Interviewer misinformed/full of it?

[laricb]

---

Members don't see this ad.

than*

Seriously.... I mean I am running forming an assumption here based on the fact that I have never met a physician, resident, or med student who didn't care enough about looking to dumb to just proofread a little. I'm still saying you are just an average college kid who is making things up.[/QUOTE And I believe you are still an assxxxx. Please check my spelling and grammer

 

[SpecterGT260]

I'll admit my knowledge on this subject is limited to listening to doctors complain about law suits and watching the movie "Hot Coffee". I just feel that in some cases tort reform ends hurting patients who actually do deserve and need the money they receive from litigation. It's not all frivilous lawsuits, I think sometimes we forget that.

I do agree with you here. The goal is to try to find a solution that doesn't put too many obstacles in the way of patients getting what they need when something has gone wrong. However, I personally find money seeking following a tragedy to be completely insulting to the person who incurred the injury (in cases of death) or at least undermines what the person dealt with in cases of injury. "Oh, didn't seem to hurt bad enough to prevent you from holding your hand out" 🙄. Parents doing it when they lose a kid (and not just in healthcare, but any time a kid dies SOMEONE is getting sued) makes me even more mad. How about you put some time into grieving your kid rather than trying to cash in? 😡 right? That is where my #4 came from, and why I admitted it wouldnt be well received. It is just a personal thing. The other ones I feel would still protect patients quite a bit, with the exception of counter suits. But a 3rd party board can be both the best advocate for the patient and the doctor at the same time. The key is to not base judgments of harm on emotional responses. That is all that happened in the Hopkins case. The jury saw a sick baby, well obviously someone's gotta pay, and obviously it is whoever in the room has the most coinage . That isnt justice. That poor kid suffered at the hands of his parents poor judgement and nobody else. And now a hospital that helps thousands and leads in medical advances has to figure out how it is going to recoup $55million paid against all logic and reason. THAT is harm, in my book.

 

[SpecterGT260]

And I believe you are still an assxxxx. Please check my spelling and grammer

ok.

Grammar*

Hint: the little typey box will put a red squiggle under words that are not actually words.
This is so bad I think I might just be getting trolled.... Nobody is this dumb....

 

[0TopCat0]

you're*
ass*
There are also significant punctuation issues happening here, but there is no convenient way to asterisk them in there

Do you argue on here just to entertain yourself during your free time?
Seriously, it's as if in almost every thread I click on here you're arguing aggressively with someone.

We get it bro, you're a SDN badass.

 

[music2doc]

What if its a homeless teen under 18 with no access to anyone with legal custody over them. If the soonest another physician can see this patient is a week or more after, it might be too late to receive emergency contraception and now the patient is dealing with an actual pregnancy and must go through an actual abortion causing further emotional harm. Also I would assume rape treatment is an emergency situation and thus providing emergency contraception would be part of that treatment.

It seems the situation would not be black and white.

Why did she wait until the very last week to seek Tx?

Assuming it was not a case of rape, why did she go out and have unprotected sex, thereby risking an unwanted pregnancy, when she was clearly unprepared for the consequences? Unlinking consequences from behavior isn't really the job of a physician. (It may be the job of a lawyer, however....)

Sure, when feasible an elective abortion may be convenient for such a woman, but by no means is an elective procedure a right. It is a privilege. Healthcare, in and of itself, is a privilege and not a right, because a right, by definition, cannot impinge upon the rights of others. A right cannot require another person to perform an act of service.

According to Locke, there are 3 natural rights:

Life: everyone is entitled to live once they are created.
Liberty: everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn't conflict with the first right.
Estate: everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn't conflict with the first two rights.

In other words, no murder, no enslavement, no stealing to put it simply. To force a physician to perform an elective procedure is to violate the 2nd of those rights.

In the case of rape or high risk to the mother, however, I would go out of my way to assist in finding an appropriate referral.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Do you argue on here just to entertain yourself during your free time?
Seriously, it's as if in almost every thread I click on here you're arguing aggressively with someone.

