# Is healthcare a right?  why or why not?



## Bern80 (Sep 24, 2007)

Why do I ask?  To me it seems to be the most fundamental part of why some advocate for universal health care and why some advocate for privatized healthcare.  Every candidate on the dem ticket has a plan of some type for of universal or government run healthcare.  So I have to think that most of them think it is a right.  By extension then people basically have the right to good health it would seem.

The problem I have with it being a right is the concept of a 'right' itself.  A 'right' like the right to free speech or right to bear arms is something that is provided you without any cost or requirment to obtain access to.  You don't have to earn the right to free speech or pay a fee when you want to speak.  The conundrum I have with healthcare is if it is your right, that is you are under no personal responsibility to provide it for yourself, then who's responsibility is it, and why?  If I'm not paying for the services somone else must be.  According to Hillary anyway that will be increased taxes on the rich.  But wait healthcare is a right, so why should the rich be expected to pay for it?  It's a right so isn't it suppossed to be free to them as well?  Why should they be worried about their own health as well as those that can't pay for it?

Rush had a caller on today who was a female physician and basically asked the same question.  Why is she, a provider of a service like any other service, expected to provide it a reduced rate or free all together?  You can't control all aspects of your health anymore than you can control all aspects of your car working, but we expect people to pay to have their own car fixed even if not responsible for the problem, yet some have this expectation that when 'shit happens' where your health is concerned it's suppossed to be free to get 'fixed'.


----------



## Doug (Sep 24, 2007)

Good question. But note: the right to free speech can be interpreted to mean only that the government shall not undertake measures to limit your free speech. Now suppose that every time you tried to speak, someone else stopped you from doing so -- say, by standing next to you with a bullhorn, or bombing your newspaper, or rioting outside your editorial office when you print a cartoon they don't like. Do you have the "right" to demand that the government protect your free speech?

We certainly feel we have the right to demand that the government protect us from criminals, for example. But should we? Do we have a "right" to pursue our lives unmolested by criminal predators?

Also note that on the "right to bear arms", again, this is a kind of negative limitation on the government, not a positive demand that they provide you with arms to bear. However, if someone tried to take away your guns, you would expect the government to ... well, at least to come and carry away their corpse.

So ... are there any "rights" at all which require that the government do something, as opposed to refrain from doing something?


----------



## Mr.Conley (Sep 24, 2007)

Well, it depends. Morally? Yes Legally? Maybe not.


----------



## DiogenesDog (Sep 24, 2007)

If this were truly a Christian nation in the spirit that prevailed prior to the co-opting that took place in the reign of Constantine, it would be a sacrament.  

I propose such a sacrament be a benchmark or litmus test for the Divine health of the the nation's everlasting spirit.  

religion morality ethics  humanism 
(Don't mind me, I am just tagging.)

I AM


----------



## maineman (Sep 24, 2007)

It is a right?  probably not.  Is it something that the richest most powerful nation on earth ought to provide to its citizenry?  I would say so.


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 24, 2007)

No, there's no right.  An associated question might be, does a society have an obligation to ensure that health care is available to its citizens?  If there's agreement on that question then the next question is only how it should be funded.  If the answer to the question is no, society has no such obligation, then I'd suggest that the social contract has just been ripped up and there would be an argument for someone who was indigent and unable to afford health care would, simply by dint of survival, be able to steal money or commit a fraud to get the funds for their health care.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> It is a right?  probably not.  Is it something that the richest most powerful nation on earth ought to provide to its citizenry?  I would say so.



That's getting to it I suppose.  So why do you think we ought to?  Why is a society that simply provides things to people with no expectation of responsibility better than a society that ask its citizenry to have a level of responsibility to provide for it's own well being?

I hate to bring up Rush again because the left loves to just pick him apart but he noted that that mentality, where we do things that just feel good and right is an example of a sentiment of people who's hearts are disconnected from their brains (what makes sense vs. what feels good).  It feels good to say we 'ought to provide poeple free healthcare'.  But is that really what's best for the growth of a society?  Is it really best that a society over time learn that it can be dependant on others for what they need rather than take responsibility for providing it to themselves?


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 24, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> That's getting to it I suppose.  So why do you think we ought to?  Why is a society that simply provides things to people with no expectation of responsibility better than a society that ask its citizenry to have a level of responsibility to provide for it's own well being?
> 
> I hate to bring up Rush again because the left loves to just pick him apart but he noted that that mentality, where we do things that just feel good and right is an example of a sentiment of people who's hearts are disconnected from their brains (what makes sense vs. what feels good).  It feels good to say we 'ought to provide poeple free healthcare'.  But is that really what's best for the growth of a society?  Is it really best that a society over time learn that it can be dependant on others for what they need rather than take responsibility for providing it to themselves?




If you don't bring up Rush you deny us on the left the pleasure of mocking him.  Please feel free to bring him up whenever you wish  

Society ought to ensure healthcare is available to all its citizens.  How it should be funded is the moot point so, as usual, Rush is wrong.  Ah, the pleasure


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 24, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> If you don't bring up Rush you deny us on the left the pleasure of mocking him.  Please feel free to bring him up whenever you wish
> 
> Society ought to ensure healthcare is available to all its citizens.  How it should be funded is the moot point so, as usual, Rush is wrong.  Ah, the pleasure



Mock all you want.  I think it would behuve you to have actually listened to it instead of assuming he said something he didn't and thus just looking silly.

And you still haven't answered the question.  _Why_ should society do that?  Because again I don't see how breeding dependancy on government for the things we need helps a society strenghten itself.  If you want to get real technical we already do make sure those that need healthcare get it.


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 24, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> Mock all you want.  I think it would behuve you to have actually listened to it instead of assuming he said something he didn't and thus just looking silly.
> 
> And you still haven't answered the question.  _Why_ should society do that?  Because again I don't see how breeding dependancy on government for the things we need helps a society strenghten itself.  If you want to get real technical we already do make sure those that need healthcare get it.



I don't mind looking silly, I've gotten used to it over the years  

I answered your question but I'll answer the re-phrased question too.

Why should society ensure that healthcare is available?  Because it actually does strengthen society as opposed to promoting the interests of only those who can actually afford healthcare.  You mention "breeding dependency on government".  Does that mean that people shouldn't rely on government for anything?


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 24, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> I don't mind looking silly, I've gotten used to it over the years
> 
> I answered your question but I'll answer the re-phrased question too.
> 
> Why should society ensure that healthcare is available?  Because it actually does strengthen society as opposed to promoting the interests of only those who can actually afford healthcare.  You mention "breeding dependency on government".  Does that mean that people shouldn't rely on government for anything?



Certainly not.  I believe the government should provide things for people that they can't provide for themselves.  That's a big blanket statement I understand but I think it applies to most things.  The government should provide national security for example, ensure the safety of it's citizenry through police, provide healthcare and generally help those that can't help themselves.  But for the sake of society's betterment I think a line needs to be drawn between the truly indigent we shoudl provide for and the unwilling to provide for themselves. I just don't see a very productive society in one that has learned over time that all of their basic needs are going to be taken care of by someone else, do you?  Asked a different way, why is it _not_ your responsibility to provide for your own healthcare needs?


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 24, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> Certainly not.  I believe the government should provide things for people that they can't provide for themselves.  That's a big blanket statement I understand but I think it applies to most things.  The government should provide national security for example, ensure the safety of it's citizenry through police, provide healthcare and generally help those that can't help themselves.  But for the sake of society's betterment I think a line needs to be drawn between the truly indigent we shoudl provide for and the unwilling to provide for themselves. I just don't see a very productive society in one that has learned over time that all of their basic needs are going to be taken care of by someone else, do you?  Asked a different way, why is it _not_ your responsibility to provide for your own healthcare needs?



I think it's not so much a question of providing for healthcare needs as inquiring about how healthcare is to be provided of itself and how it's to be paid for.   I may over-simplify this somewhat but I'm going to try and keep this succinct.

For the sake of argument assume that there is in a society no concept of "insurance", in other words you can't transfer risk (for anything, not just healthcare) to anyone else.  So everyone in that society has to purchase healthcare services from the individual or corporate providers of those services.  Would that be a good society to live in?

(There are other examples I want to use but I don't want to post something several pages long so if it's okay with you and we can take one example at a time I'd appreciate it).


----------



## Shattered (Sep 24, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> If you don't bring up Rush you deny us on the left the pleasure of mocking him.  Please feel free to bring him up whenever you wish
> 
> *Society ought to ensure healthcare is available to all its citizens*.  How it should be funded is the moot point so, as usual, Rush is wrong.  Ah, the pleasure



Healthcare IS available to all citizens. All you need to do is pay for it.


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 24, 2007)

Shattered said:


> Healthcare IS available to all citizens. All you need to do is pay for it.



Exactly!  And that leads to the question, "what if it can't be paid for"


----------



## Shattered (Sep 24, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Exactly!  And that leads to the question, "what if it can't be paid for"



That leads to the answer "Get a job that offers it."


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 24, 2007)

Shattered said:


> That leads to the answer "Get a job that offers it."



Which leads me to the following:

Why should an employer be responsible?  They have enough costs already so why should they be burdened with more costs?  A big corporation with a very big workforce is going to be faced with a huge bill for health insurance if it's included in a labour contract.  Of course those costs are passed on to the consumer which means if you buy a Chevvy then you're paying extra so that GM can pay for the health insurance for the UAW members on its payroll.  

I would argue that spreading the cost on a social basis is far better.  Toyota is a much more competitive auto corporation than GM because, among other things, it's not burdened with a massive health insurance bill for its employees.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 24, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> For the sake of argument assume that there is in a society no concept of "insurance", in other words you can't transfer risk (for anything, not just healthcare) to anyone else.  So everyone in that society has to purchase healthcare services from the individual or corporate providers of those services.  Would that be a good society to live in?



Simple enough and one I have actually thought of.  Not quite like that.  But I do find it fascinating sometimes that we _do[i/] have the concept of insureance.  We have insureance (all kinds) because it is a way that people can pay for unexpected events that usally cost more than most can afford.  That is what your question assumes.  You would answer your last question 'no' because it assumes that without insureance few would be able to afford the costs, right?  The premise being that it would be bad to live in a society where no one could afford to essentially make themselves healthy.

And part of that response I think is the problem.  We don't dig far enough to uncover the real issue.  I prof I once had introduced to the concept of the five whys.  The theory being that when tackling a problem you usually have to ask the question 'why' at least five times in order to really identify a problem.  So why do we think there is a problem with our healthcare industry in the first place? It isn't because of a quality of care issue, the U.S. is probably the best in the world in terms of technology, physicians and resources.  The reason I think that we have a 'problem' with the healthcare industry is because it is so expensive.  I think that's the real issue.  We (as a nation) probably wouldn't be haveing this discussion as to rights or who should pay for it, etc., if the cost of a kidney transplant was $5.

One side of the argument is trying to fix the problem by haveing governement pay for it via taxes (which we already do to an extent anyway).  But really how is that any different from paying insureance premiums?  The goal and understanding of the situation are the same.  If costs are too much for most to afford, the best way to accomodate the most people is to gather a large pool of money together (via premiums or taxes) and from said pool pay for people's expenses as they arise.  The difference being that under a premium model there is greater responsibility on the individual to provide for their needs while there is less responsiblity for the individual under taxes.  The problem I have with the latter is that it is like me saying, 'Diuretic I can't pay for my healthcare costs, but since you have money and I don't (for whatever reason) you are going to be pay for my healthcare costs as well as your own.'  Whether through fault of my own or not, is that really fair?  Why should my medical costs be your concern at all?_


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 24, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Which leads me to the following:
> 
> Why should an employer be responsible?  They have enough costs already so why should they be burdened with more costs?  A big corporation with a very big workforce is going to be faced with a huge bill for health insurance if it's included in a labour contract.  Of course those costs are passed on to the consumer which means if you buy a Chevvy then you're paying extra so that GM can pay for the health insurance for the UAW members on its payroll.
> 
> I would argue that spreading the cost on a social basis is far better.  Toyota is a much more competitive auto corporation than GM because, among other things, it's not burdened with a massive health insurance bill for its employees.



I happened to agree with this and is another concept that I find truly fascinating.  Healthcare costs have become so expensive in this country that it is now the _expectation_ of employers to provide an insureance plan to their employees.  Again, paying for my healthcare isn't their responsibilty anymore than it is yours.


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 24, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> Simple enough and one I have actually thought of.  Not quite like that.  But I do find it fascinating sometimes that we _do[i/] have the concept of insureance.  We have insureance (all kinds) because it is a way that people can pay for unexpected events that usally cost more than most can afford.  That is what your question assumes.  You would answer your last question 'no' because it assumes that without insureance few would be able to afford the costs, right?  The premise being that it would be bad to live in a society where no one could afford to essentially make themselves healthy._


_

Yes, exactly right.  On the issue of insurance - it's a handy little invention I think.  I happen to believe that some things are the responsibility of the individual.  Let me give you an example.  This country, like yours, has bushfires from time to time.  And from time to time houses are lost in bushfires.  Would you be surprised to know that some people actually lived in bushfire-prone areas and didn't have insurance on their houses?  There they are moaning at the camera about having lost it all.  Tough.  They could afford the house, the car, the boat, the caravan but could't find the money for house insurance?  They're kidding.  And there they are moaning to the gummint that they should be compensated.  No, they shouldn't be.




			
				Bern80: said:
			
		


			And part of that response I think is the problem.  We don't dig far enough to uncover the real issue.  I prof I once had introduced to the concept of the five whys.  The theory being that when tackling a problem you usually have to ask the question 'why' at least five times in order to really identify a problem.  So why do we think there is a problem with our healthcare industry in the first place? It isn't because of a quality of care issue, the U.S. is probably the best in the world in terms of technology, physicians and resources.  The reason I think that we have a 'problem' with the healthcare industry is because it is so expensive.  I think that's the real issue.  We (as a nation) probably wouldn't be haveing this discussion as to rights or who should pay for it, etc., if the cost of a kidney transplant was $5.
		
Click to expand...



The Five Whys is really good, I use it in problem-solving situations, it helps to get to the real cause of a problem rather than simply the apparent cause.

No, there's no problem with the quality, as you've pointed out.  But yes the problem is with the cost.  Some can afford it, a lot can't (not without some sort of health insurance I mean).  




			
				Bern80: said:
			
		


			One side of the argument is trying to fix the problem by haveing governement pay for it via taxes (which we already do to an extent anyway).  But really how is that any different from paying insureance premiums?  The goal and understanding of the situation are the same.  If costs are too much for most to afford, the best way to accomodate the most people is to gather a large pool of money together (via premiums or taxes) and from said pool pay for people's expenses as they arise.  The difference being that under a premium model there is greater responsibility on the individual to provide for their needs while there is less responsiblity for the individual under taxes.  The problem I have with the latter is that it is like me saying, 'Diuretic I can't pay for my healthcare costs, but since you have money and I don't (for whatever reason) you are going to be pay for my healthcare costs as well as your own.'  Whether through fault of my own or not, is that really fair?  Why should my medical costs be your concern at all?
		
Click to expand...


That's more or less how it works here.  I need to point out I'm not banging on about how good our system is (the current federal government has underfunded it and is about to find out the cost of doing so at the next election).  We have a system of single-payer insurance for hospital health care and to support the costs of going to your family doctor (but not dental, that was killed by the current trogs in the fed govt).  It's paid for by our taxes.  We pay 1.5% extra to fund it.  There are private health insurance schemes available as well, I contribute to a scheme so I get extra benefits. 

People who are on low incomes or welfare will get free hospital and medical care.  Trust me they'd sooner be able to afford private health insurance because they'd get extras but those in need are able to get health care.  True, they will wait for elective surgery for example (see my point about the feds underfunding, that's the cause of it) but if they have urgent treatment they'll get it at no cost.  

I suppose the way we see it here is that it's only fair that everyone be able to get health care.  I could go on about that at length but that's pretty much the idea.  But there are some practical reasons too.  If someone is sick they'll go to the doc and not stay at home or take it to work because they can't afford to pay the bill.  So that troubling cough might be TB but it will be picked up because a person is not constrained from going to the doc through lack of money.  That means that it will be treated and the necessary interventions made to ensure others aren't infected.  That's just one example of the more utilitarian aspects.  As well our employers aren't burdened with the costs.  So there are hard-headed reasons for it._


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 24, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Yes, exactly right.  On the issue of insurance - it's a handy little invention I think.  I happen to believe that some things are the responsibility of the individual.  Let me give you an example.  This country, like yours, has bushfires from time to time.  And from time to time houses are lost in bushfires.  Would you be surprised to know that some people actually lived in bushfire-prone areas and didn't have insurance on their houses?  There they are moaning at the camera about having lost it all.  Tough.  They could afford the house, the car, the boat, the caravan but could't find the money for house insurance?  They're kidding.  And there they are moaning to the gummint that they should be compensated.  No, they shouldn't be.



Also true here.  As absolutely horrible as a disaster Katrina was, from a logical standpoint it's hard to see some of the gripes.  I mean come on, you chose to live in an area that is next to the ocean, _that is lower than the ocean_ (a sign that the French were a bunch of frickin geniuses).  

On an interesting personal note on wildfires.  Our family has a cabin in the mountains in the state of Montana which is dry and prone to forest fires in the summer. So what does the state provide?  Get this.  Up in the middle of nowhere the Montana fire service will not only fight the fires but they will actually wrap your house in tin foil to keep fire damage to a minimum, at no charge I might add.




Diuretic said:


> People who are on low incomes or welfare will get free hospital and medical care.  Trust me they'd sooner be able to afford private health insurance because they'd get extras but those in need are able to get health care.  True, they will wait for elective surgery for example (see my point about the feds underfunding, that's the cause of it) but if they have urgent treatment they'll get it at no cost.
> 
> I suppose the way we see it here is that it's only fair that everyone be able to get health care.  I could go on about that at length but that's pretty much the idea.  But there are some practical reasons too.  If someone is sick they'll go to the doc and not stay at home or take it to work because they can't afford to pay the bill.  So that troubling cough might be TB but it will be picked up because a person is not constrained from going to the doc through lack of money.  That means that it will be treated and the necessary interventions made to ensure others aren't infected.  That's just one example of the more utilitarian aspects.  As well our employers aren't burdened with the costs.  So there are hard-headed reasons for it.



And that is true here as well. Contrary to what some may argue if you need healthcare you won't be turned away regardless of whether you can pay.  I was in the ER myself this summer and it wasn't until after the ambulance ride and after they had finished treating me that how I was going to pay was even discussed.

The underfunding by the government is the main thing I'm worried about here.  My guess is we have far more demand here than in Australia and I don't see how the government is going to be able to provide an at least equally large pool of money to subsidize doctors and facilities, keep up with tech, and pay for services than the system we have now.  Right now we have lots of little pools of money due to all the insureance companies.

On top of that, whether she like it or not Hillary has already implicitly admitted that her system will not be as of high a quality or cover as much as private insureance companies.  Under her plan they will be allowed a private plan if you want but if you do you would actually pay a penalty for it to help subsidize her plan.  I beleive it is something like of you make more than $250k a year and have a private plan you will have to pay an extra tax on that plan?  Now why on earth would she propose that if her system is going to save the healthcare industry?


----------



## DiogenesDog (Sep 25, 2007)

> Healthcare IS available to all citizens. All you need to do is pay for it.
> Exactly! And that leads to the question, "what if it can't be paid for"


__________________
Save the wails...no, really, save the wails...
Reply With Quote



Shattered said:


> That leads to the answer "Get a job that offers it."



I am in a lot of places of business.  I hear things.  I know that the availability of healthcare is becoming less available to those who work.  I have healthcare because my wife is a successful CFP and retail financial services investment person in a closely held company.  My adopted daughter, who is 20, remains on our insurance because it is cheaper to keep her in school that to pay her premiums.  

Just go get a job is not the answer.  I would be able to get alone by by hook or by crook because I have access to a Veteran Administration HMO for which I pay a minuscule amount monthly.  
lic 
The President just recently quipped that healthcare is available to everyone in the country . . . "Just go to an emergency room."  What!?  Are they free.  Did they fall thru a crack in space/time for the benefit of uninsured sick earthlings?  

We have been fortunate in this country to have had a functioning public health service until just recent times.  Noone (I like the Scots phrase) cares a wit about public health until some fast moving plague (generic sense) threatens the insured and uninsured alike.  If this country comes to experience a catastrophic event of something like Katrina/\n, then the need for a seamless medical system will become quite evident in a very short time.  It those who think for the moment and the next quarters dividends, that will be caught quite short when they are standing in line with "those poor people" to have their traumas tended.  A major disaster will level the playing field pretty quickly.  

A truly Christian Nation would not have to be concerned with such evil BS. 

I believe that the divide here is not so much right and left but rather between the practical and the impractical.  If we were to sort the sheep from the gaits here, I have enough experience to know what the relative divide would look like. 

I believe that those with the jerkiest knees would be on one side and the thoughtful practicalist would be on the other.  

Are there utilitarian amongst us.  No, not Unitarians.  

I Am


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 25, 2007)

DiogenesDog said:


> __________________
> Save the wails...no, really, save the wails...
> Reply With Quote
> 
> ...



technically, no.  Practicallty, yes.  If you need an ER you will be seen and treated whether you can pay or not.  If you can't pay what is the hospital gonna do.  When was the last time you heard that a hospital sued someone who couldn't pay their ER bill?  



DiogenesDog said:


> We have been fortunate in this country to have had a functioning public health service until just recent times.  Noone (I like the Scots phrase) cares a wit about public health until some fast moving plague (generic sense) threatens the insured and uninsured alike.  If this country comes to experience a catastrophic event of something like Katrina/\n, then the need for a seamless medical system will become quite evident in a very short time.  It those who think for the moment and the next quarters dividends, that will be caught quite short when they are standing in line with "those poor people" to have their traumas tended.  A major disaster will level the playing field pretty quickly.



This is a complete falsehood.  Again if you need medical treatment in this country you will be treated whether you can pay or not.  It's the law.


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 25, 2007)

> On an interesting personal note on wildfires. Our family has a cabin in the mountains in the state of Montana which is dry and prone to forest fires in the summer. So what does the state provide? Get this. Up in the middle of nowhere the Montana fire service will not only fight the fires but they will actually wrap your house in tin foil to keep fire damage to a minimum, at no charge I might add.



I've heard of that being done there, great idea and top service too.  I hope they remember to keep the shiny side outwards though


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 25, 2007)

> Are there utilitarian amongst us. No, not Unitarians.



Yes but I've recently discovered the joy of Virtue Ethics as well


----------



## DiogenesDog (Sep 25, 2007)

Criminally and morally vacuously wrong.  

My dear friend Jim, now 80 had a fall a year ago.  He sustained a head wound and a radial fracture of the skull.  He was treated in a very qualified and successful hospital and contracted MRSA. (An antibiotic resistant bug that is epidemic in America' hospitals.)  When he recovered from that enough to be moved, he was infected with c-dif. (An antibiotic resistant bug in the gut that turns any thing in touches in the gut to an explosive excretion.  The bills for treatment were astronomical.  A part of them was paid by Medicare and part by a corporate retirement health policy with riders and supplements for extraordinary expenses.  The end result was that the hospiral did not forgive any part of the debt and after 180 days sold the discounted debt to a collection agency.  There were three seperate accounts in apparent arrears.  There were three separate collection agencies in predation because Jim and his wife live in a simple condo unit with a small mortage and a depth of equity from a balloon market.  They had a leased automobile with a reasonable payment and another three years to run on it.  Some other debts were outstanding that complicated their lives.  I walked them through bankruptcy under the new rules.  I rolled Jim into the hearing room in a wheel chair with two O2 bottles.  He is near deaf and has limited vision.  The bankruptcy official went through the formalities of the hearing with a competent attorney in another chair representing Jim and his equally aged wife.  In that room that day there were thirty others who were in business clothes and middle class business casual attire.  They ranged in age from 30 to Jim's 80.  I heard every story.  Bankruptcy is a very public affair.  Just because it has not happened to you or your parents . . . yet, there is no saying that just because you have done everything right, that it can not happen to you.  

Do you hold your thoughts and conclusions in certitude?  Have you ever had a near miss?  Have you ever been injured in an automobile accident? 

Your capacity for sympathy and compassion dictates by some universal quirk the amount of sympathy and compassion that will be returned to you in the here and now and in any form of eternity in which  you  may place your certitude.  

Are you a religious person.  What teaching in your religion has brought you to make the assertions that you make and the certitudes you hold?

I AM


----------



## DiogenesDog (Sep 25, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Yes but I've recently discovered the joy of Virtue Ethics as well



Mane being the Muddy Waters pronunciation of man in the classic blues piece, Manish Boy. 

Do you still post to P&CA?  I was quite saddened to discover the passing of Darwin's Friend - the King of Catalina.

I have had a long side trek since I signed on here last year at this time.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 25, 2007)

DiogenesDog said:


> Criminally and morally vacuously wrong.
> 
> My dear friend Jim, now 80 had a fall a year ago.  He sustained a head wound and a radial fracture of the skull.  He was treated in a very qualified and successful hospital and contracted MRSA. (An antibiotic resistant bug that is epidemic in America' hospitals.)  When he recovered from that enough to be moved, he was infected with c-dif. (An antibiotic resistant bug in the gut that turns any thing in touches in the gut to an explosive excretion.  The bills for treatment were astronomical.  A part of them was paid by Medicare and part by a corporate retirement health policy with riders and supplements for extraordinary expenses.  The end result was that the hospiral did not forgive any part of the debt and after 180 days sold the discounted debt to a collection agency.  There were three seperate accounts in apparent arrears.  There were three separate collection agencies in predation because Jim and his wife live in a simple condo unit with a small mortage and a depth of equity from a balloon market.  They had a leased automobile with a reasonable payment and another three years to run on it.  Some other debts were outstanding that complicated their lives.  I walked them through bankruptcy under the new rules.  I rolled Jim into the hearing room in a wheel chair with two O2 bottles.  He is near deaf and has limited vision.  The bankruptcy official went through the formalities of the hearing with a competent attorney in another chair representing Jim and his equally aged wife.  In that room that day there were thirty others who were in business clothes and middle class business casual attire.  They ranged in age from 30 to Jim's 80.  I heard every story.  Bankruptcy is a very public affair.  Just because it has not happened to you or your parents . . . yet, there is no saying that just because you have done everything right, that it can not happen to you.
> 
> Do you hold your thoughts and conclusions in certitude?  Have you ever had a near miss?  Have you ever been injured in an automobile accident?



Am I to assume you're talking to me? I fail to see how I am criminally wrong.  I also fail to see the point of the story.  I didn't see a claim anywhere that the individual wasn't treated to the best of someone's ability. Or that he was denied treatment based on his ability to pay. I honestly don't see the point your trying to make.  Is it that somehow, some way this person should have been relieved of his healthcare costs based on the level of his pain?  That's a little silly.  The level of your discomfort determines whether someone should have to pay or not? is that it?  Is it that we should live in a society where people don't have to worry about the cost of healthcare on top of whatever pain they may be going through?

I have never had a near miss.  I have had a bullet hit me right between the eyes so to speak.  I had cancer when I was four and several complications from that have effected me to this day.  My premiums are not cheap.  Is your point that because I and this individual have had complications above and beyond what most have and the medical expenses to prove it that we should be crying on the roof tops about how unfair it is and demand that someone take care of it for me?  Why is it someone elses problem more than it is mine?   Shit happens and while you may think that's unfair, it is equally unfair and morally wrong to beleive you're entitled to burden somene else with your 'shit'.




DiogenesDog said:


> Are you a religious person.  What teaching in your religion has brought you to make the assertions that you make and the certitudes you hold?



Not in the traditional sense, no.  But what I believe God wants is for people to help each other when needed.  Which is slightly different than God believeing individuals should be entitled to call upon others to relieve them of their burdens.


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 25, 2007)

DiogenesDog said:


> Mane being the Muddy Waters pronunciation of man in the classic blues piece, Manish Boy.
> 
> Do you still post to P&CA?  I was quite saddened to discover the passing of Darwin's Friend - the King of Catalina.
> 
> I have had a long side trek since I signed on here last year at this time.



I haven't been to P&CA for such a long time.  I fear its bookmark was wiped out in one of my many operating system reincarnations (said reincarnations usually being brought about by me wondering what this red button does or if this sparking new piece of software will enhance my digital experience ).  But I do appreciate the reminder.  It's a solid place that one, full of very, very good minds.  

And full of good philosophy.  And those of a liberal bent but not in a political sense, humanists, tolerant ones at that.  More "liberal" in the sense of Dr Johnson's paen to the booksellers, "for they are liberal men".  

I didn't know anyone from there had passed.  That's sad.  

And now I'm wracking my failing memory, the prose is familiar.  I have several suspects in mind


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Sep 25, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> I happened to agree with this and is another concept that I find truly fascinating.  Healthcare costs have become so expensive in this country that it is now the _expectation_ of employers to provide an insureance plan to their employees.  Again, paying for my healthcare isn't their responsibilty anymore than it is yours.



Originally health care was provided by some employers as a tool for recruitment and retention. It has since, I believe, been coded into law, requiring certain sized employers with certain types of employees to provide it. ( I think thats right, correct me if I am wrong) In other words Government creeped in and took over.


----------



## maineman (Sep 25, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> That's getting to it I suppose.  So why do you think we ought to?  Why is a society that simply provides things to people with no expectation of responsibility better than a society that ask its citizenry to have a level of responsibility to provide for it's own well being?
> 
> I hate to bring up Rush again because the left loves to just pick him apart but he noted that that mentality, where we do things that just feel good and right is an example of a sentiment of people who's hearts are disconnected from their brains (what makes sense vs. what feels good).  It feels good to say we 'ought to provide poeple free healthcare'.  But is that really what's best for the growth of a society?  Is it really best that a society over time learn that it can be dependant on others for what they need rather than take responsibility for providing it to themselves?



a few thoguhts.  I think that we are connected to one another.  I think we are perfectly happy to ask the children of dirt poor, uninsured parents to go fight and die for us... I think we should do what we can to not ignore their plight in life.  I think that taking care of the poor, the sick the feeble, the young, is a measure of the development of a society.  I think that the more preventative health care we can provide, the healthier our population will be and the healthier our workforce will be.    I think that those are both appropriate goals for society and I think that achieving them helps society run more efficiently.   It is a well known fact that healthcare delivered at the local emergency room is the least cost effective.  I think that to turn our backs on those less fortunate among us reeks of social darwinism and it flies in the face of my sense of humanity.

AND...I have never said anything about FREE healthcare and that was not part of your original question so it is a tad disingenuous to slip in it now.


----------



## roomy (Sep 25, 2007)

Coming, as I do, from a nation that provides health care for all through the national health service I would like to offer my two panneth worth.
It should be provided by the government for all without discrimination.It is enjoyed as a right by those living and working in Britain.For all of it's failings, of which there are many it is still, far and away the best way to ensure peace of mind for all people.Those rich enough to afford it can always opt to take out health insurance or pay privately, it may ensure an earlier appointment but doesn't necessarily mean better care.
To pay for this, money is deducted at source from wage earners, this is called national insurance and goes toward the health service, sickness benefit and unemployment benefit.The amount deducted is determined by the size of the wage packet.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 25, 2007)

maineman said:


> a few thoguhts.  I think that we are connected to one another.  I think we are perfectly happy to ask the children of dirt poor, uninsured parents to go fight and die for us... I think we should do what we can to not ignore their plight in life.  I think that taking care of the poor, the sick the feeble, the young, is a measure of the development of a society.  I think that the more preventative health care we can provide, the healthier our population will be and the healthier our workforce will be.    I think that those are both appropriate goals for society and I think that achieving them helps society run more efficiently.   It is a well known fact that healthcare delivered at the local emergency room is the least cost effective.  I think that to turn our backs on those less fortunate among us reeks of social darwinism and it flies in the face of my sense of humanity.



I don't disagree with that at all.  As I said I think government does have an obligation to help those that can't help themselves.  As far this particular debate is concerned however I'm not talking about them.  I'm talking about those that can afford to.  Let's take you as an example.  Not knowing whether true or not, let's assume you have the means to afford health insureance.  Again I want the who's responsible question answered.  Why are the dems proposing that your health should be more the governments responsiblity then your own?

If I had a slightly more conspiratorial mind set I would say that it is because they really want people to be dependant on government because the more dependant we are on it the more power they have over us.

Whether ER care is cost effective or not is not my point.  I'm well aware that it isn't.  In fact the fact that it is so cost ineffective is what is causing many CA hospitals to close due to large number of illegals who get services there.  The point was that I have heard the argument on this board (not neccessarily by you) that we dole out healthcare by who can pay.  That is also disingenuous.  If you need care you will be treated.



maineman said:


> AND...I have never said anything about FREE healthcare and that was not part of your original question so it is a tad disingenuous to slip in it now.



fair enough


----------



## maineman (Sep 25, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> I don't disagree with that at all.  As I said I think government does have an obligation to help those that can't help themselves.  As far this particular debate is concerned however I'm not talking about them.  I'm talking about those that can afford to.




a means test, by all means.  If a citizen can afford the very best healthcare money can buy out of their own pockets without batting an eye, the government would assist them minimally, if at all.  If a citizen could not afford any healthcare, the government would assist them to some politically determined maximum degree.  People on the scale in between those extremes would be asked to pay for incrementally appropriate portions of the cost of their care.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Sep 25, 2007)

Bern80 said:
			
		

> As far this particular debate is concerned however I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about those that can afford to. Let's take you as an example. Not knowing whether true or not, let's assume you have the means to afford health insureance. Again I want the who's responsible question answered. Why are the dems proposing that your health should be more the governments responsiblity then your own?
> 
> If I had a slightly more conspiratorial mind set I would say that it is because they really want people to be dependant on government because the more dependant we are on it the more power they have over us.



Now you're getting to the crux of the matter. 

Why is it politicians want to manage your health care?  They don't really.  They do, however, want POWER.  If they can control a man's health care, they can control the man.  Think of the votes they could muster with promises of shorter waits or more "free" CAT scans or better clinics.

When your employer controls your health care - and you have a child dependent on that health care, do you think you will pretty much do anything for that employer?  Sure thing.  You will because you need to remain on the payroll to keep that health care.  You're a partial serf.

It wouldn't be much different with government.  Except worse.  When they say your child must wait 4 months to get that much needed surgery you will have no recourse like a new job or to even buy individual insurance.  So your child gets to suffer in pain while you get to tear your hair out unless you can pay for an expensive private surgeon probably in the blackmarket or somewhere in another country.  Or maybe make special promises to that politician who can get your kid in early...  You're a full time serf.

Health care must exist in a free market.  That is the only way to place the power and control into the hands of the INDIVIDUAL so one can have choices and options in a FREE society.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 25, 2007)

maineman said:


> a means test, by all means.  If a citizen can afford the very best healthcare money can buy out of their own pockets without batting an eye, the government would assist them minimally, if at all.  If a citizen could not afford any healthcare, the government would assist them to some politically determined maximum degree.  People on the scale in between those extremes would be asked to pay for incrementally appropriate portions of the cost of their care.



Well and good, but you didn't answer the question.


----------



## maineman (Sep 25, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> Well and good, but you didn't answer the question.




this question?

*Again I want the who's responsible question answered. Why are the dems proposing that your health should be more the governments responsiblity then your own?
*

And in concert with my previous post, I don't think that dems are suggesting that one's health care SHOULD be more the governments responsibility than their own...I think they are saying that, in order to provide a basic level of health insurance to everyone, that the goverment will NEED to assume some responsibility for people depending on their ability to assume that responsibility themselves.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 25, 2007)

maineman said:


> this question?
> 
> *Again I want the who's responsible question answered. Why are the dems proposing that your health should be more the governments responsiblity then your own?
> *
> ...



But many of those mechanisms are already in place.  Even if your homeless and on the street, if you are in urgent need of healthcare you will get it regardless of ability to pay.  Most states have some form of state sponsored health care with premiums that are quite reasonable or downright cheap.

As screaming somewhat alluded to there has to be an option other than Hillary care that allows poeple to maintain the level of power they have in regards to their healthcare options and still make it affordable.  The plans that we know some about already take significant power and choice away from the individual.  Edward's plan would _require_ that people visit the doctor once a year.  Hillary's plan allows for private options but those makeing more than $250k a year will have an extra tax added to their plans to help fund a system that, implicitly admitted by such a tax, is of less quality than private plans.  That tax is on top of the higher tax rates she has propossed for all wealthy americans to pay for her plan who most likely won't be using it at all.


----------



## maineman (Sep 25, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> But many of those mechanisms are already in place.  Even if your homeless and on the street, if you are in urgent need of healthcare you will get it regardless of ability to pay.  Most states have some form of state sponsored health care with premiums that are quite reasonable or downright cheap.
> 
> As screaming somewhat alluded to there has to be an option other than Hillary care that allows poeple to maintain the level of power they have in regards to their healthcare options and still make it affordable.  The plans that we know some about already take significant power and choice away from the individual.  Edward's plan would _require_ that people visit the doctor once a year.  Hillary's plan allows for private options but those makeing more than $250k a year will have an extra tax added to their plans to help fund a system that, implicitly admitted by such a tax, is of less quality than private plans.  That tax is on top of the higher tax rates she has propossed for all wealthy americans to pay for her plan who most likely won't be using it at all.


I am not wedded to Hillary care...I am wedded to the idea that the richest strongest country on the face of the earth ought to be able to find some way to provide healthcare to ALL its citizens.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 25, 2007)

maineman said:


> I am not wedded to Hillary care...I am wedded to the idea that the richest strongest country on the face of the earth ought to be able to find some way to provide healthcare to ALL its citizens.



That is slightly different from your earlier assertion which I believe was those that can should be respsonsible for their own healthcare.  Isn't what your really mean to say is that the richest, strongest country in the world outght to be able to provide basic healthcare to those that can't provide for themselves?  That I can get behind.  

There are two ways to look at it.  Your way: the richest country in the world should provide healthcare to all (why, I don't know).  Perhaps you should try the five whys yourself on that one.

Or my way of looking at in that government isn't really strengthening a society by teaching it that someone else is and will be responsible for their basic needs.  I've said it before and I will say it again.  Dependency breeds complacency.  That's basic human nature.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Sep 25, 2007)

maineman said:


> I am not wedded to Hillary care...I am wedded to the idea that the richest strongest country on the face of the earth ought to be able to find some way to provide healthcare to ALL its citizens.



But you are wedded to socialism?  Or do you have a different answer?  The richest nation on earth is NOT obligated to provide healthcare to ALL no more than it is obligated to provide food and clothing and housing to ALL.  That is a morally wrong approach and against the principles of our Constitution.


----------



## CorpMediaSux (Sep 25, 2007)

Healthcare is a very difficult issue because it takes a debate that occurs in a lot of arenas and transports it into matters of life/death.  Here's my issue and its the issue I often have with conservatives who say that they don't believe in free handouts for the working poor be it for college scholarships, housing subsidies, food stamps or cancer treatment.  The government gives BILLIONS in subsidies to huge corporations, that employ the working poor. Why aren't those subsidies ear marked in such a way that forces them to provide healthcare. If you want tax payer subsidies for your business you should be forced to provide your employees with decent health coverate comensurate with their income.  Why is THAT not acceptable?

It seems like the conservatives want to have it both ways. They want corporatiosn to get billions in taxpayer money, but they don't want corporations to have any responsibility for providing healthcare or other quality of life guarantees to their employees.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 25, 2007)

CorpMediaSux said:


> Healthcare is a very difficult issue because it takes a debate that occurs in a lot of arenas and transports it into matters of life/death.  Here's my issue and its the issue I often have with conservatives who say that they don't believe in free handouts for the working poor be it for college scholarships, housing subsidies, food stamps or cancer treatment.  The government gives BILLIONS in subsidies to huge corporations, that employ the working poor. Why aren't those subsidies ear marked in such a way that forces them to provide healthcare. If you want tax payer subsidies for your business you should be forced to provide your employees with decent health coverate comensurate with their income.  Why is THAT not acceptable?
> 
> It seems like the conservatives want to have it both ways. They want corporatiosn to get billions in taxpayer money, but they don't want corporations to have any responsibility for providing healthcare or other quality of life guarantees to their employees.




It's hard to have a debate when your paragraph is rife with inaccurate assumptions unless your just translating to your convenience.  

Conservatives say they don't want free handouts to the poor?  This is not accurate in the least. Where did you see a true conservative say that?  Here's a free warning.  Generalizing gets you in trouble on this board fast. Conservatives are not oppossed to helping people that need help.  As I have said repeatedly before, we are oppossed to helping people that are fully capable of helping themselves.

On the subject of subsidies they are given for any number of reasons.  The main ones being either to level a playing field in areas such as farm subsidies and or to encourage certain types of beneficial behavior.  Your next faulty assumption is that comapnies are not already using these subsidies to help alleviate their healthcare costs.  Do you have any evidence at all that this is the case?

Perhaps you have fewer 'issues' with conservatives than you think because the 'issues' you have seem to be innaccurate assumptions with little supporting evidence.

What is true is that no we don't want companies to have to pay people's healthcare.  Why?  because for the upteenth time, IT ISN'T THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. I'll ask you the same question.  Why should the responsibilty for maintaining your health fall to an employer, the government or any other entity rather than you?


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 25, 2007)

ScreamingEagle said:


> But you are wedded to socialism?  Or do you have a different answer?  The richest nation on earth is NOT obligated to provide healthcare to ALL no more than it is obligated to provide food and clothing and housing to ALL.  That is a morally wrong approach and against the principles of our Constitution.




Why is it "morally wrong"?  And where is it unconstitutional?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Sep 25, 2007)

The reality is that large employers can better afford health care for their employees because of their work force SIZE. Insurance is cheaper for large groups , not so cheap for small groups and nearly impossible for single families.

A change needs to occur where single families can get into some kind of group so that costs go down.


----------



## DeadCanDance (Sep 25, 2007)

ScreamingEagle said:


> But you are wedded to socialism?  Or do you have a different answer?  *The richest nation on earth is NOT obligated to provide healthcare to ALL no more than it is obligated to provide food and clothing and housing to ALL.*  That is a morally wrong approach and against the principles of our Constitution.




I truly do hope you encourage republican candidates to repeat your message, over and over and over, to american voters.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 25, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> I truly do hope you encourage republican candidates to repeat your message, over and over and over, to american voters.



I'm sure you do.  It would probably even have the desired effect.  Let's be honest.  Who _want's_ to work for anything?  You're right.  The message of the rich, government, etc, not being obligated to provided for everything you need and that people need to do take responsibility for themselves isn't going to go over big with the American people.  That does not mean however that they would be right to think that.

Be honest.  The reason you want that is that you understand human nature and that the vast majority of poeple are basically lazy (myself included) in that few of us put forth 110&#37; effort to be as productive and successfull as we can be.  You understand that given that mindset, even if it is indeed what is best for society, such a message would be foolish.  It's why dems have the advantage they have no compunction about trying to cater to every need anyone could possibly have.  Cause let's face it the alternative is hard, and as a country we don't like 'hard'.  We are an instant gratification society.  We want cheap, easy, and fast.  If your honest with yourself for even a second I think you can admit that society that has had all adverse obstacles removed from it is not going to be a very successful one.

It is amazing how a quote from one the greatest democrats (and possibly Presidents) has been lost on many of today. To reword slightly, people need to quit asking "what have you done for me lately?" and start asking What can I accomplish in/for my society.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Sep 25, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Why is it "morally wrong"?  And where is it unconstitutional?



We have certain rights in this country, among them are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the right to private property.  We do not have the right to food, clothing, housing, and utilities.  Nor to health care.

The right to life for instance does not mean others must provide you with food and a house.  It means you have the right to earn and provide those things for yourself in order to have a life.  It does not mean you get to take what others earn for their own lives.  Taking from others is taking their life.

The right to pursue happiness is exactly that -- the right to pursue -- not to receive---which means you must take action to get that happiness in life -- you can't just sit there like a putz and expect others to provide you with happiness in the form of health care, food, clothing, whatever.    If it was a "right" of yours to receive things from others, then others would become rightless in the sense that they would be forced to give up some of their right to pursue their own happiness.  Essentially they become your slaves.  Slavery or serfdom is not moral.

It is your right to action that makes the US the greatest in the world and the most rich and powerful.  You can own your own property and you are not beholden to anybody else.  You are not a slave to others nor to the State.  The whole "entitlement" thing is what is destroying America.  The more we succumb to it, the more we become serfs to the government.  

The truth is government can't "give" us working folks anything because we are the government.  All government can do is take what you worked for and then turn around and give it to someone else.  That's called redistribution of wealth or socialism.  Taking over an industry by the State is socialism.  Health care is an industry. If America socializes health care that is a major step to becoming a Socialist country.  If that happens, American rights as stated in the Constitution will be curbed and this country will no longer be as free.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Sep 25, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The reality is that large employers can better afford health care for their employees because of their work force SIZE. Insurance is cheaper for large groups , not so cheap for small groups and nearly impossible for single families.
> 
> A change needs to occur where single families can get into some kind of group so that costs go down.



I think we need to get away from the whole "group insurance" idea (except for catastrophic care).   An insurance company is nothing more than a gambling enterprise.  They are betting that only a certain percentage are going to need care and the less that need care means more profit for them.  
But how can they bet on routine health care, something that everybody needs to have on a pretty regular basis?  That is why I think that segment of health care should be paid for directly by the individual.  You have more control that way and probably would pay less overall if you keep yourself in good shape.


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 26, 2007)

ScreamingEagle said:


> We have certain rights in this country, among them are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the right to private property.  We do not have the right to food, clothing, housing, and utilities.  Nor to health care.
> 
> The right to life for instance does not mean others must provide you with food and a house.  It means you have the right to earn and provide those things for yourself in order to have a life.  It does not mean you get to take what others earn for their own lives.  Taking from others is taking their life.
> 
> ...



Do you live in a society or a landmass populated by individuals?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 26, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> Why do I ask?  To me it seems to be the most fundamental part of why some advocate for universal health care and why some advocate for privatized healthcare.  Every candidate on the dem ticket has a plan of some type for of universal or government run healthcare.  So I have to think that most of them think it is a right.  By extension then people basically have the right to good health it would seem.



A right is a freedom that you can exercise.  We all have the right to health care.

However, government exists to protect your rights, not provide the means to exercise them.  If you have a right to something, it does not mean that you have the right to expect others to pay for it.


----------



## CharlestonChad (Sep 26, 2007)

We live in a country that places an extremely high value on life and the avoidance of pain. Therefore, it is only logical that every man, woman, and child should have equally sufficient health care. The ones who are against giving everyone health care are those who don't know anyone without health care.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 26, 2007)

CharlestonChad said:


> We live in a country that places an extremely high value on life and the avoidance of pain. Therefore, it is only logical that every man, woman, and child should have equally sufficient health care. The ones who are against giving everyone health care are those who don't know anyone without health care.



Questions for you:
-What part of the Constitution specifically allows Congress to create legislation dealing with health care?
-Why should you be forced to pay for the health care of others?

Government exists to protect your rights, not provide the means to exercise them.


----------



## CorpMediaSux (Sep 26, 2007)

> Why should you be forced to pay for the health care of others?



The real question is, why should you HAVE to be forced? I always find it extremely interesting that America claims to be a Christian nation and that it is nearly impossible to get elected unless you are a Christian, yet has a decidedly un-Christian approach to the sick and elderly.

Regardless of that fact, what the government compels you to pay taxes for is, essentially, your choice because the people make those decisions. If the people vote in people who will enact legislation that compels you to pay taxes for healthcare for all, well then thats all the justification that's necessary isn't it.  And unfortunately the American people are moving closer, not further away from, agreement with some system of nationalized healthcare.  

All the arguments of "well pay for it yourself" mean diddly squat when you realize that those in the top tax bracket DO NOT NOT pay for healthcare. They almost always have the best health coverage provided by their employers. It is the working poor who both pay taxes AND have to pay for their own healthcare because their plans are inadequate.  Again, if corporations would stop raising their CEO and upper management salaries and concentrated on taking care of their workforce, the government wouldnt have to step in. But corporations are only interested in profit, not morality so the government has to step in and say. 

Lastly, NO ONE who opposes gay marriage on religious terms can oppose nationalized healthcare. Christ doesn't even mention homosexuality, but he certainly had a message about how the wealthy should relate to the sick and the poor. So if we're making marriage law around Christianity we sure as better be making nationalized healthcare around a Christian model as well.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 26, 2007)

CorpMediaSux said:


> The real question is, why should you HAVE to be forced? I always find it extremely interesting that America claims to be a Christian nation and that it is nearly impossible to get elected unless you are a Christian, yet has a decidedly un-Christian approach to the sick and elderly.


You have the right to chose to spend your money as you like.  This includes the choice to give t charity and the choice to NOT give to charity.  Its all about choice, right?

And so, the question remains:
Why should anyone be forced to pay for the health care of others? 



> Regardless of that fact, what the government compels you to pay taxes for is, essentially, your choice because the people make those decisions. If the people vote in people who will enact legislation that compels you to pay taxes for healthcare for all, well then thats all the justification that's necessary isn't it.  And unfortunately the American people are moving closer, not further away from, agreement with some system of nationalized healthcare.


That's nothng other than ther 'might makes right' argument -- you do it because the government says so.  That's not the question I asked -- I asked why I SHOULD pay -- that is,  what is the compulsive argument that creates the basis for the idea of forcing me to provide health care to others?



> All the arguments of "well pay for it yourself" mean diddly squat when you realize that those in the top tax bracket DO NOT NOT pay for healthcare. They almost always have the best health coverage provided by their employers. It is the working poor who both pay taxes AND have to pay for their own healthcare because their plans are inadequate.  Again, if corporations would stop raising their CEO and upper management salaries and concentrated on taking care of their workforce, the government wouldnt have to step in. But corporations are only interested in profit, not morality so the government has to step in and say.


How does this anti-corporate, anti-CEO, anti-affluent rant in any way create an argument that I should provide health care for those that cannot pay for it themselves?



> Lastly, NO ONE who opposes gay marriage on religious terms can oppose nationalized healthcare. Christ doesn't even mention homosexuality, but he certainly had a message about how the wealthy should relate to the sick and the poor. So if we're making marriage law around Christianity we sure as better be making nationalized healthcare around a Christian model as well.


I see.  There's a moral obligation, based on Christian tenets.
What happened to not being able to legislate morality?
What happened to the seperation of Church and State?
Or do you accept the premise that it is OK to base our laws on religion-based morality?

You also failed to address:
-What part of the Constitution specifically allows Congress to create legislation dealing with health care?


----------



## CorpMediaSux (Sep 26, 2007)

> What happened to the seperation of Church and State?
> Or do you accept the premise that it is OK to base our laws on religion-based morality?



I don't.  Merely pointing out the hypocrasy of those who do. And I hope you don't oppose state sanctioned gay marriage on religious grounds cause, yeah...


> You have the right to chose to spend your money as you like.


Actually not. You can't buy drugs, you can't buy nuclear fuel, you can't buy a human baby etc. etc. There are more prohibitions on your ability to spend your cash than you realize but unquestionably accept.  Which just goes to say that America ISN'T built upon this notion of a free market, unregulated commerce and the might of the dollar. Society exists and it has rules that are above those of private property and the market, there IS a greater good. Some of us believe healthcare is within that. You disagree and it's a philosophical disagreement ultimately. 


> I asked why I SHOULD pay -- that is, what is the compulsive argument that creates the basis for the idea of forcing me to provide health care to others?



OK lets play this scenario out. Everyone only pays for the healthcare they can afford. Whats the result of this? 
1. A massive decrease in consumer spending since people will be forced to save their money for future health care issues. This is the main contradiction within the "pay for it yourself" ideology and the big misunderstanding the right has with most taxation.  Social programs exist in order to free Americans up to spend money on products that they don't need. It's the main engine behind our economy. Credit, short term debt, impulse buys, lifestyle buys, it's whatmakes America what it is. In a world where people are paying their own hospital bills a LOT of that is curtailed. 
2. An inevitable increase in homelessness and joblessness. Two reasons: 

Well your going to have a rapid increase in the homeless population as people will begin to lose their homes/apartments having to choose between medicine and a place to live. You will have a rapid increase in unemployment as people who need medication to remain functioning members of society may no longer have access to it. This will, in turn hurt the economy. Consumption will go WAY down, since people will have to save their money for potential future health services, that will hurt the economy.  The last


----------



## CorpMediaSux (Sep 26, 2007)

> I asked why I SHOULD pay -- that is, what is the compulsive argument that creates the basis for the idea of forcing me to provide health care to others?



OK lets play this scenario out. Everyone only pays for the healthcare they can afford. Whats the result of this? 
1. A massive decrease in consumer spending since people will be forced to save their money for future health care issues. This is the main contradiction within the "pay for it yourself" ideology and the big misunderstanding the right has with most taxation.  Social programs exist in order to free Americans up to spend money on products that they don't need. It's the main engine behind our economy. Credit, short term debt, impulse buys, lifestyle buys, it's whatmakes America what it is. In a world where people are paying their own hospital bills a LOT of that is curtailed. 
2. An inevitable increase in homelessness and joblessness. Two reasons: 
a: People without family to rely and help them will choose between housing and medicine
b: Families will have to absorb the infirm into their household budgets causing further reductions in consumer spending and slowing down of the economy. 

Bottom line is that Wall street does not want Americans to become practical, its the antithesis of our growth economy philosophy.  



> What happened to the seperation of Church and State?
> Or do you accept the premise that it is OK to base our laws on religion-based morality?



I don't.  Merely pointing out the hypocrasy of those who do. And I hope you don't oppose state sanctioned gay marriage on religious grounds cause, yeah...


> You have the right to chose to spend your money as you like.


Actually not. You can't buy drugs, you can't buy nuclear fuel, you can't buy a human baby etc. etc. There are more prohibitions on your ability to spend your cash than you realize but unquestionably accept.  Which just goes to say that America ISN'T built upon this notion of a free market, unregulated commerce and the might of the dollar. Society exists and it has rules that are above those of private property and the market, there IS a greater good. Some of us believe healthcare is within that. You disagree and it's a philosophical disagreement ultimately.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 26, 2007)

CorpMediaSux said:


> Bottom line is that Wall street does not want Americans to become practical, its the antithesis of our growth economy philosophy.


I sit here, wondering how this creates a sound argument as to why I should be forced to pay for the health care of others... 



> I don't.  Merely pointing out the hypocrasy of those who do. And I hope you don't oppose state sanctioned gay marriage on religious grounds cause, yeah..


So you agree, this does nothing to answer my question.



> Actually not. You can't buy drugs, you can't buy nuclear fuel, you can't buy a human baby etc. etc. There are more prohibitions on your ability to spend your cash than you realize but unquestionably accept.  Which just goes to say that America ISN'T built upon this notion of a free market, unregulated commerce and the might of the dollar.


You deliberately missed my point.  
We have the right to choose to NOT give to charity.
You support people having the right to choose, don't you?



> Society exists and it has rules that are above those of private property and the market, there IS a greater good. Some of us believe healthcare is within that. You disagree and it's a philosophical disagreement ultimately.


Well, if you cannot give me a sound argument as to why I should be forced to pay for the health care of others, perhaops you should question your philosophy...

See, forcing people to provide others the means to exercise their rights is slavery.  Reasonable, rational, thinking people who believe in and place value upon liberty do not support slavery -- rgeardless of how it might benefit the greater good.

And, you STILL haven't told me:
-What part of the Constitution specifically allows Congress to create legislation dealing with health care?


----------



## maineman (Sep 26, 2007)

ScreamingEagle said:


> But you are wedded to socialism?  Or do you have a different answer?  The richest nation on earth is NOT obligated to provide healthcare to ALL no more than it is obligated to provide food and clothing and housing to ALL.  That is a morally wrong approach and against the principles of our Constitution.



am I wedded to government owning all the means of production and distribution in our economy?  No.  I am not.  

And we have a difference of opinion about universal healthcare.... no need for you to throw a hissy fit.


----------



## CorpMediaSux (Sep 26, 2007)

> I sit here, wondering how this creates a sound argument as to why I should be forced to pay for the health care of others...


If economic collapse isn't a good reason, then what is? One would assume you advocate eliminating subsidized health care. I gave a scenario for how they would utterly cripple the U.S. economy. Perhaps I mis understand your position.  Are you content with the current level of subsidized health care, because if so well you already DO help to pay for the healthcare of others. If you are unwilling to discuss what would happen if you did not pay for any healthcare but your own, why do you keep insisting I provide you with a reason to do so. Engage the debate. 


> You deliberately missed my point.


No I didn't. I just responded to it. You said we have the right to spend our money on what we want. That is false. You already accept limitations on your money because of a greater good, there's no reason healthcare can't be part of that. Especially when I laid out what would happen to this country if we had NO subsidized healthcare. 


> See, forcing people to provide others the means to exercise their rights is slavery. Reasonable, rational, thinking people who believe in and place value upon liberty do not support slavery -- rgeardless of how it might benefit the greater good.


Your attempt to link your desire for lower taxes to the plight of enslaved people is both erroneous and offensive. Enslaved people would not have been even able to engage in this discussion because their access to property and citizenship did not exist. Taxation is compelled against your will, there's no question about that, but enslavement? Hardly.  If you find the law to be problematic you have two recourses. You can go and live in a nation without forced taxation or you can get started on a political campaign to end taxation. I suggest voting for Ron Paul.  The problem you have, however, is that there's a reason that the places without compuslory taxation aren't so fun to live and you refuse to see the connections between the lifestyle you enjoy and compulsory taxation.  


> -What part of the Constitution specifically allows Congress to create legislation dealing with health care?


None.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 26, 2007)

CorpMediaSux said:


> If economic collapse isn't a good reason, then what is?


There's no good reason to implement slavery.
You agree, right?



> No I didn't. I just responded to it. You said we have the right to spend our money on what we want. That is false. You already accept limitations on your money because of a greater good, there's no reason healthcare can't be part of that. Especially when I laid out what would happen to this country if we had NO subsidized healthcare.


And MY point was that we have the right to choose to NOT give to charity, a statement made in response to your question as to why she HAVE to be forced.  Were you going to address that point, or should I assume your question was sufficiently answered?



> Your attempt to link your desire for lower taxes to the plight of enslaved people is both erroneous and offensive. Enslaved people would not have been even able to engage in this discussion because their access to property and citizenship did not exist.


None of this in any way defeats my point.
Forcing people to provide the means for others to exercise their rights is, necessarily, slavery.  



> None.


So, you agree that any such legislation is Unconstitutional.
Why should anyone support unconstitutional laws?


----------



## CorpMediaSux (Sep 26, 2007)

> There's no good reason to implement slavery.
> You agree, right?


I agree with that statement. You've yet to demonstrate how compulsory taxation is the equivalent of slavery. You asserting it does not make it so. 


> And MY point was that we have the right to choose to NOT give to charity, a statement made in response to your question as to why she HAVE to be forced. Were you going to address that point, or should I assume your question was sufficiently answered?


Yes, charity is not the issue here. The stabilty of American society, however, is.
None of this in any way defeats my point.


> Forcing people to provide the means for others to exercise their rights is, necessarily, slavery.


Fine, but all you've done is reduce the meaning and impact of the term slavery NOT linked taxation with the horrendous history of African American chattel bondage or other forms of violently coerced labor or sexual slavery. If you insist on characterizing taxation as slavery then this argument 


> There's no good reason to implement slavery


No longer become true. There are very good reasons for compulsory taxation surrounding healthcare (I've laid them out, you've ignored them). If you choose to rhetorically call that taxation slavery, so be it. That is your characterization. It does nothing to make taxation more or less moral or more or less justified. African American chattel slavery isn't horrific because of the WORD slavery, it was horrific because of what it did to enslaved people and how people were treated in that system.  Thats why I say your attempt to link taxation to slavery is cheap and offensive on your part. 


> So, you agree that any such legislation is Unconstitutional.
> Why should anyone support unconstitutional laws?


Because we do so everyday? Because the constitution was written over two hundred years ago and could not have anticipated the terms and conditions of modern lifestyle. Because no set of law or regulation is inflexible, permanent, inalterable and rigid.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 26, 2007)

CorpMediaSux said:


> If economic collapse isn't a good reason, then what is?



We don't have subsidized healthcare now.  To very little extent anyway.  Is the economy collapsing and just didnt' hear about it?

The correction M14 made to my statement is correct.  We have the right to a lot of things.  I'm not sold yet that healthcare is one of them, but regardless haveing a right to exercise something is different from forceing someone to provide you with the ability to exercise it.

I think you two have gotten have the beaten path a little as well or the point of the discussion.  M14 asked you once.  Why should one be forced to pay for another's healthcare?

I am not oppossed to the government helping those that need help via taxation.  I am oppossed to the government forcing me to pay for the costs of something (that also have to pay for, for myself btw) that someone is capable of providing for themselves.  It goes back to my central argument as to how you create a strong, motivated, productive society?  Do you do that be teaching people that all of their needs will be provided for with little responsibility or effort on their own part? Or do you get people to understand that we are by in large able to self determine and no one should be made to provide for you what you are capable of providing for yourself?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 26, 2007)

CorpMediaSux said:


> I agree with that statement.


So, you will also agree that your "greater good" argument fails, should the slavery argument be shown sound.



> Yes, charity is not the issue here.


According to you, it is-- there isnlt enough of it, whcih sis why we need to force people to be 'charitable'.  You asked why.  I told you.



> Fine, but all you've done is reduce the meaning and impact of the term slavery...


So you agree -- forcing people to provide others with the means to exercise their rights IS slavery.
You also agreed, above, that the "benefit of the greater good" is NOT a reason support slavery.

So then -- what IS your argument for forcing people to provide the means for others to exercise their rights?



> Because we do so everyday?


I see -- ignoring the Constitution is OK, because we do it every day.
What argument then is there that we should not also just ognore the Establishment Clause, and mingler Chruch and State?


----------



## CorpMediaSux (Sep 26, 2007)

> So, you will also agree that your "greater good" argument fails, should the slavery argument be shown sound.


Sure, but you haven't done that. You've only called taxation slavery, not demonstrated how taxation has anything in common with human chattel slavery. I addressed this above. 


> So you agree -- forcing people to provide others with the means to exercise their rights IS slavery.





> You also agreed, above, that the "benefit of the greater good" is NOT a reason support slavery.



You haven't caught me in any contradiction.  I believe I was quite clear on this issue. I will accept your characterization of taxation as "slavery." But that doesn't do anything to make taxation more or less moral or justified. Before you jump with glee and say "so you don't think slavery is immoral" re-read my preceeding post. I've already dealt with the rhetorical game you are attempting to play with the term "slavery." You need to either address my argument or stop attempting to use that word to prove anything.  



> So then -- what IS your argument for forcing people to provide the means for others to exercise their rights?


Well you are the one engaging in a "rights" dialogue, not me. I think we should provide people with a sustainable healthcare system. My arguments here are limited to that issue. You want to speak in generalities because thats easier than actually engaging with the healthcare crisis in this nation.



> I see -- ignoring the Constitution is OK, because we do it every day.
> What argument then is there that we should not also just ognore the Establishment Clause, and mingler Chruch and State?


There's a distinction between eliminating amendments to the constitution (which has been done and no one died) and allowing the government to act outside of the limits of the constitution, particularly when those limits are historically antiquated. Society does progress, no matter how you'd like to ignore it.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 26, 2007)

CorpMediaSux said:


> Well you are the one engaging in a "rights" dialogue, not me. I think we should provide people with a sustainable healthcare system. My arguments here are limited to that issue. You want to speak in generalities because thats easier than actually engaging with the healthcare crisis in this nation.



And what you said isn't a generality?



> I think we should provide people with a sustainable healthcare system.



Because that is such a general statement it could mean a lot of things.  But since you use the word 'provide'  we have to assume that you mean at little to no cost.  Since you don't elaborate on 'people' we have to assume you mean everyone.  So how do you propose we provide everyone with free healthcare? More importantly why?  Why is your healthcare my problem on top of haveing to worry about my own?

You keep saying we 'ought' to do this or that, but you need to answer the why.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 26, 2007)

CorpMediaSux said:


> Sure, but you haven't done that. You've only called taxation slavery


No, I equated  forcing people to provide the means for others to exercize their rights to slavery.  YOU agreed to that, and so I dont need to prove it.



> I will accept your characterization of [forcing people to provide the means for others to exercize their rights] to slavery as "slavery."


See?  You, as corrected to reflect what I actually said, agree with me.

And so, since you agree that:
-Forcing people to provide the means for others to exercize their rights is slavery;
-"The greater good" is not a justification for slavery;
We're back to the original question:
Why should you be forced to pay for the health care of others?



> Well you are the one engaging in a "rights" dialogue, not me. I think we should provide people with a sustainable healthcare system.


Yes -- you support slavery.  That much is clear.
The OBVIOUS question is:  why?

And you didnt address this issue:
If ignoring the Constitution is OK, because 'we do it every day', what argument then is there that we should not also just ignore the Establishment Clause, and mingle Chruch and State?


----------



## CorpMediaSux (Sep 26, 2007)

Bern80, 

Actually I thought I laid out a scenario above for what would happen to the U.S. economy if we had no subsidized healthcare. 

As for how nationalized healthcare should further progress. I think a number of things have to happen. First there have to be some government sponsored measures to lower the cost of healthcare both in terms of prescription drugs AND the cost of doctors visits. 
1. There needs to be a substantial limitation on ad space for prescription medicine. There is ZERO need for them and the fact that these kinds of commercials are on every station, no matter the time slot suggests the industry is spending TONS of money, raising the cost of the drugs. 
2. Generics need to be more readily available 
3. Malpractice insurance needs serious regulation. Doctors with clean records should not have to pay the increasingly exorbitant rates. 
 And yes, at some point, profit needs to be capped. Healthcare as an industry can't function on the same scale as others, it's about human life.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 26, 2007)

CorpMediaSux said:


> Bern80,
> Actually I thought I laid out a scenario above for what would happen to the U.S. economy if we had no subsidized healthcare.


Didnt you agree that this is a "greater good" scenario, and that the "greater good" doesnt justify slavery?



> 1. There needs to be a substantial limitation on ad space for prescription medicine. There is ZERO need for them and the fact that these kinds of commercials are on every station, no matter the time slot suggests the industry is spending TONS of money, raising the cost of the drugs.


Free Speech, anyone?



> 2. Generics need to be more readily available


Free market.  Supply and demand.  



> 3. Malpractice insurance needs serious regulation. Doctors with clean records should not have to pay the increasingly exorbitant rates.


Wow.  I agree with you there.



> And yes, at some point, profit needs to be capped.


Profit is already capped -- it's a function of supply and demand, as modified by business practices.  There's no need of the government to limit how much anyone can make.



> Healthcare as an industry can't function on the same scale as others, it's about human life.


Wow.  I can think of a ZILLION ways to change this to say the same thing about some other industry, which you will then disagree with...


----------



## CorpMediaSux (Sep 26, 2007)

> No, I equated forcing people to provide the means for others to exercize their rights to slavery. YOU agreed to that, and so I dont need to prove it.


Fine, then prove slavery is wrong and in doing so if you use ANY examples that involve human bondage you will prove that MY argument is correct. You are trying to justify your ideas about taxation on the backs of enslaved people, offensive, disgusting and dishonest. I've addressed this and you have yet to really respond. 

BTW, only respond to my posts if you will respond to my whole paragraph. Your consistent attempt to take portions of my writing and respond only to them is also dishonest. You are not responding to my argument, only strawmen. I will only debate with someone willing to actually debate, not engage in rhetorical silliness. 


> And so, since you agree that:
> -Forcing people to provide the means for others to exercize their rights is slavery;
> -"The greater good" is not a justification for slavery;
> We're back to the original question:
> Why should you be forced to pay for the health care of others?


Answered above more than once and you know it. I am going to repeat my earlier posts on this issue until you actually respond to my argument. You have yet to do so. 

Don't expect a response from me until you address THE ENTIRETY of the next paragraph:


> There are very good reasons for compulsory taxation surrounding healthcare (I've laid them out, you've ignored them). If you choose to rhetorically call that taxation slavery, so be it. That is your characterization. It does nothing to make taxation more or less moral or more or less justified. African American chattel slavery isn't horrific because of the WORD slavery, it was horrific because of what it did to enslaved people and how people were treated in that system. Thats why I say your attempt to link taxation to slavery is cheap and offensive on your part.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 26, 2007)

CorpMediaSux said:


> Fine, then prove slavery is wrong...


You need me to prove slavery is wrong?
Really?   

Look, you agreed to my points:
-Forcing people to provide the means for others to exercise their rights is slavery;
-The "greater good" is NOT a justification for slavery.

NOW you're going to try to get around this by arguing that slavery isnt immoral?   



> There are very good reasons for [forcing people to provide the means for others to exercise their right to healthcare] (I've laid them out, you've ignored them).


These are the "greater good" arguments you put up.
You then agreed that "the greater good" is NOT a justification for slavery.
You, yourself, shot these arguments down.



> If you choose to rhetorically call [forcing people to provide the means for others to exercise their right] slavery, so be it. That is your characterization.


One you agreed to.



> It does nothing to make [forcing people to provide the means for others to exercise their right] more or less moral *or more or less justified *


And that's what I'm waiting for -- your justification for supporting the esnlavement of others, other than the one you agreed was invalid.

What is your justification for forcing people to provide the means for others to exercise their rights, given that you have already agreed  'greater good' arguments are invalid?


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 26, 2007)

Corp you have to answer the question 'why' yourself.

WHY should I be required to pay the healthcare costs of someone that is capable of paying for themesleves?

WHY is it good to teach a society that it can be dependent on government and have all of it's needs supplied for them? 

Those are very basic questions to this point that you have avoided.


----------



## CharlestonChad (Sep 26, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Questions for you:
> -What part of the Constitution specifically allows Congress to create legislation dealing with health care?
> -Why should you be forced to pay for the health care of others?
> 
> Government exists to protect your rights, not provide the means to exercise them.



I was thinking article 1 section 8, but I guess that would be a slippery slope leading to unnecessary taxation for the means of "welfare". BUT I think as a nation that cares so much about human life, that we would get up in arms over death penalty, abortion, and assisted suicide, that it would only make sense that we guarantee the best medical care for our sick or injured.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 26, 2007)

CharlestonChad said:


> I was thinking article 1 section 8, but I guess that would be a slippery slope leading to unnecessary taxation for the means of "welfare"


The words "health care" arent found anywhere in Article I Section 8.



