Some Basic Guaranteed Rights in the US: Health Care, Food and a Phone

If course health care is a right. That goes without saying. And it’s not true that health care is always horrible in 3rd World places that now offer Health Care Tourism. Cuba has been offering that lately. You can go to Cuba, and for an affordable price, they will do about anything you want, and it will be excellent medicine. Their medicine is top notch in terms of how well trained they are, etc. The rightwingers say you get what you pay for in health care. But this is not true either. Health care in Canada and Europe is cheap to free, and the quality is top notch. They even live longer than we do.

People absolutely have a right to food. This is obvious. We already do this to some extent anyway. There is a lot of free food handed out, and a lot of it is handed out by the government.

I think a phone is a right, a basic human right. Everyone has a right to a phone. We already do this. Phones are free to the poor.

How about some more? Is Internet access a human right? I suppose it isn’t. I’m not sure if everyone deserves an Internet, probably not. I do not have a problem with people not having it due to not affording it. Everyone has it on their cell phones anyway.

However the Net is artificially expensive, and the service is unnaturally horrible because there is little or no competition in the market. I would like to see the cable and DSL markets opened up to capitalist competition.

The only thing worse than capitalism is monopoly capitalism. It’s odd that 100% of rightwingers support monopoly capitalism despite the fact that it is not really capitalist at all, as there is no competition.

I will say that the competition factor is the one really great thing about capitalism. You get a lot of players in any industry, and they will compete to see who treats customers better, who stocks more stuff they want, who is nicer, or who has better customer service. They will also compete on price and even on quality. If you get a hell of a lot of competition, they will even compete on workers’ wages and benefits! I love it! Competition is great, but there’s nothing a capitalist hates more than competition. They all wish to be monopolists.

 

26 Comments

Filed under Canada, Capitalism, Caribbean, Conservatism, Cuba, Economics, Europe, Government, Health, Labor, Latin America, North America, Nutrition, Political Science, Regional, USA

26 responses to “Some Basic Guaranteed Rights in the US: Health Care, Food and a Phone

  1. Jason Y

    I will say that the competition factor is the one really great thing about capitalism. You get a lot of players in any industry, and they will compete to see who treats customers better, who stocks more stuff they want, who is nicer, or who has better customer service. They will also compete on price and even on quality. If you get a hell of a lot of competition, they will even compete on workers’ wages and benefits! I love it! Competition is great, but there’s nothing a capitalist hates more than competition. They all wish to be monopolists.

    Perhaps your secretly a capitalist. A true capitalist, lol

    People absolutely have a right to food. This is obvious. We already do this to some extent anyway. There is a lot of free food handed out, and a lot of it is handed out by the government.

    People don’t have a right to anything, so join the army and get marching queer😆

  2. JASON Y If your IQ is over 90 or under 120 your job is endangered because of technology. Robots cannot clean toilets or write computer code but jobs between these like sales, travel agencies, librarians, managers….it’s all going the way of the mix cassette tape.

    My point…many people will need free food unless they chose to became police officers, nurses, plumbers.

    And everywhere is so video-taped that the days of LAW & ORDER street cops are going to vanish…sell a nickle bag in your closet and the law will know about it.

  3. Stary Wylk

    Competition is the difference between free enterprise and capitalism. Once a capitalist gets enough influence (usually, but not necessarily, money) he uses it to get the lawmakers to restrict anyone who might compete with him. This is contrary to media promotion of the belief that the two terms mean the same thing.

  4. We have to be careful not to cross the line of subsidizing poor women having children because in that case single poor mothers will intentionally have children just to collect welfare. And I’m sure you’ve seen the statistics about how children raised by single mothers are far more likely to become anti-social, criminal, suicide, etc.

    Single mothers produce future criminals!

    • MAGNETO Subsidization and Testicles

      A) Average father is a low-life or thug (Of ANY race) who simply does not care 10 seconds after he is finished having sex.

      B) Average father is a drug user or alcoholic who cannot remember how many women he has slept with in any given month. 10-20 on average.

      C) Average father for purposes of sexual enjoyment will target females who are 1) Young 2) Stupid 3) Under the influence of Drugs.

      D) Average father is employed in low-paying work or not employed.

      E) Average father will impregnate 5-10 women in his lifetime accidentally.

      These males constitute 10% of any population.

      Would you remove their testes?

      • Jason Y

        Good point. Why make the mother always pay? Why not the father.

        • EPGAH

          Good luck tracing the father, especially when the breeder refuses to name a father on the Birth Certificate!