We get it bro, you're a SDN badass.

sometimes . Usually it is in a thread on a topic I actually care about. In other cases, like this, it is because a troll with conflicting stories and bad advice has been derailing threads all across the boards spreading his nonsense. IMO it is easier to just make them frustrated enough that they go away. It is also my opinion that people should try to glean some context out of discussions before just hopping to the defense of the oober troll that is annoying everyone else in the thread as well and making themselves look rather foolish 😉

p.s. I appreciate your good grammar 👍

 

[laricb]

Do you argue on here just to entertain yourself during your free time?
Seriously, it's as if in almost every thread I click on here you're arguing aggressively with someone.

We get it bro, you're a SDN badass.

Finally you get it ASSXXXX. Have a nice day. I need to go study for my Chem test. Don't forget to check my spelling and grammar. We will talk again, just having fun with you don't take it personnel assxxxx.

 

[Romz]

.. So you're saying that the poop hotdog is a no-go?

Probably not...

 

[sliceofbread136]

Healthcare, in and of itself, is a privilege and not a right

I don't think many American politicians, doctors, or anyone would really agree with that statement..

 

[SpecterGT260]

Finally you get it ASSXXXX. Have a nice day. I need to go study for my Chem test. Don't forget to check my spelling and grammar. We will talk again, just having fun with you don't take it personnel assxxxx.

So which personality are we talking to now?

See, topcat? You feed the troll and now it thinks it has a point.

 

[def1]

Finally you get it ASSXXXX. Have a nice day. I need to go study for my Chem test. Don't forget to check my spelling and grammar. We will talk again, just having fun with you don't take it personnel assxxxx.

An anesthesiologist resident still needs to take chem tests?

 

[MiracleforMD]

Do you argue on here just to entertain yourself during your free time?
Seriously, it's as if in almost every thread I click on here you're arguing aggressively with someone.

We get it bro, you're a SDN badass.

Specter, if you had just responded:

"an*"

I would have slow clapped you off into the sunset.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Specter, if you had just responded:

"an*"

I would have slow clapped you off into the sunset.

CRAP!


[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaYjHNFzeeg[/YOUTUBE]


oh well, it isnt the point to pick on real members. The noob who claims to be the chem test taking gas resident father of someone 4 years younger than him at SGU, on the other hand....

 

[def1]

Why did she wait until the very last week to seek Tx?

Assuming it was not a case of rape, why did she go out and have unprotected sex, thereby risking an unwanted pregnancy, when she was clearly unprepared for the consequences? Unlinking consequences from behavior isn't really the job of a physician. (It may be the job of a lawyer, however....)

Sure, when feasible an elective abortion may be convenient for such a woman, but by no means is an elective procedure a right. It is a privilege. Healthcare, in and of itself, is a privilege and not a right, because a right, by definition, cannot impinge upon the rights of others. A right cannot require another person to perform an act of service.

According to Locke, there are 3 natural rights:



In other words, no murder, no enslavement, no stealing to put it simply. To force a physician to perform an elective procedure is to violate the 2nd of those rights.

In the case of rape or high risk to the mother, however, I would go out of my way to assist in finding an appropriate referral.

Physicians are forced to treat in emergency situations as it is their duty to treat. Its true outside of the hospital you arent obligated to treat, but if you are seeing a patient which initiates a patient-physician contract then you are obligated to treat in an emergency situation.

Also from what I know, emergency contraception can only occur within the first 5 days after sex. And there are a lot of reasons why a rape victim might not go to the doctor right away such as shame, guilt, etc.

 

[sliceofbread136]

Physicians are forced to treat in emergency situations as it is their duty to treat. Its true outside of the hospital you arent obligated to treat, but if you are seeing a patient which initiates a patient-physician contract then you are obligated to treat in an emergency situation.

Also from what I know, emergency contraception can only occur within the first 5 days after sex. And there are a lot of reasons why a rape victim might not go to the doctor right away such as shame, guilt, etc.

Why wouldn't they just go to HEB?

 

[SpecterGT260]

Physicians are forced to treat in emergency situations as it is their duty to treat. Its true outside of the hospital you arent obligated to treat, but if you are seeing a patient which initiates a patient-physician contract then you are obligated to treat in an emergency situation.