> BUT I think as a nation that cares so much about human life, that we would get up in arms over death penalty, abortion, and assisted suicide, that it would only make sense that we guarantee the best medical care for our sick or injured.


And enslave people in order to do it?


----------



## CorpMediaSux (Sep 26, 2007)

> Originally Posted by M14 Shooter
> You need me to prove slavery is wrong?
> Really?
> 
> ...



Don't expect a response from me until you address THE ENTIRETY of the next paragraph:
Quote:
There are very good reasons for compulsory taxation surrounding healthcare (I've laid them out, you've ignored them). If you choose to rhetorically call that taxation slavery, so be it. That is your characterization. It does nothing to make taxation more or less moral or more or less justified. African American chattel slavery isn't horrific because of the WORD slavery, it was horrific because of what it did to enslaved people and how people were treated in that system. Thats why I say your attempt to link taxation to slavery is cheap and offensive on your part.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 26, 2007)

CharlestonChad said:


> I was thinking article 1 section 8, but I guess that would be a slippery slope leading to unnecessary taxation for the means of "welfare". BUT I think as a nation that cares so much about human life, that we would get up in arms over death penalty, abortion, and assisted suicide, that it would only make sense that we guarantee the best medical care for our sick or injured.



But there in lies the problem in your thinking.  You put abortion, death penalty and assisted sucided together as if they're equal.  You seriously beleive the life of a murder is of equal value to that of an innocent unborn human?  I'm not up in arms over the death penalty because the world is a better place without those people in it.  I'm am up in arms about abortion because you have no right to snuff out the life of someone who has done nothing to deserve it.

We already have the best medical care for our sick and injured, but don't the people that provide those service have the right to make a liveing as well?


----------



## CorpMediaSux (Sep 26, 2007)

> WHY should I be required to pay the healthcare costs of someone that is capable of paying for themesleves?



I don't think you should. I would suggest that society has a responsibility for those UNABLE to pay for it themselves.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 26, 2007)

CorpMediaSux said:


> There are very good reasons for [forcing people to provide the means for others to exercise their right to healthcare] (I've laid them out, you've ignored them).



These are the "greater good" arguments you put up.
You then agreed that "the greater good" is NOT a justification for slavery.
You, yourself, shot these arguments down.



> Quote:
> If you choose to rhetorically call [forcing people to provide the means for others to exercise their right] slavery, so be it. That is your characterization.



One you agreed to.



> Quote:
> It does nothing to make [forcing people to provide the means for others to exercise their right] more or less moral or more or less justified



And that's what I'm waiting for -- your justification for supporting the esnlavement of others, other than the one you agreed was invalid.



> African American chattel slavery isn't horrific because of the WORD slavery, it was horrific because of what it did to enslaved people and how people were treated in that system. Thats why I say your attempt to link taxation to slavery is cheap and offensive on your part.


None of this has any relevance, given that you already agreed that forcing people to provide the means for others to exercise their rights is slavery.

It doesnt matter who else has been enslaved, or how, or how bad it was -- what matters is that YOU advocate enslaving people so that others may directly benefit. 

And you have YET to justify that enslavement, and you yourself have admitted that your "greater good" is NOT a justification for slavery.

So, stop trying to avoid the issue, and provide legitimate justification for your position FOR the eslavement of people so that others can have health care.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 26, 2007)

CorpMediaSux said:


> I don't think you should. I would suggest that society has a responsibility for those UNABLE to pay for it themselves.



Agreed.  However believe it or not, we have many policies in place that allow for just that.  Social Security for example.  Plus most states do have some sort of state sponsored medical coverage that is quite inexpenisve.

Which is why I originally asked why the dems feel this need to completely overhall the system.  On the surface not only do they want to provide for those unable, but seem to want to force the able to go with their plan as well.

I am generally leary of two things:

1) government involvement in anything.

2) any program that shifts the responsibilty of things you should be responsible for to someone else.

There just seems to be a theme with the left that thinks it has this obligation to make people's lives as risk/pain/inconveniece free as possible.  I realy don't think they are doing society a big favor by doing that.  In fact I think's it's disservice.  How are we suppossed to learn from bad experiences, become motivated and learn if there is no incentive to do any of those things?


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Sep 26, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Do you live in a society or a landmass populated by individuals?



Both, what's your point?


----------



## CorpMediaSux (Sep 26, 2007)

> *M14 Shooter*
> None of this has any relevance, given that you already agreed that forcing people to provide the means for others to exercise their rights is slavery. It doesnt matter who else has been enslaved, or how, or how bad it was -- what matters is that YOU advocate enslaving people so that others may directly benefit.



Actually it's entirely relevant, which is why I suspect I had to pull a little brat attack for you even to respond. Your desire to say that taxation is like slavery or enslavement is DIRECTLY linked to the actual history of real people who have been enslaved. Your ability to act faux shocked and appalled at my saying "prove to me slavery is wrong" is because we ALL know the history of slavery, we know what it did to people and we know how horrible it was, therefore you shouldnt have to explain why slavery is bad to anyone. HOWEVER, taxation is no where NEAR even the most minor forms of actual human enslavement that give the term "slavery" its negative connotations. Saying so is an act of historical violence that erase the actual experience of enslaved people and replaces it with your modern financial gripings and inconvenience. It's ridiculous and offensive for you to act like taxation is like slavery. 

You have attempted to play a rhetorical game that attempts to make me look like I'm callous and think slavery is insignificant. In fact it is YOU who sees slavery as insignificant by invoking it during a discussion about healthcare and taxation. Again, please do not expect a response from me on THIS aspect of the argument without responding to my entire paragraphs. It may help you to copy the whole paragraph and not break it down into sentences so your answering the holistic position rather than segments of it. 


> These are the "greater good" arguments you put up.
> You then agreed that "the greater good" is NOT a justification for slavery.
> You, yourself, shot these arguments down.


Let me be clear so there is no confusion. 
1. There is no greater good justification for chattel slavery. Chattel slavery is a very specific institution. 
2. There ARE greater good justifications for compulsory taxation. 
Please let me know if there are any further misunderstandings  



> *Bern 80*
> Agreed. However believe it or not, we have many policies in place that allow for just that. Social Security for example. Plus most states do have some sort of state sponsored medical coverage that is quite inexpenisve.


Social security does not provide enough money to pay for healthcare costs in this day and age. States vary wildly on their health care coverage and the administration of those plans is often a complete and utter nightmare. There's a reason why politicians are spouting rhetoric about this. Intelligent or not, they are piquing a keen interest of the American people. Public healthcare currently fails, it needs fixed.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 26, 2007)

CorpMediaSux said:


> Social security does not provide enough money to pay for healthcare costs in this day and age. States vary wildly on their health care coverage and the administration of those plans is often a complete and utter nightmare. There's a reason why politicians are spouting rhetoric about this. Intelligent or not, they are piquing a keen interest of the American people. Public healthcare currently fails, it needs fixed.



Be careful with your last statement.  The healthcare system works well for the vast majority of Americans it provides the best healthcare in the world.  It is a small fraction that are left without. I think that can be fixed without a major overhall.  

There are too seperate issues here.  Providing healthcare to those that can't provide for themselves and the issue as to whether healthcare is truly overpriced.  If it is, why? and what types of _efficient_ steps can we take to make it better?


----------



## CharlestonChad (Sep 26, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> The words "health care" arent found anywhere in Article I Section 8.
> 
> 
> And enslave people in order to do it?



Please explain how providing healthcare for the unable would enslave people? Canada doesn't enslave it's citizens, yet they get healthcare (although not as good as ours).



Bern80 said:


> But there in lies the problem in your thinking.  You put abortion, death penalty and assisted sucided together as if they're equal.  You seriously beleive the life of a murder is of equal value to that of an innocent unborn human?  I'm not up in arms over the death penalty because the world is a better place without those people in it.  I'm am up in arms about abortion because you have no right to snuff out the life of someone who has done nothing to deserve it.
> 
> We already have the best medical care for our sick and injured, but don't the people that provide those service have the right to make a liveing as well?



If you want, we can break this down to ethics and morals. I'm fine with taking this debate in that direct if you're up to it.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 26, 2007)

CharlestonChad said:


> If you want, we can break this down to ethics and morals. I'm fine with taking this debate in that direct if you're up to it.



The direction I'm interested in is you answering the quesitons I asked you.


----------



## CharlestonChad (Sep 26, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> The direction I'm interested in is you answering the quesitons I asked you.



There's no point in answering the questions if you won't understand what I'm talking about.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 26, 2007)

CorpMediaSux said:


> Actually it's entirely relevant, which is why I suspect I had to pull a little brat attack for you even to respond. Your desire to say that *forcing people to provide the means for others to exercise their rights* is like slavery or enslavement is DIRECTLY linked to the actual history of real people who have been enslaved.


See bold. There are numerous instances.
Why do you continue to miscaharterize my argument?

Slavery is slavery.  In every shape, place, instance and form, it is an unacceptable, intolerable, reprehensible attack on liberty.
Don't you agree?
Don't bother responding unless you directly answer that question.



> Your ability to act faux shocked and appalled at my saying "prove to me slavery is wrong" is because we ALL know the history of slavery, we know what it did to people and we know how horrible it was, therefore you shouldnt have to explain why slavery is bad to anyone.


Yes.  And yet, youlre perfectly willing to allow certain forms of slavery - describing it as a "minor form" because you think its not as "bad" as other forms.  When doing this, you marginalize the peopel who are enslaved and the liberty they have lost.



> HOWEVER, *forcing to provide the means for others to exercise their rights *is no where NEAR even the most minor forms of actual human enslavement that give the term "slavery" its negative connotations. Saying so is an act of historical violence that erase the actual experience of enslaved people and replaces it with your modern financial gripings and inconvenience. *It's ridiculous and offensive for you to act like forcing people to provide the means for others to exercise their rights is like slavery.*


You AGREED that forcing to provide the means for others to exercise their rights is slavery.



> You have attempted to play a rhetorical game that attempts to make me look like I'm callous and think slavery is insignificant.


Actually YOU do this when you argue that certain forms of slavery is OK, so long as you think so.  This is no different that arguing that certain forms of genocide are OK, depending on who is being exterminated, and why.



> In fact it is YOU who sees slavery as insignificant by invoking it during a discussion about *forcing to provide the means for others to exercise their rights*.


On he contrary -- I see ALL forms of slavery as unacceptable, intolerable, reprehensible attack on liberty.  It is YOU that sees certain forms of slavery -- and, necessarily the people that are enslaved -- as insignificant.



> Let me be clear so there is no confusion.
> 1. There is no greater good justification for chattel slavery. Chattel slavery is a very specific institution.


Slavery is slavery.  In every shape, place, instance, and form, it is an unacceptable, intolerable, reprehensible attack on liberty.
Dont you agree?



> 2. There ARE greater good justifications for *forcing to provide the means for others to exercise their rights *.
> Please let me know if there are any further misunderstandings


Just one:
Why do you contine to mischaraterize my positon?

And now, please tell me:
What are the "greater good" justifications for forcing to provide the means for others to exercise their rights, understanding that:
-you agreed that forcing to provide the means for others to exercise their rights is slavery
-you agreed that there are no greater good arguments that justify slavery?

Dont bother responding unless you answer the question.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 26, 2007)

CharlestonChad said:


> Please explain how providing healthcare for the unable would enslave people? Canada doesn't enslave it's citizens, yet they get healthcare (although not as good as ours).


Simple:
Forcing people to provide the means for others to exercize their rights is involuntary servitude.
Involuntary servitude is slavery.


----------



## CharlestonChad (Sep 26, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> But there in lies the problem in your thinking.  You put abortion, death penalty and assisted sucided together as if they're equal.  You seriously beleive the life of a murder is of equal value to that of an innocent unborn human?  I'm not up in arms over the death penalty because the world is a better place without those people in it.  I'm am up in arms about abortion because you have no right to snuff out the life of someone who has done nothing to deserve it.
> 
> We already have the best medical care for our sick and injured, but don't the people that provide those service have the right to make a liveing as well?



Here's a simplified answer.

You're imposing your morals onto the value of life, when in actuality life is only as important as the good one can serve it's society. An abortion is killing someone with potential to better their society, but also the potential to worsen it. Killing a killer is ridding society of a person who has wronged society in the past, but has potential to better or worsen the society if released. Therefore, murderers are put to death b.c you believe they are not fit for society, when in actuality they are just as capable of contributing as an unborn fetus. 

If we have the best care for our sick and injured then there wouldn't even be a debate. The fact is, we don't. Not everyone can afford health care. I believe if we choose to value any form of life, then we should value the health of the sick. Having more money does not make a person more worthy of the right to live a healthy life. Do you believe that wealth should correlate with the quality of health a person can have?


----------



## CharlestonChad (Sep 26, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Simple:
> Forcing people to provide the means for others to exercize their rights is involuntary servitude.
> Involuntary servitude is slavery.



Then by that statement being an tax paying citizen makes you a slave already.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 26, 2007)

CharlestonChad said:


> Then by that statement being an tax paying citizen makes you a slave already.


That depends entirely on where the taxes go to.  Not all taxes pay for programs that provide people with the means to exercize their rights, and not all programs provide people with the means to exercize their rights.

But, you posted that because you think I am wrong.
If you think I am wrong, then -show me- how I am wrong.


----------



## CharlestonChad (Sep 26, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> That depends entirely on where the taxes go to.  Not all taxes pay for programs that provide people with the means to exercize their rights, and not all programs provide people with the means to exercize their rights.
> 
> But, you posted that because you think I am wrong.
> If you think I am wrong, then -show me- how I am wrong.



You are wrong because by your definition, you are a slave if even 1 of those programs is geared towards providing people with the means to exercise their rights.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 26, 2007)

CharlestonChad said:


> You are wrong because by your definition, you are a slave if even 1 of those programs is geared towards providing people with the means to exercise their rights.


OK...  so, if even $0.01 of my tax money goes to a program that provide speople with the means to exercize their rights, I am slave.

I am, therefore, a slave.

What's your point?

How am I wrong?


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 26, 2007)

CharlestonChad said:


> Here's a simplified answer.
> 
> You're imposing your morals onto the value of life, when in actuality life is only as important as the good one can serve it's society. An abortion is killing someone with potential to better their society, but also the potential to worsen it. Killing a killer is ridding society of a person who has wronged society in the past, but has potential to better or worsen the society if released. Therefore, murderers are put to death b.c you believe they are not fit for society, when in actuality they are just as capable of contributing as an unborn fetus.



Nice spin.  Though the argument becomes mute if we examine your original assumption: we americans value human life.  That is a broad generalization that in fact doesn't exist.  Simply and factually we _don't_ value human life equally.  You can make arguments as to whether we shoudl or shouldn't but the fact is if you ask a million americans if bin Laden's life is as valuable as an unborn child's you're not likely to get many that woudl agree with that. 



CharlestonChad said:


> If we have the best care for our sick and injured then there wouldn't even be a debate. The fact is, we don't. Not everyone can afford health care. I believe if we choose to value any form of life, then we should value the health of the sick. Having more money does not make a person more worthy of the right to live a healthy life. Do you believe that wealth should correlate with the quality of health a person can have?



Of course not. I have never made that argument.  I believe a cpable persons choices shoudl correlate into the quality of their health. The fact is that you are talking about two different things.  The quality of our doctors, facilities and technology is not the same thing as whether those things are affordable or not.  What is the point of free healthcare if it is bad healthcare? In a sense you would be saying the best heart surgeon in the world is a bad heart surgeon because someone couldn't afford his servives


----------



## CharlestonChad (Sep 26, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> OK...  so, if even $0.01 of my tax money goes to a program that provide speople with the means to exercize their rights, I am slave.
> 
> I am, therefore, a slave.
> 
> ...



You said you're a slave, which you have been stating would be the result of giving the needy health care. So nothing would change, meaning the whole slavery argument is pointless. 



> Nice spin.



Someone watches a little too much of TheFactor.


> Though the argument becomes mute if we examine your original assumption: we americans value human life.  That is a broad generalization that in fact doesn't exist.  Simply and factually we _don't_ value human life equally.  You can make arguments as to whether we shoudl or shouldn't but the fact is if you ask a million americans if bin Laden's life is as valuable as an unborn child's you're not likely to get many that woudl agree with that.



Please forget I even mentioned any forms of life, you're getting too hung up on my examples. 

Americans value human life. This is common sense. Therefore, it is only logical that we take care of those in pain. We are not doing this now, which is why I believe we need to supply affordable health care to those in need.


----------



## Larkinn (Sep 26, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> OK...  so, if even $0.01 of my tax money goes to a program that provide speople with the means to exercize their rights, I am slave.
> 
> I am, therefore, a slave.
> 
> ...



Then you have an incorrect definition of slavery which no longer makes it immoral.  Thats how you are wrong.

You are confusing the word slavery to make your point.   You are claiming that you have your little definition of "exercising rights" or whatever...which is slavery...and slavery is always wrong.   However, we think its wrong because we, as most people do, have a different definition of slavery...and hence think the connotations of the word slavery have are very negative.   Its an interesting and complex tactic, but one that fails nonetheless.


----------



## Larkinn (Sep 26, 2007)

Yes its a right.  Its inherent in the right to life.   

However...the two different views on this reflect two different views about causality.   There is an old philosophical problem which explores this quite well.

There is a train coming down the tracks.   You are watching from a bridge and have the ability to cause the train to switch tracks.   There are currently 4 people tied to the tracks.   On the other track, the one which the train is currently not on, but would be on if you pulled the lever and caused it to switch, has 1 person tied to the tracks.   Now...do you pull the lever and have one person die?   Or do you not pull the lever and have 4 people die?

Those that think that everyone is responsible for their own healthcare would likely think that you don't pull the lever.   After all, if you don't do anything you aren't at fault right?   Those that think we are responsible to care for each other would pull the lever and kill 1 instead of 4.

To me, the argument is stupid.   Nonaction IS an action.   You are choosing not to move...and so if you have the ability to save 3 lives and you don't, you are, in effect, part of the cause of their deaths.   This becomes more intuitive (on my side, at least) if we take it to criminal examples.   If I know that someone is going to blow up the GW bridge, I have a responsibility (under the law) to tell someone.  

This is similar to healthcare.   We have the ability to save more lives.  We choose not too.   Why?   What is the reason for thinking that we only have rights FROM things, we have no rights FOR things?   Why think that if someone punches you in the face, they should go to jail...so you have an inherent right to not have your face punched in...but if it DOES get punched in, you don't have an inherent right to get it fixed?


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 26, 2007)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Both, what's your point?



If a landmass is populated only by individuals then the human rights of those individuals exist simply because those people are humans.  Each one of them defends his or her rights as best they can.  They, being individuals, have no obligation to anyone else, only themselves.  But the moment those individuals start to coalesce, not matter the size of the groupings, then the question of obligations to others arises.  Healthcare policy is a matter of obligation, not right, so using rights arguments either for or against certain healthcare policies is irrelevant.


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 26, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> Be careful with your last statement.  The healthcare system works well for the vast majority of Americans it provides the best healthcare in the world.  It is a small fraction that are left without. I think that can be fixed without a major overhall.
> 
> There are too seperate issues here.  Providing healthcare to those that can't provide for themselves and the issue as to whether healthcare is truly overpriced.  If it is, why? and what types of _efficient_ steps can we take to make it better?



The claim of best healthcare in the world is fallacious.  Yes there are some excellent services available but that's only one factor.  It's got nothing to do with the policy issues being discussed.  Even if the healthcare was average the policy issues wouldn't change.


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 26, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Simple:
> Forcing people to provide the means for others to exercize their rights is involuntary servitude.
> Involuntary servitude is slavery.



That's a totally fallacious argument.  As I said above, this isn't about "rights", it's about obligations.  You pay taxes to central government.  That's an obligation.  The government spends the taxes it receives on programmes which are legislated by a democratically elected legislature that approve the programmes.  No individual can stop paying taxes because they are offended that his or her taxes are being used to wage war or to provide health care.  How that money is spent is subject to approval at the ballot box.  There's no servitude or slavery involved.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 26, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> Yes its a right.  Its inherent in the right to life.



If it's a right would I be correct in saying you think it should be free?   



Larkinn said:


> Those that think that everyone is responsible for their own healthcare would likely think that you don't pull the lever.   After all, if you don't do anything you aren't at fault right?   Those that think we are responsible to care for each other would pull the lever and kill 1 instead of 4.



I see a few problems with your interpretation:

If it is our responsiblity to care for each other how do you justify essentially not careing for the one person by killing him/her?

And I would like to slightly modifty part of your assumption.  I don't think _everyone_ is responsible for their own healthcare (yes I know you didn't say that I did).  I think everyone who is _able_ to provide for their own healthcare should.

Lastly you used this philisophical example to illustrate why you believe it's a right. right?  I don't see how the example proves it is a right (or maybe it isn't suppossed to prove that).  You illustrates what the more moral choice may be .  For the record I would pull the switch.




Larkinn said:


> This is similar to healthcare.   We have the ability to save more lives.  We choose not too.   Why?   What is the reason for thinking that we only have rights FROM things, we have no rights FOR things?   Why think that if someone punches you in the face, they should go to jail...so you have an inherent right to not have your face punched in...but if it DOES get punched in, you don't have an inherent right to get it fixed?



The constitution doesn't say either of those things (rights FROM or FOR).  It says we have rights TO things.  How do you have a right from or for anything.  Can you even make real sentence out of that?  I have the right FOR ______. I have the right FROM _____.  I wasn't an english major but can you even do that?  Maybe the the FROM you can.  The right from unlawful persecution? Still doesn't sound quite right.  If you mean something else by FROM or FOR please clarify.

Another faulty assumption, or un-proven one at least, is that 'it' (what is 'it' btw?) would save more lives.  I assume you mean some form of free or socialzied medicine?  We know it would save more lives from a certain group of people (those currently without access to healthcare). We don't know however if that will be offset by a possible degradation in quality of the system as a whole that would lead to more deaths in the group of people that did have access before.

The main reason I don't see it as a right is it has to be paid for somehow.  Generally you don't have to pay to have access to a right.  Which no matter what side your on (paid through premiums or via) taxes is still paying for them.  Isn't it inherent in a right that it should be supplied to you with no barriers whatsoever to access?


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 26, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> The claim of best healthcare in the world is fallacious.  Yes there are some excellent services available but that's only one factor.  It's got nothing to do with the policy issues being discussed.  Even if the healthcare was average the policy issues wouldn't change.



I'll ask you the same simple question.  You have a heart condition that only the best heart surgeon in the world can fix.  But you can't afford him.  Is he therefore a bad heart surgeon?  Because that is the implication in your reasoning.


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 27, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> I'll ask you the same simple question.  You have a heart condition that only the best heart surgeon in the world can fix.  But you can't afford him.  Is he therefore a bad heart surgeon?  Because that is the implication in your reasoning.



The quality of the surgeon's skill stands by itself.  The issue of how to pay for his services is another issue.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 27, 2007)

CharlestonChad said:


> You said you're a slave, which you have been stating would be the result of giving the needy health care. So nothing would change, meaning the whole slavery argument is pointless.


There's ALWAYS a point to opposing slavery, as slavery, regardless of cirumstance, in an unacceptable condition.
Don't you agree?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 27, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> Then you have an incorrect definition of slavery which no longer makes it immoral.  Thats how you are wrong.


Under my argument:
Slavery:
The condition of being forced, or the act of forcing people to provide the means for others to exercise their rights.

Please tell me how my defintion is wrong in a subtsantive way that does not also then invalidate any other relevant definition of slavery.  Please tell me how this does not substantively describe the condition of every slave that has ever been a slave.



> However, we think its wrong because we, as most people do, have a different definition of slavery...


Well, you can THINK it is wrong all you want, but that doesnt make it so -- you need to show how my definition of slavery is invalid.



> Its an interesting and complex tactic, but one that fails nonetheless.


Not that you have shown.

And lets not forget that the person primarily engaged in this discussion opposite me AGREED that my definition is valid.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 27, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> That's a totally fallacious argument.


Specifically:  How?



> As I said above, this isn't about "rights", it's about obligations.  You pay taxes to central government.  That's an obligation.  The government spends the taxes it receives on programmes which are legislated by a democratically elected legislature that approve the programmes.  No individual can stop paying taxes because they are offended that his or her taxes are being used to wage war or to provide health care.  How that money is spent is subject to approval at the ballot box.


None of that changes the fact that the government, by forcing you to pay for the health care of others is forcing you to provide the means for others to exercise their rights. 



> There's no servitude or slavery involved.


Absolutely there is.
You are FORCED to provide for the health care of others. Its not a VOLUNTARY condition.  When you are FORCED to give the fruits of your labor to others so that they may directly benefit from it -- so that they may exercise their rights -- that's involuntary servide, which, necessarily, is slavery.


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 27, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Specifically:  How?
> 
> 
> None of that changes the fact that the government, by forcing you to pay for the health care of others is forcing you to provide the means for others to exercise their rights.
> ...



That's not the case.  You pay taxes.  The elected government decides how that income is disbursed.  The individual taxpayer doesn't get to decide on disbursement programmes except at federal elections when the parties lay out their platforms and the voter makes a choice.  If Party A says its programme is to institute a system of health care that involves a single-payer system (for example) and Party B says its programme is to institute a system of health care where people can purchase insurance (for example) then the electors get to vote on those.  

The taxes that everyone pays will also pay for other government programmes such as national defence, social security and the rest.  The individual taxpayer has no say in how those taxes will be disbursed outside of elections.  

Your argument has failed.


----------



## Larkinn (Sep 27, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> If it's a right would I be correct in saying you think it should be free?



No, but it should be available to everyone.   



> I see a few problems with your interpretation:
> 
> If it is our responsiblity to care for each other how do you justify essentially not careing for the one person by killing him/her?



Err its our responsibility to care for each other, but sometimes we simply can't.   



> And I would like to slightly modifty part of your assumption.  I don't think _everyone_ is responsible for their own healthcare (yes I know you didn't say that I did).  I think everyone who is _able_ to provide for their own healthcare should.



So do I.   But that still leaves millions of people with no healthcare that you are ignoring.



> Lastly you used this philisophical example to illustrate why you believe it's a right. right?  I don't see how the example proves it is a right (or maybe it isn't suppossed to prove that).  You illustrates what the more moral choice may be .  For the record I would pull the switch.



It doesn't prove anything.   Its a test of ones moral intuitions.   



> The constitution doesn't say either of those things (rights FROM or FOR).  It says we have rights TO things.  How do you have a right from or for anything.  Can you even make real sentence out of that?  I have the right FOR ______. I have the right FROM _____.  I wasn't an english major but can you even do that?  Maybe the the FROM you can.  The right from unlawful persecution? Still doesn't sound quite right.  If you mean something else by FROM or FOR please clarify.



No the Constitution says you have rights FROM things.   You have the right from government interference in freedom of speech.   You don't have the right of freedom of speech everywhere...for example a bar can kick you out if they don't like what you are saying...but the government can't keep you from that speech.   



> The main reason I don't see it as a right is it has to be paid for somehow.  Generally you don't have to pay to have access to a right.



Sure you do.   The government can't keep me from placing an ad in the newspaper.   Freedom of speech...still a right, even though I am paying for said right.



> Which no matter what side your on (paid through premiums or via) taxes is still paying for them.  Isn't it inherent in a right that it should be supplied to you with no barriers whatsoever to access?



Yup...it should be supplied to you with no barriers to access.   That doesn't mean those who can afford it should pay for it.


----------



## Larkinn (Sep 27, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Under my argument:
> Slavery:
> The condition of being forced, or the act of forcing people to provide the means for others to exercise their rights.
> 
> Please tell me how my defintion is wrong in a subtsantive way that does not also then invalidate any other relevant definition of slavery.  Please tell me how this does not substantively describe the condition of every slave that has ever been a slave.



Its irrelevant whether it is right or wrong.  Definitions are wavy things. The point is that when one says slavery one is thinking about selling and buying human slaves.   Hence when you ask "is slavery wrong", you are bringing up connotations of that.   By tying this other thing to slavery you are implicitly making it negative by association.   Its like if I said baking bread was a terrorist act.   I could get you to disagree with baking bread, even though there is no reason to disagree with it, but because your connotations about terrorism are so negative you would find it hard to justify baking bread as a terrorist act. 



> Well, you can THINK it is wrong all you want, but that doesnt make it so -- you need to show how my definition of slavery is invalid.



No, I don't.   As I said definitions are wavy.   The only thing that is invalid is you trying to conflate slavery-human trading, and slavery-exercising rights.



> And lets not forget that the person primarily engaged in this discussion opposite me AGREED that my definition is valid.



And then said that slavery was ok.   Why?  Because under your definition it is ok.


----------



## Larkinn (Sep 27, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Absolutely there is.
> You are FORCED to provide for the health care of others. Its not a VOLUNTARY condition.  When you are FORCED to give the fruits of your labor to others so that they may directly benefit from it -- so that they may exercise their rights -- that's involuntary servide, which, necessarily, is slavery.



Since you are making annoying arguments, here is one back for you.

Who holds a gun to your head and forces you to provide for the healthcare of others?   Oh wait...they just threaten to put you in jail.   So you have a choice...either go to jail, or pay.   Its entirely up to you.   Whatsa matter...can't handle making your own decisions?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 27, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> You pay taxes


This is the part where you are "forced".



> The elected government decides [to disburse it so that others may exercise their rights]


This is the part where you provide the means for others to exercise their rights.

Not sure how you restating my argument in somewhat more specific terms defeats my argument.



> The individual taxpayer doesn't get to decide on disbursement programmes except at federal elections when the parties lay out their platforms and the voter makes a choice.  If Party A says its programme is to institute a system of health care that involves a single-payer system (for example) and Party B says its programme is to institute a system of health care where people can purchase insurance (for example) then the electors get to vote on those.


Given the above, this is meaningless. 
The procedure doesnt matter; what matters is that you have no choice but to provide for others.
-The government forces you to give up your labor
-The government takes that labor and gives it to others to they might have the means to exercise their rights.



> Your argument has failed.


Not that you have shown.


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 27, 2007)

You edited a quote of mine.  

You wrote:



> The elected government decides [to disburse it so that others may exercise their rights]



I didn't write the words in square brackets in the quote.  That distorts my point.  

If you equate taxation with servitude then argue it.  But don't distort my argument.  Since the discussion isn't about whether or not taxation is servitude what you've introduced is also irrelevant.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 27, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> Who holds a gun to your head and forces you to provide for the healthcare of others?   Oh wait...they just threaten to put you in jail.   So you have a choice...either go to jail, or pay.


According to your argument here -- that if you have a choice, you arent a slave -- there has never been any such thing as slave, as ALL 'slaves" have a choice:  

Work as you are told to work or be whipped/beaten/raped/killed.  Your choice.

Whatsa matter...can't handle making your own decisions?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 27, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> I didn't write the words in square brackets in the quote.  That distorts my point.


Not in any menaingful way, as that's exactly what the government does.


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 27, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Not in any menaingful way, as that's exactly what the government does.



As I said, if you want to discuss the nature of taxation then fine, no problems.  But I'd ask that you don't introduce it as a red herring in this discussion. I mad e the point that we don't get to tell the govt how to spend the taxes it takes from us except when we go to elections.  And then we get a choice on policy.  That's the essence of a democracy.  Health care policy is usually discussed in elections and parties lay out their policies.  Then we vote for them according to how we think things should go.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 27, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> Its irrelevant whether it is right or wrong.


Then why are you trying to argue that my definition is wrong?



> The point is that when one says slavery one is thinking about selling and buying human slaves.


That's your misconception.  There are manyforms of slavery, all of shich have a common reference -- you are forced to provide for others.  The specifics of the actual instance are maningless, as slavery, in all forms, is wrong
Dont you agree?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 27, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> As I said, if you want to discuss the nature of taxation then fine, no problems.  But I'd ask that you don't introduce it as a red herring in this discussion.


Its not a red herring, and taxation, in and of itself isnt the issue.
The issue is being forced to provide for others, and how that is slavery.



> I mad e the point that we don't get to tell the govt how to spend the taxes it takes from us except when we go to elections.  And then we get a choice on policy.  That's the essence of a democracy.  Health care policy is usually discussed in elections and parties lay out their policies.  Then we vote for them according to how we think things should go.


Yes... and I made the point that this is meaningless:
It doesnt matter how its decided that you are a slave -- you;re still a slave.


----------



## Larkinn (Sep 27, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> According to your argument here -- that if you have a choice, you arent a slave -- there has never been any such thing as slave, as ALL 'slaves" have a choice:
> 
> Work as you are told to work or be whipped/beaten/raped/killed.
> 
> Whatsa matter...can't handle making your own decisions?



Yup.   



> Then why are you trying to argue that my definition is wrong?



I'm not.   I stated it was wrong.   But I'm not going to argue that because, as I said, definitions are wavy things.



> That's your misconception. There are manyforms of slavery, all of shich have a common reference -- you are forced to provide for others. The specifics of the actual instance are maningless, as slavery, in all forms, is wrong
> Dont you agree?



IF that is my misconception, than no, not all forms of slavery are wrong.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 27, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> IF that is my misconception, than no, not all forms of slavery are wrong.


REally...
So, how do you decide when it is/isn't OK to enslave others?
What's your objective criteria?
And if your criteria isnt objective, how do you have any standing to argue that ANY form of slavery is 'wrong'?


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 27, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Its not a red herring, and taxation, in and of itself isnt the issue.
> The issue is being forced to provide for others, and how that is slavery.
> 
> 
> ...



Do you pay taxes?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 27, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Do you pay taxes?


Yes.  Why?


----------



## Larkinn (Sep 27, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> REally...
> So, how do you decide when it is/isn't OK to enslave others?
> What's your objective criteria?
> And if your criteria isnt objective, how do you have any standing to argue that ANY form of slavery is 'wrong'?



This should be obvious.  Its not ok when it fits into the classic definition of slavery.   When it doesn't, than it is ok.   As a loose description at least.

As far as objectivity...

Define objectivity for me.   Then when you are done with that I'd like to know how any subjective elements disallow me from having a "standing to argue" anything.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 27, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> This should be obvious.  Its not ok when it fits into the classic definition of slavery.   When it doesn't, than it is ok.   As a loose description at least.


I see...  slavery is OK so long as there arent whips on people's backs.
"Soft" slavery is OK.  Gotcha.
How is this an objective distinction?

As for the "classic definition of slavery":
The 1926 Slavery Convention described slavery as "...the status and/or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised..." Slaves cannot leave an owner, an employer or a territory without explicit permission (they must have a passport to leave), and they will be returned if they escape. Therefore a system of slavery &#8212; as opposed to the isolated instances found in any society &#8212; requires official, legal recognition of ownership, or widespread tacit arrangements with local authorities, by masters who have some influence because of their social and/or economic status.

The International Labour Organization (ILO) defines forced labour as "all work or service which is extracted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily", albeit with certain exceptions of: military service, convicted criminals, emergencies and minor community services.

Both of these "classic" definitions, especially the second,  accurately, if not literally, describe the relationship between the taxpayer and the welfare (et al) recipient, as enforced upon the taxpayer by the government.



> Define objectivity for me.


Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This 
ob&#183;jec&#183;tive      /&#601;b&#712;d&#658;&#603;kt&#618;v/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uhb-jek-tiv] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation 
&#8211;noun  
5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.  



> Then when you are done with that I'd like to know how any subjective elements disallow me from having a "standing to argue" anything.


Because your argument is then subjective.  You're simply arguing from your opinion, which, since it is subjective, isnt any more sound than any other subjective opinion.  Whatever you rposition is, it holds no more water than saying "Coke is better than Pepsi because I like Coke".


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 27, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> The quality of the surgeon's skill stands by itself.  The issue of how to pay for his services is another issue.



So that would be a 'no'.  How to pay for something is not a factor of that things quality.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 27, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> No, but it should be available to everyone.



And for the most part it is.  Even to those with no money.  Availabe to everyone is vague.  There is a certain factor of timeliness to availabilty of healthcare as well.   



Larkinn said:


> its our responsibility to care for each other



Why? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for being charitable.  By why is it a responsibility? Why am I obligated to give a rats ass about you (or anyone else)?  Why is your health my obligation more so than your health is your own obligation?

It can 'the right thing to do' it can be compassionate, it can be selfish not to, but how is it obligation to care for others?  That's a personal belief with no real truth behind it.



Larkinn said:


> So do I.   But that still leaves millions of people with no healthcare that you are ignoring.



I have no intention of ignoring them.  My intent is to have a system that balances personal responsibility while providing healthcare to those that need it.




Larkinn said:


> Sure you do.   The government can't keep me from placing an ad in the newspaper.   Freedom of speech...still a right, even though I am paying for said right.



So why should healthcare be different?  Assumeing both speech and healthcare are rights, why is it okay for a newspaper to charge for teh service of providing add space, but it isn't okay for hospital to charge to fix a broken leg?





Larkinn said:


> Yup...it should be supplied to you with no barriers to access.   That doesn't mean those who can afford it should pay for it.



That's where the responsibility issue comes in.  By paying for healthcare yourself it makes you more responsible for adequate access to it then someone else.  If I, even though able, shouldn't have to pay for it, who is going to?  Why is paying for my healthcare and health more the responsibility of 'who' ever that is than mine?


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 27, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Its not a red herring, and taxation, in and of itself isnt the issue.
> The issue is being forced to provide for others, and how that is slavery.
> 
> 
> ...



No, I think there's a wilful refusal on your part to take the point.

I asked you in an earlier post if you lived in a society or a landmass populated by individuals.  You said both, thereby avoiding answering the question as it was put.  But a valid answer would have been good.  

A society is composed of people who come together to live with certain explicit and implicit agreements about how they will conduct themselves relative to one another.  Each individual has rights but each individual also has obligations to other individuals and to the collective called 'society'.  Among those obligations is the paying of income tax.  Income tax is used by elected government to finance its programmes.  Among those programmes may be a health care scheme which is provided as part of the government's obligtation towards the members of society.  Acknowledging and complying with obligations is important for all components of society, if that doesn't happen then the social situation breaks down.  Taxation isn't slavery.  Slavery means that an individual is a chattel of another.  If you want an analogy with slavery then look to those working at minimum wage, it's closer than your contention that taxation is slavery.

Now, if the landmass is composed solely of individuals a different set of rules kicks in.  There's no taxation because there's no need for it as there's no government providing services.  Each individual has to look after themselves.  But of course to stay individual they have to eschew any sort of non-commercial (ie trading/bartering) relationships because if an individual male and an individual female get together they could end up having children and, waddyaknow, society starts up.  

Ergo, humans are social animals (not a new idea of course).  From that it seems that the natural state of humans is to live co-operatively (no single individual ever took down a mammoth by himself).  Until we reach a utopia of anarchism (not the riot type, the political type) we're stuck with government as we know it.  For government to function it requires finance, finance is raised (in part) by taxation.  Therefore taxation is a social obligation on all of us.  Taxation isn't slavery.


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 27, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Yes.  Why?



Why do you pay taxes?


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 27, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> So that would be a 'no'.  How to pay for something is not a factor of that things quality.



As I pointed out, the quality of a surgeon's skills is a separate issue from how someone pays for the surgeon to use those skills.  It seems we're in agreement on that.


----------



## Larkinn (Sep 27, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> I see...  slavery is OK so long as there arent whips on people's backs.
> "Soft" slavery is OK.  Gotcha.
> How is this an objective distinction?



Err no.   You do, I hope, realize the difference between SOME of your labour going to someone else, and them having direct and complete control over everything you do, yes?   



> As for the "classic definition of slavery":
> The 1926 Slavery Convention described slavery as "...the status and/or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised..." *Slaves cannot leave an owner, an employer or a territory without explicit permission* (they must have a passport to leave), and they will be returned if they escape. Therefore a system of slavery  as opposed to the isolated instances found in any society  requires official, legal recognition of ownership, or widespread tacit arrangements with local authorities, by masters who have some influence because of their social and/or economic status.





> The International Labour Organization (ILO) defines forced labour as "all work or service which is extracted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily", albeit with certain exceptions of: military service, convicted criminals, emergencies and minor community services.



So if you don't go to work tomorrow...who will put a gin to your head?   The work that you do tomorrow is "extracted under the menace of what penalty"?  
Taxes?   Certainly not.   For if you didn't work you wouldn't pay those taxes.  So really the standard for slavery which you are trying to promote is "Some (but not all) of the work that I voluntarily do goes to benefit others"...you really think thats slavery?



> Because your argument is then subjective.  You're simply arguing from your opinion, which, since it is subjective, isnt any more sound than any other subjective opinion.  Whatever you rposition is, it holds no more water than saying "Coke is better than Pepsi because I like Coke".



Subjective elements does not mean it is completely subjective.  Of course anything open to debate will have subjective elements.   If it did not, and I was able to put it purely objectively, than you would be quite dumb.   But, as most things do, it has subjective elements.


----------



## Larkinn (Sep 27, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> And for the most part it is.  Even to those with no money.  Availabe to everyone is vague.  There is a certain factor of timeliness to availabilty of healthcare as well.



No, its not.   Emergency healthcare is...standard healthcare is not.



> Why? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for being charitable.  By why is it a responsibility? Why am I obligated to give a rats ass about you (or anyone else)?  Why is your health my obligation more so than your health is your own obligation?  It can 'the right thing to do' it can be compassionate, it can be selfish not to, but how is it obligation to care for others?  That's a personal belief with no real truth behind it.



Of course, its a moral belief.   But holding the opposite moral belief is a very negative thing for society. 



> I have no intention of ignoring them.  My intent is to have a system that balances personal responsibility while providing healthcare to those that need it.



With a bunch of people caught in the middle, no doubt.   



> So why should healthcare be different?  Assumeing both speech and healthcare are rights, why is it okay for a newspaper to charge for teh service of providing add space, but it isn't okay for hospital to charge to fix a broken leg?



Can you exercise said right without paying for it?   Thats the difference.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 27, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> No, its not.   Emergency healthcare is...standard healthcare is not.



Hence 'for the most part'



Larkinn said:


> Of course, its a moral belief.   But holding the opposite moral belief is a very negative thing for society.



Again I ask why am I _obligated_ to care about you?  

Of what opposite belief do you speak? That people should take a modicum of responsibility for themselves? 



Larkinn said:


> With a bunch of people caught in the middle, no doubt.



Caught in the middle how so? Why would I intend for that? 



Larkinn said:


> Can you exercise said right without paying for it? That's the difference.



not clear on what you mean.  Right now you can't exercise either of those rights w/o paying for it?  The question why is it okay to charge people to exercise one right and not the other?


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 27, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> As I pointed out, the quality of a surgeon's skills is a separate issue from how someone pays for the surgeon to use those skills.  It seems we're in agreement on that.



You said the following:



> The claim of best healthcare in the world is fallacious.



Citing that there were other factors to care including accessibility.  But accessibility is not a factor of whether healthcare is good or bad.  The accessability of healthcare has nothing to do with it's quality.  The operative part of the word healthcare is 'care'.  You can't rate something as good or bad if you never received it in the first place.  It would be like if I asked you to tell me if the milk in this empty glass is good or bad.


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 27, 2007)

True enough.  I suppose my focus is on the system of access/delivery and the policies that support it rather than the quality.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 27, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> True enough.  I suppose my focus is on the system of access/delivery and the policies that support it rather than the quality.



Which is my primary concern with government getting more involved in the industry.  If the system is now going to be funded through taxes what will that do to quality?  What good is access/delivery if when you _do_ need it the quality of care is poor?


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 27, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> Which is my primary concern with government getting more involved in the industry.  If the system is now going to be funded through taxes what will that do to quality?  What good is access/delivery if when you _do_ need it the quality of care is poor?



Fair questions.

If the system was funded only through taxes how would that differ from the current system in the US?  That's a question not a gambit by the way.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 27, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Fair questions.
> 
> If the system was funded only through taxes how would that differ from the current system in the US?  That's a question not a gambit by the way.



Not quite sure what you mean.  Right now the system isn't funded only through taxes, or even primarily through taxes. Can you be more specific?


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 27, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> Not quite sure what you mean.  Right now the system isn't funded only through taxes, or even primarily through taxes. Can you be more specific?



Certainly.  Let's assume that the current situation regarding health care in the US doesn't exist, there's a clean slate.  Now let's assume a national scheme is put in place and it's funded totally from taxes (and to keep it simple let's say the federal government administers it).  What would the system look like?  

In asking that question I'm of course asking for a hypothetical comparison with how it looks in reality at the moment.

I'm not looking for some sort of cyber-combat here, just wondering how you would see the system in the hypothetical scenario I've indicated.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Sep 28, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Certainly.  Let's assume that the current situation regarding health care in the US doesn't exist, there's a clean slate.  Now let's assume a national scheme is put in place and it's funded totally from taxes (and to keep it simple let's say the federal government administers it).  What would the system look like?
> 
> In asking that question I'm of course asking for a hypothetical comparison with how it looks in reality at the moment.
> 
> I'm not looking for some sort of cyber-combat here, just wondering how you would see the system in the hypothetical scenario I've indicated.



Government is wasteful, has way to much overhead and has no incentive to save or be efficient. Government drones ( non specific skilled workers, administrators and such, have a vested interested in ensuring their purpose to exist continues whether needed or not.

A lot of Doctors , I won't say all, that get into the field for medicine as practicing physicians do so for the potential life style the job will bring them. bad doctors are weeded out of the better jobs and either end up in nowhere ville or unemployed.

Government control would eliminate incentive and upward potential of doctors, Administrators are who make it big in Government jobs. Government breeds mediocracy.

But the real problem with Government control would not be the Doctors, I am sure we would still have the dedicated want to be such. The problem would be medicine and research. Ours is the best in the world because of the money making potential. It costs BIG bucks to research and develop new medicines and treatments as well as new equipment for better testing as well as better techniques to solve medical problems. 

Government control would end the ability of the research and development from being competitive, it would rob it of the ability to make money. There would be no incentive for profit and no incentive for cheaper and more efficient equipment or tests.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 28, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Certainly.  Let's assume that the current situation regarding health care in the US doesn't exist, there's a clean slate.  Now let's assume a national scheme is put in place and it's funded totally from taxes (and to keep it simple let's say the federal government administers it).  What would the system look like?
> 
> In asking that question I'm of course asking for a hypothetical comparison with how it looks in reality at the moment.
> 
> I'm not looking for some sort of cyber-combat here, just wondering how you would see the system in the hypothetical scenario I've indicated.



RGS said it pretty well.

To add my two cents.  I noted that costs being what they are the only real way to pay those costs is to pool money together somehow (for most people that is, some require no insureance and some do choose not to have any).  Right now those 'pools' of money come from the various insureance companies.  Many 'pools' of money to pay the costs.

Okay healthcare is paid solely through taxes.  Now we just have one big huge pool of money to pay medical costs.  What I'm afraid of is that the big pool is gonna be far less then the sum of the little pools.  It would have indirect benefits of course.  Primarily the enormous load it would take off most employers because that is primarily how premiums are paid now.

Here are few things that are really important to think about that I'm not sure have been though if we fund solely through taxes.

As I said right now employers pay the bulk of healthcare premiums. I pay part that automatically comes out of my pay check and my employer pays the other part.  That break down if I recall was like 1:4 or maybe 1:3 respectively. So what happens to that if we switch to just taxes?  We can't expect our facilities to take a 75-66% hit in what they make can we?  Though admittedly this part is tricky.  I don't know how the premiums we pay would translate to the amount of taxes we would need to pay to compensate.

To get a clear picture though I think we need to use some more hypotheticals.

1)If paid through taxes then the amount employers pay is gone.  That would reduce the sum of the 'pools' of money by at least %50 if I had to guess.

Should we then assume that if this is government run the tax rate would be roughly equivalent to what usedto come out of our paychecks?  If so, then the pool of money the government is working with is the same as sum of the insurance company 'pools' _less_ the portion contributed by employees.  Can we expect our medical industry to run on a pool of money that is at least 50% less than what it was working with before?  I don't know whether that hypothetical is even reasonabte or not mainly because we don't know (or I don't know) the percent of money paid to insureance companies that is used strictly to cover costs.  We would kind of need to know that as starting point. 

So that's one big set of issues.

The other is an ethical one on some levels.  That being should the people providing healthcare be allowed to 'test the market' to figure out what they can get for their services?  Should they be allowed to set prices at all?  Because if it's a tax only system the won't be able to do that.  What your doctor is allowed to make is not determined by the worth of his services now but whatever tax rate the government imposses to pay for the system.  Which goes back to why should the healthcare professionals not be allowed to set prices for their services like any other company? 

Lots to chew on.  i want to see if I can find anything on how much of what we pay to insureance companies actually goes toward medical costs cause then we could do some real number crunching.


----------



## Psychoblues (Sep 28, 2007)

Maybe healthcare is not a right but it is damn sure a responsibility of a society.  I hope this clears up the disillusions.


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 28, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Government is wasteful, has way to much overhead and has no incentive to save or be efficient. Government drones ( non specific skilled workers, administrators and such, have a vested interested in ensuring their purpose to exist continues whether needed or not.
> 
> A lot of Doctors , I won't say all, that get into the field for medicine as practicing physicians do so for the potential life style the job will bring them. bad doctors are weeded out of the better jobs and either end up in nowhere ville or unemployed.
> 
> ...



On R and D.  I think I'd be in favour of a mixed approach.  If R & D in medical and pharmaceutical research is left solely to non-government corporations then the vagaries of the market kick in.  Now I'm not anti-market, it does have a way of sorting things out.  But - and this is a fairly crudely drawn point but it's out of necessity - what if corporate R & D went for certain research paths and ignored others due to commercial interests (which would be rational corporate behaviour)?  Do you think that government should fund research in worthwhile areas that might not be so popular with the corporate bodies?  

On the market and profit motive in the healthcare sector.  As I indicated previously, the market is great for certain things.  The twin laws of demand and supply will sort out the provision of commodities well enough.  The question is, should the provision of healthcare be treated as a commercial commodity or a common good?


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 28, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> RGS said it pretty well.
> 
> To add my two cents.  I noted that costs being what they are the only real way to pay those costs is to pool money together somehow (for most people that is, some require no insureance and some do choose not to have any).  Right now those 'pools' of money come from the various insureance companies.  Many 'pools' of money to pay the costs.
> 
> ...




Those are good questions, they provoke thought.  I can't answer them immediately but they're worth thinking about.

Just one point and I don't mean to be ideological so please don't treat it this way.  Given the wealth of the United States I think the fear that the scheme would be underfunded is - although understandable - unlikely.  The amount of money that has been spent and is being spent on the occupation of Iraq for example (I emphasise, I'm not being ideological, I'm merely pointing out that the money is available) if it were spent on healthcare in the US may well be able to fund the system so that everyone in the US gets world class healthcare.  Since I have no idea how much it would cost I'm guessing of course, but I do think the federal government would have ability to pay.

On your other points I'll need to think more about them to try and come up with some responses.


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 28, 2007)

Psychoblues said:


> Maybe healthcare is not a right but it is damn sure a responsibility of a society.  I hope this clears up the disillusions.



I've tried to argue that point PSB but I'm not sure how well it's going


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 28, 2007)

Psychoblues said:


> Maybe healthcare is not a right but it is damn sure a responsibility of a society.  I hope this clears up the disillusions.



Yet no one seems to be able to tell me _why_ me (Bern80) am to be responsible for your (psychoblues) healthcare. Over say, I don't know, YOU.

People just keep saying it is.  I'm sorry I just don't get it.  It's selfish to me really.  Put the shoe on the other foot for second.  Why is it fair for you to put that burden on someone else if you are capable of fixing it yourself? Do you truly beleive it is right for you to make me responsible for your health?  That it is okay for you to place responsiblity for solving your medical problems on someone else when they have their own to deal with as well?

I had cancer when I was 4 and almost died.  Needless to say the medical bills to my parents were quite large.  You are essentially saying that it would have been okay for them to not only obfiscate themselves of any responsibility to me, but had the right to shift said responsibility on to you.  That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

It isn't my responsiblity because while medical conditions may befall say you Diuretic in Australia that you have no control over.  I  however haveing even less control over it than you do being half a world away am to be predominantly responsible for fixing you?  How can you place responsibility of the situation on someone that has even less control over it than you do?


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 28, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Those are good questions, they provoke thought.  I can't answer them immediately but they're worth thinking about.
> 
> Just one point and I don't mean to be ideological so please don't treat it this way.  Given the wealth of the United States I think the fear that the scheme would be underfunded is - although understandable - unlikely.  The amount of money that has been spent and is being spent on the occupation of Iraq for example (I emphasise, I'm not being ideological, I'm merely pointing out that the money is available) if it were spent on healthcare in the US may well be able to fund the system so that everyone in the US gets world class healthcare.  Since I have no idea how much it would cost I'm guessing of course, but I do think the federal government would have ability to pay.
> 
> On your other points I'll need to think more about them to try and come up with some responses.



Small point fo contention though. Our government doesn't have the ability to pay anything.  It is the ability of the people to pay for it via whatever taxes governmetn decides to levy.  The US is the richest country in the world for a reason.  that reason is because while there may be less of a safety net for those that can't or won't make it.  There is little to no limitation to how much wealth one can accumulate.  

You have to face a little basic reality if you propose a tax based system.  We have a progressive income tax in the US.  The more you make the more you pay.  there is no reason to think the same wouldn't hold true for such a healthcare industry.  The rich will be paying the bulk of the countries medical bills so it won't be an even distribution of burden.  Just as roughly 85% of tax revenue is generated by just the top 10% or so of income earners it than reasonable to assume that the same 10% is going to be paying the bulk of the medical bills.

I know the left has heard over and over but what drives the rich up the wall is that most of them worked very, very hard to get where they are. And they aren't pissed off about the tax rate because they're greedy.  They're pissed off because they know, they have seen with their own eyes, _I_ have seen with my own eyes that what they earned through their hard work and asking nothing of anyone is going to people that simply aren't willing to put forth the effort.  Beleive what you want but the number of people that can't (who I have no problem helping) is vastly outnumbered by those that won't.  Policies that shift more responsibilities from people that should be responsible to those that shouldn't be only exacerbates that. Until your society has spiraled into complacency where there is no incentive to achieve anything because 1)you have learned it will be provided for you 2)also learned that you can't get rich because the more you make the more will be taken away to those that have learned #1


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 28, 2007)

How about looking at it a different way?  Instead of focusing on what's not being said and focusing on what's being said?

The argument is not that you - Bern80 is responsible for anyone's health care.  The argument is that you pay taxes, just like every other citizen who earns an income - and those taxes will help pay for things as diverse as foreign wars and domestic healthcare schemes.  Does that make it clearer?

Now, why should it be the case that government pays for a health care scheme?  That's the interesting part.  Those of us who are arguing for that to be the case must put up some arguments for our position.  Let's break out of this mobius strip we're in in this discussion and try and move it forward.

I'll put one position and it's not entirely relevant to the US but is really a thought about a government-funded health scheme.  My position is that if a government-funded health scheme allows that all those who need health care in a timely manner are given health care.  My contention is that the general health of the population would increase and certain diseases would either disappear or be reduced in large measure.  That's my contention - that it's a public good because it's good for the public (that's not a contradiction in terms, it's just one of those English language things where the same word means something different depending on context).  


Deaths in England and Wales from infectious diseases such as TB, Diptheria, Whooping cough, Measles and Polio were reduced.  The NHS was instituted in 1948.



</i></font></span></p><table border="0" style="border-collapse: collapse" width="78&#37;" bgcolor="#CCCCCC"><tr><td colspan="3"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
		Deaths in England and Wales from infectious disease</span></font></td><td width="17%">
		&nbsp;</td><td width="11%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">&nbsp;</span></font></td><td width="11%">
		&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td width="15%">&nbsp;</td><td width="17%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			Tuberculosis</span></font></td><td width="15%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			Diphtheria </span></font></td><td width="17%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			&nbsp;Whooping cough</span></font></td><td width="11%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			Measles</span></font></td><td width="11%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			Polio</span></font></td></tr><tr><td width="15%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			1943</span></font></td><td width="17%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			25,649&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></font></td><td width="15%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			1,371&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></font></td><td width="17%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			1,114&nbsp; </span></font></td><td width="11%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			773</span></font></td><td width="11%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			80</span></font></td></tr><tr><td width="15%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			1944&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></font></td><td width="17%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			24,163</span></font></td><td width="15%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			1,054&nbsp; </span></font></td><td width="17%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			1,054</span></font></td><td width="11%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			243 </span></font></td><td width="11%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			109</span></font></td></tr><tr><td width="15%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			1945&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></font></td><td width="17%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			23,955</span></font></td><td width="15%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			722 </span></font></td><td width="17%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			689&nbsp; </span></font></td><td width="11%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			729</span></font></td><td width="11%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			139</span></font></td></tr><tr><td width="15%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			1946 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></font></td><td width="17%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			22,847</span></font></td><td width="15%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			472</span></font></td><td width="17%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			808 </span></font></td><td width="11%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			204&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></font></td><td width="11%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			128</span></font></td></tr><tr><td width="15%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			1947&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></font></td><td width="17%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			23,550 </span></font></td><td width="15%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			244</span></font></td><td width="17%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			905 </span></font></td><td width="11%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			644</span></font></td><td width="11%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			707</span></font></td></tr><tr><td width="15%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			1948&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></font></td><td width="17%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			23,175&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></font></td><td width="15%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			156</span></font></td><td width="17%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			748&nbsp; </span></font></td><td width="11%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			327</span></font></td><td width="11%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			241</span></font></td></tr><tr><td width="15%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			1949&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></font></td><td width="17%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			19,797</span></font></td><td width="15%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			84 </span></font></td><td width="17%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			527 </span></font></td><td width="11%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			307 </span></font></td><td width="11%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			657</span></font></td></tr><tr><td width="15%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			1950&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></font></td><td width="17%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			15,969 </span></font></td><td width="15%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			49&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></font></td><td width="17%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			394</span></font></td><td width="11%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			221&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></font></td><td width="11%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			755</span></font></td></tr><tr><td width="15%"><p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			1951&nbsp;</span></font></p></td><td width="17%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			13,806 </span></font></td><td width="15%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			33&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></font></td><td width="17%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			456&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></font></td><td width="11%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			317&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></font></td><td width="11%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			217</span></font></td></tr><tr><td width="15%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			1952&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></font></td><td width="17%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			10,585</span></font></td><td width="15%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			32 </span></font></td><td width="17%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			184&nbsp; </span></font></td><td width="11%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			141</span></font></td><td width="11%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			275</span></font></td></tr><tr><td width="15%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			1953 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></font></td><td width="17%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			9,002</span></font></td><td width="15%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			23 </span></font></td><td width="17%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			243 </span></font></td><td width="11%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			245&nbsp; </span></font></td><td width="11%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			320</span></font></td></tr><tr><td width="15%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			1954 &nbsp;&nbsp; </span></font></td><td width="17%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			7,897</span></font></td><td width="15%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			8</span></font></td><td width="17%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			139</span></font></td><td width="11%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			45 </span></font></td><td width="11%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			112</span></font></td></tr><tr><td width="15%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			1955 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></font></td><td width="17%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			6,492</span></font></td><td width="15%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			12 </span></font></td><td width="17%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			87 </span></font></td><td width="11%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			174</span></font></td><td width="11%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			241</span></font></td></tr><tr><td width="15%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			1956&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></font></td><td width="17%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			5,375 </span></font></td><td width="15%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			3</span></font></td><td width="17%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			92 </span></font></td><td width="11%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			28&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></font></td><td width="11%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			114</span></font></td></tr><tr><td width="15%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			1957&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></font></td><td width="17%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			4,784 </span></font></td><td width="15%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			4</span></font></td><td width="17%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			87</span></font></td><td width="11%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			94</span></font></td><td width="11%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			226</span></font></td></tr><tr><td width="15%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			1958 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></font></td><td width="17%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			4,480 </span></font></td><td width="15%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			8&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></font></td><td width="17%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			27&nbsp; </span></font></td><td width="11%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			49</span></font></td><td width="11%"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
			154</span></font></td></tr></table><p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB">
I contend that treating health care as a communal responsibility and not just a personal issue of responsibility does improve society in general.

Source for those statistics: http://www.nhshistory.net/Chapter 1.htm#Preparing_for_the_new_service


----------



## Psychoblues (Sep 28, 2007)

Just how many sad stories trump your pitiful one, B'80?  I suspect about a million to your one.




Bern80 said:


> Yet no one seems to be able to tell me _why_ me (Bern80) am to be responsible for your (psychoblues) healthcare. Over say, I don't know, YOU.
> 
> People just keep saying it is.  I'm sorry I just don't get it.  It's selfish to me really.  Put the shoe on the other foot for second.  Why is it fair for you to put that burden on someone else if you are capable of fixing it yourself? Do you truly beleive it is right for you to make me responsible for your health?  That it is okay for you to place responsiblity for solving your medical problems on someone else when they have their own to deal with as well?
> 
> ...



Even with your cancer, I think you still suck as a member of the American Society.  Dig it?


----------



## Gunny (Sep 28, 2007)

Psychoblues said:


> *Just how many sad stories trump your pitiful one, B'80?  I suspect about a million to your one.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And I suspect you have told every one of the million.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 28, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> No, I think there's a wilful refusal on your part to take the point.


As the desert said to he grain of sand.



> I asked you in an earlier post if you lived in a society or a landmass populated by individuals.  You said both, thereby avoiding answering the question as it was put.  But a valid answer would have been good.


No, -I- didn't.  Someone else did.



> A society is composed of people who come together to live with certain explicit and implicit agreements about how they will conduct themselves relative to one another.  Each individual has rights but each individual also has obligations to other individuals and to the collective called 'society'.  Among those obligations is the paying of income tax.  Income tax is used by elected government to finance its programmes.  Among those programmes may be a health care scheme which is provided as part of the government's obligtation towards the members of society.  Acknowledging and complying with obligations is important for all components of society, if that doesn't happen then the social situation breaks down.  Taxation isn't slavery.


You apparently do not understand my argument isn't taxation = slavery .
I'm not at all sure how that can be, given the number of times I have made it clear that this is not the case.
More willful refusal on your part, perhaps?


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 28, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> As the desert said to he grain of sand.
> 
> 
> No, -I- didn't.  Someone else did.
> ...



Bugger did I get the attribution wrong?  Sorry 'bout that, unintentional.  

As for taxation=slavery.  I stand corrected then.  Not a wilful refusal on my part, just a common or garden error, because that was how I read you.

So, in the interests of open dialogue, is it possible to summarise where we are?  How do you view taxation?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 28, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> Err no.   You do, I hope, realize the difference between SOME of your labour going to someone else, and them having direct and complete control over everything you do, yes?


So...  if the slaves in the Southern States had only been forced to give half their labor to their masters, they would not have been slaves?  Or that their slavery, in that case, would have been OK by you?



> So if you don't go to work tomorrow...who will put a gin to your head?   The work that you do tomorrow is "extracted under the menace of what penalty"?


You dont pay your taxes, you go to jail.
You dont work for master, you get beat.
Is there a difference?



> So really the standard for slavery which you are trying to promote is "Some (but not all) of the work that I voluntarily do goes to benefit others"...you really think thats slavery?


Of coruse I do -- and so do you, unless you would argue that if the slaves in the Southern States had only been forced to give half their labor to their maters, they were then not really slaves.



> Subjective elements does not mean it is completely subjective.


If the -basis- for your argment is that subjective element, then it does make the argument completely subjective, and no more meaningful than arguing that Coke tastes better than Pepsi.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 28, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Bugger did I get the attribution wrong?  Sorry 'bout that, unintentional.


No problemo.   



> So, in the interests of open dialogue, is it possible to summarise where we are?  How do you view taxation?


In and of itself, taxation isn't an issue -- given that governemnt exists to protect the rights of its people, there are numerous legitimate functions of government -- and so there needs to be some sort of funding for it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Sep 28, 2007)

No more word games. YES or NO, is taxation slavery? You do not get to claim it is not in one post and then go on and on in another post implying it is.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 28, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> No more word games. YES or NO, is taxation slavery? You do not get to claim it is not in one post and then go on and on in another post implying it is.


Are you talking to me?

In and of itself, it isn't.

But then, my argument isn't taxation = slavery.


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 28, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> No problemo.



Cheers  



			
				M14 Shooter: said:
			
		

> In and of itself, taxation isn't an issue -- given that governemnt exists to protect the rights of its people, there are numerous legitimate functions of government -- and so there needs to be some sort of funding for it.



Agreed on that one.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 28, 2007)

Psychoblues said:


> Just how many sad stories trump your pitiful one, B'80?  I suspect about a million to your one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's it!?  That's you're answer to my question?  That I'm a bad person because people should take responsibility for themslevs and not feel they have the right to depend on others?  Who really is the bad person here?  Me who expects nothing of anyone in terms of providing my needs.  Or you that feels you have the right to selfishly burden others with what they should be responsible for on their own?

Why would I give a shit what you think of me Psycho?  And _still_ you are unable to anwer the questions I put forth. Dig it?

You are _still_ unable to tell me why I am obligated and responsible in any way, shape or form to provide for your well being.


----------



## Shogun (Sep 28, 2007)

*Employees fired and fined for smoking, obesity and blood test results*

http://businessshrink.biz/psycholog...d-for-smoking-obesity-and-blood-test-results/



Perhaps taking health care out of the work place is a great reason to develop universal health care?  Come on, you capitolists... Dont businesses deserve a break on expendatures related to employee health care?


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 28, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> The argument is not that you - Bern80 is responsible for anyone's health care.  The argument is that you pay taxes, just like every other citizen who earns an income - and those taxes will help pay for things as diverse as foreign wars and domestic healthcare schemes.  Does that make it clearer?



Sure.  Part of our taxes still got to some aspects of healtchare as part of the whole.  Being a limited government kind of person, healthcare is certainly not the only thing I am oppossed to paying taxes for.  That's for another time.



Diuretic said:


> I'll put one position and it's not entirely relevant to the US but is really a thought about a government-funded health scheme.  My position is that if a government-funded health scheme allows that all those who need health care in a timely manner are given health care.  My contention is that the general health of the population would increase and certain diseases would either disappear or be reduced in large measure.  That's my contention - that it's a public good because it's good for the public (that's not a contradiction in terms, it's just one of those English language things where the same word means something different depending on context).



That is essentially what I'm afraid _won't_ happen.  I mentioned some of the many factors in paying for this and of course not knowing some numbers.   I did do a little searching and found an article about one isureance provider claimeing that roughly 80% of what they take in goes to paying their policyholder's bills. But again the money factors are complicated and I think more time needs to be spent figuring out the math of how something like this is gonna work before we just do it.

The point is I believe the money going into our healthcare facilities (everything from doctors fees, to prescriptions, to treatments, to research) is going to go down if paid solely through taxes.  What does that have to do with your position above? A lot.  Are we expecting all doctors to take an involuntery pay cut?  Whether you beleive it moral or not a big part of why people get into medicine is for the money.  What happens to the incentive to become one if one understands they can't make as much as before and that their salary is essentially set by the government.  The other big one is research.  We can't research for cures fast enough already, you never can.  That research costs money.  Are we expecting our R&D companies to do more with less?

That's essentially why I don't think the position you are taking is likely to pan out.  You will have probably reduced the incentive to become a doctor in the first place.  We are already short of those in many areas of the country.  All the while the demand on the system has increased because it costs less (that is people who were putting things off for financial reasons aren't now and those that weren't covered at all now are, even those that were insured will go to the doctor more often because most peolpe's plans don't cover 100% of their medical expenses).  How will meet this demand when we have reduced the incentive to become doctors?  Are we going to lower the standards we require of students to become one so more get in?  That woudl reduce the quality of the system as a whole.  The same with R&D.  less of it will take place if less money is going in.

Our population is a major factor as to wether this is workable or not.  Just because it works in Europe or Canada isn't ample evidence that it would work here.




Diuretic said:


> Deaths in England and Wales from infectious diseases such as TB, Diptheria, Whooping cough, Measles and Polio were reduced.  The NHS was instituted in 1948.



I don't think you can attribute that primarily to NHS.  It is more likely that cures were researched and developed for those things.  Afterall the US has no NHS and we don't have problems with any of those anymore either.

Lastly even if your scenario turned out to be true I would still be oppossed to it on ethical grounds.  I just dont' think my health and providing for it is your responsiblilty. Primarily because you don't have any control over it.  I think of it similar to car insureance.  We pay premiums for that too. As an example you own a car and you may get into an accident.  Maybe you caused it, maybe you didn't just like with your health you get sick, maybe you could have prevented it, maybe you couldn't.  As far the car accident, whether you caused it or are partially to blame does it really make any sense for you to say to me that it's my responsibility?  You may have had no control over what happenned but I most definately don't have any control over what happened.

I am exteremly leary of any policy that allows the the people of the US an excuse to be even less responsible for their actions than is already the case.


----------



## rOckNrOllsCar11 (Sep 28, 2007)

If our government gets health care on the bill of EVERY tax-paying American than EVERY American should get their moneys worth and have it too.  

What's with the argument that making that a right would be to "socialize" health care.  Am I supposed to shudder in fear like its 1983 and those nasty Russian atheist are just waiting for a reason to push the button?  

A well run society takes care of its own especially before they try taking care of every one else problems in the world.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 28, 2007)

rOckNrOllsCar11 said:


> If our government gets health care on the bill of EVERY tax-paying American than EVERY American should get their moneys worth and have it too.
> 
> What's with the argument that making that a right would be to "socialize" health care.  Am I supposed to shudder in fear like its 1983 and those nasty Russian atheist are just waiting for a reason to push the button?
> 
> A well run society takes care of its own especially before they try taking care of every one else problems in the world.



Lets try it it like this:
Where X = whatever right you care to name
What right do you have to expect me to pay for you to exercise your right to X?


----------



## CharlestonChad (Sep 28, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Lets try it it like this:
> Where X = whatever right you care to name
> What right do you have to expect me to pay for you to exercise your right to X?



Are your selfish morals greater than the good of the society?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 28, 2007)

CharlestonChad said:


> Are your selfish morals greater than the good of the society?


Please answer the question.

Where X = whatever right you care to name
What right do you have to expect me to pay for you to exercise your right to X?


