathcare is a human right. what we do with that fact is up to us. apparently it was OK to have 40M people with no access to healthcare prior to Reagan. since Reagan, everyone has had access to EMERGENCY healthcare. and that is a start. t is sort of a moral minimum to letting uninsured people die on the sidewalks in front of hospitals, like they do in many shithole countries. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,710
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 3, 2024 14:21:15 GMT -5
PS- i ALSO already said that the LEAST we can do is agree that it is a human right. we could go much further than that, of course, if we choose.
and we should. most civilized places do.
|
|
scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,762
|
Post by scgal on Jan 4, 2024 10:01:54 GMT -5
I don't see where it article 2, section 2 is part of this since the UDHR is not a tready and it does have any law abiding power to do so i already said that the UDHR is not a binding agreement. however, the language of the agreement stands. in other words, the US AGREES that heathcare is a human right. what we do with that fact is up to us. apparently it was OK to have 40M people with no access to healthcare prior to Reagan. since Reagan, everyone has had access to EMERGENCY healthcare. and that is a start. t is sort of a moral minimum to letting uninsured people die on the sidewalks in front of hospitals, like they do in many shithole countries. I understand what you are saying, but nowhere does it say it is a right. If you google if it is a right it does not list it. I contend it is not an actual right. Now personally I think it should be a right to have access to healthcare. To say it is a basic human right is wrong |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,455
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 4, 2024 10:21:40 GMT -5
i already said that the UDHR is not a binding agreement. however, the language of the agreement stands. in other words, the US AGREES that heathcare is a human right. what we do with that fact is up to us. apparently it was OK to have 40M people with no access to healthcare prior to Reagan. since Reagan, everyone has had access to EMERGENCY healthcare. and that is a start. t is sort of a moral minimum to letting uninsured people die on the sidewalks in front of hospitals, like they do in many shithole countries. I understand what you are saying, but nowhere does it say it is a right. If you google if it is a right it does not list it. I contend it is not an actual right. Now personally I think it should be a right to have access to healthcare. To say it is a basic human right is wrong There is no basic human right outside of human beings declaring something to be one. When they do make such a declaration, they usually attempt to attach it to some higher authority than "cuz I/we says so", but it really is just human beings hoping other human beings will go along with it. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,710
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 4, 2024 22:39:39 GMT -5
i already said that the UDHR is not a binding agreement. however, the language of the agreement stands. in other words, the US AGREES that heathcare is a human right. what we do with that fact is up to us. apparently it was OK to have 40M people with no access to healthcare prior to Reagan. since Reagan, everyone has had access to EMERGENCY healthcare. and that is a start. t is sort of a moral minimum to letting uninsured people die on the sidewalks in front of hospitals, like they do in many shithole countries. I understand what you are saying, but nowhere does it say it is a right. If you google if it is a right it does not list it. I contend it is not an actual right. Now personally I think it should be a right to have access to healthcare. To say it is a basic human right is wrong no. it says we will abide by our agreements. and our agreement says that it is a right. we can leave the UDHR. we probably should. we pretty clearly stopped caring about human rights in the last two decades. might as well admit that we would be fine having people die on the sidewalks, like when America was Great. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,710
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 4, 2024 22:48:57 GMT -5
scgal- let me ask you something. trade AGREEMENTS are also generally non-binding. we can back out of them at any time, unless the language specifies enforcement mechanisms (they usually don't). are you saying that we should violate them, willy nilly? how about IHR2005? it specifies that countries should work together for public outbreaks like pandemics. in favor of ignoring that one, too? there are agreements about the transportation of WMD's. that ok, now? we either abide by agreements, or we don't. what is it?