Also from what I know, emergency contraception can only occur within the first 5 days after sex. And there are a lot of reasons why a rape victim might not go to the doctor right away such as shame, guilt, etc.

remember, PlanB is OTC. You dont need a doctor to get it. I can go get one right now if I want. Just walk into the pharmacy and sign for it.

However you are correct in that many times issues of shame, guilt, fear, denial, whatever will keep a woman from seeking this in the necessary time. However you can still chemically induce an abortion (i.e. cause miscarriage) any time in the first trimester without too many complications.

 

[MiracleforMD]

Physicians are forced to treat in emergency situations as it is their duty to treat. Its true outside of the hospital you arent obligated to treat, but if you are seeing a patient which initiates a patient-physician contract then you are obligated to treat in an emergency situation.

Also from what I know, emergency contraception can only occur within the first 5 days after sex. And there are a lot of reasons why a rape victim might not go to the doctor right away such as shame, guilt, etc.

You seem to have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

 

[MiracleforMD]

remember, PlanB is OTC. You dont need a doctor to get it. I can go get one right now if I want. Just walk into the pharmacy and sign for it.

However you are correct in that many times issues of shame, guilt, fear, denial, whatever will keep a woman from seeking this in the necessary time. However you can still chemically induce an abortion (i.e. cause miscarriage) any time in the first trimester without too many complications.

Methotrexate FTW.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Methotrexate FTW.

I laughed and shuttered at the same time



like that lol. I was thinking mifepristone. There is a reason we give folate to preggers ladies

 

[music2doc]

I don't think many American politicians, doctors, or anyone would really agree with that statement..

Actually, many do....


One classic article on this is from 1993 by Dr. Leonard Peikoff. He essentially breaks down what rights are from an American standpoint.

An article in Forbes nicely summarizes some key points as well.

I would agree with this blog post that healthcare is a basic need that we all have the right to pursue -- in much the same way we have the basic right to pursue eating, sleeping, or shelter. Should there be systems set up to assist those in need with each of those things? Absolutely. Do they have a "right" to be given those things by another person whenever or however they demand them? Absolutely not. Your right is to pursue something, not to automatically be given it. A restaurant can refuse to feed you at their discretion. Unless you show it is for something protected (i.e., racism), a lawsuit would be thrown out. (They can say it was because of all sorts of reasons -- you were rude to the hostess, other patrons stated they felt uncomfortable with you present, your clothing was inappropriate for the establishment, etc.).

I would agree with Dr. Mitchell Brooks, an orthopedic surgeon, who states that

If one does not accept responsibility for his or her actions, there are no consequences for a particular behavior and when translated into the delivery of medical care, that only means increased expenditure. "Rights" are either things you, as a free citizen, may do either without interference (with the implicit caveat that you do no harm to others during the conducting of the specific activity deemed a right) or may not be done to you without permission (such as search and seizure).

What is implicit in a right is a protection but not a gift of goods and services created because of the work, sweat, time and capital investment of others. If healthcare is indeed a right, then these healthcare goods must then be seized forcibly, by law or by theft, from others who have provided them in what is a frank violation of their right not to be robbed of their property. This then begs the question of whether the absolute right to healthcare also involves the right to steal from those who produce the goods and services necessary for that care. In a broader sense one must also ask where do one's rights end? Do they extend to food, or housing or a job?

As for lawyers and judges, Chief Judge Roberts himself, literally the highest legal authority in the entire country, has effectively stated that healthcare is not a right.

Here, we have an article by authors from the British Medical Journal on the subject.

Here is an article by a Dr. Williams concerning the same topic.

 

[0TopCat0]

Finally you get it ASSXXXX. Have a nice day. I need to go study for my Chem test. Don't forget to check my spelling and grammar. We will talk again, just having fun with you don't take it personnel assxxxx.

I was in no way trying to defend you. I read your comment on the first page, and it was absurd. Specter was definitely right when he said you were wrong.


Specter, I've read a lot of your comments on here, and I do respect you. I know you're an intelligent individual.

You just seem so aggressive sometimes, :\.

chill a little dude

>

 

[LizzyM]

Moral of the story? Don't be an obgyn.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile

Moral of the story? Say "blood transfusion" or "euthanasia".