----------



## rOckNrOllsCar11 (Sep 28, 2007)

> Lets try it it like this:
> Where X = whatever right you care to name
> What right do you have to expect me to pay for you to exercise your right to X?



But ok with paying for the rights of Iraq?  Have Americans become so self important that our own matter lest?  Why this backwards grandiosity?  Are you saying they are more important than me?  
And remember, you are paying for the congresses health plans, senates health plans, the presidents health plan and so on and so forth.  Is that ok with you.  Government are to serve the people.  They are supposed to work for us, not the other way round.  But where there is power, there's corruption. 

and your wrong, government exists to INSURE the rights AND wrongs of its people.  Otherwise, they'd have no power.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 28, 2007)

rOckNrOllsCar11 said:


> But ok with paying for the rights of Iraq?


Don't change the subject; answer the question.


----------



## rOckNrOllsCar11 (Sep 28, 2007)

> Don't change the subject; answer the question.



I'm not changing the subject, I'm simply offering a bigger picture to your argument.  You're not addressing the apparent belief that politicians have that they have a RIGHT to health care on our tax dollars and we don't so in actuality perhaps you should apply your question to them, not me.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 28, 2007)

rOckNrOllsCar11 said:


> I'm not changing the subject, I'm simply offering a bigger picture to your argument.


No, you're trying to find a way to not answer the question.  Don't do that.

Where X = whatever right you care to name
What right do you have to expect me to pay for you to exercise your right to X?


----------



## rOckNrOllsCar11 (Sep 28, 2007)

Fine, if it satisfies you I will.  

By example.

I use tobacco.  Congress expanded health care for children at the expense of my habit and guess what.  That's ok w/ me.  

So now it's your turn.  Apply your lil riddle to my perspectives.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 28, 2007)

rOckNrOllsCar11 said:


> Fine, if it satisfies you I will.
> 
> By example.
> 
> ...



That doesnt answer my question.
Not even remotely.
In fact, given you answer, I'm not evern sure you understand my question.


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 28, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> No, you're trying to find a way to not answer the question.  Don't do that.
> 
> Where X = whatever right you care to name
> What right do you have to expect me to pay for you to exercise your right to X?



I think that I see your point but I think that people should be required to pay taxes to some things for the common good.  DO you really think that all government social services should end  unemployment insurance, food stamps, earned income tax credits, Medicare, Medicaid, farm subsidies, etc?  Can you think of anything that you would want the government to do to help those who fall onto hard times?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 28, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> I think that I see your point but I think that people should be required to pay taxes to some things for the common good.


And I agree.  There are a lot of things the government does "for the common good" that doesnt have anything to do with providing someone with the means to exercise his rights.



> DO you really think that all government social services should end  unemployment insurance, food stamps, earned income tax credits, Medicare, Medicaid, farm subsidies, etc?


All of these things mean I am paying someone to exercise their right to X.
What right do you/they have to expect me to pay for you to exercise your right to X?



> Can you think of anything that you would want the government to do to help those who fall onto hard times?


The government does not exist to provide people with the means to exercise thrit rights.  If you disagree, then you need to answer my question.


----------



## rOckNrOllsCar11 (Sep 28, 2007)

ok...than clarify you question.  Perhaps I'm not understanding your question entirely.  It seems to me your just asking if tomorrow a national health plan went into effect should I be able to choose met-life or Blue Cross or whatever.  ummm, if thats the case, it's still called Medicaid which your tax dollars go to.  Do you oppose that?

Bottom line, you're making me debate an assumed notions.  At least my answers show where I stand unlike you and your  faces.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 28, 2007)

rOckNrOllsCar11 said:


> ok...than clarify you question.  Perhaps I'm not understanding your question entirely.


I'm now sure how I can be more clear.

Perhaps an example:
X = the right to own property
I have the right to own property.
What right do I have to expect you to pay for that property?

(You may substitue for X any right you care to choose)


----------



## Shogun (Sep 28, 2007)

dont worry about debating ole salad shooter...



He'll block you as soon as you debate him into a corner.


----------



## rOckNrOllsCar11 (Sep 28, 2007)

Bottom line:  Your question is a riddle.  It can go either way.  If the answer is yes, than your rights are somehow disregarded, if I say no, I sound like a selfish prick.  Either way, theres really no answer when you put it like that.  

I just feel if your applying this to something that isn't even a part of reality why can't you with what is?  (government 'right' to health care, throwing money at a hopeless country such as Iraq)  

In these cases, I would say no.  Unfortunately, we can't choose to which causes our tax dollars go to unless you think voting works, lol, naw seriously though.  

Where not talking about property though, thats a luxury, health care shouldn't be.

If we take the route of actually being able to choose where individually our tax dollars go than our government would prolly be smaller.  But can you image for example, 23 states out of 50 oppose their tax dollars going to Iraqs right to rights.  That would be seen almost as treasonous.

I get your point but its a riddle with a double edged sword.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 28, 2007)

rOckNrOllsCar11 said:


> Bottom line:  Your question is a riddle.  It can go either way.  If the answer is yes, than your rights are somehow disregarded, if I say no, I sound like a selfish prick.  Either way, theres really no answer when you put it like that.


That shoudl tell you something, shouldn't it?
Especially the "If the answer is yes, than your rights are somehow disregarded" part?



> I just feel if your applying this to something that isn't even a part of reality why can't you with what is?


Um...
If you do not have the right to expect me to pay for your property, how then can you expect to have the right to excpect me to pay for your health care?



> I get your point but its a riddle with a double edged sword.


Its not a riddle.  Its a question.

IF you believe that I have the right to expect you to pay for me to exercise your right to X, then your belief is valid, regardless of X.

IF you believe that I do NOT have the right to expect you to pay for me to exercise your right to X, then your belief is valid, regardless of X.

Whats NOT valid is arguing that you believe I have the right to expect you to pay for me to exercise my right to X, but only simetimes, depending on if you think the right to X is important enough, etc.


----------



## rOckNrOllsCar11 (Sep 28, 2007)

You act like your gonna pay for the whole thing.  It's a simple redirection of money.  Consider the b.s. our taxes go to now.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 28, 2007)

rOckNrOllsCar11 said:


> You act like your gonna pay for the whole thing.  It's a simple redirection of money.  Consider the b.s. our taxes go to now.


How does that matter?

In supporting federal health care, I am saying that I have the right to expect you to pay for me to exercise my right to have health care.

If that's a valid position, then it is equally valid for me to say that I have the right to expect you to pay for me to exercise ALL my rights.

You agree with that?  That I have the right to expect you to pay for me to exercise ALL my rights?


----------



## rOckNrOllsCar11 (Sep 28, 2007)

> How does that matter?
> 
> In supporting federal health care, I am saying that I have the right to expect you to pay for me to exercise my right to have health care.
> 
> ...



Something tells me that you don't need anyone to pay for your health care.  In fact, you seem to have no understanding of poverty in general.  Trust me, it's not just a PBS special.  And the problem is only growing.  

What rights do you need someone to pay for exactly cuz your argument is become more and more baseless.  I think you just bait people into pointless conversations.  Perhaps you do have a future in politics after all.


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 28, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> All of these things mean I am paying someone to exercise their right to X.
> What right do you/they have to expect me to pay for you to exercise your right to X?
> 
> 
> The government does not exist to provide people with the means to exercise thrit rights.  If you disagree, then you need to answer my question.



My answer to your question is that sometimes people fall onto hard times, often through nothing that they could have reasonable expected: a crooked employer gets into trouble, lays you off, and goes bankrupt.  While you struggle to save and find another job you take a chance and let your health insurance lapse out of sheer necessity.  Suddenly, while uninsured, you get severely sick.  I guess that it is just too bad.  Go die in the street.  I should not be obligated to give you one red cent. Some people are born with severe mental and physical handicaps.  To make things worse, those handicapped people might be born to very poor families without the money or resources to care for such needy people.  I guess that it just too bad. We should not expect you to help pay, in the slightest, for such people to exercise their right to X (survival).


----------



## Annie (Sep 28, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> My answer to your question is that sometimes people fall onto hard times, often through nothing that they could have reasonable expected: a crooked employer gets into trouble, lays you off, and goes bankrupt.  While you struggle to save and find another job you take a chance and let your health insurance lapse out of sheer necessity.  Suddenly, while uninsured, you get severely sick.  I guess that it is just too bad.  Go die in the street.  I should not be obligated to give you one red cent. Some people are born with severe mental and physical handicaps.  To make things worse, those handicapped people might be born to very poor families without the money or resources to care for such needy people.  I guess that it just too bad. We should not expect you to help pay, in the slightest, for such people to exercise their right to X (survival).



Where are these people 'dying in the street'? Today in IL, if a family makes $53k and hasn't health insurance, they have access to free health care. Governor Blogo thinks that's insufficient. He wants to add over 250k more people, above that $53k. I'm sorry, but from where I sit, the government, state or fed should not be doing this.


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 28, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> My answer to your question is that sometimes people fall onto hard times, often through nothing that they could have reasonable expected: a crooked employer gets into trouble, lays you off, and goes bankrupt.  While you struggle to save and find another job you take a chance and let your health insurance lapse out of sheer necessity.  Suddenly, while uninsured, you get severely sick.  I guess that it is just too bad.  Go die in the street.  *I should not be obligated to give you one red cent. *Some people are born with severe mental and physical handicaps.  To make things worse, those handicapped people might be born to very poor families without the money or resources to care for such needy people.  I guess that it just too bad. We should not expect you to help pay, in the slightest, for such people to exercise their right to X (survival).



You're not obligated.  The question is does the government have an obligation?


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 28, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> You're not obligated.  The question is does the government have an obligation?



Well.  I think that government is obligated but the only way that government can help is through money that it receives from taxpayers.  Therefore, indirectly, people would be obligated to help.


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 28, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Where are these people 'dying in the street'? Today in IL, if a family makes $53k and hasn't health insurance, they have access to free health care. Governor Blogo thinks that's insufficient. He wants to add over 250k more people, above that $53k. I'm sorry, but from where I sit, the government, state or fed should not be doing this.



I would not say that people are dying in the street but some people, at least to a strong degree, have to choose between buying health insurance and making sure that their children have enough health care.  The IL example that you gave seems to be high. How many people are in a family that gets $53k per year?  I do not consider myself to be an extremist.  Lines should be drawn; the question is where to draw the line.  I have yet to hear a reply from Patriot, so I will ask you.  DO you want government to remove ALL social welfare programs and safety nets  yes or no?


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 28, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> Well.  I think that government is obligated but the only way that government can help is through money that it receives from taxpayers.  Therefore, indirectly, people would be obligated to help.



I don't mean to quibble but the idea of an "indirect obligation" eludes me.  I think that having an obligation is one of those fundamental concepts as in it exists or it doesn't exist.  Let's say you have a child.  As a parent you have direct obligations to your child.  I can't think of any "indirect" obligations you may have.  I do think the government has an obligation to it citizens but I don't see how an individual citizen can have any obligation to other citizens in policy matters which are the province of the government.  We do have private obligations to one another of course, the obligation of duty of care is one, but there is no obligation of a citizen to provide for the health care of another citizen, that's the obligation of government.


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 28, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> I don't mean to quibble but the idea of an "indirect obligation" eludes me.  I think that having an obligation is one of those fundamental concepts as in it exists or it doesn't exist.  Let's say you have a child.  As a parent you have direct obligations to your child.  I can't think of any "indirect" obligations you may have.  I do think the government has an obligation to it citizens but I don't see how an individual citizen can have any obligation to other citizens in policy matters which are the province of the government.  We do have private obligations to one another of course, the obligation of duty of care is one, but there is no obligation of a citizen to provide for the health care of another citizen, that's the obligation of government.



You are confusing me.  Okay.  Where does the money come from that government can use to help care for the citizens?


----------



## rOckNrOllsCar11 (Sep 28, 2007)

Just remember that society as a whole can't not but feel the effects of poverty.   Consider the intention behind crimes such as stealing or robbery.  People would do it a lot less if there wasn't such a gap between the rich and the poor.  Even more detrimental is this consumerism culture.  It's turned the roles of men and women into a social disaster which cheapens and dumbs down the value of love, life and respect.  As I said earlier on another thread, the battle is for hearts and minds within the smoke screens we are presented with on a daily basis.  

These are little signs folks that we are on the slope of decline.  If you don't see it, don't believe it or don't feel it, it's my fervent belief that you're living in bliss.

Give Aldous Huxleys' A Brave New World a read.  That story; in ways; shows what a smart, progressive society should do to maintain balance, peace and prosperity.  If anyone is unfamiliar with it it was written in the late 1920's.  A novel very much ahead of its time.  Coincidently Aldous Huxley died on the same day J.F.K. was assassinated.


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 28, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> You are confusing me.  Okay.  Where does the money come from that government can use to help care for the citizens?



Taxes.


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 28, 2007)

rOckNrOllsCar11 said:


> Just remember that society as a whole can't not but feel the effects of poverty.   Consider the intention behind crimes such as stealing or robbery.  People would do it a lot less if there wasn't such a gap between the rich and the poor.  Even more detrimental is this consumerism culture.  It's turned the roles of men and women into a social disaster and cheapened the value of love, life and respect.  These are little signs folks that we are on the slope of decline.  If you don't see it, don't believe it or don't feel it, it's my fervent belief that you're living in bliss.
> 
> Give Aldous Huxleys' A Brave New World a read.  That story; in ways; shows what a smart, progressive society should do to maintain balance, peace and prosperity.



Now we're getting into the meaning of life stuff


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 28, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Taxes.



Yes.  Also, the citizens give the taxes to government who then gives it to the needy.  Therefore, in an indirect way, citizens pay from the care of other citizens.  Money goes from citizens, to government and then from government to other citizens.


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 28, 2007)

rOckNrOllsCar11 said:


> Just remember that society as a whole can't not but feel the effects of poverty.   Consider the intention behind crimes such as stealing or robbery.  People would do it a lot less if there wasn't such a gap between the rich and the poor.  Even more detrimental is this consumerism culture.  It's turned the roles of men and women into a social disaster which cheapens and dumbs down the value of love, life and respect.  As I said earlier on another thread, the battle is for hearts and minds within the smoke screens we are presented with on a daily basis.
> 
> These are little signs folks that we are on the slope of decline.  If you don't see it, don't believe it or don't feel it, it's my fervent belief that you're living in bliss.
> 
> Give Aldous Huxleys' A Brave New World a read.  That story; in ways; shows what a smart, progressive society should do to maintain balance, peace and prosperity.  If anyone is unfamiliar with it it was written in the late 1920's.  A novel very much ahead of its time.  Coincidently Aldous Huxley died on the same day J.F.K. was assassinated.



I disagree.  Poverty may play a part in crime, but it would be a very small part.  Crime causes poverty.  Look at Chinatowns. Some people within those places are as poor as are those in Black ghettos.  I venture to say that crime is based on societal expectation and upbringing.  If you are taught that it is wrong to steal, if shame is linked by your society to stealing, and if your clique shuns you if you steal, then you will be less likely to steal.  If on the other hand, stealing is not thought to be so bad, if you are taught that the big man owes it to you and that you have a right to his stuff.  If your friends think that it is cool to get away with stealing, then there is a higher likelihood that you will steal.  I just dont put much weight on the notion that poverty causes crime.


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 28, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> Yes.  Also, the citizens give the taxes to government who then gives it to the needy.  Therefore, in an indirect way, citizens pay from the care of other citizens.  Money goes from citizens, to government and then from government to other citizens.



Yes, in an indirect way citizens pay for the care of other citizens.  They also pay for their protection from domestic and foreign threats, education, welfare (both personal and corporate) and many other budget programmes.  That's how societies operate.  That takes apart the objections of those who are arguing that they should have no obligation to other members of society to provide funding for healthcare.  It's a straw man argument.


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 28, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> I disagree.  Poverty may play a part in crime, but it would be a very small part.  Crime causes poverty.  Look at Chinatowns. Some people within those places are as poor as are those in Black ghettos.  I venture to say that crime is based on societal expectation and upbringing.  If you are taught that it is wrong to steal, if shame is linked by your society to stealing, and if your clique shuns you if you steal, then you will be less likely to steal.  If on the other hand, stealing is not thought to be so bad, if you are taught that the big man owes it to you and that you have a right to his stuff.  If your friends think that it is cool to get away with stealing, then there is a higher likelihood that you will steal.  I just dont put much weight on the notion that poverty causes crime.



There's no single cause of crime and yes, it's simplistic to say that poverty causes crime.  The Enron crooks weren't poor, just greedy.  Poverty is related to crime though.  But I'm getting off topic.


----------



## Doug (Sep 29, 2007)

*(1)* Cause-and-effect exists within society, but as an interconnected web, not as a linear chain. Everything causes everything else.

*(2)* The concept of cause-and-effect comes from the material world where, at the macro (but not the sub-atomic) level, it is valid. 

However, even here, as the chaos theorists have shown, what may be analyzable in principle may not be in practice. (Even our Solar System, once held up as the very model of Newtonian determinism, is chaotic.)

*(3)* Unlike planets, human beings are conscious. This means that attempts to intervene and change their behavior run into the problems that do not occur with non-conscious entities. For example, if I observe that in a poor neighborhood with a violent crime rate 100% higher than the average, the crime rate goes down if the government builds a Youth Center with free recreational facilities, would it be a wise idea to announce that, for any neighborhood whose violent crime rate exceeds 100%, the government will build a Youth Center with free recreational facilties?

This same concept in insurance is known as "moral hazard" -- once someone is insured against the consequences of certain acts, there is a danger that they will be more tempted to commit those acts.

*(4)* Because human society is so complex, and because human beings are self-aware, we must be extremely cautious in assigning causes to effects, and vice versa. It is a conceit of human intelligence to believe that a social system can be analyzed like a physical system.

This is why one strain of conservative thought is .... conservative. We are skeptical about schemes for human improvement which make simplistic assumptions about how easy it will be to bring about radical alterations in human behavior. We are doubly skeptical when these schemes stem from abstract propositions about "rights" and "social justice" rather than empirical observations.

An example of incautious attempts to assign causes to outcomes can be found in the two books[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Freakonomics-Revised-Expanded-Economist-Everything/dp/0061234001/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-9655811-7155832?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191046349&sr=8-1]* Freakonomics*[/ame] and [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Freedomnomics-Market-Works-Half-Baked-Theories/dp/1596985062/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-9655811-7155832?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191046445&sr=1-1]* Freedomnomics*[/ame]. The authors, one side sort-of liberal and the other conservative, duel over the question: did Roe vs Wade cause a drop in the crime rate two decades later (by causing more babies of crime-prone poor people to be aborted)?

Each adduces various statistics to bolster his case. But the fact is, we don't really know. Society is too complex to assign such simple causes to effects.

Although conservatives should be more receptive to this idea than liberals (the latter, after all, are keen to get in there and change society for the better), in fact, conservatives often fall into the trap of simplistic assignment of cause to effect, via "common sense" reasoning.

While common sense is not to be sneered at, in reality what our common sense tells us is often wrong. 

Does getting more welfare money for each new baby cause welfare mothers to have more babies? Maybe, but don't assume it. Better try to do some empirical research on the issue before deciding. 

Will the oppressed and downtrodden Iraqi people welcome the liberating American troops with flowers and dancing? Maybe, but don't assume it. Better have a "Plan B" in case they don't. (Well, too late for that one. But the point is valid.)


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Sep 29, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Yes, in an indirect way citizens pay for the care of other citizens.  They also pay for their protection from domestic and foreign threats, education, welfare (both personal and corporate) and many other budget programmes.  That's how societies operate.  That takes apart the objections of those who are arguing that they should have no obligation to other members of society to provide funding for healthcare.  It's a straw man argument.



No it is not. We live in a representative republic. The Constitution states what the Government is allowed to do. AND it does NOT give the Government the power to run a forced public health care program. That requires us to APPROVE of it in our voting and not voting for representatives, in being vocal and opposing or approving such plans and the MAJORITY wins out.


The Strawman argument is that somehow we MUST assume it is a right, it is NOT a right. The Government may decide to do it, but it would then be a privilage not a right. And could be taken away by the choice of the Majority.

You want it to be a right? Then create an amendment in the US that makes it so. Outside the US do what ever your form of Government requires to establish it as a right.

In the case of Britain and I assume Australia, you have no rights. You are at the whim of your Government what you can and can not do. there is NO document that gives you any right except that old Magna Carta. All you have are privaleges which can be removed by an act of your Government. You may or may not be able to change it by voting out enough members and voting in enough to change it, but that is a pretty cumbersome method and not likely to work on most issues.


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 29, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> No it is not. We live in a representative republic. The Constitution states what the Government is allowed to do. AND it does NOT give the Government the power to run a forced public health care program. That requires us to APPROVE of it in our voting and not voting for representatives, in being vocal and opposing or approving such plans and the MAJORITY wins out.



Sorry I'm gong to have to parse this.

I already mentioned several times that the parties explain their programmes which they will institute (supposedly) when in government.  Voters can approve or reject.  Once a government is in power they can institute their programmes.  I can't think of how a government would be stopped - constitutionally speaking - from pursuing its programmes which have been approved by the electors.




			
				RetiredGySgt: said:
			
		

> The Strawman argument is that somehow we MUST assume it is a right, it is NOT a right. The Government may decide to do it, but it would then be a privilage not a right. And could be taken away by the choice of the Majority.



I've tried to argue it's not a right.  My objectors have portrayed it as a right to try to overcome my point.  That's the strawman.  It may be an obligation by government towards citizens but it's not a right.




			
				RetiredGySgt: said:
			
		

> You want it to be a right? Then create an amendment in the US that makes it so. Outside the US do what ever your form of Government requires to establish it as a right.



No, making it a right changes nothing.  




			
				RetiredGySgt: said:
			
		

> In the case of Britain and I assume Australia, you have no rights. You are at the whim of your Government what you can and can not do. there is NO document that gives you any right except that old Magna Carta. All you have are privaleges which can be removed by an act of your Government. You may or may not be able to change it by voting out enough members and voting in enough to change it, but that is a pretty cumbersome method and not likely to work on most issues.



It's actually a bit more complex than that but in essence you're right.  I would dearly love to see a Bill of Rights in this country, I am bloody furious we don't have one.  

We - like the US - have inherited the English common law.  Whereas the US declared its independence from Britain and set about sorting its own legal stuff out, we, being a collection of colonies and a province, didn't do the same.  So we inherited the hotch-potch of English law.  We rely on the Magna Carta for our  implied rights, we rely on the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the English Bill of Rights for our implied rights, we rely on a mass of English law for our rights.  We rely on our state constitutions for our rights.  We - from 1901 when our nation was officially created by an English act of Parliament (our Constitution is in fact not ours at all but is an act of the Imperial Parliament) - can't rely on our consitution because it is an administrative document and not at all like your constitution.  

Anyway enough of my personal bugbears.  Healthcare should not be seen in "rights" terms but in terms of obligation by government.  I've tried to argue that through this thread.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Sep 29, 2007)

The only "obligation" the Government has is to ensure proper procedures exist, that regulations and inspectors by law exist to regulate medical practice, both in licensing doctors and other health care professionals and in drugs and equipment used in medical practices.

Once again to be clear, NOTHING in the Constitution gives the Federal Government any power to create maintain and tax for a health care policy. They can do so by the current method of pretending some other clause in the Constitution covers it, the favored being the "commerce" clause. OR they can do so in the proper method by getting an amendment created and passed that gives the Federal Government that power.

I do not know all the 50 States Constitutions but I am betting they to would have to create an amendment or "stretch" some other clause to allow it.

To be more informative... Social Security is an unauthorized power that the Federal Government created out of whole cloth. The power to create it, tax for it and run it is NOT a power given to the Federal Government.

There are a slew of powers the Federal Government has created , especially since after the Civil War, that the Constitution does not give them the authority to have. Eduction is another one.

The claim that some other clause of the Constitution applies to these specific powers is ludicrous. Medicine, health care, Education and "safety nets" all existed in the late 1700's, yet the creators of the Constitution specifically left them OUT of the powers given to the Federal Government.


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 29, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The only "obligation" the Government has is to ensure proper procedures exist, that regulations and inspectors by law exist to regulate medical practice, both in licensing doctors and other health care professionals and in drugs and equipment used in medical practices.
> 
> Once again to be clear, NOTHING in the Constitution gives the Federal Government any power to create maintain and tax for a health care policy. They can do so by the current method of pretending some other clause in the Constitution covers it, the favored being the "commerce" clause. OR they can do so in the proper method by getting an amendment created and passed that gives the Federal Government that power.
> 
> ...



You weren't paying attention.  Simply repeating your point doesn't make it better.

I asked some questions, I made some points.  Address them or leave it alone.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Sep 29, 2007)

The specific powers innumerated to the Congress are listed here..

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

Now one could try to argue that the "general welfare" statement somehow means Hospital coverage but that would NOT be in line with what the TERM meant and intended. And no one makes that claim that I know of.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Sep 29, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> You weren't paying attention.  Simply repeating your point doesn't make it better.
> 
> I asked some questions, I made some points.  Address them or leave it alone.



First, you don't get to tell me what and what not to respond to, thank you. Second you keep making broad statements about things that I feel need clarification. Which last I checked involves ME posting on the board for others to read.

I responded that the concept that medical coverage is a right, is not true. Further I clarified that the Government has no legal right currently to create and maintain such a system, which of course wouldn't stop it from doing so and if it did that such would then be a privilage not a right, at the whims of future Congresses and the people.

You don't like that? To damn bad.


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 29, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The specific powers innumerated to the Congress are listed here..
> 
> http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
> 
> Now one could try to argue that the "general welfare" statement somehow means Hospital coverage but that would NOT be in line with what the TERM meant and intended. And no one makes that claim that I know of.



I'll defer to your knowledge and I do appreciate the link, it's very interesting and it's now bookmarked for me.  I won't even try to enter into an argument about constitutionality because I don't have the knowledge but as I said, your point is taken.


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 29, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> First, you don't get to tell me what and what not to respond to, thank you. Second you keep making broad statements about things that I feel need clarification. Which last I checked involves ME posting on the board for others to read.
> 
> I responded that the concept that medical coverage is a right, is not true. Further I clarified that the Government has no legal right currently to create and maintain such a system, which of course wouldn't stop it from doing so and if it did that such would then be a privilage not a right, at the whims of future Congresses and the people.
> 
> You don't like that? To damn bad.



Hey I only gave you a little tap!  

Now for my serious bit.  I've been trying to make the point that health care shouldn't be seen in terms of "rights" but in terms of "obligations".  I contend that government has an obligation for it, but I concede that is definitely something for the voters to decide upon.   What I'm trying to do here is to suggest a different way of looking at things.  I mean, as far as I'm concerned, me, the person posting this, it's irrelevant.  I have access to great health care BUT I know it could be better (our federal government has been short-changing the states, the bastards, but hey sorry that's a domestic Aussie issue).  I am simply suggesting that the folks reading this might want to think about a different model, a model constructed on need and not ideology.

How's that?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 1, 2007)

rOckNrOllsCar11 said:


> Something tells me that you don't need anyone to pay for your health care.  In fact, you seem to have no understanding of poverty in general.  Trust me, it's not just a PBS special.  And the problem is only growing.


My personal is meaningless to the argument -- its validity doesn't depend on how much I make or don't make.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 1, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> My answer to your question is that sometimes people fall onto hard times, often through nothing that they could have reasonable expected: a crooked employer gets into trouble, lays you off, and goes bankrupt.  While you struggle to save and find another job you take a chance and let your health insurance lapse out of sheer necessity.  Suddenly, while uninsured, you get severely sick.  I guess that it is just too bad.  Go die in the street.  I should not be obligated to give you one red cent. Some people are born with severe mental and physical handicaps.  To make things worse, those handicapped people might be born to very poor families without the money or resources to care for such needy people.  I guess that it just too bad. We should not expect you to help pay, in the slightest, for such people to exercise their right to X (survival).


I'm not clear here:

Do you or do you not agree that you have a right to expect me to pay for you to exercise your right to (x)?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 1, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Yes, in an indirect way citizens pay for the care of other citizens.  They also pay for their protection from domestic and foreign threats, education, welfare (both personal and corporate) and many other budget programmes.  That's how societies operate.


But it doesnt address the fundamental question regarding welfare (including federal health care programs):

Do you have the right to expect me to pay for you to exercise your rights?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 1, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Now for my serious bit.  I've been trying to make the point that health care shouldn't be seen in terms of "rights" but in terms of "obligations".  I contend that government has an obligation for it


Based on what?



> but I concede that is definitely something for the voters to decide upon.


The People should decide if they can force me to pay for them to exercise their rights?  Isnt this two wolves and a rabbit deciding on what's for supper?


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 1, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> I'm not clear here:
> 
> Do you or do you not agree that you have a right to expect me to pay for you to exercise your right to (x)?



I dont know if I would call it a right.  Yet, I think that my answer to your question is Yes in that people should be obligated to pay a small amount to the government so that it can distribute money temporarily to people who qualify for temporary assistance based on fundamental need. 

Your turn.  Please answer my yes-no question.  Would you opt to remove all domestic assitance programs offered by the US federal and state and local governments?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 1, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> I don&#8217;t know if I would call it a &#8220;right&#8221;.  Yet, I think that my answer to your question is &#8220;Yes&#8221; in that people should be obligated to pay a small amount to the government so that it can distribute money temporarily to people who qualify for temporary assistance based on fundamental need.


So, according to the above:
If I cannot afford to exercise my right to arms, you should be forced to supply me the means to do so?
Right?



> Would you opt to remove all domestic assitance programs offered by the US federal and state and local governments?


In a heartbeat.  Why?  Three reasons:
-The governemt exists to protect yoru rights, not prove you the means to exercie them;
-You do not have the right to expect me to pay for you to exercse your rights.
-Focing people to provide to others the means to exercise their rights is slavery.


----------



## jillian (Oct 1, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The specific powers innumerated to the Congress are listed here..
> 
> http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
> 
> Now one could try to argue that the "general welfare" statement somehow means Hospital coverage but that would NOT be in line with what the TERM meant and intended. And no one makes that claim that I know of.



You forgot the "necessary and proper" clause. That gives pretty wide latitude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articl...ates_Constitution#Necessary_and_Proper_clause


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 1, 2007)

jillian said:


> You forgot the "necessary and proper" clause. That gives pretty wide latitude.


You forgot the second part of the clause -- *for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States*

That is, it allows congress to create laws pursuant to the enumerated powers, or other powers found in the Constitution; it does not give Congress the power to do whatever it wants to do.


----------



## jillian (Oct 1, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> You forgot the second part of the clause -- *for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States*
> 
> That is, it allows congress to create laws pursuant to the enumerated powers, or other powers found in the Constitution; it does not give Congress the power to do whatever it wants to do.



I didn't forget. Even going back to the days of the founding fathers, it was found that the powers were pretty expansive. You might like that, you might not (I presume not) but it is the way the constitution has been construed since the beginning.


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 1, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> So, according to the above:
> If I cannot afford to exercise my right to arms, you should be forced to supply me the means to do so?
> Right?
> 
> ...



I understand your point without fully agreeing with it.  Practically all things should be considered in moderation.  I think that medical care is more expensive than is a gun purchase.  If you cant afford to buy a gun, you certainly cant affort life-saving surgery.  I think that human survival is important and is a common good.  

What are the odds of  someone contacting a disease or medical condition that he cant afford to have treated?  On the other hand, what are the odds of someone being attacked and killed for lack of a gun (because he cant afford it) and not having the knowledge and skill to be able to properly use it?

Again, I see your point.  It is as if you are saying Okay.  How about forcing me to help you pay for this right or that right or that right.  I dont have all of the answers.  My partial answer is that I think that people should be obligated to temporarily help those who fall on hard times. 

As a side note, in a sense, we have manditory insurance against being assaulted.  It is the police and criminal judicial system (although private gun ownership might help. Also, within reason, I have no objection to citizens having the right to own guns.  It comes down to where we draw the line.) 

I know what you are saying - if I require you to help pay for social services, you should require me to help you buy a gun.  I just think that being required to help those who are ill and cant afford treatment is more important than helping one buy a gun when he cant afford to do so on his own.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 1, 2007)

jillian said:


> I didn't forget. Even going back to the days of the founding fathers, it was found that the powers were pretty expansive. You might like that, you might not (I presume not) but it is the way the constitution has been construed since the beginning.


The Elastic clause DOES mean that the powers of Congress are pretty expansive --  but the fact remains that all it does is allow Congress to create laws pursuant to the powers already given to it by the Constitution.

Otherwise, all you'd need is the Elastic Clause as there'd be no need for a list of enumerated powers.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 1, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> I understand your point without fully agreeing with it.  Practically all things should be considered in moderation.


Slavery is OK so long as it is in "moderation"?



> I think that medical care is more expensive than is a gun purchase.  If you can&#8217;t afford to buy a gun, you certainly can&#8217;t affort life-saving surgery.  I think that human survival is important and is a &#8220;common good&#8221;.


So what?
According to your argument, if I cannot afford to exercise my right to arms, you should be forced to supply me the means to do so?
Right?



> What are the odds of  someone contacting a disease or medical condition that he can&#8217;t afford to have treated?  On the other hand, what are the odds of someone being attacked and killed for lack of a gun (because he can&#8217;t afford it) and not having the knowledge and skill to be able to properly use it?


Irrelevant.
You're arguing that if I cannot afford to exercie my right to (x), you should be forced to provide me the means to do so.  The specifics of (x) is meaningless to that.



> Again, I see your point.  It is as if you are saying &#8220;Okay.  How about forcing me to help you pay for this right or that right or that right.&#8221;  I don&#8217;t have all of the answers.


You mean you dont know how you can be consistent when you argue that people should be forced to pay for others to exercise certain rights and not others, depending on if you think a given right right is 'important enough'.
That IS a dilema.


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 2, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Slavery is OK so long as it is in "moderation"?



I should have clarified my point.  I meant that general themes should be considered in moderation.  Slavery is a specific thing.  Consider the ownership and abuse of other animals.  Where do you draw the line?  Is it okay to kill ants, cockroaches, and mice?  Is it okay to torture such things?  How about fish?  Are bullfights okay?  What about dog races?  What about eating duck? 



> So what?
> According to your argument, if I cannot afford to exercise my right to arms, you should be forced to supply me the means to do so?
> Right?



In my opinion it is relative and depends on the severity of the &#8220;need&#8221;.  If you were dirt poor and lived in a high-crime ridden area where many shootings occur, I might be inclined to support cheap gun distributions to poor citizens.  Still, over-all, and nation-wide, I think that health care is more important to life than is gun ownership.



> You mean you dont know how you can be consistent when you argue that people should be forced to pay for others to exercise certain rights and not others, depending on if you think a given right right is 'important enough'.
> That IS a dilema.



Again, general issues are relative.  Do you think that people should be allowed to smoke cigarettes even though cigarettes are unhealthy?  Okay, what is your opinion on marijuana and cocaine?  It is more dangerous to drive 65 than it is to drive 45.  Let&#8217;s lower the speed limit to 35.


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 2, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> In a heartbeat.  Why?  Three reasons:
> -The governemt exists to protect yoru rights, not prove you the means to exercie them;
> -You do not have the right to expect me to pay for you to exercse your rights.
> -Focing people to provide to others the means to exercise their rights is slavery.



Wow.  I hope that you never fall on a practically unforeseeable string of bad luck through practically no fault of your own and have no friends or family to call on for help and desperately need a temporary helping hand up.  Tell me, what would you do with the severely mentally and physically handicapped?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 2, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> Wow.  I hope that you never fall on a practically unforeseeable string of bad luck through practically no fault of your own and have no friends or family to call on for help and desperately need a temporary helping hand up.


My personal situation does not and will not in any way change my position -- I, personally, shall never demand that someone else pay to provide me with the means to exercise my rights.

But, presuming that I did fall on a practically unforeseeable string of bad luck through practically no fault of my own and have no friends or family to call on for help and desperately need a temporary helping hand up -- how do I have a right to expect the govenment to force you to help me?



> Tell me, what would you do with the severely mentally and physically handicapped?


Hope that private charity is sufficient to provide for them.  if not, then they will suffer accordingly.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 2, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> I should have clarified my point.  I meant that general themes should be considered in moderation.  Slavery is a specific thing.


And we're talking about a specific thing, not a general theme.
So, I ask again:  Slavery is OK so long as it is in "moderation"?



> In my opinion it is relative and depends on the severity of the need.


I see --  it all has to do with your perception of hwo important a right is.  
So long as you think the need is great enough, it is OK to enslave others, but if you don't think the "need" is great enough, its not.

Given that you think the need is great enough, it is OK to enslave others:
-I- think that there is sufficient "need" for you to be forced to buy me a gun.
What is your argument against the government forcing you to do so?



> Again, general issues are relative.


And you're basing your entire argument on your subjective idea of what rights create sufficient "need" to force people to provide the means to exercise their rights.

That is, as long as -your- ox isnt gored, you dont have a problem with enslavng people.


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 2, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> My personal situation does not and will not in any way change my position -- I, personally, shall never demand that someone else pay to provide me with the means to exercise my rights.
> 
> But, presuming that I did fall on a practically unforeseeable string of bad luck through practically no fault of my own and have no friends or family to call on for help and desperately need a temporary helping hand up -- how do I have a right to expect the govenment to force you to help me?



I don't know.  I just think that it is the right thing for a government to do.  Help those who fall on hard times. Perhaps in the way it governs the economy through trade regulations and international relations, it makes some bad calls and things go south.  Perhaps when it deregulates businesses and lays off watchdogs, some businesses commit gross fraud and injustice against their peons.  So it has an obligation to help those who are affected by unpredictable shifts in the economy. 



> Hope that private charity is sufficient to provide for them.  if not, then they will suffer accordingly.



That iswow. Im speechless.  We simply disagree.


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 2, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> And we're talking about a specific thing, not a general theme.
> So, I ask again:  Slavery is OK so long as it is in "moderation"?



Look.  I think that slavery is wrong.  Our founding fathers didn't think that slavery should end.  Otherwise they would have ended it.  Now I'll throw it back at you.  Where do you draw the line at abuse of other animals? 




> I see --  it all has to do with your perception of hwo important a right is.
> So long as you think the need is great enough, it is OK to enslave others, but if you don't think the "need" is great enough, its not.



That was pretty much the sentiment of our founding fathers. 



> Given that you think the need is great enough, it is OK to enslave others:
> -I- think that there is sufficient "need" for you to be forced to buy me a gun.
> What is your argument against the government forcing you to do so?
> 
> ...



The best system that we have is vote.  It is the sentiment of the general public that draws the line  via direct or indirect vote.  Yet, even though something might be popular or unpopular does not necessarily mean that it is wrong or right.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 2, 2007)

Ahh there we go, finally to the crux, no right or wrong. As long as you believe so.

As to the Government providing for everyone, the Federal Government does NOT have the authority to do so. In fact Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The Constitution is clear, it does not list what the Government can NOT do until some amendments are added. The Document lists what the Government CAN do. With out an amendment the Federal Government can NOT usurp powers NOT given to it by the Constitution.

States can run these welfare programs depending on what their Constitutions say. The Federal Government can NOT. They can not legally tax for nor administer the programs LEGALLY. Just because the Courts haven't taken it up doesn't change the fact the Federal Government does NOT legally have the power to run, oversee or tax for these programs.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 2, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Based on what?
> 
> 
> The People should decide if they can force me to pay for them to exercise their rights?  Isnt this two wolves and a rabbit deciding on what's for supper?



As I pointed out, it's not a right.  I don't regard it as a right.  I haven't seen any proof here of it being a right.  I do regard it as a social obligation though.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 2, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ahh there we go, finally to the crux, no right or wrong. As long as you believe so.



I missed that bit can you point it out?



			
				RetiredGySgt: said:
			
		

> As to the Government providing for everyone, the Federal Government does NOT have the authority to do so. In fact Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.{/quote]
> 
> I missed that too, can you point it out?
> 
> ...


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 2, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ahh there we go, finally to the crux, no right or wrong. As long as you believe so.



Yes.  That is pretty much how right and wrong is decided.  I&#8217;m still waiting for an answer from you.  Where do you draw the line with respect to animal abuse? Also at what age should people be allowed to buy cigarettes (21 years and 1 month or 21 years and 3 months)?  Do you think that people should be allowed to smoke cigarettes even though we know that they are unhealthy?  Why not allow people to use marijuana then?  People are reluctant to admit it but there really is no right and wrong except as constructed by society (populations) in order for it to function as it thinks best.  Yet, even popular vote can be wrong. 



> As to the Government providing for everyone, the Federal Government does NOT have the authority to do so. In fact Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
> 
> The Constitution is clear, it does not list what the Government can NOT do until some amendments are added. The Document lists what the Government CAN do. With out an amendment the Federal Government can NOT usurp powers NOT given to it by the Constitution.



Okay.  I am not a constitutional scholar. If what you say is true then perhaps you should file suit are call on people to remove legislation that violates the constitution. 



> States can run these welfare programs depending on what their Constitutions say. The Federal Government can NOT. They can not legally tax for nor administer the programs LEGALLY. Just because the Courts haven't taken it up doesn't change the fact the Federal Government does NOT legally have the power to run, oversee or tax for these programs.



In my question, I included state and local government.  It is still your belief that, even at the local level, government should not help the needy &#8211; correct?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 2, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> I missed that bit can you point it out?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 2, 2007)

Here let me spoon feed you once again...

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

Article 1 Section 8. It lists all the powers of the Legislature, but do read the whole document, there are a couple more powers they have in the other sections, though they are not enumerated powers for running the Country, but rather powers to do with who and how Congress runs and interaction between the Branches.


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 2, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Slavery is OK so long as it is in "moderation"?



On the issue of slavery, moral relativism, and situational ethics, I enjoy asking conservatives if it was wrong to own slaves.  Many people would not give me a quick yes/no answer.  They would say, Well, times were different.  If we freed the slaves early, the south would revolt and we might not be able to hold the nation together.  They might say we are such a young nation that we need the cheap labor that the slaves provide.  In due time, we will set them free.  I simply respond by saying that those are examples of situational ethics.  Was it wrong for our founding fathers to keep slaves and allow for people to have slaves?  Okay.  If you said no, dont you realize that the survival of the nation would have been at risk?


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 2, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Here let me spoon feed you once again...
> 
> http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
> 
> Article 1 Section 8. It lists all the powers of the Legislature, but do read the whole document, there are a couple more powers they have in the other sections, though they are not enumerated powers for running the Country, but rather powers to do with who and how Congress runs and interaction between the Branches.



Okay.  Thanks for the spoon.  So the federal government is not allowed to run social programs.  That would fall under state and local governments.  I got it! So how about answering my questions:

Can you sue the federal government?  If so, will you do so? 
Will you vote for people who will remove the illegal federal welfare programs?
Do you oppose state and local assistance for the needy?
Where do you draw the line on animal cruelty?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 2, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> Okay.  Thanks for the spoon.  So the federal government is not allowed to run social programs.  That would fall under state and local governments.  I got it! So how about answering my questions:
> 
> Can you sue the federal government?  If so, will you do so?
> Will you vote for people who will remove the illegal federal welfare programs?
> ...



The Courts are NOT interested in doing anything about the encroachment of the Government on our rights and expanding it's power. I can not do anything through the legal system because the courts will claim I have no legal standing.

States are free to do as they please depending on how their Constitutions are written. It is none of my business except in the State I live in. But your question is pointless because the States don't have to do anything, they allow the Federal Government to usurp the power.

I would vote for anyone that met my goals, the repeal of Social Security is not high on my list, but it would be a plus. What is more needed though is forcing the Government to ONLY use the taxes for Social Security ON Social Security. Since it was created the money has been General Funds used to run all and any Government program. That is why the system will go bankrupt. Realisticly we will never repeal it, but we should make it work if we haven't the will to eliminate it.

Animal cruelty is a moral question. We have a moral obligation to treat animals as humanely as we can within the needs of Society. Some laws I support, some I do not. You would have to be specific. Taking the term cruelty could be used to, for example, to stop the butchering of animals for our food. You will NOT find me in support of that. I also am not against using animals for testing purposes for the betterment of man, in medicine, in military. I am not so sure I support testing for cosmetics though. That one I might oppose if convinced.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 2, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> On the issue of slavery, moral relativism, and situational ethics, I enjoy asking conservatives if it was wrong to own slaves.  Many people would not give me a quick yes/no answer.  They would say, Well, times were different.  If we freed the slaves early, the south would revolt and we might not be able to hold the nation together.  They might say we are such a young nation that we need the cheap labor that the slaves provide.  In due time, we will set them free.  I simply respond by saying that those are examples of situational ethics.  Was it wrong for our founding fathers to keep slaves and allow for people to have slaves?  Okay.  If you said no, dont you realize that the survival of the nation would have been at risk?



If I had lived back then, I like to believe I would have been vehemently opposed to slavery. As to breaking up the Country? It was and is morally wrong. Further it CLEARLY was illegal by our own Documents. The Constitution may have allowed it in one section but the rest of the document clearly makes it illegal. At some point whats right is more important then allowing something that repugnent to continue.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 2, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Diuretic said:
> 
> 
> > I missed that bit can you point it out?
> ...


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 2, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The Courts are NOT interested in doing anything about the encroachment of the Government on our rights and expanding it's power. I can not do anything through the legal system because the courts will claim I have no legal standing.
> 
> States are free to do as they please depending on how their Constitutions are written. It is none of my business except in the State I live in. But your question is pointless because the States don't have to do anything, they allow the Federal Government to usurp the power.
> 
> ...



Who says that we have a moral obligation to treat animals as humanely as we can within the needs of society?  Does the Bible say that? Well, the Bible says many things that people would question.  Does the general public say that?  Well, just because something is popular does not make it right?  Again, where does this moral obligation come from?  Perhaps you just happen to think that it is a moral obligation &#8211; it is what you think.  

What about ants in the street &#8211; do I have a moral obligation to not kill them?  They are not bothering me.  Should I steer around them?  What about spiders &#8211; is it okay to kill them?  They can be a help sometimes.  They eat flies &#8211; those poor flies.  Do you support rat extermination?  What if the rat population is so small that it does not create a problem?  How many rats must cities have before you approve of extermination - 51, 51, 52?  

Don&#8217;t you understand that so much of this is relative and subjective?  Even the very notion that we have a moral obligation when it comes to how we treat animals is debatable.  Following that, what animals we can kill and under what circumstances is debatable.  Ethics is subjective and relative.

By the way, people eat dogs in some parts of the world.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 2, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> As I pointed out, it's not a right.  I don't regard it as a right.  I haven't seen any proof here of it being a right.  I do regard it as a social obligation though.



and for the umteen gazillionth time, WHY is it an obligation?  You said you were a believer in the five whys theory, so lets get the ball rolling.  WHY am I obligated to provide you with healthcare?

See this is where I get lost (obviously).  To me if I am obligated to provide you with something that would mean the obligation to provide for you _doesn't_ fall on you.  Yet you have more control over your health than I do. I again use the car analogy.  True one is human life, one isn't but both can have strikingly similar scenarios play out.

A parralell analogy would be you're in a car accident.  There is nothing you could have done, no precautions you could have taken , no one is at fault.

the paralell.  You get sick with cancer.  There is nothing you could have done, no preventative care you that would have stopped it, it is no one's fault that you contracted it.

Yet in the first it is perfectly reasonable to assume that even though there is nothing you could have done to prevent it, you are responsible for the bill in getting your car fixed.  Why shouldn't the same hold true for the medical industry?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 2, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > So where does it say the Congress can't do certain things?  It seems to me that the writers of the constitution had to give Congress certain authority to get things done so they knocked up a pretty comprehensive list in a fairly short time.  But I wonder if they thought to themselves, that's it then, that's all the Congress will need to do forever.  Somehow I doubt it.  So perhaps they left it open and allowed that other branch of government, the Supreme Court, to decide whether or not certain novel actions by Congress were in accordance with the spirit of the constutition.
> ...


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 2, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> WHY am I obligated to provide you with healthcare?



I guess that it would be for the same reason that  *RetiredGySgt thinks that:*


> we have a moral obligation to treat animals as humanely as we can within the needs of Society.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 2, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> I guess that it would be for the same reason that  *RetiredGySgt thinks that:*



Wrong again. But do keep trying, it is so much fun watching you flail around.


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 2, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Wrong again. But do keep trying, it is so much fun watching you flail around.



  Please explain how I am wrong.  I quoted you word-for-word.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 2, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> Please explain how I am wrong.  I quoted you word-for-word.



Because they aren't analgous.

And I'm not sure RGS statement is even true.

Quit dodging and answer my question


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 2, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Wrong again. But do keep trying, it is so much fun watching you flail around.



In summary:  If we have a moral obligation to treat animals as humanely as we can within the needs of Society, then don&#8217;t we also have a moral obligation to help those who fall on hard times within the needs of society?  If people refuse to help those who fall on hard times, shouldn&#8217;t it be government&#8217;s responsibility to require people to help those who fall on hard times.

Moral obligations are moral obligations.


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 2, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> In summary:  If we have a moral obligation to treat animals as humanely as we can within the needs of Society, then don&#8217;t we also have a moral obligation to help those who fall on hard times within the needs of society?  If people refuse to help those who fall on hard times, shouldn&#8217;t it be government&#8217;s responsibility to require people to help those who fall on hard times.
> 
> Moral obligations are moral obligations.



Don&#8217;t feel too bad.  You had me thinking for a while, but when you said that there were these things called &#8220;moral obligations&#8221; that was the card that I needed and the &#8220;nail in your coffin".  You mentioned this thing called &#8220;obligations&#8221; long after you posed the question about &#8220;obligations&#8221;. Why should I be obligated (forced) to care for animals and you not be obligated (forced) to care for people?  I&#8217;d like to stay and see you work your way around it but I should go to bed.  Nice debate. Good night.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 2, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Diuretic said:
> 
> 
> > Learn history my friend. The Framers of the Constitution claimed publicly, repeatedly that they did not need a "Bill of Rights" or any language prohibiting something in the document BECAUSE it said only what the Government COULD do. They finally agreed to the "Bill of Rights" our first 10 Amendments, when it became clear they probably wouldn't get the 9 States needed to Ratify the Constitution with out it.
> ...


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 3, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > So the Constutiton contains a method for amendments?  That means that the constitution must have been seen as a document that could, in effect, be altered as necessary and that government could be permitted to do things that were seen as necessary in the future.  So it seems to me that the constitution doesn't really limit government all that much if it can be amended to allow government to do certain things.
> ...


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 3, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> Diuretic said:
> 
> 
> > Oh most definately does.  As RGS pointed out the government cannot change the constitution at it's whims.  An changes to it must be through ammendments which the citizenry must pass.  Not the government.  It would be more accurate to state the document can be altered as deemed neccessary by the people, not if deemed neccessary by the government.
> ...


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 3, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> and for the umteen gazillionth time, WHY is it an obligation?  You said you were a believer in the five whys theory, so lets get the ball rolling.  WHY am I obligated to provide you with healthcare?



I snipped out the rest of your post in the response, not because it's not relevant but because I just need to keep this concise.

You are not obligated towards me (and we're hypothesising the you and me of course).  You are (as I am) obliged to pay taxes.  From those taxes the government disburses finances to fulfill its policy programme.  

I hold that the government _should be _(note the normative statement, I didn't claim "it is") obliged to ensure a healthcare scheme is in place for the whole of the population (there are a few different models which is why I'm being a bit non-specific here because I'm focused on my ideas of obligation by govt).

Here's an idea why the government should be obligated.  It's a good thing for society to have as many healthy people in it as possible.  When someone gets sick they should be able to receive health care to get better.  

It's also a good thing for someone to take themselves to the doctor early so that things don't get worse.

It's also a good thing for someone to take themselves to the doctor early because if it's a contagious condition it can be halted before it spreads.

The voluntary presentation of a sick patient at a doctor's surgery/rooms could be inhibited by an inability to pay for treatment.  

I'm happy to take a utilitarian view on this as well as the bleeding heart view


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 3, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> Please explain how I am wrong.  I quoted you word-for-word.



Did I say the Government should TAX us to enforce some animal code on us? Please provide that part of my statement. The treatment of animals is a State and local community issue as well. You won't find any power for the Federal Government to create or enforce laws regarding how we treat animals, except our food sources. Or in Interstate trade. Thus it is not linked in any way to your tirades on health care provided by Big Brother, the Federal Government.

Now I will admit that non religious people have no moral obligation to be humane to animals, but Christians, Muslims and Jews do. It is religious thing, NOT a Government thing.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 3, 2007)

> Now I will admit that non religious people have no moral obligation to be humane to animals, but Christians, Muslims and Jews do. It is religious thing, NOT a Government thing.



I think non-religious people do have that moral obligations, but is that another thread?  Because I find it a really interesting question.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 3, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> I don't know.  I just think that it is the right thing for a government to do.


Ah - the "right thing to do".

Thats a statement of morality.  I thought we couldn't legislate morality?
Do you accept this argument for any/all actions that the government should take?  Like, say, outlawing abortion -- because its the right thing to do?



> So it has an obligation to help those who are affected by unpredictable shifts in the economy.


Where does this obligation come from?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 3, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> Look.  I think that slavery is wrong.


And yet you support it, at least where certain rights are involved.



> Now I'll throw it back at you.  Where do you draw the line at abuse of other animals?


Irrelevant to the conversation -- we're talking about the "right" to healh care, and the "right" to expect others to provide it for you.



> That was pretty much the sentiment of our founding fathers.


 
You think this, somehow, makes your subjective support of slavery less reprehensible?



> The best system that we have is vote.  It is the sentiment of the general public that draws the line  via direct or indirect vote.


Ah yes -- the tyranny of the majority.  
If the majority of the people say you should be a slave, then you're OK with it.  Right?  I mean, if "the vote should decide" is your position, then what argument do you have against such a thing?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 3, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> On the issue of slavery, moral relativism, and situational ethics, I enjoy asking conservatives if it was wrong to own slaves.  Many people would not give me a quick yes/no answer.


You're dodging the question:  
To you, slavery is OK as long as it is in "moderation".  Right?

And my position regarding slavery was made clear very early in this topic.
It's too bad yours is so subjective and situational.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 3, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> So where does it say the Congress can't do certain things?


You mean, where does it say that Congress (in specific, the government in general) can't do something that its not been given the power to do by the Constitution?

Read Marbury v Madison, and the 10th amendment.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 3, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Congress can pass amendments can't it?


Not by itself.
And, the Constitution can be amended w/o involvement from Congress.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 3, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> You mean, where does it say that Congress (in specific, the government in general) can't do something that its not been given the power to do by the Constitution?
> 
> Read Marbury v Madison, and the 10th amendment.



Marbury was the case that allowed the Supreme Court the power of judicial review over a Congressional decision, vide Justice Marshall. It's not the same thing, it's that the Supreme Court can review legislation passed by Congress to work out if it's constitutional.  The Constitution didn't say that, the US Supreme Court said it.  Conundrum no?


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 3, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Not by itself.
> And, the Constitution can be amended w/o involvement from Congress.



And how many times has it happened?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 3, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> And how many times has it happened?



27 times.  What's your point?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 3, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Marbury was the case that allowed the Supreme Court the power of judicial review over a Congressional decision, vide Justice Marshall. It's not the same thing...


From Marbury, where it speaks of limits:



> The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.
> 
> Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
> 
> ...



Now, you can argue all you want that the government can do things that the Constitution doesnt give it the power to do, but those things are all extra-constututional, and therefore necessarily unconstitutional.  If, according to you, the government can do what it wants, regardless if its in the constitution or not, why bother having a constitution at all?


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 3, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> I snipped out the rest of your post in the response, not because it's not relevant but because I just need to keep this concise.
> 
> You are not obligated towards me (and we're hypothesising the you and me of course).  You are (as I am) obliged to pay taxes.  From those taxes the government disburses finances to fulfill its policy programme.
> 
> I hold that the government _should be _(note the normative statement, I didn't claim "it is") obliged to ensure a healthcare scheme is in place for the whole of the population (there are a few different models which is why I'm being a bit non-specific here because I'm focused on my ideas of obligation by govt).



If it's done through taxes though it's not government paying for it.  It's you and me.  So the obligation is still mine. You can't be obliged to do something just because.  There has to be a reason.  Obligation implies indebtedness.  For instance if I take a head of lettuce from a store I am obligated to pay for it.  Or if you promise to do something you are obliged to do it.  Or if you agree to something via a contract of some type.  



Diuretic said:


> Here's an idea why the government should be obligated.  It's a good thing for society to have as many healthy people in it as possible.  When someone gets sick they should be able to receive health care to get better.
> 
> It's also a good thing for someone to take themselves to the doctor early so that things don't get worse.
> 
> ...



Ah the warm-fuzzy argument.  Couple problems.  You can't create obligation out of something simply because it is 'good' or the suppossed 'right thing to do'. 

Secondly are the things you listed even good things.  Do you not beleive it even better for people to take responsibility for themselves?  I think it is much wiser for society to er on the side of encouraging personal responsibility  and encouraging those to help the less fortunate rather than creating dependance and legislating who I must give my money to.  Don't you agree?


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 3, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Did I say the Government should TAX us to enforce some animal code on us? Please provide that part of my statement. The treatment of animals is a State and local community issue as well. You won't find any power for the Federal Government to create or enforce laws regarding how we treat animals, except our food sources. Or in Interstate trade. Thus it is not linked in any way to your tirades on health care provided by Big Brother, the Federal Government.
> 
> Now I will admit that non religious people have no moral obligation to be humane to animals, but Christians, Muslims and Jews do. It is religious thing, NOT a Government thing.



Without taxes, how are we going to maintain programs to deal with those who abuse animals and how are we going to pay for the healing of these animals.  Surely the criminals can&#8217;t afford to maintain the ASPCA and other agencies.  Taxes would be required one way or another.  Also, it may cost people time and money to be careful and not neglectfully injur or kill animals. 

Oh.  It was nice of you to finally include a disclaimer.  So it is only religious people who have a moral obligation with regard to animals.  That just destroyed any argument that supports legislation to protect animals.  Therefore, should we remove the ASPCA and legalize animal cruelty.  Why or why not?


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 3, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> You're dodging the question:
> To you, slavery is OK as long as it is in "moderation".  Right?
> 
> And my position regarding slavery was made clear very early in this topic.
> It's too bad yours is so subjective and situational.



All positions are subjective.  I thought that I answered it.  In my opinion, slavery is wrong.


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 3, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Ah yes -- the tyranny of the majority.
> If the majority of the people say you should be a slave, then you're OK with it.  Right?  I mean, if "the vote should decide" is your position, then what argument do you have against such a thing?



How do you support your position on things except to say that it is your opinion?  How do you determine what is right or what is wrong?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 3, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> All positions are subjective.  I thought that I answered it.  In my opinion, slavery is wrong.



But you support it when you think its "the right thing to do".
How is doing something wrong ever the right thing to do?


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 3, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Ah - the "right thing to do".
> 
> Thats a statement of morality.  I thought we couldn't legislate morality?
> Do you accept this argument for any/all actions that the government should take?  Like, say, outlawing abortion -- because its the right thing to do?
> ...



Of course we can legislate morality.  I never said that we caan&#8217;t or don&#8217;t legislate morality.  By outlawing murder, we are legislating morality.  We, the general public, think that murder is wrong.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 3, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> How do you support your position on things except to say that it is your opinion?  How do you determine what is right or what is wrong?


You're not addressing my post.

If the majority of the people say you should be a slave, then you're OK with it?
If "the vote should decide" is your position, then what argument do you have against such a thing?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 3, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> Of course we can legislate morality.  I never said that we caant or dont legislate morality.  By outlawing murder, we are legislating morality.  We, the general public, think that murder is wrong.



Do you accept this argument for any/all actions that the government should take? Like, say, outlawing abortion -- because its the right thing to do?


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 3, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> But you support it when you think its "the right thing to do".
> How is doing something wrong ever the right thing to do?



If I thought that slavery were right, then by definition I would support it &#8211; I would think it were right.  It is a circular statement.  It is its own definition. 

It is not right to do something that is wrong.  But sometimes in one situation if you were to do something, it might be rigit - It might be the right thing to do.  In other situations, if you were to do the same thing, it might be the wrong thing to do.  Is it always right to tell the truth?  If you think that your wife&#8217;s $50 hair cut looks bad and she wants your honest opinion, would you tell her the cold hard truth?  If Nazi Germans are looking for your neighbor (a Jewish sympathizer) would you tell the searchers where your neighbor is?  

Is it always wrong to steal.  What if your good wife were dying from a painful disease that a drug would cure.  The greedy pharmacist would not sell the cure.  Would you steal it or see your wife suffer and die a painful death?  You might steal it and face jail time, but would stealing still be wrong?    

Sometimes specific actions are right and sometimes the same actions are wrong given the circumstances. With respect to slavery, I cannot think of an instance in which it would be justified.


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 3, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Do you accept this argument for any/all actions that the government should take? Like, say, outlawing abortion -- because its the right thing to do?



Yes.  In fact, I think that there should be laws to make it much more difficult for women to get abortions.  When the government writes laws, it is legislating morality.  It is saying that it thinks that something is morally okay or morally wrong.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 3, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> Sometimes specific actions are right and sometimes the same actions are wrong given the circumstances. With respect to slavery, I cannot think of an instance in which it would be justified.


You certainly do -- you believe that I should be responsible fo rpaying for your health care.


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 3, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> You're not addressing my post.
> 
> If the majority of the people say you should be a slave, then you're OK with it?
> If "the vote should decide" is your position, then what argument do you have against such a thing?



I think that I see your point.  You gave an interesting scenario.  I doubt that it would ever happen.  As I said, the majority can be wrong.  Tey sometimes are wrong in court cases.  Does that mean that the convict should flee?  No.  I suppose that in this representative society, Id be obligated to be a slave.  Thankfully, we, for the most part, oppose such notions as slavery.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 3, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> I suppose that in this representative society, Id be obligated to be a slave.  Thankfully, we, for the most part, oppose such notions as slavery.


Except when slavery, manifesting itself as forcing people to provide the means for others to exercise their right --- in this case, being forced to provide health care to others --- is the "right thing to do".


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 3, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> You certainly do -- you believe that I should be responsible fo rpaying for your health care.



I think that it is a stretch to equate requiring only those who can afford to do so, to give a tiny bit of their money to those who are facing hard times with slavery.  To a degree, I suppose that it is slavery for the common good.


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 3, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Except when slavery, manifesting itself as forcing people to provide the means for others to exercise their right --- in this case, being forced to provide health care to others --- is the "right thing to do".



Okay.  Okay.  Sheesh.  So I support economic slavery to a very infintecimal degree for those people who can afford to give a tiny bit.  I admit it.


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 3, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> I think that it is a stretch to equate requiring only those who can afford to do so, to give a tiny bit of their money to those who are facing hard times with slavery.  To a degree, I suppose that it is slavery for the common good.



What about you and animal cruelty.  Should I be enslaved to take caution with respect to animals.  Should I take the time and effort to not abuse or neglect my pets.  Shouldn&#8217;t I be free to abandon them.  Should I be enslaved and forced to pay taxes to support the ASPCA.  What about national defence?  Imagine that I oppose the Iraq war.  Should I be required to pay taxes for it?  The American soldiers chose to join.  Shouldn&#8217;t they be required to buy their own guns?  Don&#8217;t you see that practically all of this is relative.  I imagine that if I think long and carefully enough, I could come up with more scenarios in which you would condone forcing me to support stuff with my taxes.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 3, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> Okay.  Okay.  Sheesh.  So I support economic slavery to a very infintecimal degree for those people who can afford to give a tiny bit.  I admit it.



You support slavery .  Thanks for admitting it.


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 3, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> You support slavery .  Thanks for admitting it.



Let us end national defence.  If you are concerned with protecting america, buy your own guns and look for alleged terrorists.  Build your own walls to protect yourself.  Why should I be required to support the US military?  In addition, let us end state and local police forces.  Let ech person be responsible for his own protection, buy his own protection and security service.  I think that I can protect myself from criminals.  Are you with me on this?  

There are so many things that I should not have to pay taxes for to help other people.  Every individual should be fully responsible for himself, his property, his land, and his part of America.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 3, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> Let us end national defence.


Have you read my sig?

*Government exists to protect your rights, not to provide you the means to exercise them.*

-National defense protects the rights of the people;
-National defense does not force anyone to provide the means for others to exercise their rights.

So...  how does natioal defense have any relevance to the discussion?



> In addition, let us end state and local police forces.


-Police protect the rights of the people;
-Having a police force does not force anyone to provide the means for others to exercise their rights.

So...  how are the police relevant to the discussion?


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 3, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Have you read my sig?
> 
> *Government exists to protect your rights, not to provide you the means to exercise them.*
> 
> ...



By helping protect me from diseases, tax supported health care provides me the means to exercise my rights.  By helping protect me from terrorists, tax supported military provides me the means to exercise my rights.  One helps protect me from guns.  The other one helps protect me from germs.  In each case, people are being financially enslaved to pay for the means for people to exercise their rights.  




> -Police protect the rights of the people;
> -Having a police force does not force anyone to provide the means for others to exercise their rights.



Shouldnt I be required to protect myself.  Why should I pay taxes to help someone else be protected by the police?  By paying taxes to support police, I am providing the means for others to exercise their rights.


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 3, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> By helping protect me from diseases, tax supported health care provides me the means to exercise my rights.  By helping protect me from terrorists, tax supported military provides me the means to exercise my rights.  One helps protect me from guns.  The other one helps protect me from germs.  In each case, people are being financially enslaved to pay for the means for people to exercise their rights.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




How about the ASPCA.  Should I be requied to support it?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 3, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> By helping protect me from terrorists, tax supported military provides me the means to exercise my rights


What right does the military *provide* you the means to exercise?



> By paying taxes to support police, I am providing the means for others to exercise their rights.


What right do the police *provide* you the means to exercise?


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 3, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> What right does the military *provide* you the means to exercise?
> 
> 
> What right do the police *provide* you the means to exercise?



Being poor, it provides me the right to live and use money for other things besides self-protection while othr people pay the bill for my protection.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 3, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> Being poor, it provides me the right to live and use money for other things besides self-protection while othr people pay the bill for my protection.


So, neither of them give you property or food, or provide you with the means to buy food, etc, they, instead, protect your right to your property and your right to use it to buy food, etc

That is, they protect your rights, not provide you the means to exercise them.


----------



## AllieBaba (Oct 3, 2007)

That's right. Get a job with the state...the best of both worlds.

Healthcare is not a right. It's a privilege, and available to everyone for a price. It is not the job of the government to feed us, clothe us, diaper us and medicate us. It's the job of the government to protect us so we can go after those things ourselves.


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 3, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> So, neither of them give you property or food, or provide you with the means to buy food, etc, they, instead, protect your right to your property and your right to use it to buy food, etc
> 
> That is, they protect your rights, not provide you the means to exercise them.



The same applies to health care then.  It does not give you property or food, or provide you with the means to buy food, etc.  It, instead, protects your right to your property and your right to use it to buy food, etc.  If you die from a gunshot or a curable disease, you are still dead.  The same reasoning applies.


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 3, 2007)

AllieBaba said:


> That's right. Get a job with the state...the best of both worlds.
> 
> Healthcare is not a right. It's a privilege, and available to everyone for a price. It is not the job of the government to feed us, clothe us, diaper us and medicate us. It's the job of the government to protect us so we can go after those things ourselves.



It is governments job to protect us and treat us for diseases so that we can go after those things ourselves?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 3, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> The same applies to health care then.  It does not give you property or food, or provide you with the means to buy food, etc.


It GIVES you goods (medicine) and services (doctors care).
It PROVIDES you with the means to attain these things - with the means to exercise your rights.

Neither the police nor the military PROVIDE you with a means to exercise your rights -- they PROTECT you from those that would interfere with you doing so.

Really - if you dont understand the disticntion here, there's no point in carrying on the discussion.


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 3, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> It GIVES you goods (medicine) and services (doctors care).
> It PROVIDES you with the means to attain these things - with the means to exercise your rights.
> 
> Neither the police nor the military PROVIDE you with a means to exercise your rights -- they PROTECT you from those that would interfere with you doing so.
> ...



Police give goods.  I recall a policeman giving a frightened child a stuffed teddybear.

Police give you services (protection, 911 emergency contact, and transportation in the event of an emergency).  It provides you with the means to attain these things. 

Health care does protect you from things that would end your life as well.  It also treats you in the event that you get a life threatening gunshot (I mean illness). 

Really  if you dont understand how very similar they are in their over-all purpose, then there is no point on carrying on the discussion.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 3, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> Without taxes, how are we going to maintain programs to deal with those who abuse animals and how are we going to pay for the healing of these animals.  Surely the criminals cant afford to maintain the ASPCA and other agencies.  Taxes would be required one way or another.  Also, it may cost people time and money to be careful and not neglectfully injur or kill animals.
> 
> Oh.  It was nice of you to finally include a disclaimer.  So it is only religious people who have a moral obligation with regard to animals.  That just destroyed any argument that supports legislation to protect animals.  Therefore, should we remove the ASPCA and legalize animal cruelty.  Why or why not?



What part of IT IS NOT a POWER of the US GOVERNMENT did you NOT get? Your inability to read and comprehend is getting worse as the thread progresses. States and Local Governments handle those laws and they do them NOT based on edicts from the federal Government but because the people that vote in those Governments support those laws. All part of the responsibilities of those LOCAL Governments NOT a responsibility of the Federal Government.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 3, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> What about you and animal cruelty.  Should I be enslaved to take caution with respect to animals.  Should I take the time and effort to not abuse or neglect my pets.  Shouldnt I be free to abandon them.  Should I be enslaved and forced to pay taxes to support the ASPCA.  What about national defence?  Imagine that I oppose the Iraq war.  Should I be required to pay taxes for it?  The American soldiers chose to join.  Shouldnt they be required to buy their own guns?  Dont you see that practically all of this is relative.  I imagine that if I think long and carefully enough, I could come up with more scenarios in which you would condone forcing me to support stuff with my taxes.



Animal rights do not exist and are not a power of the Federal Government. Defense however IS a stated power of the Government, a RESPONSIBILITY and yes you have to pay for it. ANY specific power granted BY THE people to the Government is something we as citizens can be taxed for. Animal laws are State and local laws NOT Federal, except in specific clear cases that deal with FEDERAL issues. If you beat your dog and starve it the Federal Government can not charge you with a crime. They are powerless in that case. Now if you beat and starve hundreds of dogs and in the process are involved in shipping dogs out of State or importing Dogs into State, THERE ARE Federal laws for that.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 3, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> Police give goods.  I recall a policeman giving a frightened child a stuffed teddybear



 

Either you really don't understand the difference between the words "provide" and "protect", or you're being deliberately obtuse.  