|
|
ripvanwinkle
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 22:36:42 GMT -5
Posts: 1,448
|
Post by ripvanwinkle on Jan 4, 2024 22:50:00 GMT -5
How could he do this? The bus companies are chartered. Is Adams also going to sue the Biden admin for their bussing of "migrants" to his city also?  |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,710
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 4, 2024 22:55:45 GMT -5
How could he do this? The bus companies are chartered. Is Adams also going to sue the Biden admin for their bussing of "migrants" to his city also? fine by me.  |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,899
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 4, 2024 23:18:45 GMT -5
How could he do this? The bus companies are chartered. Is Adams also going to sue the Biden admin for their bussing of "migrants" to his city also? Did you not read the first paragraph of your linked article? The buses are coming directly from Texas on Abbott's orders. Abbott is not the U.S. government. Abbott is the governor of Texas where these bus loads of immigrants originated. Texas buses. Not U.S. buses. Sue Texas or sue the bus companies. How you came up with suing Biden and the U.S. government is beyond my wildest imaginations. |
|
ripvanwinkle
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 22:36:42 GMT -5
Posts: 1,448
|
Post by ripvanwinkle on Jan 4, 2024 23:48:23 GMT -5
How could he do this? The bus companies are chartered. Is Adams also going to sue the Biden admin for their bussing of "migrants" to his city also? Did you not read the first paragraph of your linked article? The buses are coming directly from Texas on Abbott's orders. Abbott is not the U.S. government. Abbott is the governor of Texas where these bus loads of immigrants originated. Texas buses. Not U.S. buses. Sue Texas or sue the bus companies. How you came up with suing Biden and the U.S. government is beyond my wildest imaginations. Yes I read the story. And it mentioned Texas. And if the Biden administration is processing illegals, oops, migrants in Texas CPB centers and shipping them all over and to NYC then he should sue the administration also. Their busses are charted in Texas. They are just as responsible for the mess Adams is crying about. |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,899
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 4, 2024 23:53:16 GMT -5
Did you not read the first paragraph of your linked article? The buses are coming directly from Texas on Abbott's orders. Abbott is not the U.S. government. Abbott is the governor of Texas where these bus loads of immigrants originated. Texas buses. Not U.S. buses. Sue Texas or sue the bus companies. How you came up with suing Biden and the U.S. government is beyond my wildest imaginations. Yes I read the story. And it mentioned Texas. And if the Biden administration is processing illegals, oops, migrants in Texas CPB centers and shipping them all over and to NYC then he should sue the administration also. They are just as responsible for the mess Adams is crying about. Wrong on so many counts. Abbott knows he is not to bus migrants to NYC without giving the city notice. So what is Abbott now doing? Bussing then to NJ transit stations in New Jersey and the migrants are being told to take NJ Transit trains into NYC. And NYC is not being told by Abbott that migrants are on their way into NYC. |
|
ripvanwinkle
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 22:36:42 GMT -5
Posts: 1,448
|
Post by ripvanwinkle on Jan 5, 2024 0:10:12 GMT -5
Yes I read the story. And it mentioned Texas. And if the Biden administration is processing illegals, oops, migrants in Texas CPB centers and shipping them all over and to NYC then he should sue the administration also. They are just as responsible for the mess Adams is crying about. Wrong on so many counts. Abbott knows he is not to bus migrants to NYC without giving the city notice. So what is Abbott now doing? Bussing then to NJ transit stations in New Jersey and the migrants are being told to take NJ Transit trains into NYC. And NYC is not being told by Abbott that migrants are on their way into NYC. Good for Abbot. NJ should tell NYC they are coming. He has found a good work-a-round to his problem. Maybe when these states/cities have had enough of this they will force their congress people fix the problem. |
|
scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,762
|
Post by scgal on Jan 5, 2024 8:10:10 GMT -5
scgal - let me ask you something. trade AGREEMENTS are also generally non-binding. we can back out of them at any time, unless the language specifies enforcement mechanisms (they usually don't). are you saying that we should violate them, willy nilly? how about IHR2005? it specifies that countries should work together for public outbreaks like pandemics. in favor of ignoring that one, too? there are agreements about the transportation of WMD's. that ok, now? we either abide by agreements, or we don't. what is it? None of this has to do with the subject. I was simply stating that healthcare is not a right. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,710
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 5, 2024 9:30:29 GMT -5
scgal - let me ask you something. trade AGREEMENTS are also generally non-binding. we can back out of them at any time, unless the language specifies enforcement mechanisms (they usually don't). are you saying that we should violate them, willy nilly? how about IHR2005? it specifies that countries should work together for public outbreaks like pandemics. in favor of ignoring that one, too? there are agreements about the transportation of WMD's. that ok, now? we either abide by agreements, or we don't. what is it? None of this has to do with the subject. I was simply stating that healthcare is not a right. yes, it does. 2.2 says that we abide by our agreements. the US is signatory to the UDHR. the UDHR says that healthcare is a right. ergo, the US agrees that healthcare is a right (even if you don't). that is called a syllogism. it is rock solid. what i did in your reply is to point out other agreements we uphold, and asking you a simple question: do you think that the US should abide by it's agreements?
yes or no? |
|