 

[def1]

remember, PlanB is OTC. You dont need a doctor to get it. I can go get one right now if I want. Just walk into the pharmacy and sign for it.

However you are correct in that many times issues of shame, guilt, fear, denial, whatever will keep a woman from seeking this in the necessary time. However you can still chemically induce an abortion (i.e. cause miscarriage) any time in the first trimester without too many complications.

Yea but my scenario was for a teen under 17 with no legal guardian to sign for her.

And its not so much the ability to still induce an abortion, however, a woman might feel more obligated to keep the pregnancy then to just prevent one from happening which is where the psychological harm comes from.

 

[sliceofbread136]

Actually, many do....


One classic article on this is from 1993 by Dr. Leonard Peikoff. He essentially breaks down what rights are from an American standpoint.

An article in Forbes nicely summarizes some key points as well.

I would agree with this blog post that healthcare is a basic need that we all have the right to pursue -- in much the same way we have the basic right to pursue eating, sleeping, or shelter. Should there be systems set up to assist those in need with each of those things? Absolutely. Do they have a "right" to be given those things by another person whenever or however they demand them? Absolutely not. Your right is to pursue something, not to automatically be given it. A restaurant can refuse to feed you at their discretion. Unless you show it is for something protected (i.e., racism), a lawsuit would be thrown out. (They can say it was because of all sorts of reasons -- you were rude to the hostess, other patrons stated they felt uncomfortable with you present, your clothing was inappropriate for the establishment, etc.).

Dr. Mitchell Brooks, an orthopedic surgeon, states that

My point was more that the general consensus in america is that health care is a right

 

[PikminOC]

My point was more that the general consensus in america is that health care is a right

Oh snap.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I was in no way trying to defend you. I read your comment on the first page, and it was absurd. Specter was definitely right when he said you were wrong.


Specter, I've read a lot of your comments on here, and I do respect you. I know you're an intelligent individual.

You just seem so aggressive sometimes, :\.

chill a little dude

>

That is fair I suppose, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. I just try to oppose the idea that I haul off swinging unprovoked. I just tend to not have as slow a transition into "sarcastic ASSXXXX" as many people do when someone is being obnoxious

 

[SpecterGT260]

My point was more that the general consensus in america is that health care is a right

consensus doesnt really dictate truth. Even if we DID adopt universal healthcare.. that doesn't necessitate that it is a right. The general consensus is that they want access to care. They call it a "right" because in this country we have had them for so long that we forget what it really means when something is a "right".

 

[sliceofbread136]

consensus doesnt really dictate truth. Even if we DID adopt universal healthcare.. that doesn't necessitate that it is a right. The general consensus is that they want access to care. They call it a "right" because in this country we have had them for so long that we forget what it really means when something is a "right".

Even without universal healthcare we mostly recognize healthcare as a right. I think it kinda contradicts the system we have in place which is why we need to change it.

 

[music2doc]

My point was more that the general consensus in america is that health care is a right

And the general consensus around the world is that, in general, Americans are idiots.

 

[Faol]

My point was more that the general consensus in america is that health care is a right

I have not heard of that consensus. I must live in a different America.

 

[sliceofbread136]

And the general consensus around the world is that, in general, Americans are idiots.

Don't the majority of foreign countries have universal healthcare? So wouldn't the believe it even more?

 

[Faol]

consensus doesnt really dictate truth. Even if we DID adopt universal healthcare.. that doesn't necessitate that it is a right. The general consensus is that they want access to care. They call it a "right" because in this country we have had them for so long that we forget what it really means when something is a "right".

This is the consensus I hear.

 

[sliceofbread136]

I have not heard of that consensus. I must live in a different America.

Maybe

 

[def1]

Even without universal healthcare we mostly recognize healthcare as a right. I think it kinda contradicts the system we have in place which is why we need to change it.

If healthcare is a right then that will make for a lot more gray areas. Is plastic surgery to fix the way your nose looks a right too?

I think its better to say Physicians are granted the ability to treat patients and with that ability have a duty to perform it when it is a necessity.

 

[sector9]

This is a reminder that personal attacks are not allowed. Please keep the discussion civil

Thanks

 

[music2doc]

If healthcare is a right then that will make for a lot more gray areas. Is plastic surgery to fix the way your nose looks a right too?