Either way, you're done here.


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 3, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> What part of IT IS NOT a POWER of the US GOVERNMENT did you NOT get? Your inability to read and comprehend is getting worse as the thread progresses. States and Local Governments handle those laws and they do them NOT based on edicts from the federal Government but because the people that vote in those Governments support those laws. All part of the responsibilities of those LOCAL Governments NOT a responsibility of the Federal Government.



That was a nice little personal attack, jump in, and switcheroo.  I was discussing with M14 his logical reasoning for reasons why he supports requiring me to pay taxes for police services but not for health care services.  We are not discussing constitutional law.  I understand what the Constitution says and does not say.  If the Constitution said that once each male red-headed left-handed person turns 13, he is to be executed, would you agree that such people should be executed when they become that age?   If it is in the constitution and is consistent with other parts of the Constitution, then it must be okay.  Though I am discussing ethics and politics, I am not arguing the Constitution.


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 3, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Either you really don't understand the difference between the words "provide" and "protect", or you're being deliberately obtuse.
> 
> Either way, you're done here.



Police provide service and protect.  Health care provides service and protects. I guess that you give up.  I win.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 3, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> Police provide service and protect.  Health care provides service and protects. I guess that you give up.  I win.



There is a difference between protecting and babysitting.  It is also more reasonable to expect people to be responsible for their healthcare than it is to expect people to protect themselves from crimes.


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 3, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> There is a difference between protecting and babysitting.  It is also more reasonable to expect people to be responsible for their healthcare than it is to expect people to protect themselves from crimes.



I dont see that there is that much of a difference.  If Im expected to buy my own health care then I expect others to buy their own guns and security systems.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 3, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> I dont see that there is that much of a difference.  If Im expected to buy my own health care then I expect others to buy their own guns and security systems.



You haven't a clue what powers the Government has and has not, but to be expected from someone like you. Comparing health care to defense and police and fire is ignorant on its face. But do keep making these ignorant comparisons.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 3, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> I dont see that there is that much of a difference.  If Im expected to buy my own health care then I expect others to buy their own guns and security systems.



Consider those expectatinos meat than. We already do that.  Many people choose to have extra protection such as security systems and guns.  The government doesn't pay for either of those.  A police force serves the purpose of enforceing laws.  If you want to make this silly argument that well if government isn't obligated to provide healhcare then they shouldn't provide a police force you may want to thing a little harder about the ramifcations of that.  If you get rid of police there is no point in haveing laws.

Basically what this comes down to is what we can reasonably expect of capable people.  Is it unreasonable to expect people to be responsible for their healthcare?



I just don't get why people can make sense out of makeing other people responsible for  somehting they have no control over?  Especially when you the individual has more control over their health than anyone.  yet it's the right thing to make someone else responsible for it?  I don't think so.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 3, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> 27 times.  What's your point?



Sometimes a question is just a question.  27 times it's been amended without Congress?  Does that mean that there was a referendum on a question 27 times in US history?


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 3, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> From Marbury, where it speaks of limits:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, you can argue all you want that the government can do things that the Constitution doesnt give it the power to do, but those things are all extra-constututional, and therefore necessarily unconstitutional.  If, according to you, the government can do what it wants, regardless if its in the constitution or not, why bother having a constitution at all?



No I argued that the constitution isn't a limited document, therefore the question of acts being extra-constitutional doesn't come into it.  I will argue that the constitution is an establishing document and government can do certain things which are in line with the intention of the constitution and I think it's the role of the US Supreme Court to ensure that is the case.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 3, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> If it's done through taxes though it's not government paying for it.  It's you and me.  So the obligation is still mine. You can't be obliged to do something just because.  There has to be a reason.  Obligation implies indebtedness.  For instance if I take a head of lettuce from a store I am obligated to pay for it.  Or if you promise to do something you are obliged to do it.  Or if you agree to something via a contract of some type.



If you come to my store and look at a lettuce I have for sale there's no obligation on you to do anything other than what the law allows (ie not to steal my lettuce).  If you want a lettuce I'm happy to sell you one but we're going to have to do the dance of the contract.  My putting my lettuce out for your inspection is an invitation to treat, you make me an offer, I'll accept it, I'll take your money as consideration and I'll complete the contract by giving you the lettuce.  You are now the proud owner of a lettuce.  The only obligations in that relationship arose when I accepted your offer.  We were then bound by the law of contract.  

When you take a job and earn money you are bound by law to pay taxes.  That's a legal duty.

You have no obligation towards me for anything by your taking a job (given that I'm not your employer) and paying taxes.

That argument isn't valid, no matter how many times it's repeated.



			
				Bern80: said:
			
		

> Ah the warm-fuzzy argument.  Couple problems.  You can't create obligation out of something simply because it is 'good' or the suppossed 'right thing to do'.
> 
> Secondly are the things you listed even good things.  Do you not beleive it even better for people to take responsibility for themselves?  I think it is much wiser for society to er on the side of encouraging personal responsibility  and encouraging those to help the less fortunate rather than creating dependance and legislating who I must give my money to.  Don't you agree?



Sure I can make an obligation out of something simply because it's a good thing to do, government is predicated on being there for the common good.  

As far as responsibility.  It's the mark of an adult in western societies that they are independent.  Children are dependent, adults are independent.  But that doesn't mean an adult gives up the right to ask for an receive assistance when it's needed.  That's the mark of a co-operative society.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 3, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> ...........
> 
> -Police protect the rights of the people;
> -Having a police force does not force anyone to provide the means for others to exercise their rights.
> ...



That's not entirely correct, the police don't exist to protect the rights of the people and that's settled law in the US since a case where a woman sued the local police department for failing to protect her from domestic violence and it was held that the police aren't under a specific obligation to any individual.  They are there to protect societal interests, to enforce the law, to keep the peace and all the rest of it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 3, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> No I argued that the constitution isn't a limited document, therefore the question of acts being extra-constitutional doesn't come into it.  I will argue that the constitution is an establishing document and government can do certain things which are in line with the intention of the constitution and I think it's the role of the US Supreme Court to ensure that is the case.



Once again, for clarity. The Courts can not create laws, they can not create Government powers. All they are supposed to do is rule on Laws that already exist. They also took for themselves and the other two branches allowed it, the right to rule on the Constitutionality of acts and laws. To act as a go between for the other two Branches.

The Constitution is crystal clear. The Founders were also CRYSTAL CLEAR. The Federal Government ONLY has the powers GRANTED directly by the Constitution. Further the Congress knows this and it is why they claim one of the listed powers as covering all the illegal acts they do. No Congress has ever passed a new power into law and claimed they could do so out of thin air, they always justify it by stretching one of the enumerated powers in the Constitution. Their favorite one being the Commerce Clause.

You see the Government has the right and the power to enact and enforce any law to cover any power they are granted. That too is listed in the section on enumerated powers of the Congress.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 3, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Once again, for clarity. The Courts can not create laws, they can not create Government powers. All they are supposed to do is rule on Laws that already exist. They also took for themselves and the other two branches allowed it, the right to rule on the Constitutionality of acts and laws. To act as a go between for the other two Branches.



The courts can't enact legislation.  The courts can create law because law isn't simply legislation. 

The courts can't create government powers because only the legislature can do that.  The courts can limit government powers by passing judgement on enabling legislation.

No, they're not supposed to rule on laws that already exist.  Courts can and do make law.  Marbury v Madison is an example.  

Yes, the courts are one of the three branches of government that are involved in the separation (and balance) of powers.




			
				RetiredGySgt: said:
			
		

> The Constitution is crystal clear. The Founders were also CRYSTAL CLEAR. The Federal Government ONLY has the powers GRANTED directly by the Constitution. Further the Congress knows this and it is why they claim one of the listed powers as covering all the illegal acts they do. No Congress has ever passed a new power into law and claimed they could do so out of thin air, they always justify it by stretching one of the enumerated powers in the Constitution. Their favorite one being the Commerce Clause.
> 
> You see the Government has the right and the power to enact and enforce any law to cover any power they are granted. That too is listed in the section on enumerated powers of the Congress.



Why are there amendments to the constitution?


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 3, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> Consider those expectatinos meat than. We already do that.  Many people choose to have *extra* protection such as security systems and guns.  The government doesn't pay for either of those.  A police force serves the purpose of enforceing laws.  If you want to make this silly argument that well if government isn't obligated to provide healhcare then they shouldn't provide a police force you may want to thing a little harder about the ramifcations of that.  If you get rid of police there is no point in haveing laws.



The government pays for the basic police force. We can still have laws without a tax supported police force.  There are such things as &#8220;citizens arrest&#8221;.  One can hire his own security personnel. Laws would still exist. 



> Basically what this comes down to is what we can reasonably expect of capable people.  Is it unreasonable to expect people to be responsible for their healthcare?



I am not talking about your average responsible citizen of sound mind and body.  I am talking about the severely mentally and physically handicapped and about people who run into a string of bad luck and hard times &#8211; who may need a brief helping hand.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 3, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> The courts can't enact legislation.  The courts can create law because law isn't simply legislation.
> 
> The courts can't create government powers because only the legislature can do that.  The courts can limit government powers by passing judgement on enabling legislation.
> 
> ...



You can not be serious? The document allows for amendments because the founders understood times change and there is a need for the document that gives authority and power to the Government must be able to change also. BUT the power to change it RESTS with the people, not the Congress.

An amendment gets proposed ( there are several ways this can happen) and then 3/4 of the States must ratify the amendment for it to go into effect. And the amendment must be ratified by the will of the people and with in a set time limit ( usually 7 years). That means with in 7 years 37 States must vote on and approve of the Amendment for it to be added to the Constitution.

Judges are NOT supposed to "make" law. Only the legislature has that power. They are to determine the intent of and the breadth of an existing law. And they are supposed to do so based on the intent of the legislature that created said law.

If the Constitution had no means to be Amended it would be worthless, every so many years an all new document giving power to the Government would have had to be drawn up. Once again in this country the PEOPLE through representatives run the Country. Even before the Constitution the PEOPLE ran the Confederation through their State Governments. The People, not the Government are supreme.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 3, 2007)

Article 5 covers Amendments. The purpose being to ensure the Constitution remained relevant as time passed and conditions changed.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A5.html

And there are 2 methods for States to approve an amendment, one is by a vote of the people ( referendum) and the other is by the vote of the State's Legislature. Article 5 stipulates that when Congress or the States propose the Amendment the method of ratification must also be stipulated.

The time allowed for passage is also stipulated at that time. Though not specifically addressed in the Constitution. Currently it is 7 or 8 years, though at least one failed amendment was extended at least once in an effort to pass it.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 3, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> I am not talking about your average responsible citizen of sound mind and body.  I am talking about the severely mentally and physically handicapped and about people who run into a string of bad luck and hard times  who may need a brief helping hand.



This particular point needs to be put to rest.  No one that I am aware of in this thread is arguing that the government shouldn't help people who _need_ help.  

What _I_ am talking about ('i' being the starter of thread) is an examination of why those who _are_ capable (and should) of providing for their own healthcare should expect government to take care of it for them.  

That is what I am focusing on.  Why is it 'good', 'right', 'moral'  for prefectly capable people to expect another, who has even less control over someone elses health, to be responsible for that person's health?


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 3, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> This particular point needs to be put to rest.  No one that I am aware of in this thread is arguing that the government shouldn't help people who _need_ help.



Uh. Read what M14 Shooter says at the bottom of post # 214:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=611855&postcount=214

Read what M14 Shooter says at the bottom of post # 205

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=611624&postcount=205




> What _I_ am talking about ('i' being the starter of thread) is an examination of why those who _are_ capable (and should) of providing for their own healthcare should expect government to take care of it for them.
> 
> That is what I am focusing on.  Why is it 'good', 'right', 'moral'  for prefectly capable people to expect another, who has even less control over someone elses health, to be responsible for that person's health?



I think that we agree here.  Those who can afford to take care of themselves should be required to do so.  Yet, based on my interpretation of M14s comments, M14 thinks that those who cant take care of themselves better find a friend, family member, or charity, or die in the street.  That is where he and I disagree.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 3, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> Uh. Read what M14 Shooter says at the bottom of post # 214:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=611855&postcount=214
> 
> ...



You have consistantly  argued through out this thread that the Government should provide health care to people irregardless of ability to pay. Now you want to claim other wise?


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 3, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You have consistantly  argued through out this thread that the Government should provide health care to people irregardless of ability to pay. Now you want to claim other wise?



I think that you inferred that.  I don&#8217;t think that I ever said that people should be given health care coverage by the government even when they can afford to pay for it themselves.  Please direct me to a post where I said that government should provide health care to people irregardless of ability to pay.  On the other hand, M14 explicitly stated that those who can&#8217;t afford health care better find a charitable person or suffer the consequences.

On the contrary, in many places within this thread I say focused on those poor sick people who can&#8217;t afford to pay for their health care.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 4, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> If you come to my store and look at a lettuce I have for sale there's no obligation on you to do anything other than what the law allows (ie not to steal my lettuce).  If you want a lettuce I'm happy to sell you one but we're going to have to do the dance of the contract.  My putting my lettuce out for your inspection is an invitation to treat, you make me an offer, I'll accept it, I'll take your money as consideration and I'll complete the contract by giving you the lettuce.  You are now the proud owner of a lettuce.  The only obligations in that relationship arose when I accepted your offer.  We were then bound by the law of contract.
> 
> When you take a job and earn money you are bound by law to pay taxes.  That's a legal duty.
> 
> ...



That really didn't make any sense.





Diuretic said:


> Sure I can make an obligation out of something simply because it's a good thing to do, government is predicated on being there for the common good.



No you can't and no it isn't.  History has shown that very few governments served the common good for one.  You can't make an obligation out of nothing.  The morality of something is not a component of someone is or isn't obliged or responsible for.  



Diuretic said:


> As far as responsibility.  It's the mark of an adult in western societies that they are independent.  Children are dependent, adults are independent.  But that doesn't mean an adult gives up the right to ask for an receive assistance when it's needed.  That's the mark of a co-operative society.




As I said to Matts this particular point needs to be dropped because no one is debating it.  No is debating (that I can tell) that gov't shouldn't help those that need help.  We are debating whether there is an obligation for government to pay (with my money) for the healthcare of people that are capable of providing it for themselves.

No it the mark of society that is unwilling to accept risk.  That is certainly an option I suppose.  We can legislate that government take care of us from cradle to grave.   But there are consequences of that.  Primarily that it will prevent the society from reaching it's full potential.  It will breed apathy and complacency.  Behavior is taught over time.  If government teaches people they don't need to be responsible for aspects of their lives, then people won't be responsible for aspects of their lives. It's that simple.  Is that reall a 'good' thing?

Now you're changeing terms from obligation to what one has the right to ask for.  You have the right to ask for pretty much anything you want.  The person you ask however is under obligation to meet your request in only very specific circumstances.  

In this case the request would be "provide me healthcare"  To which I would have some questions which in your response I would ask that you answer as succinclty as possible:

why?

You have more control over your health than me, why should I be mroe responsible than you for it?

You seem perfectly capable of providing for this need on your own, why should I provide it for you?


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 4, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> As I said to Matts this particular point needs to be dropped because no one is debating it.  No is debating (that I can tell) that gov't shouldn't help those that need help.  We are debating whether there is an obligation for government to pay (with my money) for the healthcare of people that are capable of providing it for themselves.



M14 certainly is debating it. Uh.  Hello.  Read post # 301.  Read post # 301.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 4, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> M14 certainly is debating it. Uh.  Hello.  Read post # 301.  Read post # 301.



No he isn't.  He is argueing whether they are obligated to or better put whether some have an entitlement to it. Not whether they should or shouldn't.  There's a very distinct dfference.

Also interesting that you chose this one relatively trivial point (compared to the actual subject) an no others to respond to.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 4, 2007)

This is interesting.  




RetiredGySgt said:


> You can not be serious? The document allows for amendments because the founders understood times change and there is a need for the document that gives authority and power to the Government must be able to change also. BUT the power to change it RESTS with the people, not the Congress.
> 
> An amendment gets proposed ( there are several ways this can happen) and then 3/4 of the States must ratify the amendment for it to go into effect. And the amendment must be ratified by the will of the people and with in a set time limit ( usually 7 years). That means with in 7 years 37 States must vote on and approve of the Amendment for it to be added to the Constitution.



Okay, got it.  As the US is a federation of states then the states have to decide on the amendment that might be proposed.  Who can propose an amendment?



			
				RetiredGySgt: said:
			
		

> Judges are NOT supposed to "make" law. Only the legislature has that power. They are to determine the intent of and the breadth of an existing law. And they are supposed to do so based on the intent of the legislature that created said law.




Yes, a court must always have reference to the original intention of the legislature in deciding on a case.  But "law" can be made in various ways because "law" isn't just legislation.  The effect of legislation can be changed simply by the decision of a  superior appellate court.  



			
				RetiredGySgt: said:
			
		

> If the Constitution had no means to be Amended it would be worthless, every so many years an all new document giving power to the Government would have had to be drawn up. Once again in this country the PEOPLE through representatives run the Country. Even before the Constitution the PEOPLE ran the Confederation through their State Governments. The People, not the Government are supreme.



Yes, any constitution that isn't a living document is going to end up being ossified.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 4, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> That really didn't make any sense.



Contract Law 101.  




			
				Bern80: said:
			
		

> No you can't and no it isn't.  History has shown that very few governments served the common good for one.  You can't make an obligation out of nothing.  The morality of something is not a component of someone is or isn't obliged or responsible for.



That didn't make sense 




			
				Bern80: said:
			
		

> As I said to Matts this particular point needs to be dropped because no one is debating it.  No is debating (that I can tell) that gov't shouldn't help those that need help.  We are debating whether there is an obligation for government to pay (with my money) for the healthcare of people that are capable of providing it for themselves.



Good stuff.  Yes, it's much better to focus on the method.  But you're still not taking the point that the government spends taxes, not your money.  



			
				Bern80: said:
			
		

> No it the mark of society that is unwilling to accept risk.  That is certainly an option I suppose.  We can legislate that government take care of us from cradle to grave.   But there are consequences of that.  Primarily that it will prevent the society from reaching it's full potential.  It will breed apathy and complacency.  Behavior is taught over time.  If government teaches people they don't need to be responsible for aspects of their lives, then people won't be responsible for aspects of their lives. It's that simple.  Is that reall a 'good' thing?



That's a bit of a blanket statement, about society being unwilling to accept risk.  Society should ameliorate risk.  That's why societies fund police forces and fire departments and hospitals and so on.  That's not breeding dependence.



			
				Bern80: said:
			
		

> Now you're changeing terms from obligation to what one has the right to ask for.  You have the right to ask for pretty much anything you want.  The person you ask however is under obligation to meet your request in only very specific circumstances.



I was trying to blunt the repeated claim that those of us on this side of the argument are saying there's a "right".  That's an obfuscation from some of our opponents.  There is no "right".  I hold there is an obligation from government to its citizens.  But I'm happy to drop that in the interests of keeping the discussion on how a scheme is to be funded - as you have already indicated.



			
				Bern80: said:
			
		

> In this case the request would be "provide me healthcare"  To which I would have some questions which in your response I would ask that you answer as succinclty as possible:
> 
> why?
> 
> ...



I need to make the point that my argument on that aspect of it is this.  That government exists.  That government has obligations towards the citizens.  That when a citizen is born then he or she automatically enters into the social contract, even though they are an infant (back to Contracts 101, infancy is a defence to a breach of contract action but it doesn't apply to the social contract), simply by being a citizen they have rights and the government has obligations towards them.  

In the last couple of points you make.  I say again.  I'm not arguing that you have an obligation to anyone to look after them.  You don't (except as the law provides).  I am not arguing that you have an obligation towards me (hypothetically speaking) for my health care.  That makes your point moot.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 4, 2007)

If you had read Article 5 I linked to you would have seen that there are 2 methods for proposing an amendment. Congress can do it ( the most common) or the several States Legislatures can do it.

The threshold for proposal is lower than for passage. It requires 2/3 of both houses to propose or 2/3 of the State legislatures.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 4, 2007)

You really should read the Constitution, even with all its amendments it is not a very large document. It is clear and precise.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 4, 2007)

I did read the material at the link.  

I'm just waiting for the Texas Two Step to start


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 4, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Sometimes a question is just a question.  27 times it's been amended without Congress?  Does that mean that there was a referendum on a question 27 times in US history?



I didn't say it had been amended 27 times w/o congress, only that it had been amended 27 times.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 4, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> I did read the material at the link.
> 
> I'm just waiting for the Texas Two Step to start



I prefer the green apple quick step myself.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 4, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> No I argued that the constitution isn't a limited document, therefore the question of acts being extra-constitutional doesn't come into it.  I will argue that the constitution is an establishing document and government can do certain things which are in line with the intention of the constitution and I think it's the role of the US Supreme Court to ensure that is the case.



IIRC, you asked why Congress/the Government cannot do something that's not in the Constituion.  Such a thing would be extra-constitutional.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 4, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> That's not entirely correct, the police don't exist to protect the rights of the people and that's settled law in the US since a case where a woman sued the local police department for failing to protect her from domestic violence and it was held that the police aren't under a specific obligation to any individual.  They are there to protect societal interests, to enforce the law, to keep the peace and all the rest of it.



I didnt say they protected your rights personally and individually -- they protect your rights by protecting societal interests, enforcing the law, keeping the peace and all the rest of it.

One thing thet certainly do not do is PROVIDE you with the means to exercise your rights.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 4, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> IIRC, you asked why Congress/the Government cannot do something that's not in the Constituion.  Such a thing would be extra-constitutional.



He can not seem to grasp the whole " The Government only has stated powers" part. To be expected, in his Country the Government can do ANYTHING they want for any reason. They have no limits imposed on them at all. The people have no basic promise of rights in writing and no Constitution at all. He is simply used to the no limits type of Government.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 4, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> I think that we agree here.  Those who can afford to take care of themselves should be required to do so.  Yet, based on my interpretation of M14s comments, M14 thinks that those who cant take care of themselves better find a friend, family member, or charity, or die in the street.  That is where he and I disagree.



We also disagree on slavery:
I think that all forms, manifestations and instances of slavery are reprehensible, unacceptable, contemptable assaults on liberty.

You think it is OK, at least sometimes.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 4, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I prefer the green apple quick step myself.



 - when ya gotta go......


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 4, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> IIRC, you asked why Congress/the Government cannot do something that's not in the Constituion.  Such a thing would be extra-constitutional.



So why amendments?


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 4, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> I didnt say they protected your rights personally and individually -- they protect your rights by protecting societal interests, enforcing the law, keeping the peace and all the rest of it.
> 
> One thing thet certainly do not do is PROVIDE you with the means to exercise your rights.



It's tricky isn't it?  To ensure that society functions properly the police are given conditional immunity from infringing on the natural rights of citizens.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 4, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> He can not seem to grasp the whole " The Government only has stated powers" part. To be expected, in his Country the Government can do ANYTHING they want for any reason. They have no limits imposed on them at all. The people have no basic promise of rights in writing and no Constitution at all. He is simply used to the no limits type of Government.



Did you want to ask me about the situation in my country?  I'll answer if you have a question.  And for the record, you're off beam but then I don't expect you to know much about our little corner.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 4, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> We also disagree on slavery:
> I think that all forms, manifestations and instances of slavery are reprehensible, unacceptable, contemptable assaults on liberty.
> 
> You think it is OK, at least sometimes.



There's slavery and there's slavery....we're all in thrall to something or someone, to one degree or another.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 4, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Did you want to ask me about the situation in my country?  I'll answer if you have a question.  And for the record, you're off beam but then I don't expect you to know much about our little corner.



So other than voting in enough voting members of your parliament to change a law passed, what restriction is there on your Government from making any law for any reason they choose? What document limits the power of your Government? What written document provides any protection for your citizens, grants any rights the Government can not vote to take away?

As for amendments asked and answered, why your hung up on that is beyond me.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 4, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> So why amendments?


Because, as we all know, sometimes the Constitution, as originally written, does not cover something that needs to be covered.

Note that this doesnt create an argument for the legitimacy of the government deciding to "just do it" regardless of any amendment granting a power to that effect.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 4, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> It's tricky isn't it?  To ensure that society functions properly the police are given conditional immunity from infringing on the natural rights of citizens.



Its -not- tricky in that the police do not provide you with the means to exercise your rights.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 4, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> So other than voting in enough voting members of your parliament to change a law passed, what restriction is there on your Government from making any law for any reason they choose? What document limits the power of your Government? What written document provides any protection for your citizens, grants any rights the Government can not vote to take away?



I'm glad you asked 

We have a bi-cameral parliament (this is federally).  The party with the largest number of seats in parliament's lower house is invited to form a government.  The government attempts to pass laws and provided it gets a majority vote in both houses they will be able to do so.  However they can't do what they like.  Our constitution does limit the power of government.  But more importantly the English common law does so as well.  I won't go on about it but there's a huge corpus of common law going back to Magna Carta and beyond that still has effect in Australia.  The High Court of Australia, analogous to your Supreme Court, has an original power of deciding on constitutional questions.  So, there's no single document limiting the power of government, there's a mix of statute law, common law and convention which does so.  



			
				RetiredGySgt: said:
			
		

> As for amendments asked and answered, why your hung up on that is beyond me.



Simple.  If the constitution can be amended then the Founding Fathers recognised that it wasn't cast in concrete and was immutable.  It can be formally amended and its intent can be interpreted by the Supreme Court.  It's not a rigid, ossified document in the National Archives.  In short, it's more than just a piece of paper.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 4, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Because, as we all know, sometimes the Constitution, as originally written, does not cover something that needs to be covered.
> 
> Note that this doesnt create an argument for the legitimacy of the government deciding to "just do it" regardless of any amendment granting a power to that effect.



Yes and yes.  Government can't do what it wishes, it has to be within the confines of the intent of the constitution.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 4, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Its -not- tricky in that the police do not provide you with the means to exercise your rights.



That's quite true, but I never said they did.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 4, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> I'm glad you asked
> 
> We have a bi-cameral parliament (this is federally).  The party with the largest number of seats in parliament's lower house is invited to form a government.  The government attempts to pass laws and provided it gets a majority vote in both houses they will be able to do so.  However they can't do what they like.  Our constitution does limit the power of government.  But more importantly the English common law does so as well.  I won't go on about it but there's a huge corpus of common law going back to Magna Carta and beyond that still has effect in Australia.  The High Court of Australia, analogous to your Supreme Court, has an original power of deciding on constitutional questions.  So, there's no single document limiting the power of government, there's a mix of statute law, common law and convention which does so.
> 
> ...



The Constitution is of course more than a piece of paper. However the Government can not just assume more powers or stretch clauses beyond any reasonable meaning. They are REQUIRED to submit to the people either through their legislatures or directly to the people amendments to grant or repeal powers granted to the Government.

IT is concrete unless amended. The Government can not usurp powers not specifically given to it by the Constitution, they must try to amend the document and give the people the choice on whether or not the new power is granted.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 4, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The Constitution is of course more than a piece of paper. However the Government can not just assume more powers or stretch clauses beyond any reasonable meaning. They are REQUIRED to submit to the people either through their legislatures or directly to the people amendments to grant or repeal powers granted to the Government.
> 
> IT is concrete unless amended. The Government can not usurp powers not specifically given to it by the Constitution, they must try to amend the document and give the people the choice on whether or not the new power is granted.



Yes, that all makes sense to me, agreed on those.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 4, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Good stuff.  Yes, it's much better to focus on the method.  But you're still not taking the point that the government spends taxes, not your money.



Taxes don't appear out of thin air.  They take them from taxpayers (me).  So yes, they are spending my money in that they spent what I earned and take part of it that they didn't.  I don't have a huge problem with it provided that it is wisely spent (something we should be up-in-arms about already).  I simply don't view government control of healthcare by a government that has shown it is amazingly inept and inefficient at running anything a wise use of tax dollars.  Especially when for, the most part, our system works.




Diuretic said:


> That's a bit of a blanket statement, about society being unwilling to accept risk.  Society should ameliorate risk.  That's why societies fund police forces and fire departments and hospitals and so on.  That's not breeding dependence.



This doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing.  It is perfectly reasonable to support government funding fire departments while not supporting them being the provider of my healthcare.  Again it comes down to what reasonable expectations of people are.  There has to be a level of personal responsibilty for your needs at some point.  The trade off is an un-free society.  Again I ask, why is it reasonable to put the responsibilty of your health, something you have more control over then anyone else, onto someone else?

It is not governments job to ameliorate risk either.  There job is to to protect us from the things we can't reasonabley be expected to protect ourselves from.  Why should citizens provide for their own healthcare? Simple.  It's in societies best interest.  Are you more or less likely to take care of yourself if you have a financial stake in your health?  Are you more or less likely to be complacement if you have the understanding that whatever you do to yourself will be fixed and paid for by some other entity?

This is the deeper, maybe more philosophical question I'm trying to get at.  Do you create a better society be ameliorating all risks and burdens?  or is a better society one where people struggle through some adversity, take some responsiblity for their lot and life and perservere?

Those are two types of societies you can have.  One will breed mediocrity and averageness, but everyone will be relatively okay and have few burdens to deal with.  The other will have considerable risks in all facets of life.  There will be struggles with things out of your control and some will sink to the bottom based on any number of things.  But some will also rise to the top and be their success and contributions to that society will only be limited by their imagination.





Diuretic said:


> I hold there is an obligation from government to its citizens.  But I'm happy to drop that in the interests of keeping the discussion on how a scheme is to be funded - as you have already indicated.



I don't really want to drop this because this is the main point.  Government isn't some extraneous entity from society.  It is part of society, made up of the people in the society.  Therefore if you say government is obligated to provide something which it can't do without money, which it can't get without taxing, the obligation does fall on me and the other taxpayers.

We can't discuss how the system will be funded until we discuss who it is going to fund.  To me you still seem to be arguing that it should fund everyone, including those that are capable of providing for themselves, are you not?





Diuretic said:


> I need to make the point that my argument on that aspect of it is this.  That government exists.  That government has obligations towards the citizens.  That when a citizen is born then he or she automatically enters into the social contract, even though they are an infant (back to Contracts 101, infancy is a defence to a breach of contract action but it doesn't apply to the social contract), simply by being a citizen they have rights and the government has obligations towards them.
> 
> In the last couple of points you make.  I say again.  I'm not arguing that you have an obligation to anyone to look after them.  You don't (except as the law provides).  I am not arguing that you have an obligation towards me (hypothetically speaking) for my health care.  That makes your point moot.



It isn't moot.  If you say government has obligations toward people and those obligations need to be paid for then government tells me I am obligated to those things by collecting taxes from my paycheck.


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 4, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> We also disagree on slavery:
> I think that all forms, manifestations and instances of slavery are reprehensible, unacceptable, contemptable assaults on liberty.
> 
> You think it is OK, at least sometimes.



Is it slavery for me to pay taxes to a police force when I think that I can do a better ob of protecting myself on my own?

Is it slavery when I feel like abusing my pets but I have to pay taxes to support the ASPCA?  

For whatever reason the government thinks justifies it to take my hard-earned money, isnt it still a form of slavery?


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 4, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Its -not- tricky in that the police do not provide you with the means to exercise your rights.



This is where we disagree.  Police protect you from bullets just as doctors protect you from diseases.  While you may think that we should pay taxes to support police, you might not think that we should pay taxes to support doctors.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 4, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> Is it slavery for me to pay taxes to a police force when I think that I can do a better ob of protecting myself on my own?


You're still suffering from your deliberate and willful inability to discern the difference between "protect" and "provide".  When you are able to make that distinction, get back to me.


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 4, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> You're still suffering from your deliberate and willful inability to discern the difference between "protect" and "provide".  When you are able to make that distinction, get back to me.



Police protect people and provide a service they provide a means for people to continue to live and go for what they want.  The same goes for health care.  Down at a very basic level, I dont see the difference.  I guess that I just dont understand it from your perspective.  Would you take the time to handhold me and explain it in baby step-by-step fashion as if I were a 12-year-old.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 4, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> Police protect people and provide a service they provide a means for people to continue to live and go for what they want.  The same goes for health care.  Down at a very basic level, I dont see the difference.....


Of course you don't - because to do so negates your arguments.
And you don't want that to happen.


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 4, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Of course you don't - because to do so negates your arguments.
> And you don't want that to happen.



Nope.  Unlike many people here, I have no problem admitting when I&#8217;m wrong.  I&#8217;ve been wrong before in my logic and statements.  It happens once in a great while.  I don&#8217;t know where they are, but there are places on this board where I have said that I was wrong.  I just don&#8217;t see where I am wrong in this issue.  

I see a strong parallel between police service and medical service with respect to taxes.  They both provide services.  They both help people to live.  One stops a bullet and one stops a disease.  The functions can be done in the private sector.  The functions can be done in the public sector.  I just don&#8217;t see any significant difference.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 4, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> Taxes don't appear out of thin air.  They take them from taxpayers (me).  So yes, they are spending my money in that they spent what I earned and take part of it that they didn't.  I don't have a huge problem with it provided that it is wisely spent (something we should be up-in-arms about already).  I simply don't view government control of healthcare by a government that has shown it is amazingly inept and inefficient at running anything a wise use of tax dollars.  Especially when for, the most part, our system works.



We'll have to agree to disagree on the issue of taxes.  




			
				Bern80: said:
			
		

> This doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing.  It is perfectly reasonable to support government funding fire departments while not supporting them being the provider of my healthcare.  Again it comes down to what reasonable expectations of people are.  There has to be a level of personal responsibilty for your needs at some point.  The trade off is an un-free society.  Again I ask, why is it reasonable to put the responsibilty of your health, something you have more control over then anyone else, onto someone else?



Let me put my point this way.  Candidate A says they will not support an expanded health care scheme.  Candidate B  says they will support such a scheme.  Taxpayers who are voters get to pick one.  The majority get their wish, everyone continues to pay taxes as usual.



			
				Bern80: said:
			
		

> It is not governments job to ameliorate risk either.  There job is to to protect us from the things we can't reasonabley be expected to protect ourselves from.  Why should citizens provide for their own healthcare? Simple.  It's in societies best interest.  Are you more or less likely to take care of yourself if you have a financial stake in your health?  Are you more or less likely to be complacement if you have the understanding that whatever you do to yourself will be fixed and paid for by some other entity?



I can't agree with your logic here, it's just not following.  'Why should citizens provide for their own healthcare?  Simple.  It's in societies best interest."  If it's in society's best interest then society should ensure it happens and pay for it.  



			
				Bern80: said:
			
		

> This is the deeper, maybe more philosophical question I'm trying to get at.  Do you create a better society be ameliorating all risks and burdens?  or is a better society one where people struggle through some adversity, take some responsiblity for their lot and life and perservere?



Patently no government, no society will remove all risks and burdens.  Should government help out a citizen when that citizen is in real need is a different question.



			
				Bern80: said:
			
		

> Those are two types of societies you can have.  One will breed mediocrity and averageness, but everyone will be relatively okay and have few burdens to deal with.  The other will have considerable risks in all facets of life.  There will be struggles with things out of your control and some will sink to the bottom based on any number of things.  But some will also rise to the top and be their success and contributions to that society will only be limited by their imagination.



There are thousands and thousands and maybe more types of society, not two.  





			
				Bern80: said:
			
		

> I don't really want to drop this because this is the main point.  Government isn't some extraneous entity from society.  It is part of society, made up of the people in the society.  Therefore if you say government is obligated to provide something which it can't do without money, which it can't get without taxing, the obligation does fall on me and the other taxpayers.
> 
> We can't discuss how the system will be funded until we discuss who it is going to fund.  To me you still seem to be arguing that it should fund everyone, including those that are capable of providing for themselves, are you not?



I'd like to continue with that argument but it keeps getting sidetracked.





			
				Bern80: said:
			
		

> It isn't moot.  If you say government has obligations toward people and those obligations need to be paid for then government tells me I am obligated to those things by collecting taxes from my paycheck.



No, you're obligated to the government, not its specific functions nor to other taxpayers, at least in the sense of this discussion, that was why I said your original point was moot.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 4, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> We'll have to agree to disagree on the issue of taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The Federal Government has NO POWER to create a health care system paid for by our taxes nor run by the Federal Government.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 5, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Let me put my point this way.  Candidate A says they will not support an expanded health care scheme.  Candidate B  says they will support such a scheme.  Taxpayers who are voters get to pick one.  The majority get their wish, everyone continues to pay taxes as usual.



Everyone continues to pay taxes yes.  But candidate A and B determine how they are spent.  I vote for the candidate that I believe spends them most fairly.





Diuretic said:


> I can't agree with your logic here, it's just not following.  'Why should citizens provide for their own healthcare?  Simple.  It's in societies best interest."  If it's in society's best interest then society should ensure it happens and pay for it.



Because you aren't understanding.  I didn't say healthy people are in societies best interest.  I said people being responsible for themesleves (and their healthcare) is in socities best interest.  



Diuretic said:


> Patently no government, no society will remove all risks and burdens.  Should government help out a citizen when that citizen is in real need is a different question.



You're missing the point.  I'm well aware no government or society can eliminate all risk.  The question is should they even be trying to.





Diuretic said:


> There are thousands and thousands and maybe more types of society, not two.



That's being a little obtuse in an attempt to not address the point.  I'm well aware that there are more the two possible types of societies, hence the absence of the word 'the' before the word 'two' in the first sentence.  



Diuretic said:


> I'd like to continue with that argument but it keeps getting sidetracked.



I'll do my best. please answer the question.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 5, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The Federal Government has NO POWER to create a health care system paid for by our taxes nor run by the Federal Government.



Okay, point taken, but where is it prohibited from doing so?


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 5, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> Everyone continues to pay taxes yes.  But candidate A and B determine how they are spent.  I vote for the candidate that I believe spends them most fairly.



Good, that's settled with understanding.  Please don't see this as a some sort of stupid attempt at triumphalism.  You vote for the candidate that you believe will spend taxes fairly.  No problem with that, it makes perfect sense.




			
				Bern80: said:
			
		

> Because you aren't understanding.  I didn't say healthy people are in societies best interest.  I said people being responsible for themesleves (and their healthcare) is in socities best interest.



I think I understood, I think I may have been putting another proposition, although in a clumsy manner.

You know this is really coming down to the old what is a good society question.  Not that it's a bad thing, it's good to stand back and re-assess our society (not that I'm asserting you and I share a society).

In your good society individuals are responsible for themselves.  In my good society individuals are similarly responsible for themselves.  In my good society government doesn't tell someone how to live their life, except that the legislature can pass laws for the common good.  I suspect your good society isn't that much difference (I'm hypothesising the good society here of course, not referring to the real ones).  In my good society if someone is in need of help then they should expect that help, not as a crutch but as a hand extended.  Creating a dependent society is as much a tyranny as any dictator.  

Now, health policy should be seen in that light, that philosophy.  I'll leave that there because you may wish to make a point about this yourself.



			
				Bern80: said:
			
		

> You're missing the point.  I'm well aware no government or society can eliminate all risk.  The question is should they even be trying to.



Should a good society try to eliminate all risk?  No, why try the impossible?  Should a good society be attempting to ameliorate risk, yes it should.  A good society's government should be on guard the whole time against various risks.  Each government department should be working on identifying and reducing risk, to a large extent that's what government is about.  If you disagree then explain to me why the Food and Drug Administration hasn't been dismantled.





			
				Bern80: said:
			
		

> That's being a little obtuse in an attempt to not address the point.  I'm well aware that there are more the two possible types of societies, hence the absence of the word 'the' before the word 'two' in the first sentence.



I'm fine with an abstract discussion where one world looks like this and one world looks like that and it's then possible to limit the comparisons but, with all due respect, that has to be established and understood.




			
				Bern80: said:
			
		

> I'll do my best. please answer the question.



What was the question again?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 5, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Okay, point taken, but where is it prohibited from doing so?



LOL, did you not listen at all about the Constitution? The Constitution does not give the Federal Government the power to do it. Thus it can not.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 5, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL, did you not listen at all about the Constitution? The Constitution does not give the Federal Government the power to do it. Thus it can not.



I'm not denying that (just noting the circularity of the argument in passing), I'm merely asking for evidence


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 5, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> I'm not denying that (just noting the circularity of the argument in passing), I'm merely asking for evidence



I have already at least twice linked to the enumerated powers of Congress. Must I cut and past them also? None of the enumerated powers gives the Federal Government the right or power to provide this service. If the Federal Government wants to do this and the people agree then an Amendment must be passed allowing them the power.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 5, 2007)

I'm doing my reading assignment.  I'm also doing the reading assignment that Doug set us all in the conservatives/libertarian thread.  Hey it's better than watching the crap they have on tv here


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 5, 2007)

Okay, I read it.

Now, where does it say it's unconstitutional for government to fund healthcare?  
That is what we're discussing isn't it?  There are so many sub-threads it's a bit difficult to follow all of them.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 5, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Okay, I read it.
> 
> Now, where does it say it's unconstitutional for government to fund healthcare?
> That is what we're discussing isn't it?  There are so many sub-threads it's a bit difficult to follow all of them.



Once again. the Constitution does not specify what the Federal Government can NOT do, it specifies what it CAN do. There is something like 18 enumerated powers of the Congress. Not one of which gives the Federal Government the authority or power to provide health care to the citizens of the several states.

The relevant section.... http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html



> Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
> Section 8 - Powers of Congress
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
> ...



Be so kind as to show me the clause that covers providing health care to private citizens of the United States. I will admit that in the case of Washington DC and the military the Government does have said authority.

The closest thing you will find is the term general Welfare of the United States. But that is not what was meant by said term and I doubt you find anyone in congress claiming it is what gives them authority to act on health care.

None of the Amendments passed cover it either, shall I list all of them too?


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 5, 2007)

So, can the states legislate to provide health care to their citizens?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 5, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> So, can the states legislate to provide health care to their citizens?



Depends on their Constitution, but I would venture to say it is a lot easier to change a State Constitution then a Federal one.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 5, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Depends on their Constitution, but I would venture to say it is a lot easier to change a State Constitution then a Federal one.



Yes I think it would be, smaller population and all of that.  Canada has provincially organised health care and while that might work for them (given they've got a bigger population than my country and Canada is far larger in land mass than Aus) I wonder if it's that smart a move.  But I would think local politics plays a part in it, as it does anywhere.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 5, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Okay, I read it.
> Now, where does it say it's unconstitutional for government to fund healthcare?


Because the Cosntituion does not provide the power to do so.
Thus, to do so, would be extra-constitutional, and then by necessity, unconstiutional.


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 5, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Because the Cosntituion does not provide the power to do so.
> Thus, to do so, would be extra-constitutional, and then by necessity, unconstiutional.



I guess that this thread moved on to discuss the Constitution (what is allows, does not allow and ways to change it).  I understand that it can be changed by a vote of the people or congress.  This is just not much of an interest for me.  My interest is in seeing if there is a absolute, consistent way to determine if some general something is politically or ethically right or wrong / good or bad. Anyway, carry on.


----------



## jillian (Oct 5, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Okay, I read it.
> 
> Now, where does it say it's unconstitutional for government to fund healthcare?
> That is what we're discussing isn't it?  There are so many sub-threads it's a bit difficult to follow all of them.



It doesn't... 

I find it interesting, though, that no one has addressed the deeper issue. Congress has voted itself lifetime health coverage. Even if someone leaves office, I believe they are STILL covered by government health insurance. Yet, none of the people here calling health care "socialist" or "welfare" have any problem with it.

Again, we voted for them. Why NOT provide Americans with the same coverage as the people who supposedly represent us already have?


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 5, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Okay, I read it.
> 
> Now, where does it say it's unconstitutional for government to fund healthcare?
> That is what we're discussing isn't it?  There are so many sub-threads it's a bit difficult to follow all of them.



I think the easiest way to wrap one's head around the constition and government powers is that the framers did it rationally.  The idea was to figure out the best way to keep government from abusing power.

The best way to do that is to right a document in terms of what it CAN do rather than what it CAN'T.  There is less room for abuse of power if it is undertood that these are things gov't CAN do.  It is assumed anything not written the gov't has no power to do.  The reverse would be to list what government CAN'T do which would be horribly problematic.  Now government CAN do whatever it wants outside of the things it CAN'T do.  Gov't power would only be limited by their imagination then.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 5, 2007)

jillian said:


> It doesn't...
> 
> I find it interesting, though, that no one has addressed the deeper issue. Congress has voted itself lifetime health coverage. Even if someone leaves office, I believe they are STILL covered by government health insurance. Yet, none of the people here calling health care "socialist" or "welfare" have any problem with it.
> 
> Again, we voted for them. Why NOT provide Americans with the same coverage as the people who supposedly represent us already have?



It's a really bad argument for one thing.  It's the argument of 5 year old that whines to his mom about not haveing a toy and using the rationale that he should get it because Billy down the street has it.

Further it isn't a 'deep' issue either.  It isn't exacltey unfair either.  None of them know how long they're going to be in office for one thing.  Thus they don't know how long they will have health insurance of some type.  Your why NOT question shows you haven't thought about the ramification of such an idea at all.  If we had the same healthcare plan they all did we would not being paying for it through taxes, it would be completely free.  That would be a logisitcal nightmare.


----------



## jillian (Oct 5, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> It's a really bad argument for one thing.  It's the argument of 5 year old that whines to his mom about not haveing a toy and using the rationale that he should get it because Billy down the street has it.



No. It's an argument about our priorities and what we're willing to spend money on. Why is it welfare to give health insurance to children but not to Congress people?

And you have no answer, as usual, so resort to rudeness and arrogance, which is clearly has no basis.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 5, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> I think I understood, I think I may have been putting another proposition, although in a clumsy manner.
> 
> You know this is really coming down to the old what is a good society question.  Not that it's a bad thing, it's good to stand back and re-assess our society (not that I'm asserting you and I share a society).
> 
> ...



The problem is 'common good' is a very slippery slope. That isn't very far from "we know what's best for you and we're going to legislate that you do it." For example in our state,  the state wide smoking ban went into effect (just this past week I believe) for the 'common good'.  A law that somehow conveniently skipped over the notion of private property rights.  If a bar owner wants to allow smoking in his bar, why should he not be allowed to?

The other problem is this "if someone is in need of help then they should expect that help".

Know they shouldn't.  Because what you have essentially stated is that the determing factor in whether it is my obligation to help an individual is that individual's condition.  It may seem like semanitcs, but it's a key point.  I don't want a society where people feel they are entitled to things or have the right to expect other or people to provide them with things.  I want a society where those who can take responsibility for themselves do and we help those that can't, not out obligation or force, but because we're a compassionate society.

It comes down to what attitudes do you want to foster and encourage in a society.  We obviously want to encourage and foster compassion for the less fortunate.  The problem is that attitude can't be forced (legisltated) onto people.  You either are compassionate or you're not.  Legislating that someone less fortune has the right to expect something of me elimates to positive atitudes.  Compassion and graciousness.  I am not going to be compassionate to someone who'm i am forced to help.  I do it because I have to.  there's no atitude one way or the other.  And by the same token the person I helped isn't going to be gracious because he knows I have to help him.

By forcing these atitudes, by saying you have the right to _expect_ help when you need it.  You are increasing the chance of negating the very atitudes in people you were seeking to create (garciousness, compassion). What reason doesn a man who can expect help have to be gracious?  What reason does a man who is obligated/forced to help someone have to feel compassion?   




Diuretic said:


> Should a good society try to eliminate all risk?  No, why try the impossible?  Should a good society be attempting to ameliorate risk, yes it should.  A good society's government should be on guard the whole time against various risks.  Each government department should be working on identifying and reducing risk, to a large extent that's what government is about.  If you disagree then explain to me why the Food and Drug Administration hasn't been dismantled.



I have said why I disagree several times.  In comes down to what it is reasonable to expect of individuals and what is efficient.  Is it effiecient for each individual to test out drugs on their own to make sure they work and won't hurt you.  Of course not.  So an entity was created to do that.

You can think of it I think in terms of raising a child.  When they are very little sometimes they wake up and cry (several times a night).  Is it best for the child that you go in and rescue him or her everytime you here a peep?  No.  You aren't leave them out of cruelty, you leave them so that you can show them the world doesn't end when you're not around.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 5, 2007)

jillian said:


> No. It's an argument about our priorities and what we're willing to spend money on. Why is it welfare to give health insurance to children but not to Congress people?
> 
> And you have no answer, as usual, so resort to rudeness and arrogance, which is clearly has no basis.



No one is saying it is welfare to give health insureance to children. Don't enter into debates with me by makeing unfounded assumptions about my position.

And Actually I did answer the question if you read the second paragraph.  I'll recap quick for you. 

You asked why we don't extend the same healthcare that our congressmen get to all citizens.  I answered by saying first the dynamics of their job warrents it and two to institute such a program to the nation as a whole would have serious logisitcal problems.


----------



## jillian (Oct 5, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> No one is saying it is welfare to give health insureance to children. Don't enter into debates with me by makeing unfounded assumptions about my position.
> 
> And Actually I did answer the question if you read the second paragraph.  I'll recap quick for you.
> 
> You asked why we don't extend the same healthcare that our congressmen get to all citizens.  I answered by saying first the dynamics of their job warrents it and two to institute such a program to the nation as a whole would have serious logisitcal problems.



I don't think they deserve insurance from their employer after they leave their employment any more or less than the rest of us do.

Logistical problems shouldn't be a bar to doing the right thing. This country shouldn't be letting people go uninsured. It shouldn't be letting people forego medical treatment until they are untreatable. It shouldn't be letting people choose between buying their medications and eating or paying their rent. Last I checked, there were 5 million more people without health insurance than prior to Bush's presidency. That number is much higher now, though I don't know by how much.

Do I think people should have a choice in terms of whether they avail themselves of private physicians or government health care? Absolutely. Same as I make a choice to use physicians who are not on my insurance plan and have to go out of pocket.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 5, 2007)

jillian said:


> Why is it welfare to give health insurance to children but not to Congress people?


Congressmen have health care while they are Congressmen like most employees have health care while they are emplyed.  When they retire, they have health care from their employer like many other employees do.  Their retiree health care is not "welfare" any more than any other retiree realth care is as it is given to them while they are working and while they are retires as a function of their employment.  Its no differen than the mailman geting health care after he retires.

The difference between that and welfare for kids should be obvious.


----------



## jillian (Oct 5, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Congressmen have health care while they are Congressmen like most employees have health care while they are emplyed.  When they retire, they have health care from their employer like many other employees do.  Their retiree health care is not "welfare" any more than any other retiree realth care is as it is given to them while they are working and while they are retires as a function of their employment.  Its no differen than the mailman geting health care after he retires.
> 
> The difference between that and welfare for kids should be obvious.



What company do you suppose you could work for for only two years and get lifetime health coverage? None that I know of. Retirement presumes a certain number of years of service. 

I think kids should have health insurance. I think that's obvious. I don't think any mother should have to leave her child untreated because there's no money. I am lucky enough to have health insurance with my job, including optical and dental (though out-of-network coverage sucks). However, when I worked for myself, I paid $2,100 a month for my family coverage. That is obscene. How many families do you know of who can afford to spend over $25,000 a year on health coverage? It was actually one of my considerations when I gave up my practice and decided to go to work for someone else.

There's something wrong with that, particularly now that more and more employers are either not offering health coverage or are taking contributions too large to be affordable.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 5, 2007)

jillian said:


> What company do you suppose you could work for for only two years and get lifetime health coverage? None that I know of. Retirement presumes a certain number of years of service.


So does congressionbal retirement.  



> *Members of Congress receive retirement and health benefits under the same plans available to other federal employees.* They become vested after five years of full participation.
> 
> Members elected since 1984 are covered by the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS). Those elected prior to 1984 were covered by the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). In 1984 all members were given the option of remaining with CSRS or switching to FERS.
> 
> ...


http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa031200a.htm

Your mailman gets retirement benefits -- why shouldn't your congressman?



> I think kids should have health insurance. I think that's obvious.


That's great.  
But how does that translate into them having the right to expect somone else to pay for it?


----------



## jillian (Oct 5, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> So does congressionbal retirement.
> 
> 
> http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa031200a.htm
> ...



Ah...ok. 5 years, not 2. That's less than one senate term. Gee... how many years do you have to work at your job to get continued health coverage?

It's about priorities. The 120 billion a year getting pissed away in Iraq troubles me. Earmarks for congressional pet projects troubles me. A comprehensive health care plan wouldn't. Also, you cut off, I notice, the last of my statement. That's the crux of the issue it seems to me.... the fact that health coverage is virtually unaffordable if you don't have a sweet government plan.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 5, 2007)

jillian said:


> Ah...ok. 5 years, not 2. That's less than one senate term. Gee... how many years do you have to work at your job to get continued health coverage?


So, your gripe is how long it is before they get vested, not that they get health care when they're wroking and after they retire.  Right?



> It's about priorities.


No...  its about people having the right to expect others to provide them the means to exercise their rights.
Do I have the right to expect you to provide me the means to buy a gun?



> That's the crux of the issue it seems to me.... the fact that health coverage is virtually unaffordable if you don't have a sweet government plan.


Mine costs $175/mo, for amazingly great insurance.  Full optical, dental, $10 co-pays, etc.  It's not from a government job.

The cruix of the biscuit:  That it sucks to be you doesnt in any way mean that you have a right to expect me to provide the means to make it not suck to be you.


----------



## jillian (Oct 5, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> So, your gripe is how long it is before they get vested, not that they get health care when they're wroking and after they retire.  Right?



Nope...my issue is that congress gives things to itself that it doesn't give to people who voted for them.



> No...  its about people having the right to expect others to provide them the means to exercise their rights.
> Do I have the right to expect you to provide me the means to buy a gun?



You know, I've seen you make that absurd argument on other threads. Your ownership of a gun doesn't benefit society. Healthcare does. Plus, in case you haven't noticed, we aren't discussing a "constitutional right". We are discussing the right way to run our society. Most other countries take better care of their people.



> Mine costs $175/mo, for amazingly great insurance.  Full optical, dental, $10 co-pays, etc.  It's not from a government job.



Cool... what comapny and how many people are covered? And in what state do you live? All of those things are relevant. Mine was for 3 people in NYC. I'm not sure what "amazingly great" insurance is or whether you are part of an HMO. I'm not saying those things to be snotty, but all of it is factored into cost.



> The cruix of the biscuit:  That it sucks to be you doesnt in any way mean that you have a right to expect me to provide the means to make it not suck for you.



Actually, I will always have health coverage either through my work or my husband's (he's a federal employee, btw). And it in no way sucks being me. It's actually a pretty good. The difference is I actually think about other people. And THAT is the crux of it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 5, 2007)

jillian said:


> Nope...my issue is that congress gives things to itself that it doesn't give to people who voted for them.


They have the same retirement benefits that all other federal employees have.
Does your 'issue' apply to your husband and his retirement benefits?



> You know, I've seen you make that absurd argument on other threads. Your ownership of a gun doesn't benefit society.


Its a right that I have.  You are arguing that people have the right to expect others to provide the means to exercise their rights when they cannot.  
Apparently, your argument only applies to rights that you like, not all rights.



> Plus, in case you haven't noticed, we aren't discussing a "constitutional right". We are discussing the right way to run our society. Most other countries take better care of their people.


The title of the topic says otherwise.
Is health care a right?  You think so.
Then the question becomes:  Do you have a right to espect others to provide the means to exercise your rights?  Again you think so --- but, apparently, only when you like the right in question.



> Cool... what comapny and how many people are covered? And in what state do you live? All of those things are relevant. Mine was for 3 people in NYC. I'm not sure what "amazingly great" insurance is or whether you are part of an HMO. I'm not saying those things to be snotty, but all of it is factored into cost.


None of this matters, as the point is that your statement that "health coverage is virtually unaffordable if you don't have a sweet government plan" is false.



> The difference is I actually think about other people. And THAT is the crux of it.


Oh.  So there are two cruxes, changing from one to the another when one is invalidated.  Will there be a third?


----------



## jillian (Oct 5, 2007)

Issues are neither simplistic nor necessarily have a single response.

Do I think health care is a right? No.

Do I think people should have health care? Yes.

Do I think other countries do much better than we do in this regard? Yes.

Canada, New Zealand, Australia, England, Israel, to name a few. Not perfect, but better than we're doing in terms of providing for our citizenry.

Answer your question?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 5, 2007)

jillian said:


> Issues are neither simplistic nor necessarily have a single response.
> 
> Do I think health care is a right? No.
> 
> ...



No. It doesnt address any of my questions, and it eliminates any soundness to the argument that I should be forced to provide health care to anyone that cannot afford it -- for if health care isnt a right, then there's no way to argue that someone has a right to expect me to pay for theirs.


----------



## jillian (Oct 5, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> No. It doesnt address any of my questions, and it eliminates any soundness to the argument that I should be forced to provide health care to anyone that cannot afford it -- for if health care isnt a right, then there's no way to argue that someone has a right to expect me to pay for it.



Tell you what, you get to check the box on your tax return saying "don't use this money for health coverage" if I get to check the box saying "don't use a penny of this for Iraq".


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 5, 2007)

jillian said:


> Tell you what, you get to check the box on your tax return saying "don't use this money for health coverage" if I get to check the box saying "don't use a penny of this for Iraq".



And there's absolutely no sense in asking you to explain how these things are even remotely similar.

And you didn't answer if you have an issue with your husband's federal retirement benefits...


----------



## jillian (Oct 5, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> And there's absolutely no sense in asking you to explain how these things are even remotely similar.
> 
> And you didn't answer if you have an issue with your husband's federal retirement benefits...



They are similar because your objection is to your money being spent on things that are not a right. I figure fair's fair.

I thought it was a rhetorical question.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 5, 2007)

jillian said:


> They are similar because your objection is to your money being spent on things that are not a right. I figure fair's fair.


As I said -- there's no sense in trying to explain it to you.



> I thought it was a rhetorical question.


Given your positon -- that you have an "issue" with congress giving itself a retirement plan that it doesn't give to people who voted for them, while your husband has the same retiremen plan(s) available to him, its a perfectly sound question.

Do you have an issue with his plan?  If not, why not?


----------



## jillian (Oct 5, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> As I said -- there's no sense in trying to explain it to you.



Actually, I don't need you to explain it to me.



> Given your positon -- that you have an "issue" with congress giving itself a retirement plan that it doesn't give to people who voted for them, while your husband has the same retiremen plan(s) available to him, its a perfectly sound question.
> 
> Do you have an issue with his plan?  If not, why not?



You know I don't have a problem with it. Hence my thinking other people should have access to health coverage, too. Actually, though, I really shouldn't blame Congress, Bush was the one who used his little veto pen. 

If you actually want to discuss this issue, I think there are arguments for and against universal health coverage and I think there's something in between that might be positive for us.

If you only want to discuss whether it's a Constitutional Right and whether your guns should be paid for by the government, then really there's not a lot to discuss.

Is health care a constitutional right? No.

Should I have to pay for your guns? No.

And I think it's you who is avoiding the questions that come from this... can we do better for the people that live here. I posted examples of country which do provide for their citizens. Your response was that I moved the goal posts. I simply expanded the conversation since the one-word answer that you seem to want is only part of the issue.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 5, 2007)

jillian said:


> Actually, I don't need you to explain it to me.


The fact that you think you're comparing apples to apples, and won't accept that your comparing apples to oranges means you do -- and that any attempt to do so would be futile.



> You know I don't have a problem with it.


He has the same plans available to him that your congressmen do.
Why do you have an issue with their plan, but not your husband's?


----------



## jillian (Oct 5, 2007)

Dude, you're not listening... so I'm out. 

Cheers.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 5, 2007)

jillian said:


> Dude, you're not listening... so I'm out.
> 
> Cheers.



On the contrary -- I'm addressing your "issue" and you're refusing to answer questions about it.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 5, 2007)

jillian said:


> Canada, New Zealand, Australia, England, Israel, to name a few. Not perfect, but better than we're doing in terms of providing for our citizenry.
> 
> Answer your question?



This is not accurate in the least. There is a certain factor of time thatis invovled with providign people with care.  Those countries do a good job of providing affordable healthcare to people.  Is it timely care? In many instances, no. Affordability and quality are two different things.  In terms of quality of care there are few if any countries that are superior to the U.S.


----------



## jillian (Oct 5, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> This is not accurate in the least. There is a certain factor of time thatis invovled with providign people with care.  Those countries do a good job of providing affordable healthcare to people.  Is it timely care? In many instances, no. Affordability and quality are two different things.  In terms of quality of care there are few if any countries that are superior to the U.S.



That used to be the case. I'm not sure it's quite accurate any more. As I said, people would and should still have the right to private health care if they choose and can afford to. I don't see it as an all or nothing proposition. I pay extra for health coverage that allows me to go out of network to people I think are best for my particular purposes. It was also important to me not to have to get a "referral" from a primary care physician in order to go to specialists. Others choose to make the minimum contribution and use mandated providers or HMO's.

Do you think to someone who can't afford health care at all, the fact that in some areas it may not be of the same quality is going to be their primary concern? There are people in this country using the ER of their local hospital as their primary care. That costs everybody money. They do this because they can't afford preventive care or intervention before problems become acute.


----------



## Annie (Oct 5, 2007)

jillian said:


> That used to be the case. I'm not sure it's quite accurate any more. As I said, people would and should still have the right to private health care if they choose and can afford to. I don't see it as an all or nothing proposition. I pay extra for health coverage that allows me to go out of network to people I think are best for my particular purposes. It was also important to me not to have to get a "referral" from a primary care physician in order to go to specialists. Others choose to make the minimum contribution and use mandated providers or HMO's.
> 
> Do you think to someone who can't afford health care at all, the fact that in some areas it may not be of the same quality is going to be their primary concern? There are people in this country using the ER of their local hospital as their primary care. That costs everybody money. They do this because they can't afford preventive care or intervention before problems become acute.


Hell, I know that my nephew needed surgery IMMEDIATELY, the 3 day delay was alot, that was only to give surgeons the changes in real time of what was happening. 

If he was in any of those countries, from what I've read from the people of those countries, the surgery would not have proceeded on that time schedual. He'd be dead.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 5, 2007)

It's nice to log on after a reasonable night's sleep and see that jillian has been in the kitchen.  She's been slicing and dicing very finely in the kitchen.  It seems that the opposition is now _en brochette._  Any more flames from the opposition and we'll have ourselves a barbecue.  And just to continue the metaphor, you're all well done 

Pointing out the hypocrisy of the Congress is a winner.  

Well it was a good discussion.  For those on the other side of the offence, I know you'll be fuming (tut, there I go again) but hey don't worry about it, I'm strongly of the opinion that it's about participation and not winning.  

Now I know you'll keep going with it but without any malice at all I think I'm just about done (medium rare) here, but it has been very educational.


----------



## jillian (Oct 5, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Hell, I know that my nephew needed surgery IMMEDIATELY, the 3 day delay was alot, that was only to give surgeons the changes in real time of what was happening.
> 
> If he was in any of those countries, from what I've read from the people of those countries, the surgery would not have proceeded on that time schedual. He'd be dead.



I doubt it. Emergencies always come first... especially when the person is young, though there are snafu's even here.

Glad he came out ok.


----------



## jillian (Oct 5, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> It's nice to log on after a reasonable night's sleep and see that jillian has been in the kitchen.  She's been slicing and dicing very finely in the kitchen.  It seems that the opposition is now _en brochette._  Any more flames from the opposition and we'll have ourselves a barbecue.  And just to continue the metaphor, you're all well done
> 
> Pointing out the hypocrisy of the Congress is a winner.
> 
> ...



Now that's what I call a metaphor! heh... 

Thanks. Always good to see your posts, too!


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 7, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> It's nice to log on after a reasonable night's sleep and see that jillian has been in the kitchen.  She's been slicing and dicing very finely in the kitchen.  It seems that the opposition is now _en brochette._  Any more flames from the opposition and we'll have ourselves a barbecue.  And just to continue the metaphor, you're all well done
> 
> Pointing out the hypocrisy of the Congress is a winner.
> 
> ...




Jillian complains about congress receiving healthcare for life and that means the argument for universal healthcare has been won? That could be your worst argument yet.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 7, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> Jillian complains about congress receiving healthcare for life and that means the argument for universal healthcare has been won? That could be your worst argument yet.



It wasn't solely that but that was definitely a major point that hadn't been introduced before in the thread.  Feel better now?


----------



## jillian (Oct 7, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> Jillian complains about congress receiving healthcare for life and that means the argument for universal healthcare has been won? That could be your worst argument yet.



Yeah...why make them not provide themselves with things they deny people who voted for them? Why make them accountable.

Feeling persnickety tonight?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 7, 2007)

jillian said:


> Yeah...why make them not provide themselves with things they deny people who voted for them? Why make them accountable.
> 
> Feeling persnickety tonight?



The military gets health care after retirement. Should that be stopped? While I agree giving politicians free health care after 5 short years is stupid, the concept is not. It is part of a retirement package. It does not somehow equate to evidence that every person in the country should have health care provided by the Federal Government. Hell Senators, Congressman and Presidents/Vice Presidents get retirement pay as well, does that equate to every person in the country should get Federal retirement pay?


----------



## jillian (Oct 7, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The military gets health care after retirement. Should that be stopped? While I agree giving politicians free health care after 5 short years is stupid, the concept is not. It is part of a retirement package. It does not somehow equate to evidence that every person in the country should have health care provided by the Federal Government. Hell Senators, Congressman and Presidents/Vice Presidents get retirement pay as well, does that equate to every person in the country should get Federal retirement pay?



Did I say Congress shouldn't get health coverage?

Did I say my husband or the military or anyone else shouldn't have health coverage?

Nope. And nope.

No...Congress's isn't a retirment package if it vests after 5 years. 20 years is a retirement package.

This is about health care for our fellow citizens.

My point was that it isn't welfare to provide it to Congress OR to citizens.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 7, 2007)

jillian said:


> Did I say Congress shouldn't get health coverage?
> 
> Did I say my husband or the military or anyone else shouldn't have health coverage?
> 
> ...



And you would be wrong, while 5 years is a pretty low term for retirement, that IS what it is called. You are aware that military members can receive retirement benefits in less than 20 years? When the military was drawn down several services offered early retirement as low as 15 years. Further medical retirement can occur at any time. I only served 16 years and am permanently retired due to medical. Further you are aware a lot of Companies do not allow retirement until a certain AGE regardless of years on the job? That some offer different levels of retirement based on years and or age at retirement? That there is no STANDARD time, age or service that defines retirement in the United States?


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 7, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> It wasn't solely that but that was definitely a major point that hadn't been introduced before in the thread.  Feel better now?



It isn't a major point at all.  You are both attempting now to make the argument that since our congress voted itself free healthcare for life it should provide the same for the country.

It seriously is the dumbest argument I've heard yet to try and pass off this universal healthcare thing as a good idea.  there is absolutely no logic in it whatsoever in the argument that this group is doing it so they should provide to everyone.  And yet you're both touting as this amazing argument and think it has swayed the debate in your favor.

despite saying that it is a good idea to always ask why you seem to not be willing to do that too often.

WHY does congress providing itself a healthare plan mean they are somehow obligated to provide the same to the nation?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 7, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> It isn't a major point at all.  You are both attempting now to make the argument that since our congress voted itself free healthcare for life it should provide the same for the country.
> 
> It seriously is the dumbest argument I've heard yet to try and pass off this universal healthcare thing as a good idea.  there is absolutely no logic in it whatsoever in the argument that this group is doing it so they should provide to everyone.  And yet you're both touting as this amazing argument and think it has swayed the debate in your favor.
> 
> ...



More importantly, they HAVE the power to give themselves health care, show me where the Congress has any power to give Joe blow off the street health care of any kind.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 7, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> It isn't a major point at all.  You are both attempting now to make the argument that since our congress voted itself free healthcare for life it should provide the same for the country.
> 
> It seriously is the dumbest argument I've heard yet to try and pass off this universal healthcare thing as a good idea.  there is absolutely no logic in it whatsoever in the argument that this group is doing it so they should provide to everyone.  And yet you're both touting as this amazing argument and think it has swayed the debate in your favor.
> 
> ...



No, the people who have the power to make their own conditions have given themselves a very good health care scheme which persists after their formal employment has ceased.  That's an excellent deal in a country like yours where health care is a bit like the curate's egg - good in parts.  

But will they think of extending care to the nation?  Noooooooooooo.  They've got theirs.  No instead they'll tut-tut about socialism and suck everyone in thinking a health care scheme that has a single payer, the government, isn't possible.  Hypocritical and selfish and totally without consideration for the people they are sworn to serve.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 7, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> More importantly, they HAVE the power to give themselves health care, show me where the Congress has any power to give Joe blow off the street health care of any kind.



I don't do this very often but it strikes me that somewhere between the powers of Congress as stated in the constitution and the definite prohibitions on what Congress can't do that there is a big area called "implicit authority."   I bet the legal eagles can correct me on that one.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 7, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> I don't do this very often but it strikes me that somewhere between the powers of Congress as stated in the constitution and the definite prohibitions on what Congress can't do that there is a big area called "implicit authority."   I bet the legal eagles can correct me on that one.



We have been over this through out this and some other threads. The Federal Government can only have a power if it is listed in the Constitution. They have the implied and stated power to create any law, any regulation any article any tax, etc etc, in regards to the SPECIFIC powers granted.

Now go find me one that authorizes the Federal Government to provide Health Care to private citizens. You also won't find one authorizing Social Security or Medicare. In fact the Federal Government has no power for welfare at all. The only exception being Washington DC. The Constitution specifies that the Congress has full and total authority over that 10 mile square area. They are free to create any law they want since they in effect are the city managers.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 8, 2007)

But you have a Social Security programme - is that unconstitutional?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 8, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> But you have a Social Security programme - is that unconstitutional?



Yes it is.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 8, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Yes it is.



Meaning that there is no constitutional authority for Congress to legislate for it or that it's not specifically prohibited by the constitution?