        • Rich males pay a lifetime settlement when they unintentionally impregnate some woman they have no interest in supporting. Clint Eastwood has done this 4 times! 4 Million per child. No problem for the state or society.

          But MOST MALES IMPREGNATING FEMALES DO NOT REMEMBER WHICH VAGINA THEY SHOT A LOAD INTO BECAUSE THEY WERE “UNDER THE INFLUENCE”.

          THESE LOW-INCOME MALES HAVE SEX WITH 20 PARTNERS A MONTH.

        • Jason Y

          Rich males pay a lifetime settlement when they unintentionally impregnate some woman they have no interest in supporting. Clint Eastwood has done this 4 times!

          Are you feeling lucky?? Well ARE YOU LADY??? 😆

        • Jason Y

          Maybe next time Clint Eastwood should have a conversation with a blow up sex doll, not a chair. 😆

        • In various accounts Clint Eastwood as a young man was quite aimless and hung around bars playing Piano for beer. He worked as a lumberjack and car mechanic.

          Another words he is what he appears to be, only successful.

          He fathered many children with women of varied ethnic backgrounds. Four out of wedlock.

          But of course he payed for them-though because he was born quite poor and knew the value of a penny $4 million for a few screws must seem quite expensive.

          Two or three kids are legitimate and the rest are not.

        • Jason Y

          Eastwood is actually a great fan of jazz music.

        • Jason Y

          Eastwood took a good stab at WNs in Pink Cadillac. Of course, the Jewish media had a biased portrayal, but you gotta admit a lot of the WN stereotypes were accurate, and funny.

    • You can’t criticize welfare, the welfare state or any welfare programs on here, Magneto. I ban on that. Sorry.

      Thing is women do not have more kids to get more welfare. The cost of a new kid far exceeds the small amount of increased check you get, so you would have to be retarded to keep having kids to up the welfare check. Anyway, Black women have as many kids as White women now, and both are below replacement.

      I guess my position is that people have a right to survive. Even if you don’t want the mother to live, the kid at least must be supported in one way or another, if not by the mother, than by the state.

  5. Homer Simpson

    Concerning the last so-called right to having internet access, wouldn’t it not be better to put it under out-right public ownership of some kind, or @ least start treating it the same as we do public roads, that’s if we are going to start giving people the right to internet access ? As it is a natural monopoly in the more people or things connected to such networks, the more valuable it becomes, as with other utilities as well.

    • It ought to be under public ownership really. DSL is a natural monopoly. Cable is a natural monopoly. Satellite appears to be a natural monopoly. The cost of providing wi-fi access is about zero and a number of cities have tried to offer that, but Republicans made legislation to stop them from doing it!

      • EPGAH

        Actually, so did Democrats.

        And no, the cost of providing WiFi access is nonzero, otherwise you would open up your router, turn off the password, right? WiFi is also slower than hardwire by at least a factor of 10. Hell, that’s the whole idea of MAC Addresses
        Plus, the more people on one access point, the slower it is for everyone. Think of a congested highway–maybe China’s week-long traffic-jam if it helps?–vs. having a country road all to yourself.
        Most importantly, at some point, it connects into the Internet by an actual hardwire, and that line has to be paid for, even if it doesn’t have to be maintained.

        DSL and Cable fight each other, Speed vs. Price (Cable is faster, DSL is cheaper) except on University grounds, where AT&T (DSL) is given a LEGAL monopoly. People who can afford it go T1 or even T3 if they have more money than brains, and give the slowpokes on Cable and DSL the Finger.

        Satellite IS a natural monopoly, because noone in their right minds would accept speeds just over dialup if they had ANY other option! BUT if you are THAT far out in the sticks, you have no other viable option. It’s that or dialup. Or you can pay some ridiculous 5-figure sum to get Cable or DSL to extend their service a quarter mile. This is not hypothetical, I was actually IN such a situation a few years back.

        Full Disclosure: I have Cable, 50 mbps. I like my speed and I would not appreciate a bunch of freeloaders slowing it down for me. And no, I would not trust an “If You Like Your Speed, You Can Keep Your Speed” slogan.

      • EPGAH

        Also, if you have ANY kind of privacy concerns, you would not want to be on Government-supplied Internet, as that would give them a legal and even ethical right to snoop through your private correspondence.

        Something along the lines of:
        If they’re the ones paying for it, they own all traffic on it, and thus can read “their” traffic.

        • Jason Y

          OK, good point here. Note also, ironically, Robert likes to venture on the dark side of stuff, so I’m sure a nosy government would be the last thing he would want.

        • Homer Simpson

          Maybe having internet access from a non profit co-op could help alleviate those concerns. I don’t know.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s