I think its better to say Physicians are granted the ability to treat patients and with that ability have a duty to perform it.

Without any limitations, qualifications, or restrictions on that declaration of duty, you have just made healthcare a right.

 

[def1]

Without any limitations, qualifications, or restrictions on that declaration of duty, you have just made healthcare a right.

Yea I went back to edit it to say if its a necessity (emergency situations) which is pretty much the way we have it now.

Also I was referring to duty in a moral sense, not necessarily a legal sense. Doctors should feel morally obligated to help those in need.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Even without universal healthcare we mostly recognize healthcare as a right. I think it kinda contradicts the system we have in place which is why we need to change it.

How so? Healthcare is fundamentally different from all other rights we have and enforce in this country. Every right we have in "The Bill" and later amendments addresses 1 issue: protection from having something taken from you in the pursuit of your own interests.

you have the right to not be hampered or otherwise kept from pursuing your own ends under your own power and ability. Amendments that follow this include right to vote, right to own property, right to life and liberty. In each of these things the individual is being allowed to do something without risk of denial, but in none of these situations is the individual getting something he or she wouldnt otherwise have had on their own.

Healthcare does not fit this mould. Claiming a right to healthcare does not protect anyone from having something TAKEN AWAY. What it does is dictates that someone (namely the physician or those who pay them) are forced to give resources towards the pursuit of someone ELSE'S interests. This is fundamentally opposite of what every other right in our books hopes to achieve. Healthcare is not, and cannot be a right.

Now, that doesnt mean that I am opposed to universal healthcare. I just don't like it being compared to basic human rights. If you want to think of basic human rights you need to think of examples of oppression and exploitation. It is inappropriate to think about it in terms of who has the most need. That is irrelevant to what a "right" is. your basic human rights do not change with your specific level of need - that is a core concept to the rest of the rights that we enjoy (that you dont have more rights because you are rich, but this sword swings both ways). There is nothing oppressive about telling someone who needs healthcare that they must pay for the service. Technically speaking, it is oppressive to force someone else to provide it against their will and without the expectation of payment. This is true regardless of the relative impact it will have on both patient and provider.

That said, I think universal healthcare can be a very good thing for a society. Just as welfare isnt a "right", neither should healthcare be, but we should do it because of the positive impact it will have for us as a whole (and I would argue that universal healthcare > welfare any day). The key in my mind is to avoid thinking of it as an automatic right because then we get laws that make it more of a drain on our society than a benefit. It also makes people think that they are exempt from paying into it, when reality getting something for nothing is a concept that is never once reflected in any of our rights or constitutional amendments.

 

[SpecterGT260]

And the general consensus around the world is that, in general, Americans are idiots.

we could also go with "in the 1600s the consensus was that the world was flat. Therefore the world didnt become a sphere until later"

Majority or consensus rule doesnt mean anything other than an indication of what most people believe. 👍

 

[MiracleforMD]

Even without universal healthcare we mostly recognize healthcare as a right. I think it kinda contradicts the system we have in place which is why we need to change it.

Healthcare requires the education, time and labor of others. It is a commodity. Same as food, water, and shelter. All are very important, if not vital to survival, but that does not make them rights.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Yes. You have the right to not be robbed as you provide for yourself. You do NOT have the right to be provided for by the labor of others. We have some laws which do allow for this, but that doesn't make them rights (to anyone who wanted to cite gov programs as if that stood as a valid contradiction 😎). These rights are independent of social status by nature and we tend to forget that it is a double edged sword. Just like the rich cannot make the poor labor for their benefit (as was the inciting event in creation of these rights) the poor cannot do it to the rich either.

 

[sliceofbread136]

Without any limitations, qualifications, or restrictions on that declaration of duty, you have just made healthcare a right.

This isn't true. Many rights have quite a few restrictions, like freedom of speech.

 

[MiracleforMD]

This isn't true. Many rights have quite a few restrictions, like freedom of speech.

The only real restrictions on freedom of speech are when others rights or safety is at risk. Their fundamental rights supersede your granted ones.