This is where I'm digging around.  If the constitution says you won't do this or you won't do that that's one thing but if the constitution is silent on something and it's not specifically prohibited then surely it can be done.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 8, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Meaning that there is no constitutional authority for Congress to legislate for it or that it's not specifically prohibited by the constitution?
> 
> This is where I'm digging around.  If the constitution says you won't do this or you won't do that that's one thing but if the constitution is silent on something and it's not specifically prohibited then surely it can be done.



Why must I explain simple concepts to you over and over? I realize your Government does things differently but it really is a simple concept.

The Federal Government can not do anything it wants, it can not usurp powers not granted to it by the Constitution. The Constitution does not list what the Government can not do, it lists what it CAN do. It can ONLY do those things granted to it by the Constitution. Everything else is a power of the States or Individuals.

The entire argument at the creation of the Document was that the federal Government would grab power for its self and specific restrictions should be added to the document. The response was simple and direct. The Constitution grants specific power ANYTHING not granted is NOT a power of the Federal Government. It is easier to list what IS allowed then to try and make a comprehensive list of what is NOT allowed.

In fact that approach is better for the passing of time. No one 200 years ago could possibly know what conditions would be like now, they could NOT list prohibitions that would cover all the things not granted to the Government. They could however limit the Government successfully by ONLY granting set certain powers and requiring that new powers would have to be amended into the document by the people. Thus limiting, as was the goal, the Federal Government.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 8, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Pointing out the hypocrisy of the Congress is a winner.


And how about pointing out the hypocricy of Jillian?

You know, where she complains about Congress having various choices for retirement, but baing happy with her husband having the same choices?


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 8, 2007)

So if the Congress can't establish universal health care because it's unconstitutional, does that mean that any of the states could do it?

Sorry, that was for RGS.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 8, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> And how about pointing out the hypocricy of Jillian?
> 
> You know, where she complains about Congress having various choices for retirement, but baing happy with her husband having the same choices?



Why not put that to her?

I was focussed on the hypocrisy of Congress regarding universal health care.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 8, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> So if the Congress can't establish universal health care because it's unconstitutional, does that mean that any of the states could do it?
> 
> Sorry, that was for RGS.



Why do I have to keep answering this question? Yes depending on individual State Constitutions a State could have the power to create universal health care for its citizens. The Federal Government could submit through Congress an amendment to the Constitution and see if the people agree. It would require 66 Senators and 290 Congressman to create the Amendment. It would require 37 States to approve it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 8, 2007)

jillian said:


> Did I say Congress shouldn't get health coverage?
> 
> Did I say my husband or the military or anyone else shouldn't have health coverage?
> 
> ...


So... contrary to your prior statement, your 'issue' isnt their retorement package, it IS how long they have to work before they get it.  Right?



> My point was that it isn't welfare to provide it to Congress OR to citizens.


It is when those citizens arent retired federal employees.  Apples and organges.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 8, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Why not put that to her?
> 
> I was focussed on the hypocrisy of Congress regarding universal health care.



Except there is no hypocrisy at all.  First, we know that it isn't all of congress saying that a government paid for system won't work, as you stated.

You also imply that since it works for a few hundred it will obviously work for a few million.  Again you think there is somehow some legitimate comparison in how congress provides its own healthcare and how healthcare ought to be supplied to the nation.  When are you gonna figure out you're not comparing apples to apples?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 8, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> I was focussed on the hypocrisy of Congress regarding universal health care.


Congressmen, like all other Federal employees, have retirement packages available to them because they are Federal Employees. 

There's no more hyopcricy in that than in General Motors having a retirement system for its employees and not for the general public.


----------



## rOckNrOllsCar11 (Oct 8, 2007)

> Congressmen, like all other Federal employees, have retirement packages available to them because they are Federal Employees.
> 
> There's no more hyopcricy in that than in General Motors having a retirement system for its employees and not for the general public.




I know I said that I was finished with this thread but the comment above struck me as half-assed thinking.

GM is privatized, the Congress is an elected office.  Why anyone would defend these weaklings is beyond me in contrast to any citizen (despite economic class).  

I'll say it again.  It's very apparent how few of you REALLY know what poverty is.

The Republican ideology is slick.  Exploit the fears of others using pseudo morals, then alienate them as having made "unrighteous" choices.  


In closing, and I swear this is my last comment on this thread.  America WILL explode in civil unrest in due time and the war will be between the reds and the blues.  

The question is, will YOU die for this?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 8, 2007)

rOckNrOllsCar11 said:


> I know I said that I was finished with this thread but the comment above struck me as half-assed thinking.
> GM is privatized, the Congress is an elected office.


Doesnt matter.  The retirement system for both is for its employees, not the general public.  Therefore, arguing that because the govenrnment provides retirement benefits to its employees it should/can provide to the general public is arguing apples and oranges -- which is, indeed, half-assed thinking.



> Why anyone would defend these weaklings is beyond me in contrast to any citizen (despite economic class).


You have a problem with federal employees getting retirement benefits?  Why?



> I'll say it again.  It's very apparent how few of you REALLY know what poverty is.


What I hear someone once say?  Oh, yeah:

*That it sucks to be you doesn't in any way mean that you have a right to expect me to provide the means to make it not suck to be you.*



> The Republican ideology is slick.  Exploit the fears of others using pseudo morals, then alienate them as having made "unrighteous" choices.


As opposed to the Liberal/Dem ideology that seeks to codify the Christian value of Charity, as expressed in the sentiment that 'from each according to his means to each according to his needs' into the Governmental enslavement of the masses -- while at the same time screaming as loud as they can that there must be a 'separation of church and state'.



> In closing, and I swear this is my last comment on this thread.  America WILL explode in civil unrest in due time and the war will be between the reds and the blues.


Reds?  You mean the Socialists?  If so, then who are the Blues?

Of course, you mean Red states v Blue states.
The question you need to ask there is:
Who has more guns?


----------



## rOckNrOllsCar11 (Oct 8, 2007)

> Of course, you mean Red states v Blue states.
> The question you need to ask there is:
> Who has more guns?



That's just silly.  Every heard of Timothy McVeigh?  And don't think for a second that the day care wasn't in the front of the building for a reason.  



> That it sucks to be you doesn't in any way mean that you have a right to expect me to provide the means to make it not suck to be you.



Spoken like a true Repug.  Keep on polishing my friend.



> As opposed to the Liberal/Dem ideology that seeks to codify the Christian value of Charity,



Didn't Bush run on morals and shit in 2000?  Talking about "a person is judged by how the least are treated".


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 8, 2007)

rOckNrOllsCar11 said:


> That's just silly.  Every heard of Timothy McVeigh?  And don't think for a second that the day care wasn't in the front of the building for a reason.


Not sure at all how any of that actually responds to what I said.



> Spoken like a true Repug.  Keep on polishing my friend.


Whatever you say, Karl.


----------



## rOckNrOllsCar11 (Oct 8, 2007)

My point about T- Mac is that he used cow shit to blow a building up.  I made reference to the day care being in the front of the building because most victims were children which in my mind was strategic in design.

The US have more guns than the Iraqis, why are they still losing?

Who's Karl?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 8, 2007)

rOckNrOllsCar11 said:


> Who's the loon.  Are the guns a way to make up for a lacking in "other" places?



If so, you better look into buying the USS Iowa -- quick, before they scrap her.


----------



## rOckNrOllsCar11 (Oct 8, 2007)

LOL

How macho.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 8, 2007)

rOckNrOllsCar11 said:


> My point about T- Mac is that he used cow shit to blow a building up.  I made reference to the day care being in the front of the building because most victims were children which in my mind was strategic in design.


So...   those that don't have guns (the 'blues') are going to defeat those that do (the 'reds') in a civil war by blowing up buildings with kids in them?

Wow.  And you call yourselves 'enlightened'.



> Who's Karl?


Marx?


----------



## rOckNrOllsCar11 (Oct 8, 2007)

"Is adult entertaining children is killing children entertaining adults?"

Since when do "Blue" states have no guns?

Shit, I can walk down the street and buy one off the street if need be.
So why is it with all the technology and weaponry are Americans still losing this "war"?  Because it's how its being fought.  Y'all   could never win a guerilla war in the streets of NYC pally.

I don't condone the killing of children.  I was making a point that the government knowingly put them on the front lines and used them as a shield to make anyone that attacks them look wicked. 

Haven't you learned yet, you and I are commodities for their 'movement'.

I thought you were calling me Karl Rove, the turd polisher, than I really would have been offended.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 8, 2007)

rOckNrOllsCar11 said:


> Since when do "Blue" states have no guns?


No guns?  that was too strong.
How about this:
It is FAR less likely for a liberal from a blue state to have a gun than it is for a conservative from a red state to have one.  Thus, red-state conservatives will have far more guns - and be far more proficient with them -  that blue-state liberals.



> Y'all  could never win a guerilla war in the streets of NYC pally.


But, you and your NYC posse will do SO much better in the hills of Idaho.   



> I don't condone the killing of children.


And yet, you argue that's how you'd fight w/o guns.



> I thought you were calling me Karl Rove, the turd polisher, than I really would have been offended.


And its of no surprise whatsoever that likening you to Marx doesnt have the same effect.


----------



## rOckNrOllsCar11 (Oct 8, 2007)

> But, you and your NYC se will do SO much better in the hills of Idaho




Idaho  

Fuck Idaho, I've been there.  Y'all  can keep it.

We'll just drop grits from the sky Y'all  , no need for a gun...Y'all. 

I've lived all over this country.  I can say with certainty that southern people are much more stupid.  If it wasn't the case than why would national news use anchors that speak actual english....Y'all?

When all is said and done, I'd prefer the unions divided.  We'll take care of ours and "y'all" can take care of you and your incest ridden states.  No wonder they're all stupid, its all that inbreeding going on down "yonder".
Its a wonder "y'all" are against abortion, umm or should I say Choice.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 8, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Why do I have to keep answering this question? Yes depending on individual State Constitutions a State could have the power to create universal health care for its citizens. The Federal Government could submit through Congress an amendment to the Constitution and see if the people agree. It would require 66 Senators and 290 Congressman to create the Amendment. It would require 37 States to approve it.



I like to be thorough.  So states can do it.  Okay, that's similar to the Canadian model which is provincially-based.

Now, this is hypothetical, if, say the House proposed and passed a bill and it was also passed by the Senate and wasn't struck down by veto, how would that bill be deemed unconstitutional?


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 8, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> Except there is no hypocrisy at all.  First, we know that it isn't all of congress saying that a government paid for system won't work, as you stated.
> 
> You also imply that since it works for a few hundred it will obviously work for a few million.  Again you think there is somehow some legitimate comparison in how congress provides its own healthcare and how healthcare ought to be supplied to the nation.  When are you gonna figure out you're not comparing apples to apples?



I found it hypocritical, in principle at least.  It struck me as the rulers being kind to each other and ignoring their real bosses.  

As for healthcare, I know single payer and universal systems work, it's always a question of how well they can be funded.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 8, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Congressmen, like all other Federal employees, have retirement packages available to them because they are Federal Employees.
> 
> There's no more hyopcricy in that than in General Motors having a retirement system for its employees and not for the general public.



So who's the collective bargaining agent for members of Congress?


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 8, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> ............
> 
> 
> And its of no surprise whatsoever that likening you to Marx doesnt have the same effect.



Don't compare Marx to Rove, they were/are polar opposites.  One was a thinker the other is a rat-cunning bastard.


----------



## jillian (Oct 8, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> I like to be thorough.  So states can do it.  Okay, that's similar to the Canadian model which is provincially-based.
> 
> Now, this is hypothetical, if, say the House proposed and passed a bill and it was also passed by the Senate and wasn't struck down by veto, how would that bill be deemed unconstitutional?



That's not quite accurate. There is a fundamental difference of opinion about States' rights versus Federalism. Some people think that battle is still being waged. And I suppose it is because of the un-constitutionalists Bush appointed to the Supreme Court. However, that's a battle that was really fought and won a long time ago. If we were supposed to be living under a system where the States were as strong or stronger than the Federal government, we would still be living under the Articles of Confederation. That not being the case, to think that the States have the power to legislate universal health care but the Feds do not is simply a silly argument. The Federal government absolutely has the power to effectuate such a system. They are not MANDATED to, but they have the right to legislate what is necessary and proper for the common good.

You will see a lot of people on these boards who think the only purpose for government is for a military defense, which is why they have no concern about 120 Billion Dollars a year being thrown away on Iraq, but become outraged at the concept of even a fraction of that being spent in a way that actually does people some good. 

Our government and the world is not so Hobbesian.

That being said, legislation enacting a medical care system wouldn't be struck down. Hypothetically, to do so, it would have to go through the Federal District Courts, the Circuit Court and then to the Supreme Court, which would make the final determination.

It would be upheld, however, the same way Social Security was... though the same people who decry providing health care, hate social security, too.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 8, 2007)

jillian said:


> That's not quite accurate. There is a fundamental difference of opinion about States' rights versus Federalism. Some people think that battle is still being waged. And I suppose it is because of the un-constitutionalists Bush appointed to the Supreme Court. However, that's a battle that was really fought and won a long time ago. If we were supposed to be living under a system where the States were as strong or stronger than the Federal government, we would still be living under the Articles of Confederation. That not being the case, to think that the States have the power to legislate universal health care but the Feds do not is simply a silly argument. The Federal government absolutely has the power to effectuate such a system. They are not MANDATED to, but they have the right to legislate what is necessary and proper for the common good.
> 
> You will see a lot of people on these boards who think the only purpose for government is for a military defense, which is why they have no concern about 120 Billion Dollars a year being thrown away on Iraq, but become outraged at the concept of even a fraction of that being spent in a way that actually does people some good.
> 
> ...



Absolutely untrue. There is NO power given to the Federal Government to provide anything to individual citizens except that are somehow employed by the Government in some capacity. States NOT the Federal Government are the highest level of Government for those purposes. You want that to change? GET AN AMENDMENT passed. Claiming a State can not pass state wide Universal care is a bald faced lie. Depending on what their Constitution says they can do it any time they want. Or would you care to provide for us the section of the Constitution that makes it a Federal power and thus the 10th Amendment does not apply?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 9, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> I like to be thorough.  So states can do it.  Okay, that's similar to the Canadian model which is provincially-based.
> 
> Now, this is hypothetical, if, say the House proposed and passed a bill and it was also passed by the Senate and wasn't struck down by veto, how would that bill be deemed unconstitutional?



Someone would sue (who that someone is depends on the specifics of the bill) and it would go to court.  It may eventually reach the supreme court.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 9, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> So who's the collective bargaining agent for members of Congress?



How is that relevant to the point?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 9, 2007)

jillian said:


> That's not quite accurate. There is a fundamental difference of opinion about States' rights versus Federalism. Some people think that battle is still being waged. *And I suppose it is because of the un-constitutionalists Bush appointed to the Supreme Court*.


Ok, now THAT'S funny.   



> However, that's a battle that was really fought and won a long time ago. If we were supposed to be living under a system where the States were as strong or stronger than the Federal government, we would still be living under the Articles of Confederation.


Hardly.  Even under the currrent constitution, the states hold sovereignty over the federal government, as the federal government exists at the pleasure of the states.



> That not being the case, to think that the States have the power to legislate universal health care but the Feds do not is simply a silly argument. The Federal government absolutely has the power to effectuate such a system.


Really.
Where is this power specified by the Constitution?  



> They are not MANDATED to, but they have the right to legislate what is necessary and proper for the common good.


Again:
Where is this power specified by the Constitution?  



> It would be upheld, however, the same way Social Security was... though the same people who decry providing health care, hate social security, too.


Odd.  In looking into the Constitution for the power to create universal health care at the federal level, I also looked for the power to create a national retirement system.  I didnt find that either.

Can you specify the article and section where these powers might be found?


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 9, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Someone would sue (who that someone is depends on the specifics of the bill) and it would go to court.  It may eventually reach the supreme court.



Okay, thanks - the Supreme Court would no doubt rule on constitutionality.  btw that's a good thing in your system.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 9, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> How is that relevant to the point?



If the Teamsters got them that deal then they should be recruiting


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 9, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> ............
> 
> Odd.  In looking into the Constitution for the power to create universal health care at the federal level, I also looked for the power to create a national retirement system.  I didnt find that either.
> 
> Can you specify the article and section where these powers might be found?



Does the US have a national retirement system?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 9, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Does the US have a national retirement system?


Social Security.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 9, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Social Security.



Is it illegal?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 9, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Is it illegal?


There's nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government the power to create it.

So, its extra-constitutional.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 9, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> There's nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government the power to create it.
> 
> So, its extra-constitutional.



So why does it exist?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 9, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> So why does it exist?


Because Congress passed it anyway.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 9, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Because Congress passed it anyway.



Then why does it continue to exist?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 9, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Then why does it continue to exist?


Because it hasnt been struck down.

That, however, doesnt change the fact that the power to create it doesnt exist.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 9, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Because it hasnt been struck down.
> 
> That, however, doesnt change the fact that the power to create it doesnt exist.



Why - and this might be an unfair question - hasn't it been struck down if it's unconstitutional?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 9, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Why - and this might be an unfair question - hasn't it been struck down if it's unconstitutional?


I do not know if Social Security, specifically, has ever been taken before the court.  Conlaw was about 10 years ago.

But, a better question:
Why would it be NOT be struck down if there's no power specifically granted by the Constitution?


----------



## jillian (Oct 9, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Because it hasnt been struck down.
> 
> That, however, doesnt change the fact that the power to create it doesnt exist.



That would be incorrect. Something does not need to be included in the Constitution for it to be "constitutional". It simply can't be PROHIBITED by the Constitution.

What determines whether something is prohibited by the Constitution is what the Supreme Court decides is prohibited ... hence all the battles about who gets appointed to the Court.

Social Security has long been upheld as a lawful (read: Constitutional) exercise of governmental power.

Steward Machine Co. v Davis, 301U.S. 548 (1937)

Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937)

Cheers.


----------



## jillian (Oct 9, 2007)

And just to elaborate a bit ...

there is a difference between something being MANDATED by the Constitution and something being _permissible_ by it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 9, 2007)

jillian said:


> That would be incorrect. Something does not need to be included in the Constitution for it to be "constitutional". It simply can't be PROHIBITED by the Constitution.


Hmm.  It appears the court disagrees with you.



> This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here, or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.
> 
> The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.
> 
> ...


http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/9.htm

Further, who among the people that wrote the constuttion held that the government was -not- limited to what it could do by the powers granted to it; rather it could do whatever it wanted so long as there was no specific prhohibition against it?

What, then, is the point of specifying a limited set of things it can do?



> What determines whether something is prohibited by the Constitution is what the Supreme Court decides is prohibited ... hence all the battles about who gets appointed to the Court.


Please compare and contrast what you just said to what the court said.



> Social Security has long been upheld as a lawful (read: Constitutional) exercise of governmental power.


Your cittations come from the FDR-packed court that also ruled that the Interstate Commerce Clause allows the federal government to force an Ohio wheat farmer to sell all of his crop, rather than keep some for his own pruposes, using the same sort of logic that created the rulins in the cited cases.  

And to think that you spoke of the un-constitutionalists that -Bush- appointed to the Supreme Court.


----------



## jillian (Oct 9, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Hmm.  It appears the court disagrees with you.
> 
> 
> http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/9.htm
> ...



Marbury v. Madison? Please tell me you're kidding. There have been a few cases decided since then, no?  Moreover, the sole holding of that case was the ability of the judiciay to determine whether or not legislation was Constitutional. It articulated the Court's power to review. It has no holding beyond that.

The cases I cited have never been overturned. They stand as law. And the Court found social security to be a fair outgrowth of government's power to tax.

I'm not even going to bother elaborating. This is why I stopped answering you last time. Your ignorance is simply outstanding.

By the by... FDR never packed the Court. Aside from not understanding law, you might want to go back and read your history. Did he threaten to? Absolutely.

I know the loonies on the right have hated the New Deal since it was enacted... hence the herculean efforts to destroy social security.

But you misspoke...misstated... and worse, you lack comprehension.

Oh...and try reading Marbury and the decisions I've cited. Because there's nothing in Marbury which contradicts what I said.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 9, 2007)

jillian said:


> Marbury v. Madison? Please tell me you're kidding. There have been a few cases decided since then, no?


Yes.  
Show one that reverses the tenet laid out in that case, upon which the decision was based.



> The cases I cited have never been overturned. They stand as law. And the Court found social security to be a fair outgrowth of government's power to tax.


None of that changes anything I said.

Your argument rests on 'yeah, well, the court said so, regardless of what they based the decision on'.  The arguments they presented rest on nothing other than 'yes, well we like the Hamiltonian view better than the madisonian view' and made th erest up out of whole cloth.  

And, of course, if "the court said so" is good enough, then you must have no issue with Bush v Gore.



> I'm not even going to bother elaborating. This is why I stopped answering you last time. Your ignorance is simply outstanding.


Said the desert to the grain of sand.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 9, 2007)

Unbelievable. A lawyer arguing that the Constitution is meaningless. Pray tell why list what powers the Government has if they have any power except what it says they do not have? Your ignorance is appalling. Using your logic the federal Government can do anything, anytime it wants for any reason except like 4 things not allowed by amendment.

I wonder why, if this were true, that every Congress has in fact found some way to claim every power falls within the specific powers granted to the Congress?

Pray tell, whats the point of the 10th Amendment? If the Federal Government has no restrictions, why would it have an amendment specify the power the Fed doesn't have still rests with the States or the people?

Artilcle I section 9 and section 10 are quite clear. They establish specific powers that the Government has and specific a couple things the Government can never do. There is absolutely no point to the 9 section if in fact your claim that the Government can do anything it wants is true.

Further it total negates the entire debate at the creation and ratification process of the Constitution. You remember where the founders and writers all insisted no Bill of Rights was required because the Government could only do what the Document SPECIFICALLY said it could? You do recall that? Or shall I go hunt up some quotes for you?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 9, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unbelievable. A lawyer arguing that the Constitution is meaningless. Pray tell why list what powers the Government has if they have any power except what it says they do not have?'


Gioven the argument in place, there needs be only 2 clauses in Article I section 8 -- the first and the last.

As to why the others are there, no one can guess...


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 9, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> I do not know if Social Security, specifically, has ever been taken before the court.  Conlaw was about 10 years ago.
> 
> But, a better question:
> Why would it be NOT be struck down if there's no power specifically granted by the Constitution?



If it's obviously unconstitutional then why hasn't it been taken before the Supreme Court and booted out?


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 9, 2007)

Come on fellas, you've been done over - man up and admit it and - RGS, don't misrepresent someone's point



> Unbelievable. A lawyer arguing that the Constitution is meaningless.



That's bullshit and you know it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 9, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Come on fellas, you've been done over - man up and admit it and - RGS, don't misrepresent someone's point
> 
> 
> 
> That's bullshit and you know it.



No it is not. The Constitution grants specific power, it is a document that limits government power and requires additional powers be granted BY the people, not the Legislature.

The entire argument was had when it was drafted and the 13 original States were asked to Ratify it. THE SPECIFIC question was why weren't there lists of things the Government could NOT do. No Bill of Rights. The answer was that the Document ONLY grants specific powers and that unless a power is IN the Constitution, the Federal Government could not claim it for their own. The Bill of Rights was drafted over the protest of the founders.They did it only because ratification did not seem possible with out it, or rather a promise of it.

The Courts and Congress have always worked under the knowledge that the Constitution grants powers, and those NOT granted remain with either the States or the People. There would in fact be no need to amend the document if the Government could simply do what ever it wanted.

If our current Law schools are not teaching this we have a very serious problem. If a licensed practicing attorney can claim the Federal Government is free to what ever it wants anytime it wants except if denied by the Constitution we have a serious flaw in our legal system.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 9, 2007)

> No it is not. The Constitution grants specific power, it is a document that limits government power and requires additional powers be granted BY the people, not the Legislature.



I wasn't referring to "additional powers".  I've been educated here about how amendments are proposed and made and I understand that now.  However, as I understand it the constitution is to be interpreted by lawmakers.  Whether or not a law is unconstitutional is the role of the Supreme Court and I believe it gave itself that role in Marbury v Madison.  That being so then it seems to me that legislature can pass what it likes but the Supreme Court will hunt out and strike down anything it sees as unconstitutional.  I'm not suggesting that the Congress should go off and try and do stupid things in the name of proposing and passing legislation, merely suggesting that while they look to the constitution for guidance and authority they are also guided by the Supreme Court as to the validity of the legislation.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 9, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> I wasn't referring to "additional powers".  I've been educated here about how amendments are proposed and made and I understand that now.  However, as I understand it the constitution is to be interpreted by lawmakers.  Whether or not a law is unconstitutional is the role of the Supreme Court and I believe it gave itself that role in Marbury v Madison.  That being so then it seems to me that legislature can pass what it likes but the Supreme Court will hunt out and strike down anything it sees as unconstitutional.  I'm not suggesting that the Congress should go off and try and do stupid things in the name of proposing and passing legislation, merely suggesting that while they look to the constitution for guidance and authority they are also guided by the Supreme Court as to the validity of the legislation.



Wrong. The legislature MUST address what power gives them the right to create a law or regulation. When creating NEW powers they must find someway to put them in the specific powers granted to them by the Constitution.

If they fail to provide a Constitutional authority the Court case is going to be very very short. Jillian is claiming this is not true, that since the Constitution does not preclude it, it is allowed, THIS is NOT true. The Constitution GRANTS power, any power not granted is NOT allowed to the Federal Government. A Lawyer should know this, if it is not being taught we have a serious problem.


----------



## jillian (Oct 10, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> I wasn't referring to "additional powers".  I've been educated here about how amendments are proposed and made and I understand that now.  However, as I understand it the constitution is to be interpreted by lawmakers.  Whether or not a law is unconstitutional is the role of the Supreme Court and I believe it gave itself that role in Marbury v Madison.  That being so then it seems to me that legislature can pass what it likes but the Supreme Court will hunt out and strike down anything it sees as unconstitutional.  I'm not suggesting that the Congress should go off and try and do stupid things in the name of proposing and passing legislation, merely suggesting that while they look to the constitution for guidance and authority they are also guided by the Supreme Court as to the validity of the legislation.



Just to clarify a little... yes, the Supreme Court is the final word. But it doesn't hunt down unconstitutional actions or legislation. An actual "case and controversy" has to be brought before it by someone who is negatively affected by whatever the act or inaction is.

I love when people think their rights will be protected out of thin air and get all offended when they're told their rights are only as strong as the enforcement of those rights. *shakes head*

Also, Marbury only addressed the issues of checks and balances... it in no way addressed the powers of Congress which exist through the necessary and proper clause or the commerce clause. And those powers have found to be very broad.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 10, 2007)

jillian said:


> Just to clarify a little... yes, the Supreme Court is the final word. But it doesn't hunt down unconstitutional actions or legislation. An actual "case and controversy" has to be brought before it by someone who is negatively affected by whatever the act or inaction is.
> 
> I love when people think their rights will be protected out of thin air and get all offended when they're told their rights are only as strong as the enforcement of those rights. *shakes head*
> 
> Also, Marbury only addressed the issues of checks and balances... it in no way addressed the powers of Congress which exist through the necessary and proper clause or the commerce clause. And those powers have found to be very broad.



Thanks jillian - good to be able to learn out of the discussions.  I have to admit to racing to catch up but it's fun learning.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 10, 2007)

Given the court's argument that supports the constitutionality of Social Security -- that the power to tax for the common defense and the general welfare necessarily creates the power to provide for the common defense and the general welfare -- can anyone tell me why the people that wrote the constitution bothered enumerating the powers of Congress other than the 1st and last?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 10, 2007)

jillian said:


> Just to clarify a little... yes, the Supreme Court is the final word. But it doesn't hunt down unconstitutional actions or legislation. An actual "case and controversy" has to be brought before it by someone who is negatively affected by whatever the act or inaction is.
> 
> I love when people think their rights will be protected out of thin air and get all offended when they're told their rights are only as strong as the enforcement of those rights. *shakes head*
> 
> Also, Marbury only addressed the issues of checks and balances... it in no way addressed the powers of Congress which exist through the necessary and proper clause or the commerce clause. And those powers have found to be very broad.



What? You mean to say the Congress MUST use a listed power of the Constitution, rather then your claim they can just do anything they want if it is not precluded in writing in the Constitution?


----------



## AllieBaba (Oct 10, 2007)

We have the right to obtain healthcare.

Not the right to have it provided.


----------



## jillian (Oct 10, 2007)

AllieBaba said:


> We have the right to obtain healthcare.
> 
> Not the right to have it provided.



And?

I believe the discussion moved on from there a long time ago... to 

COULD we provide healthcare?

Answer: Yes....

The question then becomes a moral ethical and economic one... should we? and to what extent?


----------



## jillian (Oct 10, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> What? You mean to say the Congress MUST use a listed power of the Constitution, rather then your claim they can just do anything they want if it is not precluded in writing in the Constitution?



You know that isn't what I said at all....


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 10, 2007)

jillian said:


> You know that isn't what I said at all....



You did not write this?



> That would be incorrect. Something does not need to be included in the Constitution for it to be "constitutional". It simply can't be PROHIBITED by the Constitution.



post number 438 to be exact.


----------



## AllieBaba (Oct 10, 2007)

It's not about what she says, it's about what she _means_.

Er..what did you mean, exactly? Remember, words mean something.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 11, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Given the court's argument that supports the constitutionality of Social Security -- that the power to tax for the common defense and the general welfare necessarily creates the power to provide for the common defense and the general welfare -- can anyone tell me why the people that wrote the constitution bothered enumerating the powers of Congress other than the 1st and last?



Anyone?


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 11, 2007)

I think your question is moot.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 11, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> I think your question is moot.


Because?

Seems to me that it directly addresses the validity of the argument.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 11, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Because?
> 
> Seems to me that it directly addresses the validity of the argument.



With respect there's no argument in that question, it's rhetorical.  All I know about the early years of your constitution is that there was disputation between two major interpretations of it involving Hamilton and Jefferson.  Hamilton was inclined to a more centralist view and Jefferson was inclined to a more decentralised, states-powers view of how the constitution operated.  Now, since some of the original framers of the constitution were arguing about its meaning, I think a question that asks someone here to go back and work out their thinking is somewhat moot.  From what I've read it appears that in the waxing and waning of the various opinions on the constitution that the doctrine of implied powers has sometimes been successful and indeed there seems to be some fairly strong case law on that.  Since the social security legislation was bolstered by the implied powers doctrine and by the interpretation of other aspects of the constitution then it seems to me that the founders may well have intended that the constitution should be interpreted as needed to make sure that its principles were maintained in the future nation and that it wasn't to be seen as a millstone around the neck of future citizens.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 11, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> With respect there's no argument in that question, it's rhetorical.  All I know about the early years of your constitution is that there was disputation between two major interpretations of it involving Hamilton and Jefferson.  Hamilton was inclined to a more centralist view and Jefferson was inclined to a more decentralised, states-powers view of how the constitution operated.  Now, since some of the original framers of the constitution were arguing about its meaning, I think a question that asks someone here to go back and work out their thinking is somewhat moot.


Well...  The powers granted to Congress were enumerated for a reason - that it was necessary to specify the limited set of things that Congress could do.  No one disputes this.

What -is- in dispute here is the validity of the claim that the power to tax for X -necessarily- creates the power to create programs that provide X.  This interpretation by the court means that specifying the other 16 powers od Congress was redundant and unnecessary.

This obviously  conflicts with the idea that it was necessary to enumerate a limited set powers for Congress, and raisies thre question that I asked:

If the power to tax for the common defense and the general welfare necessarily creates the power to provide for the common defense and the general welfare -- why did the people that wrote the constitution bother enumerating the powers of Congress other than the 1st and last?



> It seems to me that the founders may well have intended that the constitution should be interpreted as needed to make sure that its principles were maintained in the future nation and that it wasn't to be seen as a millstone around the neck of future citizens.


The founders created a mechanism for this -- the amendment process.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 11, 2007)

Notice Jillian has not responded to her obvious misrepresentation of what the Constitution does and does not do?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 11, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Notice Jillian has not responded to her obvious misrepresentation of what the Constitution does and does not do?



She also hasn't explained why she has a problem with Congressmen having access to the same retirement benefits her husband has access to that does NOT have to do with the amount of time necessary to become vested.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 11, 2007)

That's getting close to _ad hom_, not in the sense of being a personal attack but in being irrelevant to the issue in dispute.  I'm more comfortable with looking at the enumerated powers question, it's more on topic.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 12, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> That's getting close to _ad hom_, not in the sense of being a personal attack but in being irrelevant to the issue in dispute.  I'm more comfortable with looking at the enumerated powers question, it's more on topic.



She has contradicted herself and then slipped away when called on it. Plain and simple.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 12, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> She has contradicted herself and then slipped away when called on it. Plain and simple.



Then instead of gossiping on the side wouldn't it be better to simply make the point and then let jillian respond when she logs on?  And if she chooses not to respond, so what?  The point has been put, we can read it, no need for sideline chatter really.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 12, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Then instead of gossiping on the side wouldn't it be better to simply make the point and then let jillian respond when she logs on?  And if she chooses not to respond, so what?  The point has been put, we can read it, no need for sideline chatter really.



Last I checked you do not get to tell me or anyone else what we can or can not post.

And you still do not grasp Enumeration , I keep having to remind you that the Constitution grants power in a very limiting manner If it does not GIVE a power the Federal Government does not have that power, unlike Jillian's claim that if it does not deny a power it does have it. And she is a Lawyer. That she can make that claim after all the schooling she had is damning. Either the Law schools and tests are not teaching that or she somehow did not learn it and still managed to pass the Bar.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 12, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Last I checked you do not get to tell me or anyone else what we can or can not post.



You have that wrong.  I do get to tell you or anyone else what you can or cannot post.  You can ignore me but that doesn't mean I can't tell you.




			
				RetiredGySgt: said:
			
		

> And you still do not grasp Enumeration , I keep having to remind you that the Constitution grants power in a very limiting manner If it does not GIVE a power the Federal Government does not have that power, unlike Jillian's claim that if it does not deny a power it does have it. And she is a Lawyer. That she can make that claim after all the schooling she had is damning. Either the Law schools and tests are not teaching that or she somehow did not learn it and still managed to pass the Bar.



And I suspect that you don't understand the law.  I realise what enumerated powers are.  I also realise how constitutional law is interpreted.  I mentioned  the doctrine of implied powers.  

_Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:
The Congress shall have power To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
_

Well hush ma mouth.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 12, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> _Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:
> The Congress shall have power To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper *for carrying into execution the foregoing powers*, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
> _
> Well hush ma mouth.



Yes.  But note the section in bold.
The elastic clause doesnt give Congress the power to do whatever it wants, it gives Congress the power to create the laws necessary to exercise the powers it was given in the rest of Article I sec 8.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 12, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Yes.  But note the section in bold.
> The elastic clause doesnt give Congress the power to do whatever it wants, it gives Congress the power to create the laws necessary to exercise the powers it was given in the rest of Article I sec 8.



I think that's sensible.  No constitution should grant unlimited power to a legislature, there has to be limits.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 12, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> I think that's sensible.  No constitution should grant unlimited power to a legislature, there has to be limits.



Yet you keep asking why , when no clause provides the authority, that the legislature can not just do as it pleases. I keep asking you and Jillian where the Congress would get the authority to create Universal health care. Her response was that since the Constitution doe not say the legislature can not do it, they can, which is absolutely wrong. And you keep defending that position.

You keep asking why the legislature can not do it, I keep asking you to provide the clause that gives the authority to Congress also. It is a simple question. Your answer is along the lines of "well it is the right thing to do" or " it is a responsibility of Government" Neither of which have any power in the Constitution.

The Federal Government is NOT supposed to be involved in Individual citizens lives in such a manner. It is supposed to be involved in the health and welfare of the COUNTRY, by ensuring States get along and providing a unified controlling authority to ensure that, to ensure that National Defense is taken care of, to ensure one voice speaks for the Country with foreign powers and the rest of the world.

The power to intervene in such a manner with individual citizens is the power of the State as defined by THEIR Constitutions.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 12, 2007)

I've finished asking why.  I found the answer.  The doctrine of implied powers works for me and apparently it works for others.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 12, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> I've finished asking why.  I found the answer.  The doctrine of implied powers works for me and apparently it works for others.



Yes.  But there is a direct contradiction in that doctrine and the one of specific and limited powers.  Thus, my question.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 12, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> I've finished asking why.  I found the answer.  The doctrine of implied powers works for me and apparently it works for others.



Once again for the slow. Implied powers must still be linked to a specific power. Other wise there is no limits what so ever on the Government and the Constitution is worthless. 

This is born out by the fact that ever power Congress has is in fact directly linked to a specific power in the Constitution. Including all implied powers. Further READ the implied powers clause. IT IS CLEAR, implied powers ONLY apply to ensure that SPECIFIED powers are in fact able to be enacted. They have to be LINKED.

Congress knows this and justifies every one of its laws and powers by indicating which specific power they say applies. Currently the biggest fraud is the Commerce Clause. Congress invokes it for anything and everything. Education is supposedly covered by this clause using the excuse that without education we would have no commerce.

If claiming the power to tax is an excuse to tax for ANYTHING, then again the entire section 9 of the article I is not needed, it can be thrown out.

You may like Implied Powers but it does not say what you and Jillian claim it says.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 12, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Yes.  But there is a direct contradiction in that doctrine and the one of specific and limited powers.  Thus, my question.



Why does the Social Security Act exist when it's not mentioned in the Constitution?


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 12, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Once again for the slow. Implied powers must still be linked to a specific power. Other wise there is no limits what so ever on the Government and the Constitution is worthless.
> 
> This is born out by the fact that ever power Congress has is in fact directly linked to a specific power in the Constitution. Including all implied powers. Further READ the implied powers clause. IT IS CLEAR, implied powers ONLY apply to ensure that SPECIFIED powers are in fact able to be enacted. They have to be LINKED.
> 
> ...



I'm not slow, you just haven't proved anything yet  

What about the "necessary and proper clause"?


----------



## Psychoblues (Oct 28, 2007)

You're so silly, gunny!!!!!!!!!




GunnyL said:


> And I suspect you have told every one of the million.



Are you overly proud of yourself, huh, huh?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 29, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> What about the "necessary and proper clause"?



*The Congress shall have power &#8230;To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.*

What about it?  
The elastic clause doesnt give Congress the power to do whatever it wants, it gives Congress the power to create the laws necessary to exercise the powers it was given in the rest of Article I sec 8.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 29, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Why does the Social Security Act exist when it's not mentioned in the Constitution?



You didn't answer my question.

If the power to tax for the common defense and the general welfare necessarily creates the power to provide for the common defense and the general welfare -- why did the people that wrote the constitution bother enumerating the powers of Congress other than the 1st and last?


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 29, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> You didn't answer my question.



You'll have to ask it again, it was lost in the discussion.



M14 Shooter said:


> If the power to tax for the common defense and the general welfare necessarily creates the power to provide for the common defense and the general welfare -- why did the people that wrote the constitution bother enumerating the powers of Congress other than the 1st and last?



I'm not sure if that makes a lot of sense.  As I see it there are two possibilities here:

1.  The constitution was written so that it could never be changed.
2.  The constitution was written so that it could be changed as needed.

Which of the two possibilities do you favour?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 29, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> You'll have to ask it again, it was lost in the discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It Obviously CAN be changed, IT specifies HOW. The problem is that it ALSO SPECIFIES what power the Government has. Once again JUST for you, the Government is limited by the Constitution, It only has the powers given it by the document. ALL other powers belong to either the States or the people, as specifically mentioned in the 9th and 10th Amendment.

The Government does not just get to make up new powers, it MUST go before the people with an amendment to grant the Government that power. The dodge is the stretching of the specific clauses of power in the Constitution.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 29, 2007)

Two words - Supreme Court.


----------



## Threedee (Oct 29, 2007)

The role of the Supreme Court in this area is stupid. The meaning of the Constitution should never change. What changes is additions made to it by amendment. After the passage of the 14th Amendment, people decided to play dumb and pretend the amendment meant something it didn't or didn't mean what it was clearly intended to at all. The Court played a huge role in that and has done so ever since. Now of course, there are other areas of the Constitution since then where the SC is deliberately obtuse when "addressing" for the sake of politics. 

At the same time, its hardly deniable that the SC's word has become law. To that extent, I contend that we no longer have a Constitution and what we do follow, we follow out of pretence. A document that can be re-interpreted ("living") is certainly not a constitution as it/we claim.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 29, 2007)

Threedee said:


> The role of the Supreme Court in this area is stupid. The meaning of the Constitution should never change. What changes is additions made to it by amendment. After the passage of the 14th Amendment, people decided to play dumb and pretend the amendment meant something it didn't or didn't mean what it was clearly intended to at all. The Court played a huge role in that and has done so ever since. Now of course, there are other areas of the Constitution since then where the SC is deliberately obtuse when "addressing" for the sake of politics.
> 
> At the same time, its hardly deniable that the SC's word has become law. To that extent, I contend that we no longer have a Constitution and what we do follow, we follow out of pretence. A document that can be re-interpreted ("living") is certainly not a constitution as it/we claim.




"Stupid" isn't the issue - the issue is authority.  Does the Supreme Court have the authority to pronounce on constitutional interpretation?  I think it does - note the qualifier please, I "think" it does - not "it should" or "it shouldn't".  

Now I can see the discussion going into the black-letter law v interpretation black hole.  With all due respect black holes suck in all the light they can and that's where this thread will go if we're not careful.

Unless you can bring the dead back to life then you have to accept that the constitution is going to be interpreted.  Yes, amendments do alter it but they alter it in the same manner that a hotrod looks different when someone puts body panels on it.  Amendments are additions and I suppose they have to be in line with the accepted understanding of the constitution or the Supreme Court would strike them down (assuming the court has the authority to do so).

I find it hard to believe that a group of intelligent, visionary men such as the founders of the constitution would have bequeathed it to the infant nation intending it to be strictly interpreted according to the language, the culture, the mores and the totality of the new society when it was written.  Even while the ink was drying there were debates over its interpretation but those were, I think, broader and more constructive than the current squabble between the black letter conservatives and the interpretationist progressives.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 29, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> "Stupid" isn't the issue - the issue is authority.  Does the Supreme Court have the authority to pronounce on constitutional interpretation?  I think it does - note the qualifier please, I "think" it does - not "it should" or "it shouldn't".
> 
> Now I can see the discussion going into the black-letter law v interpretation black hole.  With all due respect black holes suck in all the light they can and that's where this thread will go if we're not careful.
> 
> ...



The court can do NOTHING to a legally proposed and legally passed amendment. NOTHING. The Court derives its power from the Constitution, and that power is not very clearly defined in regards who gets to interpret the document. The Supreme Court made the decision it would interpret it and our third President let that stand for political reasons.

Within reason it is in fact a good thing. One should not argue that the Other branches should have the sole power to determine if their acts are Constitutional, defeats the whole idea of checks and balances. The problem is when the court does not intrepret but creates from whole cloth new meanings and new powers in the Constitution, doesn't matter who they create the powers for, the people, the Courts, the Legislature or the Executive. THAT is NOT the power of the Courts.

Roe vs Wade is a perfect example of such an illegal action. Allowing the Government to create whole new powers not given in the Constitution is another.

It is simple, Abortion is not a "right" , Education is NOT a power of the Federal Government, Social Security is NOT a power of the Federal Government, on and on.

The Constitution is meant to LIMIT the Government, NOT make it Omnipotent. The entire PURPOSE was to ensure the Federal Government had specific CONCRETE limits and that only the States and the people could give it more.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 30, 2007)

RGS - thanks, that's a very informative post.  

Now, on Roe v Wade, I understand that it was an interpretation of the privacy clause?  And wasn't it the case that the law in Tx was struck down because it was in violation of due process/privacy or something similar.  I'm going from memory, to be blunt I can't be bothered wading through a pile of Googles on the case, so if I'm wrong then no worries, I'll stand corrected.

I'm learning a lot here, this is good.


----------



## Psychoblues (Oct 31, 2007)

Have you ever been corrected here, doc?




Diuretic said:


> RGS - thanks, that's a very informative post.
> 
> Now, on Roe v Wade, I understand that it was an interpretation of the privacy clause?  And wasn't it the case that the law in Tx was struck down because it was in violation of due process/privacy or something similar.  I'm going from memory, to be blunt I can't be bothered wading through a pile of Googles on the case, so if I'm wrong then no worries, I'll stand corrected.
> 
> I'm learning a lot here, this is good.



Enjoy your time here and don't take too much of the critisism personally!!!!!!!


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 31, 2007)

Psychoblues said:


> Have you ever been corrected here, doc?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



PB I think I've been corrected a few times and that's fine, it's a learning experience.  And nah, I don't take it personally, I mean a bit of biffo on the board is always on the cards, it's just if it gets really out of hand it gets, well, boring.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 31, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> I'm not sure if that makes a lot of sense.


It does.
But it appears the relevant conversation has been lost from recent memory, so it doesnt have tbe necessary context.


----------



## Diuretic (Oct 31, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> It does.
> But it appears the relevant conversation has been lost from recent memory, so it doesnt have tbe necessary context.



That's very true.  Context is extremely important and I have to admit that I find I have to go back and read through a thread I've been in to try and pick up the flow again and it's not that easy.  Anyway, it's been interesting and educational for me.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jan 23, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> Why do I ask?  To me it seems to be the most fundamental part of why some advocate for universal health care and why some advocate for privatized healthcare.  Every candidate on the dem ticket has a plan of some type for of universal or government run healthcare.  So I have to think that most of them think it is a right.  By extension then people basically have the right to good health it would seem.
> 
> The problem I have with it being a right is the concept of a 'right' itself.  A 'right' like the right to free speech or right to bear arms is something that is provided you without any cost or requirment to obtain access to.  You don't have to earn the right to free speech or pay a fee when you want to speak.  The conundrum I have with healthcare is if it is your right, that is you are under no personal responsibility to provide it for yourself, then who's responsibility is it, and why?  If I'm not paying for the services somone else must be.  According to Hillary anyway that will be increased taxes on the rich.  But wait healthcare is a right, so why should the rich be expected to pay for it?  It's a right so isn't it suppossed to be free to them as well?  Why should they be worried about their own health as well as those that can't pay for it?
> 
> Rush had a caller on today who was a female physician and basically asked the same question.  Why is she, a provider of a service like any other service, expected to provide it a reduced rate or free all together?  You can't control all aspects of your health anymore than you can control all aspects of your car working, but we expect people to pay to have their own car fixed even if not responsible for the problem, yet some have this expectation that when 'shit happens' where your health is concerned it's suppossed to be free to get 'fixed'.





I've never heard of anyone having to sell their house to pay for a broken car.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 23, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> Why do I ask?  To me it seems to be the most fundamental part of why some advocate for universal health care and why some advocate for privatized healthcare.  Every candidate on the dem ticket has a plan of some type for of universal or government run healthcare.  So I have to think that most of them think it is a right.  By extension then people basically have the right to good health it would seem.
> 
> The problem I have with it being a right is the concept of a 'right' itself.  A 'right' like the right to free speech or right to bear arms is something that is provided you without any cost or requirement to obtain access to.  You don't have to earn the right to free speech or pay a fee when you want to speak.  The conundrum I have with healthcare is if it is your right, that is you are under no personal responsibility to provide it for yourself, then who's responsibility is it, and why?  If I'm not paying for the services somone else must be.  According to Hillary anyway that will be increased taxes on the rich.  But wait healthcare is a right, so why should the rich be expected to pay for it?  It's a right so isn't it suppossed to be free to them as well?  Why should they be worried about their own health as well as those that can't pay for it?
> 
> Rush had a caller on today who was a female physician and basically asked the same question.  Why is she, a provider of a service like any other service, expected to provide it a reduced rate or free all together?  You can't control all aspects of your health anymore than you can control all aspects of your car working, but we expect people to pay to have their own car fixed even if not responsible for the problem, yet some have this expectation that when 'shit happens' where your health is concerned it's suppossed to be free to get 'fixed'.



We have the right to be able to afford sufficient healthcare. I do not believe it is fair nor is it even Democratic to allow Insurance conglomerates to fleece the public, the working classes and the poor, for coverage.

I can live without Universal healthcare so long as it is affordable and right now, it is not. So much so that many people simply go without, which cripples local economics as many people go to emergency rooms for everything that ails them - without the benefit of preventive care.


----------



## sl33zy (Nov 20, 2008)

no doubt our health system suxxors bad! there are far more then what congress ect. thinks without insurance. and the pre existing bull sh!t, too short, chubby ect. is all a "SCAM" to get the average persons money, anyone can see this if you look for it. 



Nothing wrong with the quality of our health care far as the treatment, but there are way too many hands in the pot wanting money.



would i goto "somwhere else" to get treatment i can afoard, no, 

would i go if i was going to die and couldnt affoard it here, yes

would i go if one of my children were on there death bed, yes, providing i couldnt get it here or affoard it. Mr. Moore aside, our health care insurance is hosed up, all about the money.



im told im too short for my weight, so there for, im paying like up in 100's more if i get covered at all, im not fat by any means, im very stout and have no medical conditions, is that fair?



is it fair that illegal a$$holes here getting food stamps that WE work for and most of us have to get get drug screened to get? and they dont? AND get covered as well will little to no $. Have a friend that works at Walmart and she couldnt count how many mexicans come through her checkout line with all the food stamps, card ect that cant speak a bit of english. 



ive seen sicko and it is an eye opener to somone like me who has alot of the same stories as some in the show, so its not all "lies". we dont need to goto another country to get health care, are "so called" goverment needs to enforce a new system that covers "AMERICAN PEOPLE" all of them. 



hate seeing what our country is doing to itself in this department.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 22, 2008)

roomy said:


> Coming, as I do, from a nation that provides health care for all through the national health service I would like to offer my two panneth worth.
> It should be provided by the government for all without discrimination.It is enjoyed as a right by those living and working in Britain.For all of it's failings, of which there are many it is still, far and away the best way to ensure peace of mind for all people.Those rich enough to afford it can always opt to take out health insurance or pay privately, it may ensure an earlier appointment but doesn't necessarily mean better care.
> To pay for this, money is deducted at source from wage earners, this is called national insurance and goes toward the health service, sickness benefit and unemployment benefit.The amount deducted is determined by the size of the wage packet.



Hate to break it to you, but this is completely untrue.

Healthcare is NOT "enjoyed as a right" by those living and working in Great Britain.  The government is not actually under any legal obligation to provide you any care, and if they decide NOT to provide you with a treatment, there's no recourse.  Not a damned thing you can do about it.

Interestingly enough, there is only one occasion anywhere in the world in which a medical treatment is a legal right the government is required to provide and its citizens are entitled to receive, and for which they can sue their government.  The treatment is dialysis for chronic renal failure.  The country which provides it as a legally-enforceable right? The United States.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 22, 2008)

maineman said:


> I am not wedded to Hillary care...I am wedded to the idea that the richest strongest country on the face of the earth ought to be able to find some way to provide healthcare to ALL its citizens.



Why?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 22, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> RGS - thanks, that's a very informative post.
> 
> Now, on Roe v Wade, I understand that it was an interpretation of the privacy clause?  And wasn't it the case that the law in Tx was struck down because it was in violation of due process/privacy or something similar.  I'm going from memory, to be blunt I can't be bothered wading through a pile of Googles on the case, so if I'm wrong then no worries, I'll stand corrected.
> 
> I'm learning a lot here, this is good.



What "privacy clause"?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 22, 2008)

Okay, folks.  Forgive me, but I'm going to drag this back to the basic question asked in the title.  Is healthcare a right?

The relevant definition of "right" in this case is this:

something to which one has a just claim: as a: the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled <voting rights> <his right to decide> b (1): the interest that one has in a piece of property &#8212;often used in plural <mineral rights> (2)plural : the property interest possessed under law or custom and agreement in an intangible thing especially of a literary and artistic nature <film rights of the novel>

So we have to ask ourselves:  does every person in this country have a just claim or just entitlement to healthcare services, regardless of ability or willingness to pay for them?  Does every person in this country have a "property interest" in medical services provided by another person, regardless of ability or willingness to pay?

I'd have to say that in both cases, the answer is no.  While basic medical care is certainly a necessary component to a good life, as are nutrition and adequate shelter on an even more basic level, and one can reasonably expect a modern, industrialized nation to have these things available for its citizens to access, that does not make any of them a right, something which someone is entitled to have merely by the fact of their existence.  
Too many people in our society today equate "good to have" with "right to have".  It is a moral and compassionate thing to want people to have those things that improve the quality and length of their lives.  But if we as a society choose to provide those things, that still does not make them a "right" those people are entitled to; they are charity.  I need food even more than I need medical care.  Do I have a right to be fed?  No, I still have to purchase the food, or get someone to choose to give it to me as a charitable act.  It belongs to someone else, and I do not - I CANNOT - have a just claim on or entitlement to someone else's property.  So it is with medical care.


----------



## tigerbob (Nov 23, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> Why do I ask?  To me it seems to be the most fundamental part of why some advocate for universal health care and why some advocate for privatized healthcare.  Every candidate on the dem ticket has a plan of some type for of universal or government run healthcare.  So I have to think that most of them think it is a right.  By extension then people basically have the right to good health it would seem.
> 
> The problem I have with it being a right is the concept of a 'right' itself.  A 'right' like the right to free speech or right to bear arms is something that is provided you without any cost or requirment to obtain access to.  You don't have to earn the right to free speech or pay a fee when you want to speak.  The conundrum I have with healthcare is if it is your right, that is you are under no personal responsibility to provide it for yourself, then who's responsibility is it, and why?  If I'm not paying for the services somone else must be.  According to Hillary anyway that will be increased taxes on the rich.  But wait healthcare is a right, so why should the rich be expected to pay for it?  It's a right so isn't it suppossed to be free to them as well?  Why should they be worried about their own health as well as those that can't pay for it?
> 
> Rush had a caller on today who was a female physician and basically asked the same question.  Why is she, a provider of a service like any other service, expected to provide it a reduced rate or free all together?  You can't control all aspects of your health anymore than you can control all aspects of your car working, but we expect people to pay to have their own car fixed even if not responsible for the problem, yet some have this expectation that when 'shit happens' where your health is concerned it's suppossed to be free to get 'fixed'.



I don't think it's a right, but which of us wants to see decent, hardworking people suffer because they can't afford the appropriate insurance?

I see your point with the car / health parallel.  But cars don't suffer.  And you can always buy another car.


----------



## Diuretic (Nov 23, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> What "privacy clause"?



Heck that was a while ago, I'll have to did through my memory on that one.  But on reflection I think I was searching for the 14th Amendment and not getting it at that time.  I came up with the phrase because I couldn't think of the correct terminology.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 23, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> Heck that was a while ago, I'll have to did through my memory on that one.  But on reflection I think I was searching for the 14th Amendment and not getting it at that time.  I came up with the phrase because I couldn't think of the correct terminology.



There's no such thing as a "privacy clause" anywhere in the US Constitution, just FYI.  It protects very specific aspects of privacy, under very specific conditions, but a generalized "right to privacy" would be very silly, given that any criminal with two brain cells to rub together attempts to commit his crimes in private.


----------



## Diuretic (Nov 23, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> There's no such thing as a "privacy clause" anywhere in the US Constitution, just FYI.  It protects very specific aspects of privacy, under very specific conditions, but a generalized "right to privacy" would be very silly, given that any criminal with two brain cells to rub together attempts to commit his crimes in private.



Well yes.  A generalised right to privacy can't really exist.  And since the US Constitution seeks to restrain government I suppose the 14th Amendment exists to ensure that what privacy there is available isn't invaded unreasonably.  Anyway as I said, it was a while ago and it's difficult for me to remember the context of the discussion and my remarks.  There, I actually admitted some fallibility - and what do you know, I can even laugh at myself (I don't need anyone else's help to do that but I know there will be volunteers).


----------



## p kirkes (Nov 23, 2008)

I would say it's not a right.  However the Government provides health care benefits to certain of it's citizens via Medicare or Medicaid.

Cost of doctors visit about $125.00 plus costs of any lab work and medications.  If it was a broken leg or arm that required surgery the cost would be about $17,000 based on what my insurance was billed when my kids were growing up.  

My employer's, throughout my working years, were very generous. One provided free medical care including dentist for me and the family (6), no deductible (they went out of business in 1982 due to the recession of that period).  The other was a monthly insurance cost that ranged between $40.00 in 1982 to $85.00 in 2002 with a small deductible (they are still in business, US government civil service).

Private insurance (not employer related) costs about $300+ for a family plan with deductions and no dental.  

Sickness brought on by lifestyle, IE smoking, drinking, certain sexual behavior, diet, lack of exercise should be funded privately at a premium rate.   Other sickness due to heredity, pollution, work place environment, accidents etc should also be covered by a non governmental insurance program at a reasonable profit margin.  Not like what we are seeing with the compensation of auto/petroleum/financial industry executives.

The hospital system seems to be bloated on facilities that are too elaborate.  Skill level of care providers varies widely for the same services, doctors are overloaded, a least it seems that way to me and care in rural areas is nonexistent.

I don't know what the answer is, but the cost of a government managed system is not efficient.
It encourages health care providers to cheat or milk the system almost routinely.  

Excuse my ranting.


----------



## aztech (Nov 23, 2008)

I do not think it is a right, but I think that health care is one thing that any national government is morally due to provide to all of its citizens.

The British System is by no means perfect, but neither is the system here today.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 23, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> Well yes.  A generalised right to privacy can't really exist.  And since the US Constitution seeks to restrain government I suppose the 14th Amendment exists to ensure that what privacy there is available isn't invaded unreasonably.  Anyway as I said, it was a while ago and it's difficult for me to remember the context of the discussion and my remarks.  There, I actually admitted some fallibility - and what do you know, I can even laugh at myself (I don't need anyone else's help to do that but I know there will be volunteers).



I don't think the 14th Amendment even mentions privacy.  It contains what is variously called the "liberty clause" or the "due process clause", because it says that no state can deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

As we all know, Justice Blackmun essentially invented the decision in _Roe v. Wade_ out of whole cloth, imputing things into the 14th Amendment that aren't even vaguely hinted at, much less stated, and this gave rise to the belief that there's a "right to privacy" contained somewhere in the US Constitution.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 23, 2008)

p kirkes said:


> I would say it's not a right.  However the Government provides health care benefits to certain of it's citizens via Medicare or Medicaid.



Which is, as I said, essentially charity, since the government can choose to deny it to you and you have no legal recourse if they do.  Seems to me that if you can't sue/press charges when something is denied to you, as you can with any of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, for example, you can't possibly be said to have a right to it.

Or, I guess, if someone wants to get philosophical concerning "inalienable rights endowed by God", then I guess you could say you don't have a _recognized, enforceable _right to it.



p kirkes said:


> Cost of doctors visit about $125.00 plus costs of any lab work and medications.  If it was a broken leg or arm that required surgery the cost would be about $17,000 based on what my insurance was billed when my kids were growing up.
> 
> My employer's, throughout my working years, were very generous. One provided free medical care including dentist for me and the family (6), no deductible (they went out of business in 1982 due to the recession of that period).  The other was a monthly insurance cost that ranged between $40.00 in 1982 to $85.00 in 2002 with a small deductible (they are still in business, US government civil service).
> 
> ...



It always worries me when people start throwing around the word "should".  Makes me wonder what arbitrary moral yardstick they're measuring against.

What's it to you how much a company decides to compensate their executives?  Are you a stockholder or on the board of directors?



p kirkes said:


> The hospital system seems to be bloated on facilities that are too elaborate.  Skill level of care providers varies widely for the same services, doctors are overloaded, a least it seems that way to me and care in rural areas is nonexistent.



What, precisely, is your point here?  Of COURSE skill levels vary widely.  That's because PEOPLE vary widely.  Some people are bright and talented enough to have graduated from Harvard Medical School; some people went to Guatamala Tech because it was the only place that would have them.  And is it really surprising that a rural hospital doesn't have enough business to afford to pay someone a reasonable salary commensurate with the years and years of expensive training required to become a doctor?

It's called "making life choices".  You don't just choose a doctor at random out of the phone book.  You check him out ahead of time with at least as much care as you would put into researching which hi-def TV you want to buy.  If you want to live in a rural area for whatever reason, then you choose to do so with the knowledge that one of the drawbacks is not having state-of-the-art hospital facilities within a five-minute drive.



p kirkes said:


> I don't know what the answer is, but the cost of a government managed system is not efficient.
> It encourages health care providers to cheat or milk the system almost routinely.
> 
> Excuse my ranting.



You're right there.  It isn't just the government system that does it, either.  It's the entire concept of third-party payers.  Anytime you're dealing with a huge, faceless bureaucracy staffed by drones, be it government or corporate, you're going to get a certain amount of waste, inefficiency, and fraud, because the people pushing the paperwork to pay the bills don't personally own the money.  The patient is totally divorced from the process and often doesn't even know how much procedures actually cost at all, and the people who do know don't have the same stake in the outcome or the same priorities as the person consuming the services.

Medical bills would be a lot lower if the patients were actually the ones receiving the bills and laying out the cash, because the government and the insurance companies aren't subject to the same sticker shock.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 23, 2008)

aztech said:


> I do not think it is a right, but I think that health care is one thing that any national government is morally due to provide to all of its citizens.
> 
> The British System is by no means perfect, but neither is the system here today.



Um, how can the government be morally obligated to provide something, but it's not a right?  Sounds to me like you want to give both answers at once.  And WHY is the national government morally obligated to provide health care to anyone?


----------



## mattskramer (Nov 23, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Um, how can the government be morally obligated to provide something, but it's not a right?  Sounds to me like you want to give both answers at once.  And WHY is the national government morally obligated to provide health care to anyone?



As I said before, morality and rights are human inventions.  There is no objective concrete way to prove that something is a right or not a right.  Who ways that it is right to use your money that you earned as you see fit?  Who is to say that it is a right that those that cant be self reliant to take from those that are self reliant?  Again, it is simply two different socio-political philosophies.


----------



## Diuretic (Nov 23, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I don't think the 14th Amendment even mentions privacy.  It contains what is variously called the "liberty clause" or the "due process clause", because it says that no state can deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
> 
> As we all know, Justice Blackmun essentially invented the decision in _Roe v. Wade_ out of whole cloth, imputing things into the 14th Amendment that aren't even vaguely hinted at, much less stated, and this gave rise to the belief that there's a "right to privacy" contained somewhere in the US Constitution.



Yes, I've had the chance to correct myself on the 14th Amendment's wording and its effect.  As for the "invention" aspect, since I'm now a lawyer I wouldn't know but invention or not the effect of the decision is clear, so I presume it's still good law.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 23, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> As I said before, morality and rights are human inventions.  There is no objective concrete way to prove that something is a right or not a right.  Who ways that it is right to use your money that you earned as you see fit?  Who is to say that it is a right that those that cant be self reliant to take from those that are self reliant?  Again, it is simply two different socio-political philosophies.



Well, that all sounds very lofty and deep and philosophical, but down here in the real world where this is happening and being discussed, rights are, as I have already pointed out, defined as things to which one has a "just claim", ie. something you have a property interest in which can be enforced by law.  So there is THAT objective, concrete way to prove that something is or isn't a right.  In the United States, one has a legally recognized and enforceable property interest in the money that one earns by legal means.  There are arguments as to whether or not it is truly legal for the government to participate in wealth distribution, since it is not actually codified in the appropriate laws that it can do so.  The opening question was not "SHOULD this be a right", but "IS this a right", so this is not really a question of philosophy at all, but of statute.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 23, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> Yes, I've had the chance to correct myself on the 14th Amendment's wording and its effect.  As for the "invention" aspect, since I'm now a lawyer I wouldn't know but invention or not the effect of the decision is clear, so I presume it's still good law.



If you're really a lawyer, you know perfectly well that _Roe v. Wade_ is not, and never was, regarded as "good law".  It's considered a legal joke, and you will never hear any serious lawyer attempting to argue it on its legal merits, because they can't do it with a straight face.


----------



## mattskramer (Nov 23, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Well, that all sounds very lofty and deep and philosophical, but down here in the real world where this is happening and being discussed, rights are, as I have already pointed out, defined as things to which one has a "just claim", ie. something you have a property interest in which can be enforced by law.  So there is THAT objective, concrete way to prove that something is or isn't a right.  In the United States, one has a legally recognized and enforceable property interest in the money that one earns by legal means.  There are arguments as to whether or not it is truly legal for the government to participate in wealth distribution, since it is not actually codified in the appropriate laws that it can do so.  The opening question was not "SHOULD this be a right", but "IS this a right", so this is not really a question of philosophy at all, but of statute.



Okay.  I think that I may be on a tangent.  You are arguing on the basis of law.  Okay.  Carry on.


----------



## Diuretic (Nov 23, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> If you're really a lawyer, you know perfectly well that _Roe v. Wade_ is not, and never was, regarded as "good law".  It's considered a legal joke, and you will never hear any serious lawyer attempting to argue it on its legal merits, because they can't do it with a straight face.



No, I'm not a lawyer.  I have more than a passing familiarity with my own jurisdiction's law and in some aspects of its parent jursidiction's law but I'm not a lawyer and I don't have legal qualifications.  

Sorry, I just saw my bloody stupid typo - it should have read, "I'm not a lawyer".  My index finger has betrayed me in it's QWERTYness.  I hit W (any FBI types monitoring, that's NOT a threat to your president ) and not T.
Of course any shrinks will be checking out _The Psychopathology of Everyday Life_ right now.

Hah, just thought of something, maybe Nixon did the same thing?

"I'm not a crook" - maybe he did the reverse and meant, "I'm now a crook".

I obviously need more coffee, too early here yet.

Sorry about that.  I'll leave it in the original post as it's corrected here.

I do know a lot of lawyers though


----------



## Andi G (Nov 23, 2008)

I don't know whether people are really advocating UHC but the healthcare system in America is definately broken.  Nearly everyone who has major surgery these days are practically forced into bankruptcy.

The insurance industry is also too powerful in that they now tell YOU what kind of procedure, tests, surgeries that you are allowed to have.

Everyone knows someone who has fallen into hard times due to medical bills that never seem to end.  It's a big issue and if Obama's plan can help, he will be doing his job well.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 23, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> Okay.  I think that I may be on a tangent.  You are arguing on the basis of law.  Okay.  Carry on.



Well, truly, what else are rights - in practice - except entitlements your society has agreed to recognize?  And how else does a society make such an agreement except through law?

When you talk about "inalienable rights", as our Founding Fathers did, you're really talking about a philosophical argument about which rights society SHOULD recognize.  "Should" is a slippery slope in the US today simply because so many people translate "the world should be like this" into "it's the government's job to make the world like this".  In this case, for example, what we get is "people should be able to see a doctor" into "it's the government's job to make sure everyone can see a doctor".


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 23, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> No, I'm not a lawyer.  I have more than a passing familiarity with my own jurisdiction's law and in some aspects of its parent jursidiction's law but I'm not a lawyer and I don't have legal qualifications.
> 
> Sorry, I just saw my bloody stupid typo - it should have read, "I'm not a lawyer".  My index finger has betrayed me in it's QWERTYness.  I hit W (any FBI types monitoring, that's NOT a threat to your president ) and not T.
> Of course any shrinks will be checking out _The Psychopathology of Everyday Life_ right now.
> ...



One of my best friends is a lawyer, and I assume he's very good, since he's extremely rich and just argued a case before the US Supreme Court.  He'll talk about _Roe v. Wade _in terms of accepted legal practice and precedents, but you can't make him discuss the actual decision on its legal merits.  And you haven't seen talking around an issue until you've seen a criminal defense lawyer do it.


----------



## Diuretic (Nov 23, 2008)

I rather like "should" and I don't mean in the US domestic political discourse, but just by itself as a concept.  "Should" isn't necessarily a slippery slope, it's a precursor to progress, makes people think.  But "should" doesn't necessarily lead to "will", there is, after all, the legislative process to turn a "should" into a "will."


----------



## aztech (Nov 23, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> As I said before, morality and rights are human inventions.  There is no objective concrete way to prove that something is a right or not a right.  Who ways that it is right to use your money that you earned as you see fit?  Who is to say that it is a right that those that cant be self reliant to take from those that are self reliant?  Again, it is simply two different socio-political philosophies.



So the Government is not morally bound to look after its own people...hmm...

Then what is its purpose?


----------



## mattskramer (Nov 23, 2008)

aztech said:


> So the Government is not morally bound to look after its own people...hmm...
> 
> Then what is its purpose?



I think that government should, to a certain extent, redistribute resources to the needy.  I doubt that is what Cecilie was talking about.  Cecilie was arguing if, legally, the government has a responsibility to redistribute wealth.  There is a difference.  I think that I am in agreement with you.  Yet, if you are debating philosophy, there is no proof to what is a right.  I might think that government has a right but where is the proof  unless you conclude that the proof is in written law.  Then one must debate what the law says.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 23, 2008)

Andi G said:


> I don't know whether people are really advocating UHC but the healthcare system in America is definately broken.  Nearly everyone who has major surgery these days are practically forced into bankruptcy.



Well, thank you for that utterly ludicrous hyperbole.  No, "nearly everyone who has major surgery" is NOT "practically forced into bankruptcy".  Grab your ears and pull until you hear the popping noise.  That'll be your head leaving your sphincter.



Andi G said:


> The insurance industry is also too powerful in that they now tell YOU what kind of procedure, tests, surgeries that you are allowed to have.



No, they don't.  They tell you which procedures they will pay for.  They've always done that.  ALL insurance does that.  So what?  You think you should pay $15 a month and get your rhinoplasty paid for, do you?



Andi G said:


> Everyone knows someone who has fallen into hard times due to medical bills that never seem to end.  It's a big issue and if Obama's plan can help, he will be doing his job well.



More generalization.  "Everyone" does not know someone who's gone broke from medical bills.  I'm a card-carrying member of "everyone", and I don't know anyone like that.

And if you actually know anything about what Obama's plan even IS, much less what effect it will have, I'll eat my keyboard.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 23, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> I rather like "should" and I don't mean in the US domestic political discourse, but just by itself as a concept.  "Should" isn't necessarily a slippery slope, it's a precursor to progress, makes people think.  But "should" doesn't necessarily lead to "will", there is, after all, the legislative process to turn a "should" into a "will."



The problem with "should" these days is that what it leads too many people to think is that it's a synonym for "is", like I said.

And many - perhaps most - "shoulds" have no business being legislated.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 23, 2008)

aztech said:


> So the Government is not morally bound to look after its own people...hmm...
> 
> Then what is its purpose?



Let's be very clear here.  Ideally, the government IS the people, acting in concert to do very specific things that they cannot do as individuals.  These things include safety and law enforcement, be that local police or a national military, certain types of infrastructure, etc.  The people can be said to be morally obligated to provide those things to everyone without prejudice.

Neither the government nor the people who make up that government can be said to be morally obligated to "look after" anyone.  I'm your neighbor, not your mommy.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 23, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> I think that government should, to a certain extent, redistribute resources to the needy.



There's that "should".  WHY, pray tell, "should" the government do anything of the sort?  Certainly not because it's codified into law anywhere that that is our government's job.



mattskramer said:


> I doubt that is what Cecilie was talking about.  Cecilie was arguing if, legally, the government has a responsibility to redistribute wealth.  There is a difference.



Yes, there's a big difference between people thinking the world would be nifty if such-and-so happened, and actually having any real, legal imprimatur to make it that way.

I will be happy to argue the idea that the government "should" do any such thing as well as whether or not it has the legal right and power to do so, though.



mattskramer said:


> I think that I am in agreement with you.  Yet, if you are debating philosophy, there is no proof to what is a right.  I might think that government has a right but where is the proof  unless you conclude that the proof is in written law.  Then one must debate what the law says.



Well, again, "right" is more of a legal term than a philosophical one.  I frankly don't see any philosophical argument for the idea that one can have any sort of entitlement to that which belongs to someone else, either.  This is probably why our Founding Fathers, when having this very philosophical argument about what entitlements and claims people should recognize and respect in each other, didn't list anything that had to be taken from others.


----------



## aztech (Nov 23, 2008)

Cecille....remember that in 20 years when you need help from a neighbor or the state.....it is easy, when you are in a better place to not give a crap about those worse off.


----------



## Gunny (Nov 24, 2008)

aztech said:


> So the Government is not morally bound to look after its own people...hmm...
> 
> Then what is its purpose?



To govern.  It is legally bound to look after its own people only insofar as the law directs.  It is not morally bound to do anything.


----------



## Gunny (Nov 24, 2008)

aztech said:


> Cecille....remember that in 20 years when you need help from a neighbor or the state.....it is easy, when you are in a better place to not give a crap about those worse off.



Just as easy as it is for those who are "worse off" to disregard that for the most part, those who are in a "better place" EARNED it, while demanding they be give some of what the "better off" person has earned.

In ANY other facet of life in this nation, if one takes from another something they legally own without their permission it's called theft.  For some reason, the government calls it taxes and people like you try to justify it morally.

For all the accusations that the right is trying to force its morals on everyone, the left is every bit as guilty of the same.  Just a different set of morals.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 24, 2008)

aztech said:


> Cecille....remember that in 20 years when you need help from a neighbor or the state.....it is easy, when you are in a better place to not give a crap about those worse off.



Why would I ever need my neighbor or the state to support me financially?  If I need temporary financial help, I get it from those upon whom I actually have a moral and emotional claim:  my family and close friends.  And I don't attempt to treat it as an entitlement I can take bloodlessly through their taxes.  I consider it a charitable loan, and I repay it.

Only a liberal dumbass assumes that it's a given that everyone will someday need to be a huge, sucking burden on society.  And only a liberal dumbass assumes that caring about those worse off takes the form of robbing others legally through the government and giving the money away via welfare distribution.

As always, little boy, the answer is the same:  grow the hell up.


----------



## Diuretic (Nov 24, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> One of my best friends is a lawyer, and I assume he's very good, since he's extremely rich and just argued a case before the US Supreme Court.  He'll talk about _Roe v. Wade _in terms of accepted legal practice and precedents, but you can't make him discuss the actual decision on its legal merits.  And you haven't seen talking around an issue until you've seen a criminal defense lawyer do it.



I have been buffeted around the ears by defence lawyers many times - sometimes they gave me mental concussion and sometimes I was able to - figuratively - stick my tongue out at them from the witness box but I never took any of them  lightly.  And I appreciate the sometimes outright bullshit of the law.  Ask your friend about the _Carriers Case _(you probably know about it already) or the invention of the doctrine of continuing trespass.  Better than two episodes of Seinfeld


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 24, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> I have been buffeted around the ears by defence lawyers many times - sometimes they gave me mental concussion and sometimes I was able to - figuratively - stick my tongue out at them from the witness box but I never took any of them  lightly.  And I appreciate the sometimes outright bullshit of the law.  Ask your friend about the _Carriers Case _(you probably know about it already) or the invention of the doctrine of continuing trespass.  Better than two episodes of Seinfeld



I will . . . if I can ever catch him sober.    We're friends via the Society for Creative Anachronism, and one of the basic tenets of the SCA is "wherever two or three are gathered together, there shall be booze."


----------



## Diuretic (Nov 24, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I will . . . if I can ever catch him sober.    We're friends via the Society for Creative Anachronism, and one of the basic tenets of the SCA is "wherever two or three are gathered together, there shall be booze."



I'm not a joiner type...........well I wasn't...........

I've the SCA on tv reports.  Do you get to pick your era of interest or is it sort of limited to a particular one where everyone joins in the era?  I mean it would get a bit out of hand if some folks with a hankering for mediaeval Europe (eg me) got tangled up with some WWII buffs - be a bit like a Harry Turtledove novel minus the lizards (apologies for the arcane reference).


----------



## editec (Nov 24, 2008)

Gunny said:


> For all the accusations that the right is trying to force its morals on everyone, the left is every bit as guilty of the same. Just a different set of morals.


 
Quite true.

Hence the social war we seem to find ourselves locked into, eh?

About half the nation is seeking what they believe is moral social justice that they call secular humanism

And the other half are seeking what they beleive is the moral justice that they think is ordained by GOD.

So about half of us think that it is moral for a pregant woman to abort an unwanted child, but think that woman is immoral if she has that child, but cannot afford its health care and upkeep.

And the other half believes that that pregant women is morally justified if she aborts that child, but moral when she demands health care and support for that child and herself if she doesn't abort it.

So who is more moral?

I'm not at all sure.

What I do know is that apparently the "child" is little more than a political football that both groups seem to kick around the political field.

About half the population thinks that taxing the rich to feed the poor is the moral contract of society

About the other half of the population things that not taxing the rich, and letting the poor starve is the morally correct contract of society.

I could go on, but I think you all know these things.


----------



## Gunny (Nov 24, 2008)

editec said:


> Quite true.
> 
> Hence the social war we seem to find ourselves locked into, eh?
> 
> ...



Can't say I agree.  The half that you say seek secular humanism STILL have a basis for their morality every bit as biased as anyone who bases their morality on religion.  In fact, many so called "secular humanists" find the basis or their morality in the verysame God, they've just figured out a way to paint it otherwise; while, unfairly and dishonestly painting anyone on the other side as basing their morality solely on God.  

Neither example you use requires God as a basis for morality.  It merely requires a respect for human life and property.  A respect defined legally in the Bill of Rights.

The half that believe it moral to abort a child fool only themselves.  They have to redefine human life with handy littls scientific terms in order to dehumanize and strip the identity from what is in actuality, human life.

You also attempt to subtly misrepresent the half that "let the poor starve."  You might find a small percentage of that "half" that would agree with that.  Rather, the half you describe want those "poor" to get out and earn their keep, not have the government redistribute it from those who DO earn it to those that sit around waiting on someone else to provide for their existence.  

I'll agree the difference exists as I originally stated, but I can't say I go much for your journalism.  Very subtle, I'll give you that, but you still present a biased picture.


----------



## tigerbob (Nov 24, 2008)

Gunny said:


> The half that believe it moral to abort a child fool only themselves.  They have to redefine human life with handy littls scientific terms in order to dehumanize and strip the identity from what is in actuality, human life.



That's not necessarily the case.  Those who believe it is immoral to abort any child seek to establish a yardstick in support of their position by defining human life as being from the moment an egg is fertilized - a scientific term in and of itself.


----------



## mattskramer (Nov 24, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> There's that "should".  WHY, pray tell, "should" the government do anything of the sort?  Certainly not because it's codified into law anywhere that that is our government's job.



I cound turn the question right back at you.  Aside from legal interpretation, why should the government not help those in need?


----------



## editec (Nov 24, 2008)

Gunny said:


> I'll agree the difference exists as I originally stated, but I can't say I go much for your journalism. Very subtle, I'll give you that, but you still present a biased picture.


 
I have my biases, Guns, without a doubt.

If they appear subtle to you, that's probably because I can see some of validity in both sides of the argument.

My bias is often that I think the argument itself is framed in such a way that it insures that no solution or compromise can ever be found.

My bias is that arguments are often framed in exactly that way on purpose, too.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 24, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> I'm not a joiner type...........well I wasn't...........
> 
> I've the SCA on tv reports.  Do you get to pick your era of interest or is it sort of limited to a particular one where everyone joins in the era?  I mean it would get a bit out of hand if some folks with a hankering for mediaeval Europe (eg me) got tangled up with some WWII buffs - be a bit like a Harry Turtledove novel minus the lizards (apologies for the arcane reference).



The area of interest for the SCA runs loosely from the fall of the Roman Empire to the end of the Elizabethan era.  It is primarily focused on Europe, but there are people who have Middle Eastern personas from then, and belly dancers are always ever-present and ever-popular.    There's also a growing number of people who make a study of Asian cultures from that time period, and I've even heard of one or two people doing North American aborigines from then.

The SCA has always been centered around armored sword combat (with practice swords, because we don't want anyone dead or maimed), so that puts a natural limit on where and how it can go.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 24, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> I cound turn the question right back at you.  Aside from legal interpretation, why should the government not help those in need?



For starters, because government "help" generally isn't helpful.  Second, for the government to "help" anyone, it must first hurt someone else.  Contrary to what some people believe, the government does not actually generate any income of its own.  All its money comes from someone else.

I can sum up both reasons in one sentence:  no government has ever taxed and spent itself or its people into prosperity.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 24, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> I cound turn the question right back at you.  Aside from legal interpretation, why should the government not help those in need?



Oh, by the way.  Now that I've been gracious enough to answer your question, even though it was asked second, I trust you will do me the courtesy of answering my original question.


----------



## aztech (Nov 24, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Why would I ever need my neighbor or the state to support me financially?  If I need temporary financial help, I get it from those upon whom I actually have a moral and emotional claim:  my family and close friends.  And I don't attempt to treat it as an entitlement I can take bloodlessly through their taxes.  I consider it a charitable loan, and I repay it.
> 
> Only a liberal dumbass assumes that it's a given that everyone will someday need to be a huge, sucking burden on society.  And only a liberal dumbass assumes that caring about those worse off takes the form of robbing others legally through the government and giving the money away via welfare distribution.
> 
> As always, little boy, the answer is the same:  grow the hell up.



How sad..you feel the need to belittle everyone.....that is quite pathetic really.  Just because I happen to have different beliefs than you makes me a dumbass....lol....I pity you, I truly do.

You are entitled to your opinion...I have a different value set than you...I happen to fall into Obama's "Rich" category, but I remember where I came from...I remember my Dad working 3 jobs and my Mom 2...I am willing to help those less fortunate than myself, because I believe that it not always their fault that they are in the circumstances that they are and because of their situation,...it is not always within their capabilities to pick themselves up without a little help.

One of the basic differences between us is the fact that I see nothing wrong with offering that little help, where as you see them as "need to be a huge, sucking burden on society".  I am not talking about people who are too lazy to get off their rear ends and fend for themselves (of which there are many and who should receive not a penny)...I am talking about people who are unable too.


----------



## aztech (Nov 24, 2008)

Gunny said:


> For all the accusations that the right is trying to force its morals on everyone, the left is every bit as guilty of the same.  Just a different set of morals.



Totally agree.

I have to make one point here too....When I am talking about helping the worse off...I am talking about people in a position to not help themselves..The sick, the elderly...the people who have lost their jobs and are actually doing all in their power to find something else.  I am not talking about those lazy assholes who want to sit at home and live off the state...who think it is the duty of everyone in the country to look after them...I see a big difference in the two groups.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 24, 2008)

aztech said:


> How sad..you feel the need to belittle everyone.....that is quite pathetic really.  Just because I happen to have different beliefs than you makes me a dumbass....lol....I pity you, I truly do.
> 
> You are entitled to your opinion...I have a different value set than you...I happen to fall into Obama's "Rich" category, but I remember where I came from...I remember my Dad working 3 jobs and my Mom 2...I am willing to help those less fortunate than myself, because I believe that it not always their fault that they are in the circumstances that they are and because of their situation,...it is not always within their capabilities to pick themselves up without a little help.
> 
> One of the basic differences between us is the fact that I see nothing wrong with offering that little help, where as you see them as "need to be a huge, sucking burden on society".  I am not talking about people who are too lazy to get off their rear ends and fend for themselves (of which there are many and who should receive not a penny)...I am talking about people who are unable too.



Let's see, what is that response again?  Oh, yeah.  Grow the hell up, little boy.  The only person here who's impressed with your "great life wisdom" and "moral rectitude" is you.  To me, you're just a spoiled adolescent mouthing off at the family dinner table.

I'm very, very tired of you wasting my time with your empty posts about "old people are so stupid".  If your next post is in the same vein, simply assume that I have ignored you as I do all ill-mannered children when they throw tantrums, because I won't even bother to tell you at that point.

It's true what they say.  It's a damned shame that teenagers never move out of their parents' houses while they still know everything.


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 24, 2008)

It should be a right.  That doesn't mean doctors shouldn't get paid well either.  And that doesn't mean you shouldn't pay a copay.  Or if you get a cold and go to the doctor, you should pay.  But if you have cancer or aids, you should get the best treatment no matter how broke you are.

With all the baby boomers getting old, the next new business is going to be elderly care.  The Corporations that are buying these new business' want to drain our grandparents and parents of their life savings.  So all you people who hate the death tax?  Don't worry about it, because your parents won't have anything left to leave you.

And having corporations taking care of our elderly is a scary thought.  They'll cut and cut to maximize profits and that'll mean hiring people for $7 hr. to take care of us when we get old.  

Do not expect to die with dignity.  

Healthcare, like the oil companies, like the energy companies, like the auto companies, all got too greedy.  All they care about it maximizing profits.  You and I are a cost to them. 

It is sad the way this country moved.  Thank god the pendulum is swinging back.


----------



## aztech (Nov 24, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Let's see, what is that response again?  Oh, yeah.  Grow the hell up, little boy.  The only person here who's impressed with your "great life wisdom" and "moral rectitude" is you.  To me, you're just a spoiled adolescent mouthing off at the family dinner table.
> 
> I'm very, very tired of you wasting my time with your empty posts about "old people are so stupid".  If your next post is in the same vein, simply assume that I have ignored you as I do all ill-mannered children when they throw tantrums, because I won't even bother to tell you at that point.
> 
> It's true what they say.  It's a damned shame that teenagers never move out of their parents' houses while they still know everything.



Let me define adolescent for you:  A person between the age of puberty and adulthood...NOPE, not me.....not by a long way...left that group more than half a lifetime ago.

I would never have mouthed off at the family dinner table...I have way to much respect for my family.

Your tired of me wasting your time....the phrase pot calling the kettle black comes to mind...but hey...just don't answer then.  I am finding it fun.

But hey...like anyone loosing an argument....carry on with the personal insults.....if that makes you feel important and worthwhile.


----------



## auditor0007 (Dec 2, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> Why do I ask?  To me it seems to be the most fundamental part of why some advocate for universal health care and why some advocate for privatized healthcare.  Every candidate on the dem ticket has a plan of some type for of universal or government run healthcare.  So I have to think that most of them think it is a right.  By extension then people basically have the right to good health it would seem.
> 
> The problem I have with it being a right is the concept of a 'right' itself.  A 'right' like the right to free speech or right to bear arms is something that is provided you without any cost or requirment to obtain access to.  You don't have to earn the right to free speech or pay a fee when you want to speak.  The conundrum I have with healthcare is if it is your right, that is you are under no personal responsibility to provide it for yourself, then who's responsibility is it, and why?  If I'm not paying for the services somone else must be.  According to Hillary anyway that will be increased taxes on the rich.  But wait healthcare is a right, so why should the rich be expected to pay for it?  It's a right so isn't it suppossed to be free to them as well?  Why should they be worried about their own health as well as those that can't pay for it?
> 
> Rush had a caller on today who was a female physician and basically asked the same question.  Why is she, a provider of a service like any other service, expected to provide it a reduced rate or free all together?  You can't control all aspects of your health anymore than you can control all aspects of your car working, but we expect people to pay to have their own car fixed even if not responsible for the problem, yet some have this expectation that when 'shit happens' where your health is concerned it's suppossed to be free to get 'fixed'.



The problem with the argument against some type of guaranteed healthcare plan is that it makes an assumption that many people will receive the benefits absolutely free.  The truth of the matter is that if you are really poor, you will receive free healthcare through some type of government program.  The ones who don't get the healthcare are those who work but don't earn enough to pay for adequate healthcare.  Why should they go without, while those who don't work at all get the free ride?  

Those against national healthcare tell us that with that type of healthcare, the quality of care is not as good.  Why is it then, that Americans don't live longer than anyone else in the world.  In fact, our average lifespan lags behind most countries that offer some type of guaranteed healthcare.  On top of that, we pay 50% to 100% more than those in other countries because of all the flaws in our system.  

Countries that offere guaranteed healthcare force all of their citizens to pay for that healthcare through taxation.  Yes, the wealthy do pay a greater share, but everyone pays; no one gets a free ride.  We are now paying $7200 per year per person for healthcare.  If you consider that nearly 50 million are paying nothing for healthcare, then the cost per person increases to $8800 per person per year.  That includes every adult and child in the US.  Want more bad news?  The rates are increasing by double digits every year.  Before long, the vast majority of Americans will no longer be able to afford any healthcare period.  Then the wealthy will be paying even more.  

I am by no means a Democrat or liberal thinking type.  However, healthcare is not going to get better by leaving it the way it is.  In the US, we are spending 16% of GDP on healthcare.  Within ten years, that numbers is expected to jump to 20% of GDP, while other leading countries throughout the world are paying around 10% of GDP, and we are wondering why no one can afford their mortgage payment or afford to buy a new car.


----------



## Listening (Sep 4, 2011)

I am bumping this one so I won't have to go find it again.


----------



## NGSamson (Sep 4, 2011)

maineman said:


> It is a right?  probably not.  Is it something that the richest most powerful nation on earth ought to provide to its citizenry?  I would say so.



It does and has for years through private industry and through county, state, and government. Its been that way for years.


----------



## Listening (Sep 7, 2011)

Did anyone ever establish the criteria by which it could be judged as a right ?


----------



## manikeny (Sep 7, 2011)

Shattered said:


> Diuretic said:
> 
> 
> > If you don't bring up Rush you deny us on the left the pleasure of mocking him.  Please feel free to bring him up whenever you wish
> ...



No healthcare is free? 'coz is for human's life ..


----------



## Zagg (Sep 7, 2011)

It's a right if people say it is. That's how rights become rights.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 8, 2011)

Listening said:


> Did anyone ever establish the criteria by which it could be judged as a right ?



If they did, I'll bet money it included the word "should" in it somewhere, a word that gives me goosebumps every time a liberal says it.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 8, 2011)

Zagg said:


> It's a right if people say it is. That's how rights become rights.



Actually, that's how entitlements become entitlements.  Not exactly the same thing.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 8, 2011)

Listening said:


> Did anyone ever establish the criteria by which it could be judged as a right ?



I don't think so. But my criteria, which you can take or leave, is that a right is something you are entitled to that does not require something be taken from someone else to obtain.


----------



## Listening (Sep 9, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Did anyone ever establish the criteria by which it could be judged as a right ?
> ...



That has generally been my qualification too.

There are other qualifications too.

Most rights, as we talk about them, are negative rights.  That would be freedom from.  This as opposed to a positive right which is a "right to" something.


----------



## Listening (Sep 9, 2011)

Zagg said:


> It's a right if people say it is. That's how rights become rights.



It is more like "It's a right if 5 of the 9 MIB" say it is.

Not that I agree with this approach.  But it seems to be the order of the day.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 9, 2011)

Listening said:


> Did anyone ever establish the criteria by which it could be judged as a right ?



I did.  I just noticed it a couple of pages back.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 9, 2011)

manikeny said:


> Shattered said:
> 
> 
> > Diuretic said:
> ...



There's no such thing as "free".  Someone, somewhere, is paying for it, even if you're not.  So the question becomes, who has more interest and obligation in paying for YOUR health care than YOU?


----------



## Listening (Sep 10, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> There's no such thing as "free".  Someone, somewhere, is paying for it, even if you're not.  So the question becomes, who has more interest and obligation in paying for YOUR health care than YOU?



While I agree this one question that needs to be asked, I would also suggest that it isn't the only one.

One of the things I keep going back to is "What is the definition of Health Care ?".  In other words....if the Obama administration has the goal of health care for everyone, how will they know they have achieved it ?


----------



## California Girl (Sep 10, 2011)

Listening said:


> I am bumping this one so I won't have to go find it again.



You couldn't just bookmark it?


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 10, 2011)

Listening said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > There's no such thing as "free".  Someone, somewhere, is paying for it, even if you're not.  So the question becomes, who has more interest and obligation in paying for YOUR health care than YOU?
> ...



Seem to me the only way you could define it, is when everyone gets the care they need regardless of their ability to pay.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 10, 2011)

Listening said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > There's no such thing as "free".  Someone, somewhere, is paying for it, even if you're not.  So the question becomes, who has more interest and obligation in paying for YOUR health care than YOU?
> ...



Oh, honey, the left doesn't need to know when they've achieved it, because they will never have achieved their goals.  They just keep moving the goalposts to include more and more stuff.


----------



## Davidpeterson (Oct 7, 2011)

Health should not be a right, because it is inconsistent with the independence to ensure the right "to pursue" happiness, not happiness or the right to free medical services Declaration. "


----------



## Skull Pilot (Oct 7, 2011)

If health care is deemed a right then the government is obligated to make sure there are enough physicians to care for everyone.

What if there aren't enough doctors to guarantee everyone's right to health care does the government force people to go to med school?

I mean if the government can force us to buy health insurance, surely it can force people to pay for med school no?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Oct 7, 2011)

If health care were, in fact, considered to be a right........we'd probably have a much healthier populace and require fewer physicians. Prevntive care would be maximized. 

The semantics battle over the word "right" serves to muddy the water when it comes to this topic.

As a healthy middle-class American, I would like to know that my neighbors and others in my community were in good health. I think it makes the country a better place....and a more productive place.....when our citizens are healthy.


----------



## Kooshdakhaa (Oct 7, 2011)

Mr.Conley said:


> Well, it depends. Morally? Yes Legally? Maybe not.



I agree with you.  Morally, yes, we have a right to healthcare.  Or perhaps it would be more precise to say, morally we have a responsibility to make sure everyone has access to the healthcare they need.

I know I don't want to live in a country where people fade away and die of illnesses simply because they don't have enough money to pay for treatment.  That's a little too barbaric for my liking.

It's by the way we treat the weakest amongst us that the level of our civilization can be measured.


----------



## Listening (Oct 7, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



I hear that a great deal.

So lets take a deeper look at this with a few more questions.

How will you know you achieved you goal ?

Who decides what health care they "need" ?


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 10, 2011)

Listening said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



And those questions are the problem. Especially the last one. Or at least they highlight the problem of someone else paying for it. The more an individual directly handles there own health care, whether through premiums or paying out of pocket in some fashion, the less we have to deal with some third part beauracracy arbitrarily answering those questions for us.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 10, 2011)

LoneLaugher said:


> If health care were, in fact, considered to be a right........we'd probably have a much healthier populace and require fewer physicians. Prevntive care would be maximized.
> 
> The semantics battle over the word "right" serves to muddy the water when it comes to this topic.
> 
> As a healthy middle-class American, I would like to know that my neighbors and others in my community were in good health. I think it makes the country a better place....and a more productive place.....when our citizens are healthy.



Amazingly enough, your idea of an ideal world, where you can "know" whatever it is that will make you feel good, does not actually constitute a "right" of any sort, for you or anyone else.

Life's imperfect, and always will be.  The universe pays no attention whatsoever to any attempts by humans to legislate cosmic justice, and the sooner you grow up and accept these adult facts, the less time you will spend making life worse for others.


----------



## Listening (Oct 10, 2011)

LoneLaugher said:


> If health care were, in fact, considered to be a right........we'd probably have a much healthier populace and require fewer physicians. Prevntive care would be maximized.
> 
> The semantics battle over the word "right" serves to muddy the water when it comes to this topic.
> 
> As a healthy middle-class American, I would like to know that my neighbors and others in my community were in good health. I think it makes the country a better place....and a more productive place.....when our citizens are healthy.



Sure, why not.

We have all this technology, but as a society we are fat.

The medical community is concerned about the rate of diabetes, heart disease, not to mention all the knee and hip replacements that will result because something like 35% of our contry is FAT.

So, do we tell them they can't be fat (fine them) or do we allow them the right to get fat and then force others to pay for all that extra needed care ?


----------



## Jackson (Oct 10, 2011)

No.  Health Care is not a right if you think it's free.  Sure, if you are ill or dying, you'll be taken care of, but you are responsible for the bill.

*This country has got to learn that we are responsible for ourselves. * That goes for our healthcare, too.Stop with the Gimmee  Gimmee Gimmee


----------



## LoneLaugher (Oct 10, 2011)

Again....the nutters think that people want it to be free. That is not the case. It has never been the case. It never will be the case. 

Nobody is seeking FREE health care.


----------



## Jackson (Oct 10, 2011)

LoneLaugher said:


> Again....the nutters think that people want it to be free. That is not the case. It has never been the case. It never will be the case.
> 
> Nobody is seeking FREE health care.



Hell, but someone wants me to pay for someone else's!


----------



## LoneLaugher (Oct 10, 2011)

No....you are failing to understand the concept of "country".

Go to Japan, or Sweden...France, Germany, Canada........and ask the citizens there...EVERY SINGLE ONE OF WHOM HAS ACCESS TO QUALITY HEALTH CARE...if they think it is free. 

You are either unwilling to learn the truth or willing to be full of shit. Which is it.


----------



## Avorysuds (Oct 10, 2011)

The answe is no, there is no real debate just others wanting to take from someone else what is not theirs for no other reason than "I want it."


----------



## LoneLaugher (Oct 10, 2011)

Avorysuds said:


> The answe is no, there is no real debate just others wanting to take from someone else what is not theirs for no other reason than "I want it."



What has gone so wrong in your life?


----------



## Avorysuds (Oct 10, 2011)

LoneLaugher said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> > The answe is no, there is no real debate just others wanting to take from someone else what is not theirs for no other reason than "I want it."
> ...



Prove me wrong.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Oct 10, 2011)

I just did.


----------



## Avorysuds (Oct 10, 2011)

LoneLaugher said:


> I just did.



Really, you didn't... 

Here, do me a favor, give me a list our "rights" here in America.


----------



## Avorysuds (Oct 10, 2011)

Maybe I should ask... when you say it should be a right, do you mean a "natural right?" Or do you mean it should be a law, like "That person is sick, you all get to pay to make him better."


----------



## LoneLaugher (Oct 10, 2011)

Avorysuds said:


> Maybe I should ask... when you say it should be a right, do you mean a "natural right?" Or do you mean it should be a law, like "That person is sick, you all get to pay to make him better."




I never said anything about rights. I said that thinking, reasonable people know that universal health care is not free....and then you said that people want YOU to pay for them. You are wrong. People want to be responsible for themselves.......and others..by paying for affordable access.

You would be OK with someone who has no money having sub-standard or no health care. That is because you are troubled.


----------



## Avorysuds (Oct 10, 2011)

LoneLaugher said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe I should ask... when you say it should be a right, do you mean a "natural right?" Or do you mean it should be a law, like "That person is sick, you all get to pay to make him better."
> ...



Universal health care is not possible unless someone is paying for you. I'm all for UHC if people are allowed to opt in and opt out and the only funds it gets are what the people in that set system put in. Then we can all watch that system collapse upon itself.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Oct 10, 2011)

Avorysuds said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Avorysuds said:
> ...




Unless you do not earn an income at all..............YOU ARE WRONG.


----------



## Texanmike (Oct 10, 2011)

LoneLaugher said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



A right is something that cannot be taken away from you by anyone. It is not something which must be provided for you by everyone.  You have the right to equal access to healthcare which you can pay for you do not have the right to healthcare which someone else must pay for.

Mike


----------



## Listening (Oct 11, 2011)

LoneLaugher said:


> Again....the nutters think that people want it to be free. That is not the case. It has never been the case. It never will be the case.
> 
> Nobody is seeking FREE health care.



Yes, you are right.

They don't want FREE health care.

They just want health care they don't have to pay for.


----------



## Listening (Oct 11, 2011)

LoneLaugher said:


> No....you are failing to understand the concept of "country".
> 
> Go to Japan, or Sweden...France, Germany, Canada........and ask the citizens there...EVERY SINGLE ONE OF WHOM HAS ACCESS TO QUALITY HEALTH CARE...if they think it is free.
> 
> You are either unwilling to learn the truth or willing to be full of shit. Which is it.



Uuuhhhmmmm.....

Actually, that isn't true.

I spent some time in Canada where the gripe was the lack of GP physicians.  Seems some of them have headed south to make more money (just enough to cause a shortage).  It was huge part of the election debates I watched when I was there.

I don't bash systems, but I can tell you they don't have access to quality health care.

If they don't pay taxes, and some Canadians don't, then it is free to them.


----------



## Money (Oct 11, 2011)

Healthcare is not any sort of natural right. At the same time, I suppose if the government said it was a right due to citizens, then it would be a right...a legal right like in the Bill of Rights.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Oct 11, 2011)

Listening said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > No....you are failing to understand the concept of "country".
> ...



In Canada.....and Japan where I lived under a universal health care system....and all the other places in the world with single payer systems....people with very low incomes are subsidized in one way or another. The mistake you nutters make is in thinking that low income workers and those with no incomes are happily living that existence just because they are able to remain physically healthy. 

It is a fucked up POV. Add to that the fact that our system, with all the profit built in.....and people using emergency services instead of preventive service....COSTS YOU MORE.....and all a thinking person can do is shake his head at you.


----------



## newpolitics (Oct 11, 2011)

It is absolutely a right, and should not be contingent on whether you went to harvard, whether you were born into a wealthy family, or are of a certain skin color... no one asked for this life, so while we are here, we  should all take care of each other.


----------



## Toro (Oct 11, 2011)

Health care is not a right.  It is a service.


----------



## Toro (Oct 11, 2011)

LoneLaugher said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



I'm Canadian.

Generally, Canadians are very happy with their health care system, but there are serious problems.

For example, my mother recently had a knee replacement.  Never mind that she had to wait months to get it, her rehab has been a nightmare.  Over the years, she has been very unhappy with her GP, but the rehab has been the straw that broke the camel's back.  Her incompetent GP gave her some bad advice - he knows little about knee replacements - which caused my mother a great deal of anguish and pain.  She wants to change GPs but can't.  If you have a GP where she lives, doctors will not let you switch.  Why?  Because about 10% of Canadians don't have a GP.  Those people get first priority.  So those who are stuck with bad GPs are out of luck.  Sometimes my mother will go to the emergency room to get treated rather than go to her GP.  That's bullshit.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 11, 2011)

LoneLaugher said:


> No....you are failing to understand the concept of "country".
> 
> Go to Japan, or Sweden...France, Germany, Canada........and ask the citizens there...EVERY SINGLE ONE OF WHOM HAS ACCESS TO QUALITY HEALTH CARE...if they think it is free.
> 
> You are either unwilling to learn the truth or willing to be full of shit. Which is it.



Then the question becomes why do you think it is better for the government to run it through taxes than for people to handle financing it themselves?


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 11, 2011)

LoneLaugher said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe I should ask... when you say it should be a right, do you mean a "natural right?" Or do you mean it should be a law, like "That person is sick, you all get to pay to make him better."
> ...



If that really was what people wanted, that is the ability to take care of themsleves, then no one here would be arguing FOR UHC. No it's not free, but psychologically to a lot of people it is. People don't view the taxes automatically being taken out of their paychecks they way they view the bills that they have to pay out of their pockets every month. And for a lot of Americans who have little to know tax liability, yes, it would be free.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 11, 2011)

newpolitics said:


> It is absolutely a right, and should not be contingent on whether you went to harvard, whether you were born into a wealthy family, or are of a certain skin color... no one asked for this life, so while we are here, we  should all take care of each other.



Why is you obligating someone to take care of you, better or more efficient than YOU taking care of you? And no it is not a right by any defintion of the word. Under a free society you NEVER have the right to identure someone else into your servitude.


----------



## Listening (Oct 11, 2011)

newpolitics said:


> It is absolutely a right, and should not be contingent on whether you went to harvard, whether you were born into a wealthy family, or are of a certain skin color... no one asked for this life, so while we are here, we  should all take care of each other.



That is an opinion.

It hasn't been a right in the U.S. for almost 220 years (that is a fact) and hopefully it will never be one.


----------



## Listening (Oct 11, 2011)

LoneLaugher said:


> In Canada.....and Japan where I lived under a universal health care system....and all the other places in the world with single payer systems....people with very low incomes are subsidized in one way or another. The mistake you nutters make is in thinking that low income workers and those with no incomes are happily living that existence just because they are able to remain physically healthy.
> 
> It is a fucked up POV. Add to that the fact that our system, with all the profit built in.....and people using emergency services instead of preventive service....COSTS YOU MORE.....and all a thinking person can do is shake his head at you.



I frankly don't care where you lived and what you thought you saw.

You continually read things into posts because you so arrogant and confident of your own self-righteous attitude that you don't listen worth a crap.

And your use of the word nutters only shows just how shallow and intolerant you are.

I didn't say anything against the system.  I simply pointed out that your statement was not true.  I spent time in Canada, know doctors in Canada and have seen the system groan through the same troubles any system goes through.  That isn't good.  It isn't bad.  It is what it is.

I simply said, they can't get access to health care the way you claim.  They have had in the past, and potentially continue to have a shortage of general practitioners in some areas of the country.  I have heard almost universally that they have great immediate (emergency) care.  I have often heard that things that can wait sometimes have to....sometimes to the detriment of patients.

I didn't say better.  I didn't say worse.  I simply said what I have seen and what those who live there have reported to me when we discuss the subject.

Your comments about POV are just made up straw men.  Who said anything about emergency rooms in the U.S....this is just left wing barf that comes up when someone who can't think for themselves somehow believes they have a chance to look quasi intelligent.

Well, you failed.

Stick to what is said, not to what your DailyKos type filters cause you read "between the lines".


----------



## Listening (Oct 11, 2011)

Toro said:


> I'm Canadian.
> 
> Generally, Canadians are very happy with their health care system, but there are serious problems.
> 
> For example, my mother recently had a knee replacement.  Never mind that she had to wait months to get it, her rehab has been a nightmare.  Over the years, she has been very unhappy with her GP, but the rehab has been the straw that broke the camel's back.  Her incompetent GP gave her some bad advice - he knows little about knee replacements - which caused my mother a great deal of anguish and pain.  She wants to change GPs but can't.  If you have a GP where she lives, doctors will not let you switch.  Why?  Because about 10% of Canadians don't have a GP.  Those people get first priority.  So those who are stuck with bad GPs are out of luck.  Sometimes my mother will go to the emergency room to get treated rather than go to her GP.  That's bullshit.



Most Canadians I know would second your comment about being happy with the system.  Most would also point out that there are issues...in some cases, some pretty substancial issues.

Thanks for the input.


----------



## Listening (Oct 11, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Then the question becomes why do you think it is better for the government to run it through taxes than for people to handle financing it themselves?



For some of us, the answer is pretty obvious.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 11, 2011)

LoneLaugher said:


> No....you are failing to understand the concept of "country".
> 
> Go to Japan, or Sweden...France, Germany, Canada........and ask the citizens there...EVERY SINGLE ONE OF WHOM HAS ACCESS TO QUALITY HEALTH CARE...if they think it is free.
> 
> You are either unwilling to learn the truth or willing to be full of shit. Which is it.



Had a friend from the UK who lived here a while.  He was always bitching about how much more his healthcare cost him here, and how this or that was "free" back in the UK.  My husband finally got tired of it and sat him down and explained to him in-depth how he was full of shit.

Tell us again how "no one thinks it's free" when they can get someone else to pay for it, or just get it taxed out of everyone instead of paying out of pocket.


----------



## Listening (Oct 12, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Had a friend from the UK who lived here a while.  He was always bitching about how much more his healthcare cost him here, and how this or that was "free" back in the UK.  My husband finally got tired of it and sat him down and explained to him in-depth how he was full of shit.
> 
> Tell us again how "no one thinks it's free" when they can get someone else to pay for it, or just get it taxed out of everyone instead of paying out of pocket.



While the UK is pretty large, other countries like Finland are about the size of Wisconsin.  I think Florida is larger than Finland, Denamark and Norway combined (I think).

Why can't we have this discussion at the state level ?  We have some examples of state run healthcare that can be dissected and discussed.

There is Tenncare and so called "Romney care".  They have plusses and minuses.  Why does this have to be a federal issue.

It certainly goes in the face of the 10th amendment (for any who think the Constitution sitll holds any sway whatsoever....or all of it and not just the parts that get you what you want....General Welfare does not mean Health Care).


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 12, 2011)

There is no right without responsibility.

If health care is a right, then you have an obligation to live according to prescribed healthy ways so as not to unduly burden your fellow citizens.  You have a obligation to conduct yourself minimizing risk.  Which means very few sports can be tolerated.   Tennis elbow and a broken leg from skiing are both morally unacceptable.  After all, someone else is paying the bill.  

Under such a presumption, surely promiscuous sex would be prohibited as well as recreational drug use.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 12, 2011)

Tipsycatlover said:


> There is no right without responsibility.
> 
> If health care is a right, then you have an obligation to live according to prescribed healthy ways so as not to unduly burden your fellow citizens.  You have a obligation to conduct yourself minimizing risk.  Which means very few sports can be tolerated.   Tennis elbow and a broken leg from skiing are both morally unacceptable.  After all, someone else is paying the bill.
> 
> Under such a presumption, surely promiscuous sex would be prohibited as well as recreational drug use.



This points out another reason why people should be handling their own health care expenses. Be careful what you want government to handle because for those of you who really want single payer government funded healthcare, or more to the point health care funded by me, then you would also have to agree that I and every other tax payer now gets a say on how live your life. If we should all take care of each other like mr. rainbows and butterflys a few posts up thinks we should do well that's exactly what you're gonna have to agree to. If I am going to pay for your health care then I sure as hell get a say on whether or not you're wasting my money.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 12, 2011)

Singapore has universal government paid health care.  Chewing gum is illegal because it harms the teeth and people stick used gum all over the place.

It's not an extreme example.


----------



## frazzledgear (Oct 12, 2011)

Doug said:


> Good question. But note: the right to free speech can be interpreted to mean only that the government shall not undertake measures to limit your free speech. Now suppose that every time you tried to speak, someone else stopped you from doing so -- say, by standing next to you with a bullhorn, or bombing your newspaper, or rioting outside your editorial office when you print a cartoon they don't like. Do you have the "right" to demand that the government protect your free speech?
> 
> We certainly feel we have the right to demand that the government protect us from criminals, for example. But should we? Do we have a "right" to pursue our lives unmolested by criminal predators?
> 
> ...



Sorry -but you got the examples ALL wrong.  YOUR rights never place an obligation on another private citizen.   You have no right to demand government SILENCE someone else or that would mean claiming YOUR right of free speech is greater than that of someone else.  PRIVATE CITIZENS cannot violate your rights listed in the Bill of Rights -ONLY government can!  

You misinterpret the Bill of Rights which is NOT an order for government to GIVE you these things but an order FORBIDDING government from INTERFERING with your free exercise of these rights.  That's it -it in NO way places an obligation on government to help you exercise them and it NEVER obligates private citizens to do a damn thing to help you exercise them either!   Your free speech right means government may not arrest you for what you said.  A lot of people don't get that -but that is ALL it means.  You can't be arrested for WHAT YOU SAY.  But government NEVER has to HELP you say it though!  Government has no obligation to provide a platform for you to exercise ANY of your rights, has no obligation to provide an audience for you, has no obligation to prevent someone else from also exercising THEIR rights which would then be a value judgment about which of us has the greater rights, has no obligation to force others to listen to you against their will, no obligation to prevent others from booing you when you speak and may NOT prevent OTHERS from also exercising THEIR free speech rights!  

The exceptions to this involve situations where an audience is purposely gathered for the specific purpose of hearing, seeing or witnessing something -and that audience would not otherwise have even been there were it not for that specific reason.  For instance -going to a movie, going to a political rally, a football game -ANYTHING where people are ONLY gathering for the specific purpose that event was created.   Now if you go to the movies and start talking during the show and won't shut up -government still can't arrest you for it!  But the theater owner can legally throw you out because that audience belongs to HIM and no one has the right to prevent an audience from hearing or seeing what they gathered to see and hear!  The Supreme Court ruled on that one a long time ago.  But government can't arrest that person for WHAT HE SAID.  He can stand up there and cuss his head off and he could possibly get arrested for disturbing the peace if he refuses to leave when asked to do so -but he cannot be arrested FOR WHAT HE SAID.  That is ALL your free speech rights mean -government can't arrest you for WHAT YOU SAID.  But you can get arrested for what you DID if you refuse to leave when asked or create a bigger disturbance.  That means those trying to shout down a politician at his/her own rally can -and ARE -legally thrown out.  There is no right to prevent others from seeing or hearing what they gathered together to see or hear and it doesn't matter if the audience paid to be there or not.   But those who try to shout down a politician can't be arrested for what they SAID.  In this country you can only be arrested for ACTIONS that violate the law -not your WORDS.  What you DID, not what you SAID. (yes, exception regarding words intended to incite panic or violence that have the potential to cause physical harm to others)

Your examples are all flawed because of a MAJOR underlying flaw in your assumption about what is and is NOT "rights"!  PRIVATE CITIZENS can't violate any of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights!  Private citizens cannot violate you free speech right, they can't violate your right to bear arms, they can't violate your right of free exercise of your religion etc.  They can break the law with regard to your PERSON though -if they take your guns, they are STEALING.  If they prevent you from entering a church, they are TRESPASSING.  If they follow you around with a bullhorn and use it every time you open your mouth, they are STALKING, HARASSING and DISTURBING THE PEACE.  The bullhorn person would be stopped from doing it NOT because he is somehow interfering with your free speech rights somehow -because PEOPLE cannot violate those -only GOVERNMENT can violate these rights.  NOT private citizens.  The Bill of Rights -in fact the entire Constitution -is an agreement, endowment of certain powers, restrictions of other powers -with GOVERNMENT ONLY.  It places NO obligations on anyone as a citizen though!  NONE.  I have NO obligation to provide or protect your right of free speech.  As a private citizen I believe I do have an obligation to demand GOVERNMENT not restrict your free speech rights -but I am not obligated to GIVE you a platform or audience so you can exercise them -and neither is government.  

Government doesn't GIVE us our rights because rights are not GIVEN.  If a power can GIVE you "rights", it can use the identical power to TAKE them!  That would actually make them PRIVILEGES, not rights.  We CLAIMED these rights for OURSELVES and then FORBID government from interfering with the exercise of these rights.  It is a major distinction and one far too many people fail to understand.  Government doesn't GIVE you rights -we CLAIM them.  Government is forbidden from interfering with our ability to exercise them -but likewise, government is never obligated to HELP you exercise them either.

Let's move on to health care on this one -another HUGE misconception.  All your TRUE rights only involve what YOU do -your ability to TALK, give your OPINION, publish your WRITINGS.  Exercise your FAITH, PRAY, ATTEND the organized religion of your choice etc etc etc.

Not a single TRUE right involves the services of another human being -because that would INSTANTLY make that person your SLAVE!  You have NO right to the SERVICES of another human being.  PERIOD.  End of discussion right there.  Since you have NO right to services of another human being, government is never obligated to PROVIDE those services to you at a reduced charge or for free.  Because insisting government must do this is a demand that government ENSLAVE OTHER CITIZENS for no reason but the fact they chose a different career from YOURS!  

Just because people have CHOSEN to over-value this particular service changes nothing -and it IS over-valued.  The creation of the artificial over-valuation of some service GUARANTEES you will pay FAR more for it INDIRECTLY than you would EVER agree to do if you just paid for it DIRECTLY!  But government itself is assisting in creating that artificial over-valuation!  And every demand that government make sure this particular service is GIVEN to you only worsens that over-valuation.  In the meantime, these demands are in reality a DEMAND that we PUNISH people who chose certain careers society has decided to over-value.   You aren't ENTITLED to the services of another human being and it isn't your RIGHT to demand it anyway.  The problem with health care is the artificial over-valuation of this service to the exclusion of all others.  With the apparently STUPID notion that it is NECESSARY to see all sorts of doctors in order to LIVE.  No, it isn't -and we don't make access to the things that really ARE necessary just to live a "right" anyway!  But with health care, only a tiny fraction of the people actually NEED the services of the medical profession in order to live.  

Government doesn't GIVE us the things we actually do need to just LIVE -food, protection from the elements in the form of clothing and housing.  Able bodied people are expected to PROVIDE that for themselves -and like it or not, the quality of the food we buy, the quality of the clothing and housing we buy is correlated to how much we are WILLING and ABLE to pay for it.  Government ONLY assists those who cannot provide these things for themselves -and they aren't GIVEN top drawer food and housing, are they?  They are given SUFFICIENT levels.  Health care is only a necessity for a small fraction of the people -but those demanding government enslave those who sell this service are PRETENDING it is one we ALL must have just to exist.  But it isn't -the vast majority of us could actually survive fine without EVER seeing a doctor.  We use the system in the belief it will improve the quality of our life -not to actually KEEP us alive.  You aren't ENTITLED to force others to improve the quality of your life and you have no RIGHT to demand government force others to do it.  You have a right to PURCHASE the service just as you do any other service whether it is trash collection or that in a beauty salon.  YOUR over-valuation of the service is YOUR problem but demand government make it the problem of those who made a career choice to work in it.  Even if it means making slaves of them.


----------



## abset (Oct 24, 2011)

health care is right aspect it become energize and remain healthy so aware health because health is all thing.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 24, 2011)

abset said:


> health care is right aspect it become energize and remain healthy so aware health because health is all thing.



What were you smoking when you posted this?


----------



## Listening (Nov 1, 2011)

A bump for the fact that Health Insurance and Health Care are not rights.


----------



## newpolitics (Nov 1, 2011)

Listening said:


> A bump for the fact that Health Insurance and Health Care are not rights.



so only those who have money should be able to go to the hospital? this is ridiculous. Health care is a right, because no one plans on being sick or getting hit by a bus, it just happens, and whether or not you get treated treated and how well should not depend on the size of your bank account. This is not car shopping. This is about the maximization of the one and only life (as far as we know) that we are given.


----------



## Full-Auto (Nov 2, 2011)

newpolitics said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > A bump for the fact that Health Insurance and Health Care are not rights.
> ...



Who do you intend to force to provide care?


----------



## BOBO (Nov 2, 2011)

...& healthcare from the DNC is then called a 'left'!  I say prohibit medical malpractice suits which will drop medical costs by roughly 40%!




Bern80 said:


> Why do I ask?  To me it seems to be the most fundamental part of why some advocate for universal health care and why some advocate for privatized healthcare.  Every candidate on the dem ticket has a plan of some type for of universal or government run healthcare.  So I have to think that most of them think it is a right.  By extension then people basically have the right to good health it would seem.
> 
> The problem I have with it being a right is the concept of a 'right' itself.  A 'right' like the right to free speech or right to bear arms is something that is provided you without any cost or requirment to obtain access to.  You don't have to earn the right to free speech or pay a fee when you want to speak.  The conundrum I have with healthcare is if it is your right, that is you are under no personal responsibility to provide it for yourself, then who's responsibility is it, and why?  If I'm not paying for the services somone else must be.  According to Hillary anyway that will be increased taxes on the rich.  But wait healthcare is a right, so why should the rich be expected to pay for it?  It's a right so isn't it suppossed to be free to them as well?  Why should they be worried about their own health as well as those that can't pay for it?
> 
> Rush had a caller on today who was a female physician and basically asked the same question.  Why is she, a provider of a service like any other service, expected to provide it a reduced rate or free all together?  You can't control all aspects of your health anymore than you can control all aspects of your car working, but we expect people to pay to have their own car fixed even if not responsible for the problem, yet some have this expectation that when 'shit happens' where your health is concerned it's suppossed to be free to get 'fixed'.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Nov 2, 2011)

BOBO said:


> ...& healthcare from the DNC is then called a 'left'!  *I say prohibit medical malpractice suits which will drop medical costs by roughly 40%!*
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> ...



You are not going to support that statement, are you?


----------



## Listening (Nov 2, 2011)

newpolitics said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > A bump for the fact that Health Insurance and Health Care are not rights.
> ...



Heath Care/Health Insurance is not a right.  It hasn't been for 200 years.  That is a fact.

Your three sentence argument does no justice to the issue.

If we were about maximizing life, we would make smoking and drinking illegal.  We would also outlaw rock climbing, motorcycles, and any other "dangerous" activity.  Our speed limits on the highways would be 25 MPH.

So, this argument does not fly.

Having said that, I believe we have a real issue in ths country with regard to access.  So  called "Obamacare" is not the answer however and it isn't even constitutional.


----------



## Listening (Nov 4, 2011)

A bump to see who really cares about the 10th amendment.


----------



## theHawk (Nov 5, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Why do I ask?  To me it seems to be the most fundamental part of why some advocate for universal health care and why some advocate for privatized healthcare.  Every candidate on the dem ticket has a plan of some type for of universal or government run healthcare.  So I have to think that most of them think it is a right.  By extension then people basically have the right to good health it would seem.
> 
> The problem I have with it being a right is the concept of a 'right' itself.  A 'right' like the right to free speech or right to bear arms is something that is provided you without any cost or requirment to obtain access to.  You don't have to earn the right to free speech or pay a fee when you want to speak.  The conundrum I have with healthcare is if it is your right, that is you are under no personal responsibility to provide it for yourself, then who's responsibility is it, and why?  If I'm not paying for the services somone else must be.  According to Hillary anyway that will be increased taxes on the rich.  But wait healthcare is a right, so why should the rich be expected to pay for it?  It's a right so isn't it suppossed to be free to them as well?  Why should they be worried about their own health as well as those that can't pay for it?
> 
> Rush had a caller on today who was a female physician and basically asked the same question.  Why is she, a provider of a service like any other service, expected to provide it a reduced rate or free all together?  You can't control all aspects of your health anymore than you can control all aspects of your car working, but we expect people to pay to have their own car fixed even if not responsible for the problem, yet some have this expectation that when 'shit happens' where your health is concerned it's suppossed to be free to get 'fixed'.



A"right" is simply an immunity from goverment persecution, at least from a constitutional standpoint.

Do people have a "right" to healthcare?  Sure, no one should be persecuted by the government for receiving or giving healthcare. 

So when liberals throw the term "right to healthcare", they are completely redefining the term.  They aren't talking about giving people immunity from government persecution, they are really talking about tax-payer funded health insurance for everyone. 

But this is what liberals do all the time, they take a phrase that no one can argue with, and redefine it.  Like them using the term "reproductive rights".  Who can argue that women don't have the right to reproduce!?  But of course the term is completely deceptive, because it really means the exact opposite, the right for a woman to kill her unborn baby on demand.


----------



## lizzie (Nov 28, 2011)

johnssimpsons said:


> Yes, health care is very right thing for everyone. Health is our wealth. If we are unhealthy and unfit then any work is not possible for me. We should take care of our health to remain healthy and happy in our life.


 
Not the same as "a right" to healthcare. Doctors don't make you healthy. *You* make *yourself* healthy by living a healthy lifestyle. You go to a doctor when you are sick in order to try and overcome an illness of some sort. 
The problem is that many Americans think they should be able to eat like pigs, smoke like stacks, drink like fish, and sit on their asses, and have the taxpayer pick up the tab for their own poor decisions.


----------



## Jackson (Nov 28, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Why do I ask?  To me it seems to be the most fundamental part of why some advocate for universal health care and why some advocate for privatized healthcare.  Every candidate on the dem ticket has a plan of some type for of universal or government run healthcare.  So I have to think that most of them think it is a right.  By extension then people basically have the right to good health it would seem.
> 
> The problem I have with it being a right is the concept of a 'right' itself.  A 'right' like the right to free speech or right to bear arms is something that is provided you without any cost or requirment to obtain access to.  You don't have to earn the right to free speech or pay a fee when you want to speak.  The conundrum I have with healthcare is if it is your right, that is you are under no personal responsibility to provide it for yourself, then who's responsibility is it, and why?  If I'm not paying for the services somone else must be.  According to Hillary anyway that will be increased taxes on the rich.  But wait healthcare is a right, so why should the rich be expected to pay for it?  It's a right so isn't it suppossed to be free to them as well?  Why should they be worried about their own health as well as those that can't pay for it?
> 
> Rush had a caller on today who was a female physician and basically asked the same question.  Why is she, a provider of a service like any other service, expected to provide it a reduced rate or free all together?  You can't control all aspects of your health anymore than you can control all aspects of your car working, but we expect people to pay to have their own car fixed even if not responsible for the problem, yet some have this expectation that when 'shit happens' where your health is concerned it's suppossed to be free to get 'fixed'.



  You have nailed it.  Your explanation of a "right" and "personal responsibility" is well taken.

I happen to think if this reform ever took full effect, it wouldn't be long before we had severe doctor shortages.


----------



## Listening (Nov 29, 2011)

A bump for our "constitutional scholar" president and his using the USC to wipe his ass.

The only problem is that the RNC and federal republicans have been holding the door for him.


----------



## deaddogseye (Nov 29, 2011)

Clearly it is not a right. It may be essential and a fundamental need but it is not a right conceptually. It is a service that must be provided by someone else (at least in the vast majority of instances) so in that sense it is not a fundamental human right (as opposed, for example to a legal right like the right to counsel that a court can mandate). The ability to speak freely is a right; the ability to worship freely is a right and so on. Helath care is a service and there is no more fundamental human right to it than there is to owning a car, even if it is more important.


----------



## lizzie (Nov 29, 2011)

newpolitics said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > A bump for the fact that Health Insurance and Health Care are not rights.
> ...


 
Anyone can go to a hospital, and if there is an emergency, will be treated. Health care is not a right, it's a product. It's not my responsibility to maximize your life- it's your responsibility to maximize your own life if you are willing to do so.


----------



## Listening (Nov 29, 2011)

mepokerdude said:


> Of course it's a right.
> You can't pursue anything, including hapiness, without it -so why wouldn't it be a right guaranteed by the Constitution?



How stupid was that ?

People has been pursuing happiness for hundreds of years without health insurance.

What a moron.


----------



## Sactowndog (Nov 29, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Why do I ask?  To me it seems to be the most fundamental part of why some advocate for universal health care and why some advocate for privatized healthcare.  Every candidate on the dem ticket has a plan of some type for of universal or government run healthcare.  So I have to think that most of them think it is a right.  By extension then people basically have the right to good health it would seem.



Haven't we already decided this and I am not talking about ObamaCare!

If you walk into an emergency room or you are in an accident you are treated whether you can pay or not.  Since many can't we end up paying for it anyway.  If someone goes into a diabetic coma and needs to be institutionalized we pay for it.  

Basically, we chose to pay already but we chose very poorly and reactively.  Basically we are hamstrung by the hypocricsy of Southern Republicans from a place where hypocrisy is an art form.

We could be so much smarter?  Take all the money we spend in unfunded mandates and in ridiculous over the top end of life care for the elderly and put it into preventative care


----------



## Sactowndog (Nov 30, 2011)

Diuretic said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > That's getting to it I suppose.  So why do you think we ought to?  Why is a society that simply provides things to people with no expectation of responsibility better than a society that ask its citizenry to have a level of responsibility to provide for it's own well being?
> ...



Isn't this a ridiculously black and white question?  

Rush is an idiot and choses to ignore the fact that we already provide free health care for a huge chunck of society and those who have the most ability to be independent in their choices (the elderly) are the least penalized.  As long we we mandate emergency rooms take all comers we provide free health care.

It is equally true however, that we can't do everything.  So the question isn't do we provide fee healthcare, the question is how do we ration our scarce dollars.


----------



## Wiseacre (Nov 30, 2011)

Sactowndog said:


> Diuretic said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...




An even better question is how can we keep HC costs down?   And for the record I don't think HC is a right, it's a service that you pay for if you want it.


----------



## Sactowndog (Nov 30, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Diuretic said:
> 
> 
> > And part of that response I think is the problem.  We don't dig far enough to uncover the real issue.  I prof I once had introduced to the concept of the five whys.  The theory being that when tackling a problem you usually have to ask the question 'why' at least five times in order to really identify a problem.  So why do we think there is a problem with our healthcare industry in the first place? It isn't because of a quality of care issue, the U.S. is probably the best in the world in terms of technology, physicians and resources.  The reason I think that we have a 'problem' with the healthcare industry is because it is so expensive.  I think that's the real issue.  We (as a nation) probably wouldn't be haveing this discussion as to rights or who should pay for it, etc., if the cost of a kidney transplant was $5.
> ...


----------



## Sactowndog (Nov 30, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> > Diuretic said:
> ...



I would agree but I think you have to start by acknowledging (via 5 questions) that health care costs are high because we depend on a market based system where supply and demand doesn't/can't work.  If you disagree then tell me how much you childs life is worth because a demand curve requires you to have a number.

Once you acknowlege that truth you can begin to build a system.


----------



## Wiseacre (Nov 30, 2011)

Sactowndog said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > Sactowndog said:
> ...




Supply and demand could work to hold down costs if the gov't didn't intervene.      Unfortunately, that's not the case, we have price controls and we do not allow free and open competition for HC services in most states.

As you no doubt know, a child's life is priceless and you would do well to eschew the theatrics and stick to the reality of the situation.   Which is that we don't have enough providers;  gov't run HC is not going to address either the rising costs or the shortage of providers.   Maybe you should read up on what's going on in Massachusetts.

Meanwhile, check this out:

"Obama has nominated Henry J. Aaron to head the Social Security Advisory Board, a panel that advises the president and Congress about the old age system. The choice is most dangerous, since Aaron has a decades-long record as an advocate of denying American patients health care along the lines of the British national health system.

Aaron, a Brookings Institution scholar, has devoted his entire career to creating an intellectual and economic basis for health care rationing. In 2000, Aaron wrote, The problem is that in the real world of limited medical resources, denial of beneficial care is inescapable. Aaron wrote in a 2009 paper it is necessary for the government to develop protocols that enable providers to identify in advance patients in whom expected benefits of treatment are lower than costs [and] to design incentives that encourage providers to act on those protocols. That is, government must provide incentives to assure doctors deny treatment to those whom the ruling class deems unworthy of life


----------



## lizzie (Nov 30, 2011)

Sactowndog said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > Sactowndog said:
> ...


 
Health care costs are high because of government intervention in the free market. When congress passed legislation requiring insurance companies to provide comprehensive coverage, regardless of the market demand, and individuals stopped having to pay for their drugs and physician office visits, the cost controls which were formerly provided by market competition were driven out.


----------



## Greenbeard (Nov 30, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> Aaron, a Brookings Institution scholar, has devoted his entire career to creating an intellectual and economic basis for health care rationing. In 2000, Aaron wrote, The problem is that in the real world of limited medical resources, denial of beneficial care is inescapable. Aaron wrote in a 2009 paper it is necessary for the government to develop protocols that enable providers to identify in advance patients in whom expected benefits of treatment are lower than costs [and] to design incentives that encourage providers to act on those protocols. That is, government must provide incentives to assure doctors deny treatment to those whom the ruling class deems unworthy of life



Brought to you by the same idiots who turned this guy, the intellectual godfather of the quality improvement movement, into Dr. Mengele.



> Back in the 1980s, Berwick was a pediatrician at the Kenmore Center of the Harvard Community Health Plan in Boston, and in charge of "quality assurance" for the plan. His intellectual curiosity led him to wonder how non-medical parts of U.S. society addressed quality, a heretical notion in the snobby, clubby world of organized U.S. medicine.
> 
> In his search, Berwick stumbled onto a fast moving and worldwide intellectual revolution in industry and manufacturing. A key thought leader was another former heretic named W. Edwards Deming who taught the Japanese in the 1950s and the US in the 1970s and '80s that the path to economic success required a relentless focus on customer satisfaction and quality improvement, and that better quality -- doing the right thing and doing it right -- was a way to save money by eliminating rework. The term of art was "total quality management."
> 
> ...


----------



## Sactowndog (Nov 30, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> *Supply and demand could work to hold down costs *if the gov't didn't intervene.      Unfortunately, that's not the case, we have price controls and we do not allow free and open competition for HC services in most states.
> 
> As you no doubt know, *a child's life is priceless *and you would do well to eschew the theatrics and stick to the reality of the situation.



It is not theatrics at all.   The two statements are by definition mutally exclusive for anyone who has spent anytime studying Macro economics...

A childs life (or a parents) is priceless 
and 
supply and demand could work

Just like it is a big lie that "healthcare is a right" among liberals it is an equally big lie that "the market will work" among conservatives.


----------



## lizzie (Nov 30, 2011)

Sactowndog said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > *Supply and demand could work to hold down costs *if the gov't didn't intervene. Unfortunately, that's not the case, we have price controls and we do not allow free and open competition for HC services in most states.
> ...


 
The market was working prior to HMO's and comprehensive coverage. It used to be the case that insurance was just that: insurance if something catastrophic happened. People paid for physician office visits, thus prices were affordable due to market forces. Same with drugs. If I didn't like Dr A, I could go to Dr B. This created competition for business.


----------



## Sactowndog (Nov 30, 2011)

lizzie said:


> Health care costs are high because of government intervention in the free market. When congress passed legislation requiring insurance companies to provide comprehensive coverage, regardless of the market demand, and individuals stopped having to pay for their drugs and physician office visits, the cost controls which were formerly provided by market competition were driven out.



There is no market in much of health care.  If you think there is you should have failed Macro Economics....

Let me spell it out again since you apparently missed it last time....

Markets require supply and demand curves...

Demand Curves are based on the notion of Diminishing Utility.  Diminishing Utility is why demand falls as price rises. 

Diminishing Utility doesn't exist for much of health care.  If a child or parent is seriously sick varying the cost doesn't change the demand for the item.   No one will sacrafice the life of their child no matter how you vary the price. 

The demand curve is a straight vertical line and the only that constrains prices is the conscious of the suppliers.  Lately as health care has gone corporate that conscious is in short supply.


Where demands curves do exist in health care they function poorly.  

Demand curves work best where you are buying a product.  The benefit is immediately tangible. 

Demand curves work less well where the benefit being bought is unclear such as reducing risk in the future.  It is even worse when the consumer believes the government will eliminate that risk by forcing Hospitals to accept all patients regardless of ability to pay.  

As a result people skip preventative care and neo-natal care they should be getting because of poor market dynamics.

*Quite possibly a pure market based system might be the worst possible way to deliver health care.*


----------



## Wiseacre (Nov 30, 2011)

Sactowndog said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > *Supply and demand could work to hold down costs *if the gov't didn't intervene.      Unfortunately, that's not the case, we have price controls and we do not allow free and open competition for HC services in most states.
> ...




When you start talking about a child's life, you're bringing emotionalism into what should be an intellectual discussion.   Maybe it's time for you to face reality;  which is that no matter which way we go, we cannot save every child's life.   We don't have enough providers and we can't afford it.   That is the reality dude, we don't have the money and sooner or later we go bankrupt and no amount of increased taxes on rich people can change that.

The question boils down to whether the free market can do a better job of holding down HC costs than the gov't can.   Which way can provide the best and most care, which one avoids rationing the most.   You say gov't, I say free market.   You say the free market hasn't done so well up to now, I say fix it then.   You say the gov't can do a better job, I say the gov't couldn't effectively run a nickle lemonade stand.   You say that price controls will work tohold down costs, I say you're out of your mind, price controls have NEVER worked to do that.


----------



## Sactowndog (Nov 30, 2011)

lizzie said:


> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...


----------



## Sactowndog (Nov 30, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> When you start talking about a child's life, you're bringing emotionalism into what should be an intellectual discussion.   Maybe it's time for you to face reality;  which is that no matter which way we go, we cannot save every child's life.   We don't have enough providers and we can't afford it.   That is the reality dude, we don't have the money and sooner or later we go bankrupt and no amount of increased taxes on rich people can change that.
> 
> The question boils down to whether the free market can do a better job of holding down HC costs than the gov't can.   Which way can provide the best and most care, which one avoids rationing the most.   You say gov't, I say free market.   You say the free market hasn't done so well up to now, I say fix it then.   You say the gov't can do a better job, I say the gov't couldn't effectively run a nickle lemonade stand.   You say that price controls will work tohold down costs, I say you're out of your mind, price controls have NEVER worked to do that.



So you just ignore the point and spew your dogma I guess.   

There is nothing emotional about it at all.  It is purely an factual understanding of demand curves and how they work.  I don't give a damm if we save any childs life, the point is those who do have a child at risk will spend any amount.  You can't have a market under those conditions.

Also in my post I never said government provide it or provide price controls.  I only pointed out those who claim a pure free market is the best approach either never took or should have failed macro economics.


----------



## Wiseacre (Nov 30, 2011)

Sactowndog said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > When you start talking about a child's life, you're bringing emotionalism into what should be an intellectual discussion.   Maybe it's time for you to face reality;  which is that no matter which way we go, we cannot save every child's life.   We don't have enough providers and we can't afford it.   That is the reality dude, we don't have the money and sooner or later we go bankrupt and no amount of increased taxes on rich people can change that.
> ...




You have pretty strong statements against the free market approach, but provided nothing to support your contention.   "Spew your dogma I guess", usually that signifies a weak argument that resorts to an attempt to marginalize the other pov.   Guess I assumed that since you are so anti free market that your solution must be pro gov't.   Or do you even have a solution?   

So tell me, mister macro economics expert, why is the free market not the best approach?   You gonna tell me about how bad it's been up to now?   What, we can't do better with it?    What's a better approach then?


----------



## lizzie (Nov 30, 2011)

Sactowndog said:


> There is no market in much of health care. If you think there is you should have failed Macro Economics....
> 
> Let me spell it out again since you apparently missed it last time....
> 
> ...


 
There used to be a market demand.


----------



## Sactowndog (Nov 30, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> *You have pretty strong statements against the free market approach, but provided nothing to support your contention. *  "Spew your dogma I guess", usually that signifies a weak argument that resorts to an attempt to marginalize the other pov.   Guess I assumed that since you are so anti free market that your solution must be pro gov't.   Or do you even have a solution?
> 
> So tell me, mister macro economics expert, why is the free market not the best approach?   You gonna tell me about how bad it's been up to now?   What, we can't do better with it?    What's a better approach then?



I provide nothing to support my contention?   

Have you ever taken a Economics class in your life?  Do you have understand the mechanisms of supply and demand beyond what you hear on Rush?

If you want to address the root of the argument which is diminishing utility or perhaps you recall it as marginal utility does in fact exist I would be happy to listen to your argument.

You ask me to tell you why a free market approach is not the best approach.  Is that because you didn't understand it the first 5 times or are you just belligerent?

Since you can't follow my explanation here is a link on Diminishing Marginal Utility.  Read it and then perhaps you can tell me how you think it applies to health care.

http://www.amosweb.com/cgi-bin/awb_nav.pls=wpd&c=dsp&k=marginal+utility+and+demand


----------



## Sactowndog (Dec 1, 2011)

lizzie said:


> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> > *Quite possibly a pure market based system might be the worst possible way to deliver health care.*
> ...



I don't think so.  

Health care prices were constrained by a sense of propriety not by market demand.  It was also constrained by their was just less you could do to keep someone alive.  You couldn't spend $500,000 keeping someone alive not because you didn't want to but because they died long before that point.

Executive compensation used to be reasonable relative to other peoples salaries.  Demand for Chief Executives was no less great in the 40's or 50's than now.  But the sense of propriety among our business leaders has changed greatly.  That difference and your ability to keep people alive longer is what has changed not the shape of the demand curve.

As the Chief said a childs life is priceless.  It was no less so in the 50's.


----------



## Sactowndog (Dec 1, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> So tell me, mister macro economics expert, why is the free market not the best approach?   You gonna tell me about how bad it's been up to now?   What, we can't do better with it?    What's a better approach then?



I don't have a better approach at this point.  And even if I did that is not the point of my post.  The point of the post is we will never solve this health care problem until both sides give up their cherished lies.

Lie on the left:  Healthcare is a right
Lie on the right:  Market forces will solve the problem

Both are equally false


----------



## Listening (Dec 1, 2011)

Sactowndog said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > So tell me, mister macro economics expert, why is the free market not the best approach?   You gonna tell me about how bad it's been up to now?   What, we can't do better with it?    What's a better approach then?
> ...



Not really.

The left is mistaken in call it a right.  But I believe the argument is a misuese of words by many.  What I think the left believes is that it is a social responsibility.  In that regard, we should be talking.

The right believes  that market forces will solve the problem.  That is true.  If the problem is that people don't have access to the health care they are willing to pay for.  That is much different than being able to afford it.

Would I sell my house to pay for cancer treatment.  Should I have to ?

I think the conversation starts (and ends) with defining what it is that we feel are the social obligations we have to individuals with regards to health care.  In other words, how much health care is enough ?  Or even what is health care ?

Is health care giving chemo to a 50 year smoker with stage 4 lung cancer ?

Is health care giving hip replacements to fat people who don't take care of themselves ?

All of this has to be discussed and agreed to.  Once that happens, I think the solutions become pretty straightforward.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 1, 2011)

Sactowndog said:


> lizzie said:
> 
> 
> > Health care costs are high because of government intervention in the free market. When congress passed legislation requiring insurance companies to provide comprehensive coverage, regardless of the market demand, and individuals stopped having to pay for their drugs and physician office visits, the cost controls which were formerly provided by market competition were driven out.
> ...



That theory isn't exactly true. It rests on the premise that since no one would sacrifice their life or child's life for cost, there is no diminishing utility. That premise isn't accurate. It isnt' reality. Our medical system isnt' treating only life threatening issues. It isn't even treating mostly life threatening issues. Since for most medical issues people's lives are in fact NOT at stake they would be in a position to shop for care.