 

[487806]

sometimes . Usually it is in a thread on a topic I actually care about. In other cases, like this, it is because a troll with conflicting stories and bad advice has been derailing threads all across the boards spreading his nonsense. IMO it is easier to just make them frustrated enough that they go away. It is also my opinion that people should try to glean some context out of discussions before just hopping to the defense of the oober troll that is annoying everyone else in the thread as well and making themselves look rather foolish 😉

p.s. I appreciate your good grammar 👍

Ignore your critics, specter. You bring the joy in SDN.

 

[sliceofbread136]

Healthcare is not, and cannot be a right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_health

Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 states that "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health, and wellbeing of himself and his family..."

The Preamble to the World Health Organisation's (WHO) constitution also declares that it is one of the fundamental rights of every human being to enjoy "the highest attainable standard of health".

The United Nations further defined the right to health in Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1966. The Covenant guarantees the "right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health"



However our own bill of rights doesn't mention it. Based on my quick 10 second google research it seems this actually was a heated debate on this in the past. Atleast from what I'm seeing though, there is definitely a shift toward it being a right.

 

[MiracleforMD]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_health

Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 states that "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health, and wellbeing of himself and his family..."

The Preamble to the World Health Organisation's (WHO) constitution also declares that it is one of the fundamental rights of every human being to enjoy "the highest attainable standard of health".

The United Nations further defined the right to health in Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1966. The Covenant guarantees the "right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health"




However our own bill of rights doesn't mention it. Based on my quick 10 second google research it seems this actually was a heated debate on this in the past. Atleast from what I'm seeing though, there is definitely a shift toward it being a right.

Everyone would die in 3-5 days without drinking water (or other liquids). Should PO liquids be free?

I understand what you're saying man and I feel the same way. Everyone should have healthcare. It just isn't that easy though. The goal is to make it reasonably affordable for everyone just like we do with water, good, natural gas, and electricity.

 

[SpecterGT260]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_health

Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 states that "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health, and wellbeing of himself and his family..."

The Preamble to the World Health Organisation's (WHO) constitution also declares that it is one of the fundamental rights of every human being to enjoy "the highest attainable standard of health".

The United Nations further defined the right to health in Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1966. The Covenant guarantees the "right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health"



However our own bill of rights doesn't mention it. Based on my quick 10 second google research it seems this actually was a heated debate on this in the past. Atleast from what I'm seeing though, there is definitely a shift toward it being a right.

I am mostly disagreeing with the way the word is being used. I am not really interested in a list of people who misuse the word after I just got done saying most people misuse the word. "providing healthcare" is fundamentally opposite of every other real right we have. If we are just going to be caught on the semantics of this and that is secondary to the disagreement then we should just move on. If your point is "healthcare should be provided" then lets not worry about the nuance of what a "right' actually is and talk about the actual subject. 👍

 

[SpecterGT260]

Everyone would die in 3-5 days without drinking water (or other liquids). Should PO liquids be free?

I understand what you're saying man and I feel the same way. Everyone should have healthcare. It just isn't that easy though. The goal is to make it reasonably affordable for everyone just like we do with water, good, natural gas, and electricity.

There was a thread awhile back that talked about all of this as well. In there the point was made that "we have the right to bear arms, that doesn't mean that the government is going around stapling glocks to our hands". Having something as a "right" in no way means that it must also be provided by someone else. As I have said multiple times, we just don't have any rights that work that way. The legislation surrounding practice is another matter, but those laws should also not be confused as "rights".

 

[sliceofbread136]

Everyone would die in 3-5 days without drinking water (or other liquids). Should PO liquids be free?

I understand what you're saying man and I feel the same way. Everyone should have healthcare. It just isn't that easy though. The goal is to make it reasonably affordable for everyone just like we do with water, good, natural gas, and electricity.

Some would argue that people have a "right" to water, but I do think we are getting too much into the semantics of what the word right means. I think we are atleast in agreement that everyone should have healthcare and let's just leave it at that 🙂

 

[MiracleforMD]

Some would argue that people have a "right" to water, but I do think we are getting too much into the semantics of what the word right means. I think we are atleast in agreement that everyone should have healthcare and let's just leave it at that 🙂

Some people would argue they have a right to take ****s in the middle of the street. Does that make it right?

Agree with bolded. 👍