----------



## Listening (Dec 1, 2011)

Sactowndog said:


> *Quite possibly a pure market based system might be the worst possible way to deliver health care.*



Quite simply, it depends upon what the goals for the program are.

Once you can agree on goals and objectives....the delivery vehicle becomes pretty evident.


----------



## Listening (Dec 1, 2011)

One thing that history has shown us is that government pretty much screws up everything it touches.

Kinda like Midas....only it turns to crap.


----------



## Sactowndog (Dec 1, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> That theory isn't exactly true. It rests on the premise that since no one would sacrifice their life or child's life for cost, there is no diminishing utility. That premise isn't accurate. It isnt' reality. Our medical system isnt' treating only life threatening issues. It isn't even treating mostly life threatening issues. Since for most medical issues people's lives are in fact NOT at stake they would be in a position to shop for care.




Bern, you are correct that portions of the medical field are discretionary and would not be subject to life threatening or other high impact issues.  It would be fair to say the premise is not accurate in this case but I have highlighted other market issues that cause people to skip preventative care or prenatal care because the poor linkage between costs and benefits.  Really the only portion of the medical field that works well with market dynamics is cosmetic surgury which has an immediate cost and an immediate benefit.

However much of the cost in medicine occurs in the final stages where life threatening issues are at play and where if left to the individual demand curves go vertical. The premise completely holds in this scenario and unfortunately this is where most of the costs reside.


----------



## Sactowndog (Dec 1, 2011)

> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Not really.
> ...


----------



## Sactowndog (Dec 1, 2011)

Listening said:


> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> > *Quite possibly a pure market based system might be the worst possible way to deliver health care.*
> ...



Yes but it will fail if you assume you have a functioning demand curve when in fact that is not the case for the part of the health care market where most of the costs lie.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 1, 2011)

Sactowndog said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > That theory isn't exactly true. It rests on the premise that since no one would sacrifice their life or child's life for cost, there is no diminishing utility. That premise isn't accurate. It isnt' reality. Our medical system isnt' treating only life threatening issues. It isn't even treating mostly life threatening issues. Since for most medical issues people's lives are in fact NOT at stake they would be in a position to shop for care.
> ...



And the problem I have with that theory is what we are being told the problem is. You are contending it seems that costs of goods and services would not change even if the market was free. Yet what are we being told by the proponents of Obamacare. We are being told that the problem essentially is, if not but for cost more people would get the care they needed. Now look at that problem from the hospital side of things. You have a group of people that supposedly want to use your service, but can not because of what it costs. So what does a business have to do. Somehow they have to figure out a way to make their product mroe affordable for people say they can actually buy it. But there isn't any incentive to do that right now, because the money to purchase the service isn't coming from the person consuming it, it's coming from insurance companies or the government, thus there is no incentive for the business to cater to the consumer because it isn't going to change where the money comes from.


----------



## Listening (Dec 1, 2011)

Sactowndog said:


> For critical care it is not true.  Market forces require working supply and demand and demand curves are vertical in this case.



I don't fully agree with this either.  Even the term critical care is something that can be broken down.

However, in general, I understand where you are going with this.  Again, it needs to be part of an overall discussion about the goals of health care.

You won't put an emergency room in a place where the demand won't support it.  As you move closer to a place where it will, the demand curve changes.  But, just what represents demand is a subject for debate.


----------



## Wiseacre (Dec 1, 2011)

lizzie said:


> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> > There is no market in much of health care. If you think there is you should have failed Macro Economics....
> ...




Where Sacdog's argument goes off the rails is his misunderstanding of how competition in a free market works.   The beauty of the free market for ANY product or service is competition;   if you've got a sick kid you're not stuck with one provider, and you are not forced to pay any price.   On the contrary, you can shop around for varuous providers and make a choice.   CHOICE.   That is why he is dead wrong about free market systems.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 1, 2011)

mepokerdude said:


> Of course it's a right.
> You can't pursue anything, including hapiness, without it -so why wouldn't it be a right guaranteed by the Constitution?



Because people with health problems are never happy?

Our country tries to guarantee you the right to pursue happiness.  Nowhere has it EVER tried to guarantee you the tools to do so.  That's up to you.  Or, to put it another way, acquiring and securing the tools to pursue happiness is part of the pursuit of happiness.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 1, 2011)

Sactowndog said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > Sactowndog said:
> ...



No, healthcare is so expensive because we DON'T depend on a market-based system.  Instead, we have a system in which the government has interfered and created a giant muddle.  The consumers are not the payers, which creates no incentive whatsoever for the consumer to shop for the best deal OR to ration himself, nor any particular incentive for the suppliers to keep costs down.  Prices are set according to motivating factors that have nothing to do with the market basics of supply and demand.  None of this is "market-based".


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 1, 2011)

lizzie said:


> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...



The market still DOES work in the case of medical care that isn't typically covered by insurance, but is paid for out of the patient's pocket.  Look at any procedure or product not normally covered by medical insurance or government programs:  cosmetic surgery, laser eye surgery, bariatric surgery, you name it.  When they first come out, they're expensive because very few people are qualified to supply them.  The niche market rapidly gets filled with suppliers looking to cash in, and the price plunges.  And then, frequently, the government mandates that insurance companies have to start covering it, and BOOM!  The price takes a small jump up and stays there, unless a new competitor hits the market and makes it obsolete.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 1, 2011)

Sactowndog said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > When you start talking about a child's life, you're bringing emotionalism into what should be an intellectual discussion.   Maybe it's time for you to face reality;  which is that no matter which way we go, we cannot save every child's life.   We don't have enough providers and we can't afford it.   That is the reality dude, we don't have the money and sooner or later we go bankrupt and no amount of increased taxes on rich people can change that.
> ...



Several problems here.  First of all, the vast majority of healthcare is NOT some TV-melodrama race to save a child's life.  Most of it is pretty fucking mundane.  Second of all, people with children WILL typically spend anything to save the child, and that's fine.  THEY should.  But the reality, hard and cold, is that they should be spending THEIR money, not the money of people who don't know them or the kid.  I'm very sorry that their child is sick, but I have my own children to care for.  

And all markets have extreme ends in both directions.  The existence of those extremes does not negate the existence of the market itself.  A person who is on the verge of starving to death will pay anything for a loaf of bread, but that doesn't mean that food production and distribution is not an economic market.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 1, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> > lizzie said:
> ...



Also, many people in a situation of life-threatening illness DO decide to just quit trying to fight it off, due to the law of diminishing returns.  Like any economic decision, people in those situations DO calculate the costs - and not just the financial ones, but those too - against the likelihood of success, and many of them opt instead to simply enjoy what time they have left.

When you get right down to it, ALL decisions in life are economics.  Even medical ones.


----------



## Listening (Dec 1, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Also, many people in a situation of life-threatening illness DO decide to just quit trying to fight it off, due to the law of diminishing returns.  Like any economic decision, people in those situations DO calculate the costs - and not just the financial ones, but those too - against the likelihood of success, and many of them opt instead to simply enjoy what time they have left.
> 
> When you get right down to it, ALL decisions in life are economics.  Even medical ones.



Great post !

That is why I like the idea of specific social security accounts where your principle is passed on to others.

One thing we could do in a health care situation like medicare is say "well, you are 85 and have stage 4 lung cancer....we are not paying for your chemo (but we will give you palative care).  You could opt to pay for it yourself knowing that the 100 grand you might spend would otherwise go into your childrens SS accounts and either allow them to reduce contributions or give them a bigger balance.

I suggest to liberals and they are aghast at the idea.  I agree with you....it pretty much all comes down to econcomics and choice.  Why should you and your kids have to pay for my desire to spend a lot of money on a situation with low probability of success ?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 1, 2011)

Listening said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Also, many people in a situation of life-threatening illness DO decide to just quit trying to fight it off, due to the law of diminishing returns.  Like any economic decision, people in those situations DO calculate the costs - and not just the financial ones, but those too - against the likelihood of success, and many of them opt instead to simply enjoy what time they have left.
> ...



Exactly!  Many people in that situation DO decide not to spend their money on what is likely a fruitless battle against death, and opt to spend the time and money instead enjoying what's left of their life.  And there's nothing wrong with that.  "Life at all costs" is only a universal good in the movies.


----------



## Rozman (Dec 1, 2011)

Let's take it a step further...where does it end...

Is employment a right?
Is housing a right?
Is food to feed oneself a right?
Is clothing a right?

If people want this as a priority and want government tom pick up the tab say so
those that can't get healthcare on their own or through an employer should have to 
pay something extra in taxes to the government to get put into some sort of health care system.
Those that have healthcare should not be dragged into this.


----------



## Sactowndog (Dec 1, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> Where Sacdog's argument goes off the rails is his misunderstanding of how competition in a free market works.   The beauty of the free market for ANY product or service is competition;   if you've got a sick kid you're not stuck with one provider, and you are not forced to pay any price.   On the contrary, you can shop around for varuous providers and make a choice.   CHOICE.   That is why he is dead wrong about free market systems.



Choice is a fair criticism let me address it.  I see two issues in rebuttal:

1) patents:  many medical treatments are protected by patents and while you may have choice (to stretch a point to make a point) you aren't going to chose the treatment with 40% of success over the new treatment with 90% chance.  Generally in a case like this the whole market moves.  It isn't like we are buying cars here

2) knowledge:  Choice requires knowledge to make choices.  The medical market is famously opaque and outcomes data is hard to come by.  Do you know which of your local hospitals have had the highest rate of Mersa?  Part of ObamaCare is to improve knowlege so people can make choices.  In addition, choice required time to research your options which you often may not have in a critical care situation.  Who plans to have a heart attack and tells the ER doc, assuming they can speak, I want that brand of stents.


----------



## Sactowndog (Dec 1, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> The market still DOES work in the case of medical care that isn't typically covered by insurance, but is paid for out of the patient's pocket.  Look at any procedure or product not normally covered by medical insurance or government programs:  cosmetic surgery, laser eye surgery, bariatric surgery, you name it.  When they first come out, they're expensive because very few people are qualified to supply them.  The niche market rapidly gets filled with suppliers looking to cash in, and the price plunges.  And then, frequently, the government mandates that insurance companies have to start covering it, and BOOM!  The price takes a small jump up and stays there, unless a new competitor hits the market and makes it obsolete.



Your are citing elective procedures and even more to the point I made earlier, discretionary procedures where immediate results are apparent.  Yes these work very well with market based rules 

You are missing the entire point of the discussion which is for non-elective and more importantly potentially life threatening non-elective procedures the demand curve goes vertical.  If you have a vertical demand curve supply and demand doesn't work.


----------



## Sactowndog (Dec 1, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Also, many people in a situation of life-threatening illness DO decide to just quit trying to fight it off, due to the law of diminishing returns.  Like any economic decision, people in those situations DO calculate the costs - and not just the financial ones, but those too - against the likelihood of success, and many of them opt instead to simply enjoy what time they have left.
> 
> When you get right down to it, ALL decisions in life are economics.  Even medical ones.



In some cases yes where they make the decision personnally that can be the case.  Certainly this is done more so when a person is elderly.  

So ALL decisions are economic... Okay do you have kids?  If all decisions are economic tell what you childs life is worth?  If your statement is true you should be able to name a price.


----------



## Listening (Dec 1, 2011)

Sactowndog said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Also, many people in a situation of life-threatening illness DO decide to just quit trying to fight it off, due to the law of diminishing returns.  Like any economic decision, people in those situations DO calculate the costs - and not just the financial ones, but those too - against the likelihood of success, and many of them opt instead to simply enjoy what time they have left.
> ...



$250,000...that is what my insurance will pay.


----------



## Listening (Dec 1, 2011)

Can we get back to the question of whether or not health care is right.


----------



## dblack (Dec 1, 2011)

Listening said:


> Can we get back to the question of whether or not health care is right.



I can only assume it's already been brought up in this very long thread, but trying to claim a service that someone else provides a political 'right' is incoherent. Essentially the question boils down to: do you have the 'right' to force someone else to provide health care for you? If we accept such a conception of a right (the right to force others to your will) we'll undermine the entire concept of political rights and create government that becomes the bully, rather than protects us from the bully.


----------



## Wiseacre (Dec 1, 2011)

Sactowndog said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > Where Sacdog's argument goes off the rails is his misunderstanding of how competition in a free market works.   The beauty of the free market for ANY product or service is competition;   if you've got a sick kid you're not stuck with one provider, and you are not forced to pay any price.   On the contrary, you can shop around for varuous providers and make a choice.   CHOICE.   That is why he is dead wrong about free market systems.
> ...




If you have a free and open market then it's hard to believe the 40% treatment could exist for very long.   Nobody will choose it, unless it's super cheap.   Kinda depends on the circumstances, an older person like me might take the 40% chance to save my wife or my kids a lot of money.   But here's the deal:  if you promote competition, then you should have more providers offering the 90% solution at the lowest price they can to get your business.   That's the real value of the free market.

Knowledge should be available no matter what economic model you choose, free market or gov't run or anything else.   I'd say we should improve that anyway.   Nothing wrong with creating a real time database that doctors can tap into from anywhere and get your medical records if you give them a security ocde or something to protect your privacy.

Let me say this, the free market option is not close to perfect, but I don't think anything else is either.   No matter what, we've got a shortage of providers and some people are going to go without adequate care.


----------



## Listening (Dec 1, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> Let me say this, the free market option is not close to perfect, but I don't think anything else is either.   No matter what, we've got a shortage of providers and some people are going to go without adequate care.



Why do all providers have to be regulated by the AMA ?

What gives them the right to control supply ?

I'd gladly go to a practical doctor who is working off of experience only for something like a cold.  He can look at my throat and in my ears just as easily as my doctor can.

And, I suspect he can give me a good prescription too.

I'll take my chances.  So, for those of you who have to have a board certified, grade A, college educated doctor....you can pay for it.  Because he isn't going to work as cheap as my practical doctor will.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to express my desire to see all you NRA types take out the blood sucking leaches we call litigation attorneys.  If I am on your jury...you will walk.


----------



## Wiseacre (Dec 1, 2011)

Listening said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > Let me say this, the free market option is not close to perfect, but I don't think anything else is either.   No matter what, we've got a shortage of providers and some people are going to go without adequate care.
> ...



Not sure what you mean by a "practical doctor".   But I ain't letting some a-hole kid that doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground treating my wife or kids.   He/she damn well better be board certified, grade A, college educated, cuz if he isn't and somebody gets fucked up, we're gonna have a problem.


----------



## dblack (Dec 1, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> Not sure what you mean by a "practical doctor".   But I ain't letting some a-hole kid that doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground treating my wife or kids.   He/she damn well better be board certified, grade A, college educated, cuz if he isn't and somebody gets fucked up, we're gonna have a problem.



Under no circumstances should you be forced to go to a doctor you don't trust. But should other people be allowed to go to that doctor? That's really the question, isn't it?


----------



## Wiseacre (Dec 1, 2011)

dblack said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure what you mean by a "practical doctor".   But I ain't letting some a-hole kid that doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground treating my wife or kids.   He/she damn well better be board certified, grade A, college educated, cuz if he isn't and somebody gets fucked up, we're gonna have a problem.
> ...




If they trust that doctor, why not?

The AMA is supposed to regulate itself, but does a poor job of it.   Much as I detest big gov't, we might need some gov't oversight here.   Misconduct, malpractices, anything unethical or unprofessional oughta be tracked and repeat offenders should lose their license.   So if there's a good reason not to trust the doctor then everyone should know why.


----------



## Sactowndog (Dec 2, 2011)

dblack said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Can we get back to the question of whether or not health care is right.
> ...



Yeah 40 some odd pages pretty much flattent that cat.... 

Here is the summary...  not a right, it is a service and one we can't afford at current rates....


----------



## Sactowndog (Dec 2, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> > If you have a free and open market then it's hard to believe the 40% treatment could exist for very long.   Nobody will choose it, unless it's super cheap.   Kinda depends on the circumstances, an older person like me might take the 40% chance to save my wife or my kids a lot of money.   But here's the deal:  if you promote competition, then you should have more providers offering the 90% solution at the lowest price they can to get your business.   That's the real value of the free market.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Sactowndog (Dec 2, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...



This is the same guy who said is kid is worth 250K.  I think that speaks volumes.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Dec 2, 2011)

Hypothetical question:

If the United States were forced to adopt the health care system of any other nation, which would YOU choose?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 2, 2011)

Sactowndog said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > Where Sacdog's argument goes off the rails is his misunderstanding of how competition in a free market works.   The beauty of the free market for ANY product or service is competition;   if you've got a sick kid you're not stuck with one provider, and you are not forced to pay any price.   On the contrary, you can shop around for varuous providers and make a choice.   CHOICE.   That is why he is dead wrong about free market systems.
> ...



Oh?  So there are no other essential items in the world about which people choose to spend more money to get a vastly better product?



Sactowndog said:


> 2) knowledge:  Choice requires knowledge to make choices.  The medical market is famously opaque and outcomes data is hard to come by.  Do you know which of your local hospitals have had the highest rate of Mersa?  Part of ObamaCare is to improve knowlege so people can make choices.  In addition, choice required time to research your options which you often may not have in a critical care situation.  Who plans to have a heart attack and tells the ER doc, assuming they can speak, I want that brand of stents.



And there are no other products in the world about which consumers are less-than-fully-informed?  Do you know which slaughterhouse your meat even came from, let alone which one has the highest rate of food poisoning?  How about the supermarket you buy the meat from?

And most people choose their medical provider long before they're in a "critical care situation".

And "that brand of stents"?  Really?  You really think the issue here is that most people aren't doctors themselves, and that ANYTHING is going to change that?  Or are you just trying to say that BECAUSE most people aren't doctors, that means that healthcare isn't a market?

You choose your doctor and your hospital, and you trust them to give you the best advice from their expert medical opinion . . . the same way you do any service you ever have to buy from a professional because you don't have the expertise to do it yourself.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 2, 2011)

Sactowndog said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Also, many people in a situation of life-threatening illness DO decide to just quit trying to fight it off, due to the law of diminishing returns.  Like any economic decision, people in those situations DO calculate the costs - and not just the financial ones, but those too - against the likelihood of success, and many of them opt instead to simply enjoy what time they have left.
> ...



Don't give me that nitpicky "It's not true if you can't produce a specific number" horseshit.  First of all, economics isn't just about money, and if you HAD taken all these economic courses that you keep telling everyone ELSE they should have had, you'd know that.  Second of all, I don't waste time trying to quantify imponderables in hypothetical situations.  I leave that sort of fool's game to the fools.  Knock yourself out.

If my child had a life-threatening illness, I would be making the EXACT same sorts of judgement there as I would if I were the one with the illness:  How likely is this treatment to truly help?  How miserable is it going to make him?  Is it worth spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and tying up what are probably the last days of his life with pain and hospitals for only a 20% chance, or would it be better to let him spend that time happy and pain-free and maybe going to Disneyworld?

If you don't think parents make those tough calculations the same as people who are themselves deathly ill, you know even less about parenting than you do about economics.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 2, 2011)

dblack said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Can we get back to the question of whether or not health care is right.
> ...



Yeah, it's been brought up, and these greedy chickenshit liberals refuse to address it.  They just keep babbling about how "It's for the children!"  I have very little patience with poltroons who use children as human shields to protect themselves.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 2, 2011)

Sactowndog said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



First of all, who's "we", Sparkles?  Second of all, what is it about more of the same thing that CAUSED the high prices that's supposed to FIX them?


----------



## Listening (Dec 2, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> Not sure what you mean by a "practical doctor".   But I ain't letting some a-hole kid that doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground treating my wife or kids.   He/she damn well better be board certified, grade A, college educated, cuz if he isn't and somebody gets fucked up, we're gonna have a problem.



And that is your right.  And you will pay for it too.

What I mean is someone I trust who maybe hasn't been through all the red tape (which I find more and more useless as I come more and more to understand just what it exists for).


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 2, 2011)

Sactowndog said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > > If you have a free and open market then it's hard to believe the 40% treatment could exist for very long.   Nobody will choose it, unless it's super cheap.   Kinda depends on the circumstances, an older person like me might take the 40% chance to save my wife or my kids a lot of money.   But here's the deal:  if you promote competition, then you should have more providers offering the 90% solution at the lowest price they can to get your business.   That's the real value of the free market.
> ...


----------



## Listening (Dec 2, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> If they trust that doctor, why not?
> 
> The AMA is supposed to regulate itself, but does a poor job of it.   Much as I detest big gov't, we might need some gov't oversight here.   Misconduct, malpractices, anything unethical or unprofessional oughta be tracked and repeat offenders should lose their license.   So if there's a good reason not to trust the doctor then everyone should know why.



And once again, we come back to the idea that the market will regulate itself.

All this business about board certification has only been with us for short while compared to human history.

What constitutes unethical or unprofessional is something that each of us gets to sort out for ourselves.  And I'd just as soon do it after the fact (yes, after the fact....because that is how a market works).

I really don't care how much you want to have all this....great.

Why do I have to live under the same cloud ?


----------



## Listening (Dec 2, 2011)

Sactowndog said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



What you "think" does not matter.

Now what was the question ?


----------



## Listening (Dec 2, 2011)

LoneLaugher said:


> Hypothetical question:
> 
> If the United States were forced to adopt the health care system of any other nation, which would YOU choose?



Somolia.


----------



## Listening (Dec 2, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



If you want to debate the cost of health insurance and health care services, that is something else.  This thread was about whether or not access to health care (whatever that means) is a fundamental right (as it is according to Dennis "the menace" Kucinich).

Rights are not based on costs.  This is a fundamental question that has to be answered because if it is ever established that unfettered access to health care is a right....there will be quite a number of changes to our system.  I don't believe people really understand what that means.

And I don't believe Obamacare is Universal Health Care.  It is about creating a platform for Universal Health Care in the future.

If it is not a right, and is so established, then you only have the market to look at and at that point the question becomes what it is that you are asking.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 2, 2011)

Sactowndog said:


> 1) patents:  many medical treatments are protected by patents and while you may have choice (to stretch a point to make a point) you aren't going to chose the treatment with 40% of success over the new treatment with 90% chance.  Generally in a case like this the whole market moves.  It isn't like we are buying cars here



Also only partially true. Given the medical circumstance certainly it's possible that there may be many choices or very few real choices. The point is choice does or can exist more often than you seem to want to acknowledge. 



Sactowndog said:


> 2) knowledge:  Choice requires knowledge to make choices.  The medical market is famously opaque and outcomes data is hard to come by.  Do you know which of your local hospitals have had the highest rate of Mersa?  Part of ObamaCare is to improve knowlege so people can make choices.  In addition, choice required time to research your options which you often may not have in a critical care situation.  Who plans to have a heart attack and tells the ER doc, assuming they can speak, I want that brand of stents.



Also true. Why? Because no one right now has the incentive to obtain the knowledge OR provide it. There is no incentive for the mother to research various doctors and prices because either insurance will cover wherever she goes or her insurance provider limits her choices as to where she can go. Since there's no incentive to seek the information to make an informed choice about which doctor to see there is thus no incentive for hospitals to provide that information to the public. We all know that a business is in business to make money. The simplest way to tell you how a business does that successfully is they do what there customers want. Right now they aren't getting a signal from the customer telling them to provide this tranparent data such as cost of services and quality of care. How do you introduce that into a market. You reduce the use of health insurance, not increase it by adding every more regulations about what they have to cover and you certainly don't mandate that every person must buy their product.


----------



## lizzie (Dec 2, 2011)

Sactowndog said:


> lizzie said:
> 
> 
> > Sactowndog said:
> ...


 
Prior to comprehensive medical insurance which happened with passage of HMO legislation in the 70's, insurance was meant to be coverage for emergencies and catastrophes. At that time, there was market competition for doctors and for drugs. If Doctor A was a jerk to his patients, or if he charged significantly more for his services, the market dictated how much of the market share he got. Patients would take their business elsewhere. It was the same with drugs/pharmaceuticals. In most areas of health care treatment, there are alternatives and cheaper medicines which will accomplish the same things as the new drugs coming out onto the market. There's a huge number of anti-hypertensives, several different medications for management of seizure disorders, several anti-depressants- I'm sure you get the picture. The choice has been taken out of the hands of the consumer, because the consumer doesn't have to pay anymore. Doctors don't have a need to prescribe the most affordable drug for their patients because the patient isn't paying for the drug. The insurance companies are making all the decisions- not the consumers of the product(s). This inflates prices by taking away choice at the consumer level. 

As for the life of a child, speaking from an emotional standpoint, you're right. From a monetary standpoint, you're incorrect. Our medical technology has outgrown our ability to pay. I know that is sounds grand and heroic to say that there is no price which can be placed on a human life, but there is when it comes to the point that our society can no longer afford it.


----------



## Listening (Dec 2, 2011)

If life was invaluable....we would never call of search and rescue missions.

I am afraid that prevention of dying is not seen as warranting unlimited resources.


----------



## Sactowndog (Dec 2, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> > 'Cause nothing else in the world comes with patents on it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 2, 2011)

lizzie said:


> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> > lizzie said:
> ...



Well, let's put it this way.  A price WILL be put on a human life.  Already happens.  Generally, it's placed by whoever has to fork over the cash to protect and preserve that life.  So do you want that price being set by total strangers, to whom that human being is just an abstract concept, a statistic that's sucking up their tax money?  Or the faceless bureaucrats who work in the system that disburses those tax dollars?  Or do you want it to be set by the family and friends who love that person?  If you want it to be them, then THEY need to be the ones footing the bill so it can be.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 2, 2011)

Sactowndog said:


> And frankly, you might want to reread the posts.   I never said a market doesn't exist.  I said supply and demand doesn't function well because the demand curves are vertical.  There are markets where supply and demand doesn't function.



And the counter assertion is that simply isn't the case. The demand curves are not vertical. As I stated before what we're being told essentially via Obamacare, that if not but for cost, more people would get the care they need. Therefore there has to be a point on the demand curve where people will purchase services at a certain price and a point at which they won't. That being the case the demand curve can not be vertical and through the introduction of free market principles can be made even less vertical.


----------



## Wiseacre (Dec 2, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> > And frankly, you might want to reread the posts.   I never said a market doesn't exist.  I said supply and demand doesn't function well because the demand curves are vertical.  There are markets where supply and demand doesn't function.
> ...




Agree, the only way you get a vertical demand line is if you only have one source of supply and no alternatives.   Mostly that is not the case, and even if it were the free market system would be no worse than any other alternative.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 2, 2011)

Sactowndog said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > > 'Cause nothing else in the world comes with patents on it.
> ...


----------



## Sactowndog (Dec 3, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> > Also only partially true. Given the medical circumstance certainly it's possible that there may be many choices or very few real choices. The point is choice does or can exist more often than you seem to want to acknowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Sactowndog (Dec 3, 2011)

lizzie said:


> > In most areas of health care treatment, there are alternatives and cheaper medicines which will accomplish the same things as the new drugs coming out onto the market. There's a huge number of anti-hypertensives, several different medications for management of seizure disorders, several anti-depressants- I'm sure you get the picture. The choice has been taken out of the hands of the consumer, because the consumer doesn't have to pay anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Sactowndog (Dec 3, 2011)

Listening said:


> If life was invaluable....we would never call of search and rescue missions.
> 
> I am afraid that prevention of dying is not seen as warranting unlimited resources.



You are mixing the ability of an unemotional societal policy to make a decision and an individual to make a decision.

I would argue that yes as a society we can form a rational demand curve and make cost effective medical choices if we aren't attacked for creating death panels.  I would argue as a society we need to make this choice.  However, the choices we make today are based on who votes not what is the best decision for the society.

That however is different than an individaul who is emotionally tied in being able to make the same decision and operate in "rational" market context.  Remember an underlying assumption of supply and demand is that markets are rational which clearly goes out the window in the case of a sick loved one.  Especially if that loved one has not "lived a full life"


----------



## Sactowndog (Dec 3, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Well, let's put it this way.  A price WILL be put on a human life.  Already happens.  Generally, it's placed by whoever has to fork over the cash to protect and preserve that life.  So do you want that price being set by total strangers, to whom that human being is just an abstract concept, a statistic that's sucking up their tax money?  Or the faceless bureaucrats who work in the system that disburses those tax dollars?  Or do you want it to be set by the family and friends who love that person?  If you want it to be them, then THEY need to be the ones footing the bill so it can be.



To an earlier point the best argument you can make is a bankrauptcy curve exists. That in these cases everyone pays everything they have and the curve is formed by the levels at which people go bankraupt.


----------



## Sactowndog (Dec 3, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> And the counter assertion is that simply isn't the case. The demand curves are not vertical. As I stated before what we're being told essentially via Obamacare, that if not but for cost, more people would get the care they need. Therefore there has to be a point on the demand curve where people will purchase services at a certain price and a point at which they won't. That being the case the demand curve can not be vertical and through the introduction of free market principles can be made even less vertical.



Go back and read your economics.  A demand curve is formed by the willingness of society to forgo a specified service at a specified price.  In the case of non-discretionary critical care society provides it whether the person can afford it our not.


----------



## Sactowndog (Dec 3, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> First of all, who's "we", Sparkles?  Second of all, what is it about more of the same thing that CAUSED the high prices that's supposed to FIX them?



BTW completely tangential but do you use our sig pic to try to disarm your male debaters?

Just curiuos


----------



## Sactowndog (Dec 3, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> Agree, the only way you get a vertical demand line is if you only have one source of supply and no alternatives.   Mostly that is not the case, and even if it were the free market system would be no worse than any other alternative.



That is absolutlely wrong.  You would get an F in Freshman Macro economics.  You can create a demand curve independent of supply.  Having a supply only causes a market price to be specified.  

What creates a demand curve is solely the different willingness among market players to forgo a service based on its price.  End of Story.  It has nothing to do with supply.


----------



## Wiseacre (Dec 3, 2011)

Sactowndog said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > Agree, the only way you get a vertical demand line is if you only have one source of supply and no alternatives.   Mostly that is not the case, and even if it were the free market system would be no worse than any other alternative.
> ...




In real life demand curves do not exist independently of the supply curve.   That is how the price is determined, no?   AND, the alternatives a consumer might choose in place of the product or service has an influence too.   That is why a drug company cannot charge a million bucks a pop for a unique drug treatment, few could aford it.   I really don't think there are any cases where a purely vertical demand curve exists for anything, certainly not in the medical services field.


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 3, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> The simplest way to tell you how a business does that successfully is they do what there customers want.



What do customers in the health industry want? What are they seeking when they look to buy health services?



Sactowndog said:


> Outcomes research is almost impossible to find even with the internet.



In part that's because validated outcomes measures are still comparatively rare. If you look at one of the most popular measurement tools used across most health plans in the country, the National Committee for Quality Assurance's HEDIS measure set, they're virtually all _process_ measures. They measure whether physicians provided medically-indicated interventions to certain populations in certain circumstances, but they don't probe the _outcomes_ of those interventions across those populations.

The same is true if you look at the list of National Quality Forum-endorsed measures--they're heavily tilted toward process measures and surveys of patient experience. The goal is to move toward more outcomes-based measurement and with the spread of electronic health records there's potential for measurements that simply weren't possible before but it's still pretty early in that process.




lizzie said:


> Prior to comprehensive medical insurance which happened with passage of HMO legislation in the 70's, insurance was meant to be coverage for emergencies and catastrophes. At that time, there was market competition for doctors and for drugs. If Doctor A was a jerk to his patients, or if he charged significantly more for his services, the market dictated how much of the market share he got. Patients would take their business elsewhere. It was the same with drugs/pharmaceuticals. In most areas of health care treatment, there are alternatives and cheaper medicines which will accomplish the same things as the new drugs coming out onto the market. There's a huge number of anti-hypertensives, several different medications for management of seizure disorders, several anti-depressants- I'm sure you get the picture. The choice has been taken out of the hands of the consumer, because the consumer doesn't have to pay anymore. Doctors don't have a need to prescribe the most affordable drug for their patients because the patient isn't paying for the drug. The insurance companies are making all the decisions- not the consumers of the product(s). This inflates prices by taking away choice at the consumer level.



The irony here is that the only period in the past half century in which health care cost growth was under control for a sustained period of time was the mid-to-late 1990s, a time characterized by a marked lack of patient choice. This was the era of widespread managed care, in which provider networks were constricted and decision-making was heavily tilted toward the health plan and away from the individual.







That said, we do have more appealing options in the future than going back to that, particularly if we make the right investments right now (which, thankfully, we've started to do over the past few years).


----------



## dblack (Dec 3, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> What do customers in the health industry want? What are they seeking when they look to buy health services?



The best that someone else's money can buy.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 3, 2011)

Sactowndog said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > And the counter assertion is that simply isn't the case. The demand curves are not vertical. As I stated before what we're being told essentially via Obamacare, that if not but for cost, more people would get the care they need. Therefore there has to be a point on the demand curve where people will purchase services at a certain price and a point at which they won't. That being the case the demand curve can not be vertical and through the introduction of free market principles can be made even less vertical.
> ...



Then you're back to the same point. Now you're saying society provides the service regarldess of what the consumer can pay. Again a position that is in defiance of the notion that there is cost problem in American where health care is concerned.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 3, 2011)

Sactowndog said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > First of all, who's "we", Sparkles?  Second of all, what is it about more of the same thing that CAUSED the high prices that's supposed to FIX them?
> ...



Your fixations and obsessions are YOUR problems, not mine.  Is this really going to be the first time that anyone has told you that women often live their lives and make their choices according to their own feelings and preferences, rather than according to what some man might or might not think?


----------



## Listening (Dec 3, 2011)

Sactowndog said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > If life was invaluable....we would never call of search and rescue missions.
> ...



I've already presented a concept that would address both.


----------



## Sactowndog (Dec 4, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...



Demands curves are demand curves.  In a market demand curves combine with supply curves to specify a price.   And alternatives can affect the price at which a person will forgo an offering.  But at the end of the day the demand curve is derived by people's willingness forgo consumption.  Supply has nothing to do with the shape of the demand curve.


----------



## Sactowndog (Dec 4, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Easy there Celilia not my fixation and nor obsession.  Your choices are certainly your own just curious why you chose to put something that personal front and center.


----------



## Sactowndog (Dec 4, 2011)

Listening said:


> I've already presented a concept that would address both.



Don't remember seeig it and feeling it addressed the issues.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 4, 2011)

Sactowndog said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Sactowndog said:
> ...



First of all, Einstein, my name is Cecilie.  It's right there on your screen in front of you, so I fail to see why it's so difficult to get it correct.  I also find myself wondering why I should listen to the "wisdom" of someone who can't copy a name from their own screen.

Second of all, how is a picture of Betty Page "personal"?  She's a famous pin-up icon from the past, with a rather large cult following.  Would you consider it "personal" if I chose a pin-up of Marilyn Monroe or Jane Russell instead as my avatar?  Maybe you ought to stop projecting your own strange worldviews onto everyone else.


----------



## peterson121 (Dec 13, 2011)

Yes. It's a right. Everyone deserves to be healthy and we people are paying for it.


----------



## standford (Dec 23, 2011)

Ya , definitely health care is right because without care,you could suffering from many diseases.


----------



## Wiseacre (Dec 23, 2011)

No one should have the right to receive services provided by someone else.    You should be entitled to whatever you can provide for yourself, and that's it.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 23, 2011)

> *Is healthcare a right? why or why not?*


Not.

By definition, rights don't impose any obligation upon anyone else to exercise them...The right to free speech doesn't impart an obligation upon anyone else to buy me a megaphone or printing press...My right to bear arms doesn't mean that you have to buy me a gun.

Claiming it as a right would impose obligations upon doctors to treat everyone and everyone and impose the obligation upon me to pay for someone else's medical treatment(s).


----------



## Listening (Dec 23, 2011)

standford said:


> Ya , definitely health care is right because without care,you could suffering from many diseases.



Access to health care is a right.

Nobody is obligated to give it to you.

Never have been.

And under Obamacare they still won't be.

If you don't want to buy insurance, you pay some kind of fine.  So the money you could be using to pay for care is going to pay for Nancy Pelosi's Botox injections.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 23, 2011)

Affordable healthcare should be a right.  We should not be a society where - regarding basic healthcare needs - people are less healthy simply because they're poor.  That is uncivilized.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 23, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> Affordable healthcare should be a right.  We should not be a society where - regarding basic healthcare needs - people are less healthy simply because they're poor.  That is uncivilized.


Your opinions as to what is or isn't "civilized" and irrelevant red herrings as to what should or shouldn't be,  are notwithstanding that rights -properly defined- do not and cannot impose an obligation upon someone else to perform some act, in order for you to have the given right.

Grow the hell up.


----------



## Listening (Dec 23, 2011)

Why o why would we not make food a right before we make healthcare a right ?

I love the way the left pushes the idea (with Obama's help) that somehow they are entitled to even more.

This is America...we fought to get away from the English.  If we wanted their way of doing things....we'd still be English.


----------



## dblack (Dec 23, 2011)

I don't think most of the "health care should be a right" people are taking the idea of rights very seriously. They're simply expressing a desire to make health care something the government provides ("for free").


----------



## Listening (Dec 23, 2011)

dblack said:


> I don't think most of the "health care should be a right" people are taking the idea of rights very seriously. They're simply expressing a desire to make health care something the government provides ("for free").



I agree they don't even know what rights are.

To them rights are the ability to screw the rich to pay for their drug habits.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 23, 2011)

It's not a right.  It's an obligation.


----------



## Gem (Dec 23, 2011)

I do not see how you can have a _right_ to someone else's knowledge, ability, and skill.


----------



## Listening (Dec 23, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> It's not a right.  It's an obligation.



At least that is a conversation that can be had.


----------



## Wiseacre (Dec 23, 2011)

Gem said:


> I do not see how you can have a _right_ to someone else's knowledge, ability, and skill.




Me neither, good point.


----------



## Wiseacre (Dec 23, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> It's not a right.  It's an obligation.




IMHO, it's also a personal responsibility to take care of yourself and your family.


----------



## Ernie S. (Dec 23, 2011)

Sure everyone has a right to health care, just as they have a right to an automobile. Just as long as they pay for it and keep their grubby paws out of my wallet.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 23, 2011)

Gem said:


> I do not see how you can have a _right_ to someone else's knowledge, ability, and skill.


That's what I was getting at, in my point about a right not imposing an obligation onto anyone else.

Thanks for helping with your bringing of brevity and clarity.


----------



## Listening (Dec 23, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > It's not a right.  It's an obligation.
> ...



And what you are saying is that it is an obligation to yourself and your family.

What I also agree on is that people should have reasonable access.

That does not mean universal health care.  It means getting government OUT of the system.  We don't have a free market system now.


----------



## madasheck (Dec 23, 2011)

The basic answer to the question is that lack of health care causes more problems than not.


----------



## dblack (Dec 23, 2011)

madasheck said:


> The basic answer to the question is that lack of health care causes more problems than not.



What question is that answering?


----------



## Listening (Dec 24, 2011)

madasheck said:


> The basic answer to the question is that lack of health care causes more problems than not.



That is not an answer to the question that was asked.

Considering your signature....I can see how you get confused.


----------



## madasheck (Dec 27, 2011)

madasheck said:


> The basic answer to the question is that lack of health care causes more problems than not.



I guess I have to explain common language to the righties. Is this thread not called "Is healthcare a right? why or why not?"? This isn't "Jeopardy!," you know.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Dec 27, 2011)

Health care is a right. Housing is a right. Cell phone is a right. Food is a right. Transportation is a right. Retirement income is a right. Income to live on is a right. Jobs are a right. Getting a trophy at the end of the year even if my team came in last place is a right, a computer is a right, education is a right.
If I left something out, someone please help me here, as I am sure that is a right also.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Dec 27, 2011)

Doctors should provide free health care as that is a right.
My neighbor is an auto mechanic. I demand free brake job and transmission service as that is a right.
My dentist has 200K in loans on his business but since health care is a right I have a right to free care.


----------



## Listening (Dec 27, 2011)

madasheck said:


> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> > The basic answer to the question is that lack of health care causes more problems than not.
> ...



And what or how is your claim that lack of it causes more problems supposed to support the concpet that it is a right ?

It might be the smart thing to do....but that is still light years away from making it a right.


----------



## frazzledgear (Dec 27, 2011)

madasheck said:


> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> > The basic answer to the question is that lack of health care causes more problems than not.
> ...



And you think your statement somehow answered that question?  Maybe someone needs to explain the real definitions of words to you.

1.  Is healthcare a right or not?  That is a yes or no answer.  Pretty simple.

2.  Why or why not?  Your comment doesn't answer jackshit on that one.  Constipation causes more problem than not too.  Mosquito bites cause more problems than not too.  Still don't answer jackshit about whether a box of Exlax and a can of "Off" are also "rights", does it?  

Liberals absolutely do NOT understand the meaning of rights.  *Rights are not a list of goods and services people think they will get for free if they demand government just GIVE it to them.   Your rights do NOT come from government in the first place!*  If government "gives" you your rights, then government can damn well take them away anytime just as easily.  Which means they were never rights to begin with but only government provided privileges.  GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE SOURCE OF OUR RIGHTS!  So it can't GIVE you health care as a "right" because government can't GIVE you ANY of your rights in the first place!  

It should scare everyone here that we have fellow citizens who haven't a clue about our real rights!  Because if you don't know where they are and where the hell they came from in the first place then you sure won't notice when they disappear, will you?  (Which would please some people a lot if we as Americans forget where and what our REAL rights are while they dangle shiny toys at us and pretend they are "rights" instead.) We have a significant number of younger people who suffer under the delusion that our rights are GIFTS from government!  That the Bill of Rights is merely a list of those things we want government to GIVE us.  This belief is also how someone could even put  "health care" and "rights" in the same fucking sentence in the first place!  If you don't understand what are rights in the first place, that makes it pretty easy to claim just about any good or service you want is a "right" too!   Oh, and a "right" to demand someone else foot the bill for it of course!  

REAL rights are CLAIMED -and government ordered to not INTERFERE with the exercise of these rights.  Government is NOT ordered to "provide" them to us and it isn't ordered to help you exercise them either.  It is merely ordered to not interfere with the free exercise of these rights by the people.  Rights WE THE PEOPLE HAVE CLAIMED FOR OURSELVES and forbidden government from interfering with or restricting.   Government is not obligated to HELP us exercise our rights -but it is not allowed to interfere with our ability to do so.   We do not demand our rights FROM government because it isn't something that can come FROM government in the first place!  You either understand why these rights we CLAIMED for ourselves are critically necessary in order to be FREE -or you don't.  But the ones who don't understand the difference are dangerous and scare the shit out of me!  They are people who make it clear they are willing to not only sell off their own freedom at a very cheap price, but insist they have a "right" to sell off that of everyone else too -including unborn generations.  Something past generations made sure they didn't do to them because it wasn't their right either.

1.  Health care is a not a right because your rights never include the services or assistance of or work or the fruits of labor of another human being.  PERIOD.  Not ever.  You can't get health care without someone else WORKING to provide it.  You don't have a right to the WORK of that person -PERIOD.  You don't have a "right" to demand government literally enslave a segment of the population because you have chosen to overvalue their services.  That is YOUR problem -not theirs.  You don't have a "right" to demand everyone else foot the bill and pay for the service you want just because you have decided to place a ridiculous and unreasonable value on it.  Because again, the rest of us aren't your slaves either and you aren't entitled to the fruits of my labor and the money I busted my ass to earn.

2.  Your REAL rights do not involve any other human beings.  They involve what YOU can do, what YOU can say, what YOU believe -without government interfering with or preventing you from doing, saying or believing.  *Because THESE are the tools one needs in order to live as a FREE HUMAN BEING. *   These are the tools everyone needs to exist as a free person -someone with the RIGHT to make of his life what he will for better or ill.  You can't do that unless you have the RIGHTS to run your own life as YOU see fit.  Not as a pack of arrogant ruling elites see fit.  There are people who place no real value on their own freedom -and they have that right.  But they have NO right to demand I value my own no more than they do theirs.   They have NO right to demand I forfeit MY rights just because they are willing to sell off their own.  They have NO right to sell off that of my children just because they have no problem selling off those of their own children.  

3.  The first two are already enough on their own but the third is just as important too.  Health care isn't a right because it isn't something universally needed by all people in order to be FREE.  In fact, universal health care guarantees you will never live in freedom again but as the government owned slave you chose to be when you forfeited your real rights for "health care".  What proponents AREN'T telling you is "if you want this shiny toy, it means giving government massive, unprecedented powers that can only come by stripping them from YOU -FOREVER.  Along with those of your children and their children etc"  When did they give you that right to sell off their real rights?  It is a colossal, massive and truly deceptive trade-off -and dirt cheap prices.  And once having traded off your REAL rights for such a cheap price, it will be much, much harder to ever get them back again -peacefully, that is.  Powers you will lose right down to the minutiae of your life with government then having the "right" to tell you what you may eat and drink, which vices are government approved and which are not, what hobbies are government approved and which are not - and punish you for failing to abide by them.  Always in the name of saying it isn't FAIR that taxpayers are paying for your medical care when YOU didn't live the way THEY wanted you to.  Even if it means denying you access to health care treatments even though YOU actually paid for them too.  Look how many people think smokers should be denied cancer treatments even now.  Even though THEY paid for that insurance too.  And how many think overweight people or alcoholics or drug abusers should all be denied treatment even NOW -ANYONE who isn't living by the rules made by a pack of ARROGANT ASSHOLE ELITES have decided only what THEY decide will be the ONLY acceptable way to live.  THAT is the power you sell off -and in reality, it is just the beginning of the sell off, not the end of it.  Sorry -you ain't selling MINE without a big fight buddy.

Goods and services produced by others are NOT rights -and isn't it interesting that the goods every one of us MUST have in order to live -aren't "rights" whatsoever.  We all NEED food to exist -but we don't demand government just GIVE it to us all.  We all NEED shelter from the elements but we don't demand government just GIVE a roof over our head and just GIVE clothing to us all.  We don't because people who can provide these things for themselves are expected to do so and only those who cannot are provided food and shelter.  Yet no one is complaining that the rich eat a better quality of food, wear better quality clothing and get a better quality of housing than those on the dole being handed them at taxpayer expense.  We don't all equally need medical care though -and like any other service and still more than 85% of the population even with the overvaluation of the service -are able to provide it for themselves.  We can't figure out how to help those who NEED it in order to LIVE but can't provide it for themselves only in THIS instance -but managed to figure that out when it comes to the REAL necessities of life?  WTF?  We bred a lot of really stupid people then.  Frankly they deserve nothing more than mediocrity and one thing the left admires -is mediocrity.  So much so they would destroy a system entirely that the vast majority are actually satisfied with how it works for THEM -in order to switch it out for one I guarantee they will never be satisfied with how it works for them again.

A government that owns your health care -owns YOU and it owns control of your life and it CLAIMS the authority and "right" to PUNISH you for failing to live your life as IT tells you to do.  YOU become government owned property and a government owned slave who will be punished for disobedience.  You may not be aware of this but the vast majority of people could never see a doctor in their life and do just fine.  The vast majority of what ails human beings is limited in nature -meaning most of it will go away on its own without medical care.  We primarily see the doctor for our COMFORT, to improve the quality of life -not to save our life.  Only a tiny percent NEED health care just to live -the rest of us just WANT it to improve the quality of our life.   In exchange for WANTING increased comfort, we have people willing to sell off MY freedom and rights, YOUR freedom and rights and those of our children and grandchildren -none of which any of us have a right to do! 

When a society chooses a mediocre system (which is the best you can get under a universal system), that society will deserve nothing more than mediocre -but most people do not understand what is really meant by getting a "mediocre system".   It means the best it ever gets is mediocre -when functioning absolutely perfectly as designed to do -it will finally reach mediocrity.  But when put into practice, that system rarely functions well, it is never efficient in allocating services, it is wasteful and because it is government, that means it automatically adds a massive layer of waste and fraud that did not previously exist.  It will result in even greater skyrocketing costs (proving the NONSTOP repeated lie that if government is given total control of the entire industry, it will do a better job of controlling cost -bullshit, it gets much, much worse and quickly totally unsustainable).  

In an amazing short period of time government is forced to stop considering all Americans to be citizens with equal rights -and view us all as UNEQUAL BURDENS on the system instead.  With those judged to be "lesser burdens" getting preferential treatment and those deemed "great burdens" given short shrift and increasingly denied access to more and more medical care -even when it could extend their life expectancy, and worse yet, even when it could significantly improve the quality of life for their remaining time.  And even when denying it will force them to die prematurely and unnecessarily.  Resources start getting shifted away from those who are bigger "burdens" to those who are not -in reality resources are shifted away from those who actually NEED it to those who merely WANT it.   Who are the real losers then?  All of us -because when we get to the time when we need it the most, is when it will be denied to us.  Even though we paid for it too..  And as seen in Britain today, not only have mortality rates been rising again for things once well controlled like high blood pressure, stroke, breast cancer and diabetes and are still dropping under our system  -government determines who will be denied medical care by use of a formula that places a dollar amount on the life of that person and then weighs it against the cost of that treatment -and no appeal when denied  treatment. Britain is now denying even CURATIVE treatment -denying people the treatment that would cure their condition entirely if the uncaring, cold, heartless, impersonal and bullshit formula deems it "not worth the cost".  And denying people medical care and treatment that would significantly improve the quality of life for their remaining time on the grounds it just isn't worth it. By that, it means not worth the cost to GOVERNMENT, not to the individual who has no RIGHT to appeal, no right to demand medical care, no right to demand treatments that would improve the quality of their life once government has deemed it "just not worth it"!   Seriously, is THIS the kind of "right" Brits thought they were getting?  Oh, they can clog up a doctor's office seeing the doctor for a cold -but they are over 60 and want a hip replacement so they don't have to spend their rest of their life in a fucking wheelchair?  Oops, no can do.  NOT WORTH IT -except to that person of course, who actually matters the least of all to government.

You want a government that is forced to treat citizens UNEQUALLY and where government not only assigns a dollar value to your life and FORCES you to accept its judgment on that, where the likelihood you will be denied curative treatment once you are no longer contributing to society, denied those measures that would improve the quality of your life for your remaining time -oh absolutely insist health care is your "right".  Because you will have no "right" and nowhere to turn when you suddenly realize that the health care system was changed from one intended to treat the sick and ease the remaining time for the dying -to one that exists primarily for those who don't need it at all.  A hell of a trade off.  Medicare was started by first claiming those who had spent their life contributing to society deserved to have excellent care during their old age.  But universal health care inevitably turns that into one that treats those who spent their life contributing to society as the unnecessary burdens they quickly become seen to be and urged to get off the planet as soon as possible with government doing its part to make it happen.


----------



## madasheck (Dec 28, 2011)

frazzledgear said:


> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> > madasheck said:
> ...



I'm glad I didn't ask for a long answer. 

To put it concisely, the word "right" has a wider meaning than, say, a right to bear arms. That's not the real argument. Should the government have a plan for providing health care? Yes. Does that make it a "right," as in right to bear arms? No. Is that better for the common good? Absolutely.

And please don't give me crap about what liberals know and think. Damn cons can't keep it straight as to what they think, never mind what others think.


----------



## Grandma (Dec 31, 2011)

Let's look at some history, shall we?

At the time the Constitution was written, healthcare meant that if you were ailing the local barber would come by and give you a good bleeding. If money weren't available you gave him some eggs or a yard of homespun, or some other product from your farm or business.

So there really was no need to consider "healthcare" as a right.

In the 20th Century, that changed. Those here that are older might recall that as recently as the 1960s catching the flu meant you'd be in the hospital for two or three weeks. You may or may not survive. A diagnosis of pneumonia was a death sentence. No survivors. But since then the sick can recover from nearly every ailment, the lame can walk, and some of the blind can see. 

The amazing strides in medicine, including preventative medicine, require a hard look at the state of treatment in this country. Not everyone is being treated equally, or fairly, not when insurance companies can charge thousands upon thousands of dollars only to drop a customer for actually needing medical care.

We've reached the point where the government must step in. After all, we're supposedly guaranteed LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, right? I'd rather spend another $7000 per year on taxes in a situation where I can vote, than spend $7000 this year, $7500 next year, $8000 the year after, and so on, always having my deductible and copays raised, with less and less servce provided, and absolutely no recourse when I feel that I've been treated unfairly.


----------



## Full-Auto (Dec 31, 2011)

Grandma said:


> Let's look at some history, shall we?
> 
> At the time the Constitution was written, healthcare meant that if you were ailing the local barber would come by and give you a good bleeding. If money weren't available you gave him some eggs or a yard of homespun, or some other product from your farm or business.
> 
> ...



Government rationing......got it!!!  If health insurance were allowed to operate as insurance it wouldnt cost as much.

But some women need someone else to pay for their birth control. ITS NOW LAW...........


----------



## Euro (Dec 31, 2011)

> Government rationing......got it!!!  If health insurance were allowed to operate as insurance it wouldnt cost as much.
> 
> But some women need someone else to pay for their birth control. ITS NOW LAW...........


The US HC system is extremely bureaucratic and causes extremely high adminsistration costs as it is now. All these special programs, medicaid,medicare,Obamacare,Romneycare etc. It has to be made more streamlined and the focus should be to make it cost efficient and make it provide good services. Much of the bureaucracy and adminstration can be cut to make it more affordable. The defensive medicine suings is also something that has to be dealt with.

Have the costs gone up or down since Obamacare?

I think your politicians don&#8217;t know how to deal with the HC system since they always rise the costs more and more, get Ron Paul as president he&#8217;s a physician and knows the system in and out. He can make it work efficient and affordable.


----------



## manifold (Dec 31, 2011)

Is national defense a right?

Is transportation infrastructure a right?

Is legal protection and law enforcement a right?


----------



## Full-Auto (Dec 31, 2011)

Euro said:


> > Government rationing......got it!!!  If health insurance were allowed to operate as insurance it wouldnt cost as much.
> >
> > But some women need someone else to pay for their birth control. ITS NOW LAW...........
> 
> ...



UP UP and AWAY!!!  Rationing centers coming to a town near you.


----------



## dblack (Dec 31, 2011)

madasheck said:


> To put it concisely, the word "right" has a wider meaning than, say, a right to bear arms. That's not the real argument. Should the government have a plan for providing health care? Yes. Does that make it a "right," as in right to bear arms? No. Is that better for the common good? Absolutely.



This is a good point. Things like the right to bear arms are protected freedoms, and many of us consider them very important. What's going on, in my view, is that people who want health care to be a responsibility of government are equivocating on the terminology. They know that protecting our 'rights' is something government is clearly supposed to do, so they're trying to convince everyone that health care is a 'right' to remove any objection to making it a government responsibility. 

Apart from that tactic being a little shifty, it's also very dangerous because it obfuscates the purpose of political rights. Benefits and services provided by government are, simply put, optional. When the budget gets tight, or the services lose popularity, we cut back on them. Protecting our rights is not optional. We might be willing to give up free public libraries, for example, but not our freedom of speech.


----------



## dblack (Dec 31, 2011)

manifold said:


> Is national defense a right?
> 
> Is transportation infrastructure a right?
> 
> Is legal protection and law enforcement a right?



No, these are all government responsibilities. In some cases, they involve government protecting our rights - but they're not the rights themselves. Politically protected rights are freedoms.

Another perspective on this, that I think libertarian types tend to take for granted and may not be obvious to others, is that the whole idea of calling out individual rights in the constitution (ie the Bill of Rights) was to specify that government was not allowed to make laws violating them. They are restrictions on government - "Congress shall make no law ...". In that light, how does a "right to health care" make any sense? Would we be saying that government is restricted from preventing us from getting health care?


----------



## madasheck (Dec 31, 2011)

dblack said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Is national defense a right?
> ...



But that being said, providing health care is a very positive thing. It's not socialism or some hint of totalitarism. Conservatives are neatly trying to obliterate the discussion with the scare tactics. Having a health care plan improves the quality of life in this country, bottom line.


----------



## manifold (Dec 31, 2011)

dblack said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Is national defense a right?
> ...


*

In other words, they are things for which the government spends money, taxpayer money.  So how would spending taxpayer money to provide healthcare be conceptually different?*


----------



## dblack (Dec 31, 2011)

madasheck said:


> But that being said, providing health care is a very positive thing. It's not socialism or some hint of totalitarism. Conservatives are neatly trying to obliterate the discussion with the scare tactics. Having a health care plan improves the quality of life in this country, bottom line.



That depends entirely on what the plan is.


----------



## dblack (Dec 31, 2011)

manifold said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...


*

It wouldn't. It's just question of whether we want to make health care a government responsibility or not. And there are good arguments on both sides of that debate. My point, in this thread, is that it's worse than inaccurate to call health care a 'right'.*


----------



## Euro (Dec 31, 2011)

manifold said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...


*

Taxpayer money will remove much of the bureaucracy and the administration that Obamacare causes. To much money dries out in admistration and bureaucracy in the US healthcare system. Taxes can also be collected through a consumption tax on unhealthy things like alcohol and cigarettes instead of increasing the income tax that much. Gasoline can also be taxed to finance it, that way you stimulate people to walk,cycle etc. and not use the car. Their is much potential in taxing consumption in US, gasoline is ridioulsly cheap and taxing here could be an alternative to taxing personal income.

I think it would be easier if you&#8217;ll set a maximum amount that people have to pay before the governments gets involved. Lets say if you spend more than 800$ on a year on medical treatment, the government steps in and covers what comes over 800$. The problem in USA is you for instance get cancer you&#8217;ll go bankrupt.

In my country we have a very aggressive tax on tobacco that covers much of the healthcare. 20 cigarrettes costs 15$+ and that gives the government large tax incomes that it can put into the HC budget. And every time the HC costs for the government grows, they just put an extra tax on smoking to cover it. Much of the healthcare can be covered with consumption taxes on unhealthy things. It&#8217;s not nesccesccay to increase the income tax that much, if you can put consumption taxes on unhealthy things.

E.g. who spends most money in a socialized medicine system. People that smoke, are fat, alcoholics. Tax them instead at will become more fair to those that lives healthy lives*


----------



## dblack (Dec 31, 2011)

Euro said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


*

This raises what I consider one of the strongest arguments against making health care a responsibility of government. People eager to use the power of the state to tell others how to live will seize on the expenses incurred as a ready excuse for micro-managing our lives.*


----------



## Truthseeker420 (Dec 31, 2011)

Healthcare and education should be a right for all Americans.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Dec 31, 2011)

Diuretic said:


> Shattered said:
> 
> 
> > That leads to the answer "Get a job that offers it."
> ...



I would venture that an employer should not necessarily be held responsible for providing health care either.  But provision of such a benefit might be used to attract and retain employees of the desired training and character.


----------



## Euro (Dec 31, 2011)

> This raises what I consider one of the strongest arguments against making health care a responsibility of government. People eager to use the power of the state to tell others how to live will seize on the expenses incurred as a ready excuse for micro-managing our lives.


Smoking,high alcohol consumption and unhealthy living is what costs the system money. I think if you first choose to have socialized medicine, it is most fair to tax on unhealthy consumption rather than on income. Their is no one that says you cant smoke or drink, but youll be taxed heavily for your consumption. Food is quite cheap and healthy food, fruit,vegetables are tax free. So youll get stimulated to buying fruit,vegetables etc. instead of alcohol and cigarettes.

So if you live a healthy life not smoking,drinking etc. you dont pay that much for HC. At the same time you make the labour force more productive by providing cheaper fruit,vegetables and expensive alcohol and tobacco.


----------



## dblack (Dec 31, 2011)

Euro said:


> > This raises what I consider one of the strongest arguments against making health care a responsibility of government. People eager to use the power of the state to tell others how to live will seize on the expenses incurred as a ready excuse for micro-managing our lives.
> 
> 
> Smoking,high alcohol consumption and unhealthy living is what costs the system money. I think if you first choose to have socialized medicine, it is most fair to tax on unhealthy consumption rather than on income. Their is no one that says you cant smoke or drink, but youll be taxed heavily for your consumption. Food is quite cheap and healthy food, fruit,vegetables are tax free. So youll get stimulated to buying fruit,vegetables etc. instead of alcohol and cigarettes.
> ...



Yeah. I get what your talking about and I'm opposed to it. Coercion is coercion. Whether it's implemented via a jail sentence, a fine, or a tax penalty is immaterial. I want a government that makes it possible for us to get along, living our lives as much as possible the way we want. Not one that takes up the mission of "stimulating" me toward someone else's version of the "good life".


----------



## manifold (Dec 31, 2011)

Truthseeker420 said:


> Healthcare and education should be a right for all Americans.



And free weed and titties.


----------



## madasheck (Dec 31, 2011)

dblack said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Is national defense a right?
> ...





dblack said:


> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> > But that being said, providing health care is a very positive thing. It's not socialism or some hint of totalitarism. Conservatives are neatly trying to obliterate the discussion with the scare tactics. Having a health care plan improves the quality of life in this country, bottom line.
> ...



In general terms, though, it does.


----------



## dblack (Dec 31, 2011)

madasheck said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Disagree. In general terms, there are good plans and there are bad plans. PPACA is an example of the latter.


----------



## madasheck (Dec 31, 2011)

dblack said:


> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Why do you think so?


----------



## dblack (Dec 31, 2011)

madasheck said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > madasheck said:
> ...



Because it ignores the real problems in favor of indulging government and corporate ambitions. It combines the worst of both worlds. It throws us all under the rule of the bureaucratic state, dictating what kinds of insurance plans we can buy - indeed, forcing us to buy them. And then hands us all off to for-profit corporations as so much cattle in trade. It takes a model for financing health care that is a proven failure (corporate, group health insurance) and doubles down, demanding that everyone get on board a sinking ship.

Three years ago I was hopeful. Health care is such a mess that I didn't really think congress could make it worse. They proved me wrong.


----------



## Euro (Dec 31, 2011)

dblack said:


> Euro said:
> 
> 
> > > This raises what I consider one of the strongest arguments against making health care a responsibility of government. People eager to use the power of the state to tell others how to live will seize on the expenses incurred as a ready excuse for micro-managing our lives.
> ...


3But isnt it better to finance it this way than through income as you do in your Obamacare deal?
I dont know how they do it in your Obamacare, but if they smoke, drink or are fat dont they have to pay a higher premium? Obamacare is also inefficent and causes a lot of bureaucracy that makes it more expensive.

Youve already had medicare and medicaid for a long time in US that you as a taxpayer have payed for. Dont you want the people that uses medicare and medicaid that you pay for to live healthy so the costs stays low and your tax? Im sure most of the cost in US HC is because of administration and bureaucracy, why not do something with that?

The alternative is to remove all programs Obamacare,medicaid,medicare,Romenycare etc. I dont understand why US like to have so many programs that causes so much bureaucracy and adminstration. Why not get rid of all programs or choose to have one program that covers all, that will give less bureaucracy and make it more streamlined.

Of course it costs much when you have so many diffrent programs that must be administrated.


----------



## ShackledNation (Dec 31, 2011)

Healthcare is a service produced and provided by certain individuals who studied biology and the medical field to offer such a service to other people. These providers use their labor and their bodies to provide healthcare.

If I have a right to healthcare, then I am entitled to someone else's body. I have a right to forcefully coerce the doctor into giving me his labor. Do any of you claiming healthcare is a right truly believe that you have a right to control the bodies of other people, and that they have a right to control your's? I doubt it.

No, healthcare is not a right. We have a right to _exchange_ our own labor and property _for_ healthcare. We have a right to find ways to _obtain_ healthcare.  But we have no right to healthcare itself anymore than we have a right to control the body of another human being.


----------



## dblack (Dec 31, 2011)

Euro said:


> But isn&#8217;t it better to finance it this way than through income as you do in your Obamacare deal?
> I don&#8217;t know how they do it in your Obamacare, but if they smoke, drink or are fat don&#8217;t they have to pay a higher premium? Obamacare is also inefficent and causes a lot of bureaucracy that makes it more expensive.
> 
> You&#8217;ve already had medicare and medicaid for a long time in US that you as a taxpayer have payed for. Don&#8217;t you want the people that uses medicare and medicaid that you pay for to live healthy so the costs stays low and your tax? I&#8217;m sure most of the cost in US HC is because of administration and bureaucracy, why not do something with that?
> ...



I'd rather not have government running health care at all - so 'remove all programs' would be best. That said, I don't have big problem with safety nets for the down and out - if that's truly what they are. The problem with health care, is that our abuse of the insurance model, and generally unrealistic expectations, have driven health care inflation through the roof. To the point that everyone now wants to be in on the 'safety net' action.

The frustrating thing is, we _could_ provide basic health care as a public service without grossly violating individual rights. But that's just not how Washington operates. Corporatism carries the day, and pretty much any move our government makes functions to centralize power and serve the interests of corporate lobbyists. That's one of the main complaints of the 'occupiers' and their right on target in that criticism (though vague and misguided in their proposed solutions).

With regard to your question about a desire to control the health habits of medicare and medicaid recipients, the answer is 'no'. If we can't provide a government service to people without forcing them to give up their freedom, we shouldn't provide it at all. As I've said, that's my biggest concern with increasing state control over our health care. It will likely lead to increasing government control over our lives, even our personal habits.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 31, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Why do I ask?  To me it seems to be the most fundamental part of why some advocate for universal health care and why some advocate for privatized healthcare.  Every candidate on the dem ticket has a plan of some type for of universal or government run healthcare.  So I have to think that most of them think it is a right.  By extension then people basically have the right to good health it would seem.
> 
> The problem I have with it being a right is the concept of a 'right' itself.  A 'right' like the right to free speech or right to bear arms is something that is provided you without any cost or requirment to obtain access to.  You don't have to earn the right to free speech or pay a fee when you want to speak.  The conundrum I have with healthcare is if it is your right, that is you are under no personal responsibility to provide it for yourself, then who's responsibility is it, and why?  If I'm not paying for the services somone else must be.  According to Hillary anyway that will be increased taxes on the rich.  But wait healthcare is a right, so why should the rich be expected to pay for it?  It's a right so isn't it suppossed to be free to them as well?  Why should they be worried about their own health as well as those that can't pay for it?
> 
> Rush had a caller on today who was a female physician and basically asked the same question.  Why is she, a provider of a service like any other service, expected to provide it a reduced rate or free all together?  You can't control all aspects of your health anymore than you can control all aspects of your car working, but we expect people to pay to have their own car fixed even if not responsible for the problem, yet some have this expectation that when 'shit happens' where your health is concerned it's suppossed to be free to get 'fixed'.



What is the role of our Federal Government?  A good question and one sure to evoke emotions from the Libertarian right.  GWB stated it is the role of the Feds to protect the citizens of the U.S. from those who want to harm us (those damn 'Islamo Fascists').

Personally I've never been threatened by an Islamo Fascist, but I've had step throat which might have killled me without proper medical attention and antibiotics.  Fortunately I had medical insurance provided by my employer and I survived (much to the dismay of some of the echo chamber).

We pay taxes to support nations around the world, friend and foe alike; and grant benefits, tax credits, special no bid contracts and such to favorite businesses and corporations; our defense and state department budgets are predicated on our need for oil and we make friendships with dictators who kill their own citizens out of this need.  All of this at an enormous cost of treasure and sadly blood.  We don't need to do this.

The taxpayer pays for the cost of health care too, generally in local or state taxes to care for those not fortunate enough to have insurance;  So the taxpayer pays twice, for his/her own and for the single mom who works two part time jobs to recieve care for herself and her kids; for the heroin addict and prostitute; for the Vietnam Vet unable to Prove his injury or illness was service connected (thank you Ronald Reagan) and for tourists and other visitors to our land here legally or otherwise.

Let's not forget those without insurance wait before seeing a doctor.  Such waits result in greater long term cost, generally, for early detecton of disease is the best indicator of eventual wellness.

So is health care a right?  If we go by the Bush doctrine it is.  Kill me by bomb or kill me by a disease transmitted by air or water or cough and I'm still dead.

It is also common sense for the Government (i.e. We the People) to provide preventative health care to all citizens.  In this way we will limit the cost of treating advance disease, still allow private insurance companies to market their products and citizens to buy insurance based on their good health and not when they have an existing condition.  Seems like a win-win to me.


----------



## ShackledNation (Dec 31, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Why do I ask?  To me it seems to be the most fundamental part of why some advocate for universal health care and why some advocate for privatized healthcare.  Every candidate on the dem ticket has a plan of some type for of universal or government run healthcare.  So I have to think that most of them think it is a right.  By extension then people basically have the right to good health it would seem.
> ...


It is common sense to wear protection when having sex if you don't want to have children. Should government mandate that all people wear condoms?

It is common sense that smoking cigarettes is bad for your health. Should government outlaw tobacco? Alcohol? Marijuana?

It is common sense that exercising each day is good for us. Should government require us to exercise each day?

Many things seem to be common sense. But that in no way justifies the use of government force.


----------



## usmcstinger (Dec 31, 2011)

Those who support Obamacare should know that the law has no *severabiliy clause.* Which means: If any part of the law is ruled unconstitutional, the entire law becomes unconstitutional.


----------



## madasheck (Dec 31, 2011)

dblack said:


> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I don't buy the government bureaucracy argument. I don't see any other way to solve the problem without involving them and still keep the rates down. Yes, it uses group insurance, but it also dictates certain provisions and premium rules.  It's not the devil that some have made it to be, IMO.


----------



## Grandma (Jan 1, 2012)

Listening said:


> mepokerdude said:
> 
> 
> > Of course it's a right.
> ...



Health insurance hasn't been around for hundreds of years.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jan 1, 2012)

usmcstinger said:


> Those who support Obamacare should know that the law has no *severabiliy clause.*



Doesn't matter.


----------



## dblack (Jan 1, 2012)

madasheck said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > madasheck said:
> ...



What do you mean you "don't buy the government bureaucracy argument"? I asserted that a government bureaucracy would dictate what kind of insurance we must buy. What part of that are you disputing?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 1, 2012)

madasheck said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



You might want to look up the definition of "socialism", Sparky.  "Totalitarianism", too.

I do like the intriguing concept of "Conservatives are trying to obliterate the discussion by introducing viewpoints other than mine inot it", though.  I never cease to be amazed by the many, MANY ways leftists can find to insist that only their opinions should be allowed.

Having government healthcare for everyone degrades the quality of life in a country, bottom line.  Why don't you assholes just pick a country with cradle-to-grave government healthcare and move there, instead of trying to force your utopian bullshit on people who don't want it?  Why does the whole entire world have to fit your grand design?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 1, 2012)

Grandma said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > mepokerdude said:
> ...



And now that it exists, you just can't live your own freaking life without someone else shelling out to give it to you immediately?


----------



## madasheck (Jan 1, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Thanks for the non-answer. How does everyone having the means to be in decent health degrade the quality of life?


----------



## ShackledNation (Jan 1, 2012)

madasheck said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > madasheck said:
> ...


You assumption that government is the best means for providing healthcare to everyone is simply incorrect. It is obvious that if everyone had access to decent healthcare the quality of life would be improved. But it is not at all obvious that using government to do so will achieve the results you desire. In fact, looking at the current US system of massive government involvement in healthcare pre-Obamacare (FDA, AMA, Medicare, Medicaid, countless mandates, abusive patents in pharmaceuticals, insurance companies in bed with government--the list goes on) it should be obvious that government in healthcare is a disaster.

Say I want to provide healthcare for my town. I decide to go into every small or big business with a gun, and demand all of the cash in the store and in the wallets of the customers. I take all of the money out of every register and every pocket of every person I come across. I then use that money to provide healthcare to the poor. That, in essence, is exactly what government run healthcare is. Do you not find anything wrong with that?


----------



## madasheck (Jan 2, 2012)

ShackledNation said:


> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



You're overstating the case a little with the gun imagery. But if that's the case, using your argument, it'd be wrong to be paying taxes for basics like roads and bridges, right?


----------



## ShackledNation (Jan 2, 2012)

madasheck said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > madasheck said:
> ...


Government enforces all of its policies with the threat of violence. I wish that were overstating the case, but it is not. To honestly answer your question, yes: taxation to pay for government roads and bridges follows the same principle.

That is what led Thomas Paine to say "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."


----------



## Political Junky (Jan 2, 2012)

Every civilized nation feels that health care is a right, with the exception of the United States.


----------



## ShackledNation (Jan 2, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Every civilized nation feels that health care is a right, with the exception of the United States.









Nice try.


----------



## beagle9 (Jan 4, 2012)

Bern80 said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > It is a right?  probably not.  Is it something that the richest most powerful nation on earth ought to provide to its citizenry?  I would say so.
> ...


What people keep forgetting here, is that if we were a society that could trust our brothers to run it like it should be run as we once had it more so in the olden days, then we could allow competition in the ways of healthcare to flourish and bring the cost down for all, otherwise let the market take care of it right(?) but since we moved into a trend of having greed and corruption creep into just about anything and everything these days, as pertaining to crooks getting nice and fat off of an already government subsidized healthcare system, by exploiting it's gargantuion size and complexities in which create holes the size of Texas to be taken from by these thieves, then the question should be "how do we continue to provide or allow the private sector to provide healthcare that is subsidized by the government for the government to the citizenry, if it can no longer be trusted to do so in a trustworthy and affording way anymore ? It is not the government that is the enemy, but rather it is simply a government response to an industry who allowed corruption to go wild in it, thus causing hundreds of thousands of average citizens to no longer be able to afford a decent plan or get covered, and this all due to the free market corruption that was building long before Obama took office.. Hillary tried to address it during Clintons stay, but was beaten back by a super strong health care lobby at that time, for whom had never been challenged like that before, thus only delaying the inevitable up until now. 

The problem with Republicans I am sad to say, is that they won't or can't speak the truth about this situation, thus giving Obama an edge over them, because they keep running with their heads in the sand (hoping the people will remain stupid or something), or they are being controlled by their handlers on and on in the situation. They have got to break free or Obama wins again without a contest..

I pay $40.00 dollars a week for single poor basic coverage right now (highest deductible), and that is outragous to say the least, and my daughter who has a two year old, and is struggling to make it (taking everything she has to make it from month to month), and yes she has a food stamp subsidy also, where as she has a job making $9.00 dollars and hour, drives an old 1980 beater car that keeps breaking, pays $600.00 dollars a month in rent, has a lightbill of on average $350.00 a month, no big screen, no cable, no nintendo's, $105,00 a week in daycare etc. and is now getting calls from a collection agency about some hospital bills where she had to take the baby to the doctor, and then on to the hospital. 

Ha, the politicians they worry about college kids being in debt? What about working class young adults having it hard? The collection agency was on the phone telling her to bum money from us her parents, who is also struggling in life right now as well, then they suggested she go and take out a credit card to pay them, and on and on it went this phone call, until I got mad and told her to just hang up on them finally.. Hell is gonna be full come judgement day, and for those who try to politically dupe us today, well they are going to be surprised when that day comes, because there will be no more spinning and hiding for them anylonger... The gig will be up... Christians some of them call themselves ????? Lets see what God thinks of those who hide behind that label, but work for the devil instead.


----------



## madasheck (Jan 4, 2012)

ShackledNation said:


> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> > ShackledNation said:
> ...



If government is an intolerable evil, then your arguments suggests we don't need it. But we do, no matter how much we love it or hate it. And government assisted health care is part of that equation, whether we like it or not.


----------



## logical4u (Jan 4, 2012)

If healthcare is provided, the one that is provided for will serve (SERVE) the provider.  That is not a right, that is maintaining an investment (the slave).


----------



## ShackledNation (Jan 4, 2012)

madasheck said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > madasheck said:
> ...


My argument suggests it is a necessary evil at best, an intolerable one at worst. If we need government, it does not follow that we need government healthcare, or that we should even want it.

But I must ask you the following question, and I am not implying that government should not exist. Why do we need government?


----------



## beagle9 (Jan 4, 2012)

Bern80 said:


> DiogenesDog said:
> 
> 
> > __________________
> ...


Always the reply about emergency room healthcare for the poor, as if that is the answer always in this class warfare type setting, in which gets created by this sort of speak on and on... What you speak of is constant dependency for the poor upon the government, instead of giving them some dignity, liberty and decency finally when it comes to their most personal possession which is their life, and this by adding them to the most fundemental service that ones life depends upon, in which is to have "medical care" that each and everyone one in this nation should recieve on an equal and fair opportunity basis.. 

Hey let all other forms of capitalism flourish, but take the service that determins whether one lives or dies off of the market finally, and this is all due to having sadly this difference in the quality of care based upon ones pocket book through class warfare, in which makes up the current situation, and thus we should make it available by right to all who are Americans here finally, and this as far as the nessesities go, but also make sure that it does not give the incentive for people to mass create babies without anyway to take care of them (happened in the past and still is happening), except that the system do it for them in which would be wrong, and so yes this would be my only objection to an all out no holds bar free system without rules regarding ones wrecklace actions in life, just like I am with an all out open border the same, where as speed bumps can be installed responsibly in everything we do ya know.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jan 5, 2012)

What we have now is Americans treating health care as their right.
Group health care employer paid for insurance: "I get mine for free so I might as well use it" is about as socialistic attitude as there ever is.
Medicare, Medicaid: SOCIALISM
75% of ALL prescriptions now are paid for by government.
There are varying figures on how much of the 18% of GNP we now spend on health care is now paid for or subsidized by government but it is approaching 50%.
American health care NOW is about as socialistic as it gets and it SUCKS.
But of course we have, BY FAR, the best disease care in the world.
The entire health care model is set up for that.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 5, 2012)

madasheck said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > madasheck said:
> ...



Why don't you take a good, hard look at the standard of living in one of those countries that has cradle-to-grave government healthcare - or even the level of care available - and see if you can figure it out?

There are some things the government must do, because they are the purpose for which government exists.  But you never actually IMPROVE anything but getting the government involved in it.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 5, 2012)

madasheck said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > madasheck said:
> ...



No, because roads and bridges are the proper purview of the government - and by the way, the purview of STATE and LOCAL governments, not federal - while personal, individual things like healthcare most assuredly are not.

I will never fathom why liberals are so simpleminded that they cannot see issues in anything but this puerile, "all-or-nothing" view.  It must be micromanaging, socialist nanny government, or anarchy.  There can be no in-between.  It's ridiculous.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 5, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Every civilized nation feels that health care is a right, with the exception of the United States.



And exactly why is it that you feel the United States should be trying to imitate other countries?  Why don't you just move to one of them, if you think they're so much better than we are, and leave this country the way it is for those of us who like it the way it is (or the way it was, before fucktards like you started defacing it)?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 5, 2012)

madasheck said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > madasheck said:
> ...



Who said government was an intolerable evil?  To paraphrase Thomas Paine, government in its best state is a necessary evil; when embraced by a bunch of dolts who forget that it's evil _at all_, it then becomes an intolerable evil.

And no, nanny government providing personal items - and your personal healthcare IS a personal item; I don't benefit in the slightest from you living or dying - that you should provide yourself is only "part of that equation" because of a bunch of lazy, selfish freaks who love the idea of getting something for nothing.


----------



## madasheck (Jan 5, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> > ShackledNation said:
> ...



You don't think preventable deaths that could be prevented by government assisted health care wouldn't benefit you and society both? If so, Ebenezer Scrooge has nothing on conservatives.


----------



## ShackledNation (Jan 5, 2012)

madasheck said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > madasheck said:
> ...


Even more deaths could be prevented by free market healthcare. Why do you see government as this benevolent force? Do you honestly think politicians and bureaucrats are motivated by altruism?

You assume that if government controls healthcare, more lives will be saved. Considering they have utterly failed when it comes to our education, what makes you think they will do any better with our health? Would you put government in charge of making iphones?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jan 5, 2012)

Private health care company stock skyrocketed today in Europe.
Why? And even in a bad debt situation there.
Because their health delivery system IS MORE STABLE AND UNIFORM than our dysfunctional system where we have over 1000 health insurance companies dictating health care.
Does anyone understand that it is health CARE. The care is the delivery of what you pay for and what we get we pay almost THREE TIMES more than other non government health care controlled countries.
The myth is that government partnering with the private sector to control THE DELIVERY SYSTEM, THE CARE is bad.
Just the opposite is true as evidenced by the rise in share prices in private health care companies in Europe.
What we have here is UNSUSTAINABLE. We now have blank check health care as it is.
"I have mine and will use it to the max and that is all I care about" is the mentality here.
And look where it has us. 
Germany nas it down right.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jan 5, 2012)

ShackledNation said:


> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



How is over 1000 DIFFERENT insurance companies controlling health care any better?
And it would not be government controlling the health care. It would BE YOU AND I controlling it.
Which does not happen now. The insurance companies control it.


----------



## ShackledNation (Jan 5, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > madasheck said:
> ...


Your mistake is assuming we currently have free market healthcare. We have corporatist, fascist healthcare in this country.


*1. Mandates*
Layers of regulation plague every aspect of medical care and health insurance in America. In the health-insurance industry, for instance, each state imposes dozens of regulatory mandates on health insurers, requiring them to include coverage of everything from massage therapy to hair implants. The reason for mandates is that the message-therapy and hair-implant industries (and many others) hire lobbyists to bribe state legislators to require insurers to cover their particular practice if they want to sell insurance within a state. In other words, it gives these companies a guaranteed market, because insurance cannot be offered without covering their products.

Each mandate increases the cost of health insurance and probably increases the typical health-insurance policy by hundreds, or thousands, of dollars yearly. Not to mention that if a company providing a healthcare service has customers that are forced to buy from it, it has less incentive to keep costs down because it can never lose its buyers (health insurance companies mandated to buy from them).

The state also creates state-wide cartels with laws prohibiting the portability of some aspects of health insurance. (For example,  some employer-provided health insurance covers pharmaceuticals in Maryland, but not in other states.). Cartelization always raises prices higher than they normally should or would be.

*2. Government grants hospitals monopolies*
Having taken over most of the hospital industry, government-run or government-subsidized hospitals have created regional monopoly power for themselves with so-called "certificate-of-need" (CON) regulation. How this regulatory scam works is that an existing hospital in an area will give itself the legal "right" to decide whether there is a legitimate "need" for more hospitals. They have given themselves, in other words, the right to veto new competition in the hospital industry. It is as if the Microsoft Corporation had a legal right to veto new competition in the computer industry.

Not surprisingly, research has shown that CON regulation has increased hospital costs. CON regulation is also used to block competition in various healthcare professions as well, from nursing to home healthcare.

*3. AMA licensing restricts the supply of doctors, granting them monopoly profits.*
Physicians have long enjoyed a degree of monopoly power derived from state legislatures that delegate to the American Medical Association (the doctors' union) the "right" to limit entry into medical schools through accreditation. Only graduates of accredited (by the AMA) medical schools are licensed to practice medicine. The AMA has used these state-granted privileges to limit both the number of medical schools and the number of medical-school graduates. The reduced supply of doctors drives up the price of medical care and the income of AMA members. Hundreds of other health professions limit entry with the help of occupational licensing regulation, the primary effect of which is to create monopoly profits, not to ensure quality of care.

*4. FDA protects status-quo pharmaceutical companies by banning products that compete with existing companies*
Government regulation of pharmaceuticals and medical devices, primarily by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), increases healthcare costs, denies the benefits of myriad helpful drugs and devices, and creates monopoly power. It has literally been responsible for the premature death of thousands of Americans who have been deprived of drugs that were long available to people in other countries.

FDA bureaucrats are extremely risk averse: On the one hand, it costs them nothing personally to delay a life-saving drug for years, if not decades, by demanding test after test. On the other hand, if they permit a drug to enter the marketplace that turns out to be dangerous, it is a public-relations disaster for the agency, which it does not want to be associated with. Consequently, the entrance of new drugs and medical devices onto the market is often delayed by years, costing many lives and inflicting much needless pain on those already suffering, while driving up prices.

The FDA also makes the market for pharmaceuticals less competitive by restricting what advertising may say for myriad drugs &#8212; even aspirin. New drugs do consumers no good if they do not know about them. Advertising restrictions imposed by the FDA, therefore, prop up the profits of incumbent drug marketers at the expense of newcomers in the industry and of consumers.

*5. Government created liability crisis*
The government's legal system is also responsible for what used to be called "the liability crisis." The genesis of this crisis began in the 1960s. The government courts began accepting the Chicago School Law and Economics argument that assigning all liability in product-liability cases to manufacturers would be a good way to minimize the "social costs" of accidents. Manufacturers know more about products such as medical devices than anyone else, the argument went, so contract law and shared responsibility for accidents with the users of the products were thrown out the window.

So, when accidents occur, slick trial lawyers have had an easy time convincing dumbed-down juries to award millions, or hundreds of millions, of dollars in liability lawsuits. These lawsuits have bankrupted the manufacturers of many medical devices, while convincing others that the devices are too risky to make. The effect on the healthcare consumer is poorer healthcare and higher prices.

Taken from this article.

On every level--local, state, and federal--government is in bed with all of the healthcare players and meddling in our lives. Government mandates certain services be covered by insurers and plans, a one size fits all policy giving suppliers of that service a guaranteed market, thus driving up prices. CON regulation creates hospital monopolies that prevent competition and lead to higher prices and lower quality service. The American Medical Association artificially restricts the supply of doctors, protecting their profits and leading to higher prices. The FDA serves to keep current pharmaceutical companies in charge, limiting innovation and advertising thus keeping prices high. Government mandating that manufacuruers are liable scares out innovation, and forces higher prices of medical devices to cover for legal costs.

Insurance is more expensive, hospital care is more expensive, doctors are more expensive, drugs are more expensive, and medical devices are more expensive all because of government interference in the industry. If the free market causes all these rising prices, why is it that computer technology keeps getting cheaper? Because we have much more of a free market in that industry.

Common problem in all of this? Government. The companies are all acting as scumbags as well, but without government setting up the framework they would not be able to.

And if government healthcare means you and I controlling healthcare, riddle me this. Do you and I control the wars overseas? In a free market, companies can only make money if they get people to buy their product. Government can just take our money and say deal with it.


----------



## madasheck (Jan 5, 2012)

ShackledNation said:


> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Government doesn't administer health care. Hospitals do.


----------



## ShackledNation (Jan 5, 2012)

madasheck said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > madasheck said:
> ...


I didn't say anything about government administering healthcare. It is important to note that 20% of US hospitals are, in fact, government owned public hospitals. Also, look to my previous post about CON regulations to see the nature of the US hospital system.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jan 5, 2012)

ShackledNation said:


> Also, look to my previous post about CON regulations to see the nature of the US hospital system.



Your post mischaracterizes what a CON is (_"...an existing hospital in an area will give itself the legal 'right' to decide whether there is a legitimate 'need' for more hospitals. They have given themselves, in other words, the right to veto new competition in the hospital industry."_). Hospitals do not get veto power over competitors in states with CON requirements.


----------



## madasheck (Jan 5, 2012)

ShackledNation said:


> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> > ShackledNation said:
> ...



You've been going back and forth about the government controlling healthcare, then you deny it. Good grief. All Obama is doing is setting up a system for people who need health care to get it. So what's the problem? People need health care. People should get health care. It'll never happen otherwise. Or is that the Republican plan -- screw the people who need health care and are having trouble affording it as long as I have mine?


----------



## ShackledNation (Jan 5, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > Also, look to my previous post about CON regulations to see the nature of the US hospital system.
> ...


I am not mischaracterizing them at all. In states with CON requirements, a new hospital cannot establish itself unless it first goes to a government bureaucracy to get permission, which will only be granted if it is deemed there is a "need" for another hospital. Who has a big say in determining whether or not there is a need? The existing hospitals. CON requirements simply serve to allow existing hospitals to block out competition and receive monopoly profits.


----------



## ShackledNation (Jan 5, 2012)

madasheck said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > madasheck said:
> ...


Maybe you have trouble reading, but nothing I am referring to has to do with Obamacare at all. I am talking about the system prior to Obamacare that Obamacare did absolutely nothing to fix.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 5, 2012)

madasheck said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > madasheck said:
> ...



Not really, and not just because I don't believe for a second that there will be any measurable increase in any such thing.  I realize that leftists have this odd notion that people are just dropping dead in the streets out there, totally ignored by people who step over them to get to their high rises and power lunches, but you might want to rejoin us in Reality Land for a while.

I hate to break it to you, Sparky, but it makes no difference to my life if you die or not.  Likewise, I have trouble believing that people who cannot and will not provide for their own medical care, who will just languish and let themselves die without Nanny Government to care for them, were ever contributing anything to society that will be missed.

By the way, Sparky, YOU are the one espousing Scrooge's point, not me.  He didn't want to give PERSONAL charity because there were already PUBLIC charities for the indigent.  And here you are, advocating public charity over personal, just like him.

If you want to quote literature to support your point, you might try actually READING IT FIRST.  Frigging illiterate public school graduate leftists.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 5, 2012)

ShackledNation said:


> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Well, if we want to talk about preventable deaths, let's talk about people in socialized-medicine countries, who die while waiting for surgery because the wait times are so long.  How's THAT for preventable?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 5, 2012)

madasheck said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > madasheck said:
> ...



And if you believe that, I have some bottom land I'd like to sell you.  Just don't ask what it's on the bottom OF.


----------



## logical4u (Jan 6, 2012)

madasheck said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > madasheck said:
> ...



"Government" has historically been the number one cause of death for both its citizens and for declared enemies (that had something the 'gov't' wanted).  I am stunned that given history, so many people are handing the lives of their loved ones to bureaucrats?  It makes no sense.  Doctors are going broke, with the new lack of payment or reduction of payment under this administration.  That means less specialists to go around.  Who will be giving the free healthcare?  Will it be unqualified welfare recipients, that the gov't says 'you have received benefits long enough, if you want a check, you will report for duty'?  Will it be students in colleges that cannot get a gov't student loan without "volunteering"?  These are scary times, and this government is determined to take away the "rights" listed in the Bill of Rights, to be replaced by "government given-rights" as long as you behave as the government wants you to behave.  This upcoming election may be the last chance we have to keep our "God-given" rights.


----------



## logical4u (Jan 6, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > madasheck said:
> ...



It would be a MONOPOLY.  1000 different companies do not "control" health care.  Those companies compete for customers and must provide a service that is "desired" (if they do not provide fair service, they do not stay in business).  Also, because they do not "control" health care, people are free to go to medical providers and pay cash (I know, that is a foreign concept).  Wealthy people can pay to specialized service with medical provider while supplying themselves as the experimental subject.  In many cases, after they die, a huge chunk of money is donated to the specialist service that helped them, working for cures that benefit "the many".  The gov't will "judge" who is worthy of intensive medical care, and who is "unworthy" (non-beneficial to the 'gov't').  Is this what you want?  For the gov't to guide the direction of medical studies (it will be easier for them to eliminate (sterilization or kill) the unhealthy and promote a breeding program of healthier people (super race).  Are you thinking this thru?


----------



## Polk (Jan 6, 2012)

No, it's not a right. It is good public policy to provide for the health of the citizenry, but it's not a right.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jan 6, 2012)

ShackledNation said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > ShackledNation said:
> ...



No sir, I agree with most of what you state.
And it would be insurance companies and their lobbyists that bribe the government into what we receive NOW.
And Americans LOVE IT!


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jan 6, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



The current model we have is for disease care. More specialists each and every year and most of them cater to seniors.
In 2010 55% of ALL HEALTH CARE DOLLARS in America were spent on 4% of the population, 90% of them over the age of 65.
And 7 0UT OF 8 of the diseases they were treated for with that 55% of ALL HEALTH CARE DOLLARS were PREVENTABLE DISEASES!!!
To the tune of over 200K in taxpayer dollars in the last 5 years of a seniors' life on AVERAGE.
We do not have health care here anymore. WE HAVE DISEASE CARE. 
Wake the hell up. The numbers do not lie. 
And the doctors love it.


----------



## ShackledNation (Jan 6, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


Americans surely do not love it. They are faced with higher insurance prices and lower quality care than would otherwise exist. The special interests love it. It would be the government that is acting outside of its constitutional rights in giving such benefits in the first place. The solution to the problem is getting the government out of all the above. The difficulty of such a task is an example of democracy and government failing, not the free market.


----------



## SayMyName (Jan 11, 2012)

No one has a right to anything except what is in the Constitution, and judging from the days when it was enacted, that meant you can buy or barter or do whatever you want so long as you don't interfere with another's right to do the same.

If you want a pair of $200 Jordans, you buy them. If I decide to spend my money on medical insurance, I can do just that.


----------



## beagle9 (Jan 11, 2012)

SayMyName said:


> No one has a right to anything except what is in the Constitution, and judging from the days when it was enacted, that meant you can buy or barter or do whatever you want so long as you don't interfere with another's right to do the same.
> 
> If you want a pair of $200 Jordans, you buy them. If I decide to spend my money on medical insurance, I can do just that.


And you feel that is the right of the insurance companies to operate in any state in the union, the way that they want to, by what is afforded or allowed them in those states, even if they are gouging the hey out of their customers, hoping that no one will intervene what so ever in the situation? My friend is paying $125 dollars a week right now for coverage for him and his wife, and he went to the doctor the other day for a serious problem he has with acid reflux (desease), where as the doctor gave him a prescription for Nexium to take, so he began taking the purple pill each day, and it brought huge relief and results towards his condition, but guess what, the insurance won't cover this pill for him to take now, so the cost is around $200.00 dollars a month if he wants to keep the pill going each day in which he cannot afford to do...So now I ask what good is insurance if one can't use it, and all one does is pay for it, but don't you dare use it now ?


----------



## dblack (Jan 11, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> And you feel that is the right of the insurance companies to operate in any state in the union, the way that they want to, by what is afforded or allowed them in those states, even if they are gouging the hey out of their customers, hoping that no one will intervene what so ever in the situation? My friend is paying $125 dollars a week right now for coverage for him and his wife, and he went to the doctor the other day for a serious problem he has with acid reflux (desease), where as the doctor gave him a prescription for Nexium to take, so he began taking the purple pill each day, and it brought huge relief and results towards his condition, but guess what, the insurance won't cover this pill for him to take now, so the cost is around $200.00 dollars a month if he wants to keep the pill going each day in which he cannot afford to do...So now I ask what good is insurance if one can't use it, and all one does is pay for it, but don't you dare use it now ?



Sure, as long as they're not committing fraud and, most importantly, as long as I'm not forced to do business with them.


----------



## beagle9 (Jan 11, 2012)

dblack said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > And you feel that is the right of the insurance companies to operate in any state in the union, the way that they want to, by what is afforded or allowed them in those states, even if they are gouging the hey out of their customers, hoping that no one will intervene what so ever in the situation? My friend is paying $125 dollars a week right now for coverage for him and his wife, and he went to the doctor the other day for a serious problem he has with acid reflux (desease), where as the doctor gave him a prescription for Nexium to take, so he began taking the purple pill each day, and it brought huge relief and results towards his condition, but guess what, the insurance won't cover this pill for him to take now, so the cost is around $200.00 dollars a month if he wants to keep the pill going each day in which he cannot afford to do...So now I ask what good is insurance if one can't use it, and all one does is pay for it, but don't you dare use it now ?
> ...


Ok, so lets say you need to do business with a health insurance company, but their is only one that you can do business with in which you can afford in your state, but then you find out that the reason you can afford it, is because the policy they will have written for you, is virtually no good & barely covers or pays for anything, and that really all you are doing by way of affordability, is giving what little bit of money you have in affordability, to a company that is not giving you an adequate policy for your health to be maintained in a quality way. 

Is this ok or acceptable by you, when it comes to peoples lives, and isn't this a form of fraud perpetrated in the state when it comes to healthcare and a company gouging it's clients in which is allowed to exist in the state, where as the people are being misled or forced into dealing with predators who want money from them, but end up giving hardly nothing in return for that money that was taken from them ?  These are real problems that have been attempted to be adressed, but many on the take want a blind eye turned towards such problems when it comes to these elections.

The people are tired of being played as fools, and these past elections have been showing this now..  Not enough is being done yet, but it is the peoples hopes that these issues will be adressed and will be dealt with by the next President right on and on, and if Obama meets with his continued rehetoric on the issues, while the republicans hide from it, then he wins again hands down. It's just that simple, because there are many who have been wiped out by the republicans and their greed, thus leading to some pretty bad things in this nation in concerns of, and yes the dems have had their hands in it also, but the dems are in the position of having a better human rights record on compassion, where as the repubs have been greedy tyrants for the last 20 or 30 years looking back now.

This nation is in a pickle, and no one soul knows the answer to it all, because many are still on the take for whom are in the cliques only, and their brainwashing has them voting with their wallets that are stuffed by the clique, but sadly they are in the minority when it comes to who has been hurt in this nation over time by it all, so the majority will place Obama back into the whitehouse again, because he will continue the class warfare found within these issues, while the repubs constantly cry fowl and cling to their greed, and not to their guns and religion as was claimed.


----------



## logical4u (Jan 11, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > madasheck said:
> ...



This is "still" the USA.  Are you suggesting that people be "told" where they can spend "their" money/benefits?  So what if 4% of the population needs health care more than the rest of us.  Are you suggesting (like the dear leader) that we just give those people pills, to assist their deaths and not "treat" them.  Have you ever considered that the "elderly" supply the money, supply the experimental subjects, and do not demand the treatment be successful for diseases that were not even treated one hundred years ago.  Are you suggesting that the jobs of all those treating the elderly, just stop?  Medicare is the number one health insurance that denies benefits.  Why don't we just ask the government to get out of health care and let competition make care more efficient, and less expensive?


----------



## logical4u (Jan 11, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> SayMyName said:
> 
> 
> > No one has a right to anything except what is in the Constitution, and judging from the days when it was enacted, that meant you can buy or barter or do whatever you want so long as you don't interfere with another's right to do the same.
> ...



Medical insurance is not for regular health maintenance.  It is for emergency or catastrophic care.  Tell your buddy to skip nexium and eat an apple every night.


----------



## logical4u (Jan 11, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



The people that "have" insurance either worked harder to earn enough to get good coverage, or they took a job that paid insurance (not necessarily thrilled with the job).  When kids are starting out (from high school), they usually do not need medical coverage (maybe catostrophic coverage for freak diseases).  They either get a bare bones policy or none at all.  As they get older, typically, they increase their skills and marketability to be able to afford what they want (along with medical insurance).  It seems the same people that are "playing the system" (working jobs and not reporting their income) are now the ones screaming that life isn't fair, and they don't waaannnnaaa pay for their own health care.  If you want to be someone's "toy", be good looking enough and appealing enough for someone to take you into their "care".  I, as a taxpayer, do not want you, or need the additional burden of your care added to the responsibilities that I accepted as an adult (it isn't fair).


----------



## madasheck (Jan 11, 2012)

logical4u said:


> Why don't we just ask the government to get out of health care and let competition make care more efficient, and less expensive?




Because it wouldn't. Asking the medical industry to regulate their prices to consumers is comedy at the extreme.


----------



## beagle9 (Jan 11, 2012)

logical4u said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > SayMyName said:
> ...


Oh so you are suggesting that people listen to a person like you, tell them to eat an apple a day, yet to what maybe keep his symptoms away? Apples are full of acid ya know, and so now you have killed my buddy with your prescription coming from a repub who would rather tell someone something this crazy, by suggestion it is the alternative and is good for him when it would not be, and all in hopes that they would believe it (?) or is it that you should be someone who should be helping my friend fight for the services by what he is paying for, or no if you were that person, you would be attacking the aggregious bottom line of the insurance company, who is gouging my friend, and thus trying to give nothing back to him as far as product or service goes, and this regardless of what he is paying them for, so no you can't be that person can you, because the clique won't let you now will they?


----------



## IndependntLogic (Jan 11, 2012)

Bern80 said:


> Why do I ask?  To me it seems to be the most fundamental part of why some advocate for universal health care and why some advocate for privatized healthcare.  Every candidate on the dem ticket has a plan of some type for of universal or government run healthcare.  So I have to think that most of them think it is a right.  By extension then people basically have the right to good health it would seem.
> 
> The problem I have with it being a right is the concept of a 'right' itself.  A 'right' like the right to free speech or right to bear arms is something that is provided you without any cost or requirment to obtain access to.  You don't have to earn the right to free speech or pay a fee when you want to speak.  The conundrum I have with healthcare is if it is your right, that is you are under no personal responsibility to provide it for yourself, then who's responsibility is it, and why?  If I'm not paying for the services somone else must be.  According to Hillary anyway that will be increased taxes on the rich.  But wait healthcare is a right, so why should the rich be expected to pay for it?  It's a right so isn't it suppossed to be free to them as well?  Why should they be worried about their own health as well as those that can't pay for it?
> 
> Rush had a caller on today who was a female physician and basically asked the same question.  Why is she, a provider of a service like any other service, expected to provide it a reduced rate or free all together?  You can't control all aspects of your health anymore than you can control all aspects of your car working, but we expect people to pay to have their own car fixed even if not responsible for the problem, yet some have this expectation that when 'shit happens' where your health is concerned it's suppossed to be free to get 'fixed'.



Sure it's a right. It's amazing how easily The Machine has brain-washed so many Americans into believing that of all the things our tax money should go to, this isn't one of them. We're probably about the only country in the world whose citizens fell for that one.


----------



## beagle9 (Jan 11, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > madasheck said:
> ...


Oh so what people do here instead, is just steal peoples money by taking way to much from them, or not paying enough when they could do much better by them, in order to have the money for their push towards the front of the line, while those in which they had held back by a corrupt way of class warfare, in which is conducted by them so precisely, are left to die out of sight and out of mind eh? This is what you support here as the alternative to other nations and their health care systems ?


----------



## dblack (Jan 12, 2012)

CardingExp said:


> why should it not be a right ?
> 
> we dun pay tax ntn ....



Good point.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jan 12, 2012)

Article X (the Tenth Amendment)  "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".

How are the people to decide?  Is it time for major issues such as health care to be decided by a national Referendum?  Are some issues so polluted by special interests money and too important to leave to members of Congress whose vote is may have been purchased, or who may have a  personal/financial interest?

I know how I would vote on national health care, on making members of Congress place their assets in a blind trust, on an effort to move toward a greener energy policy, on campaign finance reform and on the matter of immigration.  Yes, let real people decide, not the corporations whose sole purpose is to make money, many times at the expense of real people.


----------



## SayMyName (Jan 12, 2012)

Wry Catcher said:


> Article X (the Tenth Amendment)  "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".
> 
> How are the people to decide?  Is it time for major issues such as health care to be decided by a national Referendum?  Are some issues so polluted by special interests money and too important to leave to members of Congress whose vote is may have been purchased, or who may have a  personal/financial interest?
> 
> I know how I would vote on national health care, on making members of Congress place their assets in a blind trust, on an effort to move toward a greener energy policy, on campaign finance reform and on the matter of immigration.  Yes, let real people decide, not the corporations whose sole purpose is to make money, many times at the expense of real people.



This is exactly why the government must be reduced in size and scope. Remember, it was government that created corporations as "individuals." Before the 1900's, our government understood the dangers of corporations, and made sure they were dismantled after any one project that they were tasked to complete (e.g. Eerie Canal and others).

As governments size increases, so do corporations. You can vote anyway you want, but it will all remain the same unless you take the Holy Grail away that is sought after, and that is a larger government, with ever increasing number of people to be influenced for political favor.

Health care costs have risen as government has risen, along with the corporations in health that curry their favor.

Health care is not a right. It is a choice. One chooses to spend their money on being well, or they choose not to take such a path.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jan 12, 2012)

Basic healthcare, like a basic education, should be available to all regardless of their ability to pay.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 12, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



Ahh, the ever-popular liberal ploy of "Let's set up a hypothetical situation that would never exist in the real world, and then discuss public policy based on THAT, rather than reality".

I have a better idea.  Let's say the world works the way it ACTUALLY works, and people behave the way people ACTUALLY behave.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 12, 2012)

madasheck said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Why don't we just ask the government to get out of health care and let competition make care more efficient, and less expensive?
> ...



Yes, that whole "competition controls the prices" thing NEVER works in any OTHER industry, so why would we think it would in medicine?

Have you always been this stupid, or was there a catastrophic head injury somewhere in your past?  Perhaps THAT is why you're so eager to make other people pay to keep your worthless ass alive.


----------



## Starbuck (Jan 12, 2012)

There was a comment from someone talking about us still evolving still that came up with a good point. What he said was, When Shakespeare time, one out of three lived to be twenty-one; during the time of Darwin, one out of two lived to be twenty-one, during our time &#8211; ninety-five percent lived to be twenty-one. The reason we live longer is because of health care and safety standards we have placed into law. 

During our time, with ninety-five percent of the population lives to the age of twenty-one: a woman has to produce on average 2.1 children per-female to keep the population stable. If we look at the nineteen century, with one out of two lived to be twenty-one: an average woman had to produce four plus children per-female to keep the population stable.

Women in the twenty-first century can hold off with marriage and having their first child into their mid twenties. That gives her the ability to get a college education, and be able to produce something of worth to the economy. If we look at a woman of the nineteen century, with needing to produce four or more children to keep the population stable, and in fact produce more children to increase the over all population during that century. The woman would have to have a much earlier marriage and have their first child much earlier then now. 

We understand the economical problems with young women in their teenage years having children &#8211; less educated, lower overall income that last for the rest of her life, a higher cost with welfare that only increases taxes with higher income families that had their first child later in life. 

Do not think we want to go back to the nineteen century, with the average lifespan was in the forties, an early marriage for both sexes, less higher education for both genders, and woman needing to be pregnant at a very early age with their fist child and have more children then we have today by a factor of twice the average family of today.

There is this love from the right of America that is in love with the values and ethics of the nineteenth century. Question is, do you want a fifty-fifty change you will live to be twenty-one. If you pass that, have an average lifespan in the forties that is now in the seventies. Then, starts a family at a much earlier age, that the American right blast as unethical with teenagers having children in their teens: but was the norm in the nineteenth century. 

Maybe, the universal heath care looks to be a less of a cost now, than it would be if we were in the nineteenth century. Does the right love their 401(k), with only a very few ever got to that age in the nineteenth century. Does the right love the ability they can if they want, have grandchildren and be in good heath? Or, having half of their children live to be twenty-one; and their children, only half to live to be twenty-one &#8211; if you have four grandchildren twenty-one and older, in the nineteenth century, you would have one. 

With me, I really like to live to be very old and in great health: what about you.


----------



## madasheck (Jan 12, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Thanks for the name calling. It shows you have nothing to argue with.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Jan 12, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Hmmm. So you're prone to petty insults instead of debating issues. Conservative, right? You made a comment earleir about "all those people dying waiting for healthcare in those danm socialist countries" and other such nonsense. So a simple question: 
How many of those countries have _you_ lived in and received healthcare in?

I mean, I've seen your posts regarding the MSM so surely you're not foolish enough to believe all this BS just because the MSM tells you it's true, right? So which country or countries have you received this horrible health care in?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 12, 2012)

madasheck said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > madasheck said:
> ...



Ahhh, more dodging.  You must enjoy being laughed at.

Call me when you grow a pair and can respond to a topic instead of finding anything and everything to whinge about in order to avoid it, little girl.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 12, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > madasheck said:
> ...



Riiiight.  The rest of the world is a socialist paradise, and we're just being lied to by the mainstream media, which of course is always trying SO HARD to promote the wonders of the United States.

Before you run off thinking you get to fire off questions and demands, dumbass, how about you try to see past your kindergarten tattling mode to the actual point of my post (I know, that requires a lot more reading comprehension than your kind usually produces)?  I'll spell it out for you, out of the goodness of my heart:  competition controls the prices in most industries, including health care of the non-essential kind, so why would anyone with a teaspoon of brains assume that it wouldn't have the same effect on more essential healthcare?

Let me know if you or your sniveling little compatriot ever get the stones to actually address the topic.  I won't hold my breath.  

Once you do, maybe I'll grant you the respect needed to let you ask me questions.  Until then, "Must be conservative", huh?  So you're prone to petty insults instead of debating the issues.  If you can't be bothered to see the rest of the post, I see no reason why I should, hypocrite.


----------



## Staidhup (Jan 12, 2012)

Simple answer, the country is broke, living off credit, with Medicare, and Medicaid still in place can not afford it. Second, what right is it that the government feels it has under the commerce act to impose on the people the obligation to purchase health care, furthermore, what right is it that of the government to dictate health care options and procedures available to its citizens. If a person feels they are invincible let them play and pay for their stupidity. Until the free market is permitted to function and state barriers are broken down allowing true competition no one will know what the true cost of health insurance could be. Health care is not a right its a responsibility that rests on the shoulders of every citizen. Should the government help or lend assistance in the purchase of health care, do away the Medicare and Medicaid then yes, but not within the context of government control. For the sake of god those idiots in DC cant even balance their check book and you think that turning control of your health over to them is a wise move.Can you say Looser!


----------



## IndependntLogic (Jan 12, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Wow. You're quite the angry little thing, aren't you? Obviously the answer to my question is that you have never lived in a country with universal health care - which is why you dodge it and stomp your little feeties etc...

So fine. I'd be happy to show how issues / questions are addressed directly. Then you will have something to aspire to!

Yes little angry person, competition can help pricing and service. In the USA, it does not do a sufficient job though. If it did, everyone would be able to afford basic health care and no one would file bankruptcy due to medical bills. 
You rant all that time for one point (which has obviously been spoon-fed to you): The _only _way to provide any product or service is through competition.
This kind of dichotomous (ask a Liberal to explain that word to you) thinking is common among the ignorant and unsophisticated. 
You're simply wrong. 
There are many products and services that are delivered by the government without ANY competition. One of the best examples is libraries. They provide both a service and a product. They compete directly with book stores. They enable those who could not otherwise afford books (or prefer to simply get them for free) to enjoy reading. Did libraries put bookstores out of business? Nope. There is room for both. Are you against libraries? Do you consider libraries "Socialist"? No, of course not. Those who feed you your opinions, haven't told you to feel negatively about libraries.
But you have told to believe that the government providing health care must be bad. So you believe it. They prey upon your basic socio-political leanings and convince you there is reason in this foolishness. Oh well. Life in America, eh?
Allow me to educate you: Using tax dollars to provide for the welfare of our citizens doesn't make us a Socialist country. That too, is the product of ignorant and unsophisticated thinking. We have had social programs since before we were a country.
But it's okay. It's not like you think for yourself. If you did, I wouldn't be able to easily predict all of your opinions on over a dozen, unrelated political issues - which I can. Of course, you cannot do that with me because I think for myself. 
So simply put. You're right in that competition _can_ help pricing but you're wrong in that you think this is the _only_ way in which pricing / service can be efficiently delivered. If you were right, there would be no Sherman Act.


----------



## waltky (Jan 12, 2012)

Granny says, "Dat's right...

... it's a right...

... cause it's right...

... fer it to be a right."

*India marks milestone in fight against polio*
_Thu Jan 12,`12 &#8211; India will celebrate a full year since its last reported case of polio on Friday, a major victory in a global eradication effort that seemed stalled just a few years ago._


> If no previously undisclosed cases of the crippling disease are discovered, India will no longer be considered polio endemic, leaving only Pakistan, Afghanistan and Nigeria on that list.  "This is a game changer in a huge way," said Bruce Aylward, head of the World Health Organization's global polio campaign.  The achievement gives a major morale boost to health advocates and donors who had begun to lose hope of ever defeating the stubborn disease that the world had promised to eradicate by 2000.  It also helps India, which bills itself as one of the world's emerging powers, shed the embarrassing link to a disease associated with poverty and chaos, one that had been conquered long ago by most of the globe.
> 
> The government cautiously welcomed the milestone as a confirmation of its commitment to fighting the disease and the 120 billion rupees ($2.4 billion) it has spent on the program.  "We are excited and hopeful. At the same time, vigilant and alert," Health Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad said in a statement. Azad warned that India needed to push forward with its vaccination campaign to ensure the elimination of any residual virus and to prevent the import and spread of virus from abroad.  The polio virus, which usually infects children in unsanitary conditions, attacks the central nervous system, sometimes causing paralysis, muscular atrophy, deformation and, in some cases, death.
> 
> ...


----------



## IndependntLogic (Jan 12, 2012)

waltky said:


> Granny says, "Dat's right...
> 
> ... it's a right...
> 
> ...


[/QUOTE]

As stated before, only in America are people so gullible that they can be led to believe the health & welfare of our citizens should not be prioritized over the hundreds of other BS programs paid for. Gotta love the insurance & medical lobbies. They do one helluva job of buying politicians and marketing propaganda.


----------



## dblack (Jan 12, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> Basic healthcare, like a basic education, should be available to all regardless of their ability to pay.



And what else? There are quite a few things we depend on as 'necessities'. Shouldn't government be responsible for providing us with those as well?


----------



## logical4u (Jan 12, 2012)

madasheck said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Why don't we just ask the government to get out of health care and let competition make care more efficient, and less expensive?
> ...



Does "laser eye surgery" mean anything to you?  It is a prime example of a medical treatment that had a few doctors using it at a very high cost.  As more doctors learned the proceedures, the prices came down, and quality was maintained.

That must really scare you, something works without a bureaucrat stamping it (increasing price and decreasing efficiency).


----------



## logical4u (Jan 12, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



Did he try it?


----------



## logical4u (Jan 12, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Why do I ask?  To me it seems to be the most fundamental part of why some advocate for universal health care and why some advocate for privatized healthcare.  Every candidate on the dem ticket has a plan of some type for of universal or government run healthcare.  So I have to think that most of them think it is a right.  By extension then people basically have the right to good health it would seem.
> ...



So all the countries in Africa, the Middle East, and the Far East "receive" health care at "no cost".... just sayin' if it is a right, it should be "everywhere".


----------



## logical4u (Jan 12, 2012)

Starbuck said:


> There was a comment from someone talking about us still evolving still that came up with a good point. What he said was, When Shakespeare time, one out of three lived to be twenty-one; during the time of Darwin, one out of two lived to be twenty-one, during our time  ninety-five percent lived to be twenty-one. The reason we live longer is because of health care and safety standards we have placed into law.
> 
> During our time, with ninety-five percent of the population lives to the age of twenty-one: a woman has to produce on average 2.1 children per-female to keep the population stable. If we look at the nineteen century, with one out of two lived to be twenty-one: an average woman had to produce four plus children per-female to keep the population stable.
> 
> ...



Do you think that health care was a "right" when the overall health and welfare was improving?  Do you think that forcing people to provide health care (for people that are unwilling to care for themselves or take responsibility for their lives) will increase life expectancy or decrease life expectancy (if you take those that are healthy and give them impossible burdens, all you have left are the unhealthy)?  Do you think that other countries that provide minimum care for their citizens while allowing the people that paid their way are moved to the end of the line feel good about the gov't leaving them to die, after the promises of "healthcare is a right" and your care is assured?   If you hate insurance companies, why are you insisting the ANOTHER layer of bureaucracy and pencil pushers are added between you and your doctor?  You speak of ideology, yet there is little practicality in your words.  How do you force people that are working to support "their" families to support people that refuse to support themselves (that are fully capable, but choose to "freeload")?  At what point do you draw the line?  Will 50 % of the population be forced to support the other 50% (isn't that slavery)?  Will 25% be forced to support 75% of the population (do you think that is sustainable)?  Think about it: at what point were you willing to become a "subject" instead of a "citizen"?


----------



## logical4u (Jan 12, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> waltky said:
> 
> 
> > Granny says, "Dat's right...
> ...



As stated before, only in America are people so gullible that they can be led to believe the health & welfare of our citizens should not be prioritized over the hundreds of other BS programs paid for. Gotta love the insurance & medical lobbies. They do one helluva job of buying politicians and marketing propaganda.[/QUOTE]

Do us all a favor, and prioritize the "BS programs" so we know the way.  Tell us is everyone eligible for "free healthcare"?  Who pays the nurses, the aides, the doctors, the hospitals, the medical centers?  Do you think those people are just going to go to work every day without being paid, appropriately?  Just "who" is going to "pay" for this "right"?


----------



## IndependntLogic (Jan 12, 2012)

logical4u said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



LOL! So you think Rwanda for example, is an example of a country that offers the kind of human rights you want for America??? 

Ummmm yeah. Strong argument there junior.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Jan 12, 2012)

logical4u said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > waltky said:
> ...



Do us all a favor, and prioritize the "BS programs" so we know the way.  Tell us is everyone eligible for "free healthcare"?  Who pays the nurses, the aides, the doctors, the hospitals, the medical centers?  Do you think those people are just going to go to work every day without being paid, appropriately?  Just "who" is going to "pay" for this "right"?[/QUOTE]

Be happy to. We pay more than every other country in the world COMBINED on defense. You think we're so evil that's necessary? Or that out soldiers are so bad at their job? Nope. You've been sold on it. 
How about the billions we just give away to the corrupt politicians of foreign countries? You prioritize THAT over making sure our vets get health & mental care?
But the idea of using tax dollars for the well-being of the citizenry extends only within the parameters you've been led to believe are "acceptable". 
So your ignorance on this subject is understandable. You've been programmed to believe something by those who prey on certain metaprograms in your political and cultural ideology & preferences. You don't know any better than to believe the bs they feed you, you just do. 
You believe you think for yourself and that it's a "coincidence" that I can tell you all your opinions on dozens of unrelated issues, with 90%+ accuracy but that you can't do this with me (it's that free & independent thinking thing).


----------



## dblack (Jan 12, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > IndependntLogic said:
> ...



 C'mon! You're not going to invoke Somalia?!?!?


----------



## dblack (Jan 12, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> Be happy to. We pay more than every other country in the world COMBINED on defense. You think we're so evil that's necessary? Or that out soldiers are so bad at their job? Nope. You've been sold on it.
> How about the billions we just give away to the corrupt politicians of foreign countries? You prioritize THAT over making sure our vets get health & mental care?



Heck. I didn't know you were a Ron Paul fan!  Welcome to the fold, bro!


----------



## IndependntLogic (Jan 12, 2012)

dblack said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > Be happy to. We pay more than every other country in the world COMBINED on defense. You think we're so evil that's necessary? Or that out soldiers are so bad at their job? Nope. You've been sold on it.
> ...



Oh hell yeah! Well, about 2/3 of the time, anyway. I just wish he didn't keep shooting himself in the foot - and then the leg - and the the face. 
But there is SO much I agree with him on! It's just the stuff I find completely out in left field that I disagree with.


----------



## logical4u (Jan 12, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > IndependntLogic said:
> ...



Don't they "share the misery" (like the current President is encouraging)?  Just pointing out what "you" claim is a right is NOT a "right".


----------



## logical4u (Jan 12, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > As stated before, only in America are people so gullible that they can be led to believe the health & welfare of our citizens should not be prioritized over the hundreds of other BS programs paid for. Gotta love the insurance & medical lobbies. They do one helluva job of buying politicians and marketing propaganda.
> ...



Be happy to. We pay more than every other country in the world COMBINED on defense. You think we're so evil that's necessary? Or that out soldiers are so bad at their job? Nope. You've been sold on it. 
How about the billions we just give away to the corrupt politicians of foreign countries? You prioritize THAT over making sure our vets get health & mental care?
But the idea of using tax dollars for the well-being of the citizenry extends only within the parameters you've been led to believe are "acceptable". 
So your ignorance on this subject is understandable. You've been programmed to believe something by those who prey on certain metaprograms in your political and cultural ideology & preferences. You don't know any better than to believe the bs they feed you, you just do. 
You believe you think for yourself and that it's a "coincidence" that I can tell you all your opinions on dozens of unrelated issues, with 90%+ accuracy but that you can't do this with me (it's that free & independent thinking thing). [/QUOTE]

That is the extent of your priority list?  Not very precise.
The current President (the one touting forced support of healthcare) was trying to cut healthcare to vets wounded during service, once they were out of the military (many were discharge due to their wounds), and you want to trust him with yours?
The "well being" of citizenry?  Please categorize what "citizens" will be eligible for "free care" and which citizens will be forced to pay for that care.  Then explain how you will enforce the eligibility (libs don't even want ID used to vote, I can't imagine what they would think about requiring it for health care).  It is a system that will bankrupt the program, and if it is not ended, it will bankrupt the nation.

BTW if we don't have a military, how common do you think roadside bombs would be, here?  

The money for "corrupt" gov'ts: think of it as a divorce: you pay for someone not to live with you.


----------



## beagle9 (Jan 12, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Ahh, so this is a reality thing based upon or according to you and/or me type of response you have given eh? Well come this election time we shall see who will be behaving in a realistic way, or rather who will be living in a denial kind of way, and this as the people will then again decide with their vote, who will truly put an end to the dreamers of greed over the nation's security and health in which it has threatened as a whole now.


----------



## Douger (Jan 13, 2012)

Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurp.
What did you do with my money ?


----------



## IndependntLogic (Jan 13, 2012)

logical4u said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



That is the extent of your priority list?  Not very precise.
The current President (the one touting forced support of healthcare) was trying to cut healthcare to vets wounded during service, once they were out of the military (many were discharge due to their wounds), and you want to trust him with yours?
The "well being" of citizenry?  Please categorize what "citizens" will be eligible for "free care" and which citizens will be forced to pay for that care.  Then explain how you will enforce the eligibility (libs don't even want ID used to vote, I can't imagine what they would think about requiring it for health care).  It is a system that will bankrupt the program, and if it is not ended, it will bankrupt the nation.

BTW if we don't have a military, how common do you think roadside bombs would be, here?  

The money for "corrupt" gov'ts: think of it as a divorce: you pay for someone not to live with you.[/QUOTE]

LOL! Typical whackjob mentality. Dude you are very thoroughly programmed. So anyone suggesting we _cut_ the defense budget, in your mind equals "we don't have a military".
You really think I'm going to make a list of every govt pogram for you? Yeah good luck with that. I offered a couple examples just show what is possible. 

As far as healthcare goes, there are lots of options. I think Japan and Indonesia have pretty good programs, when I lived in Canada guess what? Never had to wait like you've been programmed by the MSM to believe. Certainly not anymore than here. Same as when I lived in Mexico. Austria and even the Ukraine actually offered much that was better. 
But your ignorance and lack of sophistication isn't due solely to your lack of direct experience, it's willful ignorance - it's not that you couldn't learn the truth, it's that you've been programmed to reject it. You actually believe and even WANT to believe that we couldn't accomplish what every civilized industrial country in the world has had for decades. Trying to educate you would be futile. What you need is deprogramming. 
Like I said, this is why I can predict with 90%+ accuracy all your opinions on a variety of unrelated issues and you can't do the same with me. I think for myself. You're programmed.


----------



## beagle9 (Jan 13, 2012)

martinabbi said:


> In my opinion, healthcare should be a sector that people educate themselves more .


Ok, I will give you this educating information on my deal, I mean if it helps educate you any further in the situation being endured by many now these days I'm thinking.... I buy insurance at a rate that is outrageous to say the least, where as it is around $40.00 dollars week just for single coverage in which I pay right now for coverage through my job. The deductible is around $2,000 dollars to be paid up front by an out of pocket expense from me 1st, and this before major medical services are to be rendered unto me if I need them when something bad happens to me, otherwise this has to happen before my coverage will kick in after the deductible is paid by me, then it only pays 80% up to a certain amount and no more, still leaving me in bankruptcy no matter if had to eal with cancer or something bad in which I just might live through , because I then get charged or scammed by the medical proffession next, who inturn scammed and/or as proven in many cases now "defrauded" the insurance company, who inturn rolled it all down hill afterwards upon the patient in the end for whom is me.

If I were say in a good healthcare policy issued by the government from say way back when, then I would have been covered for over 30 years now with the same policy, and it would have been without any health issues for all those years, because I was healthy as a horse and highly productive through out those years, and being blessed so far I still am, and this would have allowed others who are sick to have been taken care of, if they were in the same huge universal government pool in which we all would have or should have been members of in this hypothetical over the years. 

We could have named it the "American Healthcare Group Policy" (AHGP)...Paid for by working class Americans & their government in a joint relationship to better America, and this by making sure America is healthy and growing in that health always, and this be it without greed ever crippling her & her good citizens again in this nation ever.

Instead, my healtcare is changed out now just about every two to four years, in which is done I feel because of the scam of all scams by these companies, for whom does these change outs within these time frames, in order to skirt liability and/or to take the money/profits made and run with them. So what they were doing basically, is stealing my money for all these years, leaving me high and dry afterwards, and with no service or product ever received by me, in which I had paid my money to without hesitation of, then next I have to seek a new policy or be asked to take what ever the company I work for offers me as their next carrier, in which is the only option affordable at all during these times in which we live, and this goes mostly for all of us as well these days, who have experienced this duping for so long now in our lives. 

Ok, then next we go and try and use a policy that we may have gotten a year or two earlier, only to find out that it won't pay for this, and dag nabbit it won't pay for that, yet we are paying top dollar for these policies (i.e. $40.00 dollars to a whopping $125.00 dollars a week, otherwise this happens when and if family coverage is needed and then added).. My friend is paying the $125.00 a week now, and he can't even get a prescription filled for Nexium in which the doctor had prescribed for him, because the isurance won't pay for it at all, and he can't afford it without the insurance helping out. So what is his options? To just suffer, and yet to keep paying the outrageous amounts without any usage of ? Oh and he is healthy as a horse as well, except for the problem (acid reflux) that he needed the Nexium for.

The game should be up, and the Americans should demand better than this now, and I mean demand it without any no being left as any option on the table, only yes is to be accepted by us anymore when it comes to straightening this mess back out.


----------



## Grandma (Jan 14, 2012)

How many of you travel? 

In the event of emergency, do you know what providers are in your healthcare network at your travel destination? What if your insurance requires a referral from your family doctor back home to see a specialist regarding your emergency? How does your definition of emergency differ from your insurance company's? What if your emergency involves dental work or glasses?

I think it would be great to simply walk into the nearest facility that deals with my "emergency" and get treatment on the spot, rather than having to wait for approval or having to pay up front.


----------



## logical4u (Jan 14, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > IndependntLogic said:
> ...



LOL! Typical whackjob mentality. Dude you are very thoroughly programmed. So anyone suggesting we _cut_ the defense budget, in your mind equals "we don't have a military".
You really think I'm going to make a list of every govt pogram for you? Yeah good luck with that. I offered a couple examples just show what is possible. 

As far as healthcare goes, there are lots of options. I think Japan and Indonesia have pretty good programs, when I lived in Canada guess what? Never had to wait like you've been programmed by the MSM to believe. Certainly not anymore than here. Same as when I lived in Mexico. Austria and even the Ukraine actually offered much that was better. 
But your ignorance and lack of sophistication isn't due solely to your lack of direct experience, it's willful ignorance - it's not that you couldn't learn the truth, it's that you've been programmed to reject it. You actually believe and even WANT to believe that we couldn't accomplish what every civilized industrial country in the world has had for decades. Trying to educate you would be futile. What you need is deprogramming. 
Like I said, this is why I can predict with 90%+ accuracy all your opinions on a variety of unrelated issues and you can't do the same with me. I think for myself. You're programmed.[/QUOTE]

What kind of healthcare did you require in those other countries?  Was it long-term care?  Was it a quick stitch and gone, care?

If you talk to people that needed serious care (not a medical emergency of setting a bone or stitches), there is a wait in gov't health care in foreign countries.  In many cases of "elderly patients" (what Obama care has re-defines as "units"), health-care is denied for joint replacements, long-term cancer treatment, etc.  If you want to do the research on the care of the elderly (the wealthy), look it up.  In this country, up to this administration, we have looked at the elderly as "humans".  They deserve the same rights (spend their resources any way they want to spend them, even if it is healthcare) that everyone else in this country has.  If, you invest in "age warfare" (the elderly are of no social value and medical care should be: 'give 'em a pill') to take their resources (wealth), you are setting yourself and the country to repeat Hitler's German philosophies.  I know you believe that I am blowing this out of proportion, and that this can never happen here.  It is because you want this to happen (to take others' wealth, but you do not want to be aware that it is happening), Terry Schrivo, embryos being created for experimentation and then killed, abortion promoted as the answer to bad decisions, etc are signs that it is already happening, and that many of the adversaries of the elderly are welcoming it.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jan 14, 2012)

logical4u said:


> In many cases of "elderly patients" (what Obama care has re-defines as "units"), health-care is denied for joint replacements, long-term cancer treatment, etc.  If you want to do the research on the care of the elderly (the wealthy), look it up.  In this country, up to this administration, we have looked at the elderly as "humans".



I'm pretty sure they're still looked at as human.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jan 14, 2012)

You want healthcare left to 'free market' forces?

Then people who can't afford it, will simply have to go without.

Is that really the kind of country you want to live in, where the poorer are less healthy than the richer, for no other reason than wealth, or lack of it?

Should we apply that to education as well?  Why not let the poor figure out how to pay to educate their children,  or let their children go without if they can't.

The 'free market' crap that conservatives want is nothing more than an excuse to abandon any semblance of anyone's responsibility to contribute to the common good.


----------



## dblack (Jan 14, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> You want healthcare left to 'free market' forces?
> 
> Then people who can't afford it, will simply have to go without.
> 
> ...




No, that's not it at all. At least that's not the view of most conservatives I talk to. Most of them are OK with a safety net; they contribute to charity, they help out their friends and community members in need. So you get and "F" on your attempts to demonize.

The question of what to do about helping the poor, in terms of government policy, has largely been answered. We have numerous safety nets and policies to help those on the bottom rung. If the argument was merely that those safety nets aren't doing enough, we would be talking about how to beef them up. Clearly something else is at work here.

The way I see it (from here on referred to as "the way it is"), we have two mostly unrelated concerns with health care:

Most immediate is the issue is what to do about health care inflation. Health care prices have been increasing at many times the rate of normal inflation for several decades now. If this continues, none of us will be able to afford health care, regardless of who is paying for it. 

The other issue is the practice of socializing health care risk. What began as a hedge against the risk of medical related bankruptcy, has become the primary means of financing everyday health care. The next step, according to some, is to socialize all medical expenses at a national level.

I say these two issues are mostly unrelated, but there are some key intersections. First of all, health care inflation clearly colors the debate on socializing health care. The more health care prices go up, the more people yearn to be relieved of the responsibility of paying their own way. Conversely, if health care inflation weren't a problem, if health care prices were going down instead of up, people would be less worried about socializing the costs.

The second point of intersection is actually where the two concerns come into conflict. Unfortunately, _socializing costs also happens to be one of the principal drivers of health care inflation_. It's not that hard to understand. In any market, prices will rise to the maximum level people are willing to pay. And when we're not spending our own money, our "will to pay" is virtually unlimited.

That sets up the political struggle we're seeing now over health care. For those of us who see health care inflation as the biggest problem, the preoccupation with socializing costs seems counterproductive and irrational. It's all the more frustrating because effectively dealing with the inflation problem would minimize the problems the socializers are trying to solve - to the point that they would be easily addressed by existing safety nets.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Jan 14, 2012)

logical4u said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



What kind of healthcare did you require in those other countries?  Was it long-term care?  Was it a quick stitch and gone, care?

If you talk to people that needed serious care (not a medical emergency of setting a bone or stitches), there is a wait in gov't health care in foreign countries.  In many cases of "elderly patients" (what Obama care has re-defines as "units"), health-care is denied for joint replacements, long-term cancer treatment, etc.  If you want to do the research on the care of the elderly (the wealthy), look it up.  In this country, up to this administration, we have looked at the elderly as "humans".  They deserve the same rights (spend their resources any way they want to spend them, even if it is healthcare) that everyone else in this country has.  If, you invest in "age warfare" (the elderly are of no social value and medical care should be: 'give 'em a pill') to take their resources (wealth), you are setting yourself and the country to repeat Hitler's German philosophies.  I know you believe that I am blowing this out of proportion, and that this can never happen here.  It is because you want this to happen (to take others' wealth, but you do not want to be aware that it is happening), Terry Schrivo, embryos being created for experimentation and then killed, abortion promoted as the answer to bad decisions, etc are signs that it is already happening, and that many of the adversaries of the elderly are welcoming it.[/QUOTE]

Youare SO programmed. Seriously. I've lived long term in other countries all over the world. 
You need a hip replacement in America and guess what? You're not getting it AT ALL. Not if you work at Wal-Mart, the Dollar Store, McDonald's, many small businesses, any casino, or are unemployed.
Our neighbor in Sugar Land (TX) was a fine Republican (as most Houstonians are) his whole life. He had an engineering degree and worked at a utility with great benefits for twenty years. His wife stayed home and had a debilitating disease (might have been Parkinson's, I can't remember). They a nice house, money in the pension fund and did all those things ConservaRepubs told them too. Then ENRON went under. They lost everything - including their health insurance.
My brother got cancer. He HAD insurance through the painting contractor he worked for but it wan't that great. But it still ended up costing me between $6 - $9K a month to take care of him. That and the emotional drain almost bankrupted us - of course, I could have gone the ConservaRepubLitarian route and just said "Fug him, his problem". Don't have it in me to turn my back on friends or family.
Oh and when I lived in Canada, the wait for an MRI was about three weeks. Guess what? By the time you go through the mandatory visit to your PCP, then get approval for any referral, it's about the same time. 
When I lived in The Ukraine, I had a neighbor who had some kind of lung problem from the factory where he used to work. Constant care required. Cost: $0
My friend broke his arm in China. Total cost for exam, x-rays and cast? About twenty bucks. Came home and went in to have it removed. Cost: $1200.
Oh and when I was in the military, I had American government run health care. I didn't know a single officer who bought private insurance. Hmmm.

And you think American health care is fine? You think can't do what every industrialized country in the world can?  You're programmed.


----------



## logical4u (Jan 14, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> You want healthcare left to 'free market' forces?
> 
> Then people who can't afford it, will simply have to go without.
> 
> ...





My first thought on your response is: this guy probably believes in evolution, too ...


"If" people are comfortable (the middle class), their families are fed and clothed and there is shelter, they do not mind giving (generosity) to those less fortunate.  This is how medical care in this country has evolved.  
Those that were rich could afford to have private physicians go to war with them, before the 1900s.  Once advancements in medicine became technological, that cost sky-rocketed.  There were NO POOR PEOPLE donating to hospitals to get those machines for medical care (it was the wealthy, and the middle class holding fund-raisers, from other wealthy and middle-class).  The "poor" benefited by having those machines at local hospitals where they could go for "emergency" treatment".  The attitude today in this country, encouraged by the President is not to "increase care for the poor", it is too "punish the wealthy and the middle-class" by reducing the quality of "their care".  Who will that "benefit"?  Will it "advance" health care?  Once you have "punished" the wealthy and the middle-class by forcing (not generosity, taking care of other people's families BEFORE they can take care of theirs) them to support people that "choose" not to support themselves, do you really think medicine will move forward in this country?  I predict that the wealthy and the middle class will travel to other countries to receive their advanced medical treatment, and what is left here will stagnate and turn sour (all thanks to the current philosophy of punishing the achievers).  What help will be available for the "poor" then? 

Education is the same way: the wealthy used their resources to benefit all.  Because they don't go door to door knocking and begging people to come and let them foot the bill for the rest of the poor person's life, you want to complain.  Look at history, the "poor" have always had a harder life because of fewer resources.  This country was the first, THE FIRST, to offer the poor oportunity to change that.  People that are born into poverty do not have to stay there.  High school kids join the ranks of the poor when they start out in life.  It is their choice if they stay at that level.  If they do not like it they can improve their work skills, or in modern day, get an education to get better jobs.  It is not how you guys portray it, where a person is born into poverty and for every generation, after that, that family remains in poverty.

If you want better "health care" and better "education", grow the wealth (rich and middle class).  The people that "make it" will need products and services and will be willing to pay for those.  If they are not using the products or services, they will not mind "sharing".  If you shrink the wealthy and middle class (the politicians and ruling elite get more), there are fewer resources to be shared: health care and education suffer.

Not that you really care, you use "compassion" for the "poor" as a weapon to satisfy your envy.  It is more about destroying, than about building.


----------



## logical4u (Jan 14, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > IndependntLogic said:
> ...



Youare SO programmed. Seriously. I've lived long term in other countries all over the world. 
You need a hip replacement in America and guess what? You're not getting it AT ALL. Not if you work at Wal-Mart, the Dollar Store, McDonald's, many small businesses, any casino, or are unemployed.
Our neighbor in Sugar Land (TX) was a fine Republican (as most Houstonians are) his whole life. He had an engineering degree and worked at a utility with great benefits for twenty years. His wife stayed home and had a debilitating disease (might have been Parkinson's, I can't remember). They a nice house, money in the pension fund and did all those things ConservaRepubs told them too. Then ENRON went under. They lost everything - including their health insurance.
My brother got cancer. He HAD insurance through the painting contractor he worked for but it wan't that great. But it still ended up costing me between $6 - $9K a month to take care of him. That and the emotional drain almost bankrupted us - of course, I could have gone the ConservaRepubLitarian route and just said "Fug him, his problem". Don't have it in me to turn my back on friends or family.
Oh and when I lived in Canada, the wait for an MRI was about three weeks. Guess what? By the time you go through the mandatory visit to your PCP, then get approval for any referral, it's about the same time. 
When I lived in The Ukraine, I had a neighbor who had some kind of lung problem from the factory where he used to work. Constant care required. Cost: $0
My friend broke his arm in China. Total cost for exam, x-rays and cast? About twenty bucks. Came home and went in to have it removed. Cost: $1200.
Oh and when I was in the military, I had American government run health care. I didn't know a single officer who bought private insurance. Hmmm.

And you think American health care is fine? You think can't do what every industrialized country in the world can?  You're programmed.[/QUOTE]

NEVER SAID AMERICAN HEALTH CARE IS FINE.  I am saying you cannot improve it by forcing other people to provide care for those "less fortunate" before you are "permitted" to take care of your own family.  
Yes, there are people that cannot get care in this country for expensive treatments.  The charities that used to do this are now suffering under the current administration demanding money from taxpayers, so they can decide who gets what "charity".  Yes, there are risks to "making it".  You can increase your wealth to amounts that you never dreamed when you were young, and the reverse is also true, you can end up broke (financially or physically).  It is a reality in this country.  There is no one promising you anything different.
For some reason people that go into countries where there are subjects (owned by the gov't) and not citizens want the same thing here.  The risk is lowered by having your health care (within reason, according to the gov't) provided, but the risk is also lowered for subjects to ever accumulate real wealth.

If you really think that those countries have a better system, why not move there?  What is it about this country keeps you here?  Why not move to expand charities that help with medical care, instead of trying to punish those that have worked for decades to get it?


----------



## archigogo (Jan 14, 2012)

healthcare should always be free, no one should suffer from their rights and worry about huge bills before they even step into the hospitals


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jan 14, 2012)

Basic healthcare should be paid for through the taxes we are already paying.
Insurance is the primary problem; not the solution.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Jan 14, 2012)

logical4u said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



NEVER SAID AMERICAN HEALTH CARE IS FINE.  I am saying you cannot improve it by forcing other people to provide care for those "less fortunate" before you are "permitted" to take care of your own family.  
Yes, there are people that cannot get care in this country for expensive treatments.  The charities that used to do this are now suffering under the current administration demanding money from taxpayers, so they can decide who gets what "charity".  Yes, there are risks to "making it".  You can increase your wealth to amounts that you never dreamed when you were young, and the reverse is also true, you can end up broke (financially or physically).  It is a reality in this country.  There is no one promising you anything different.
For some reason people that go into countries where there are subjects (owned by the gov't) and not citizens want the same thing here.  The risk is lowered by having your health care (within reason, according to the gov't) provided, but the risk is also lowered for subjects to ever accumulate real wealth.

If you really think that those countries have a better system, why not move there?  What is it about this country keeps you here?  Why not move to expand charities that help with medical care, instead of trying to punish those that have worked for decades to get it?[/QUOTE]

Again your post shows how programmed you are. Phrases like "punish those who have worked for it" and such show your ignorance of other possibilities. Phrases like "subjects" when referring to other countries shows the combination of arrogance and ignorance that comes from being thoroughly programmed.
Then of course the ultimate display of weakness: "Oh yeah, well if you don't like my position, why don't you just leave America! Nyah!".
Really? So then you love legal abortion? Gay marriage? Obamacare? Because you know, if you don't love every single thing, you should move right? Ignorance run amok. 
If as you say, the public option would offer such poor service, then those who are paying for better private service can keep it. Simple. 
I alreayd know your reply but it's actually kinda fun watching you regurgitate Glenn Beck soundbites verbatim.


----------



## dblack (Jan 14, 2012)

> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...




I wish you guys would get you're quoting sorted out..


----------



## IndependntLogic (Jan 14, 2012)

dblack said:


> > IndependntLogic said:
> >
> >
> > > NEVER SAID AMERICAN HEALTH CARE IS FINE.  I am saying you cannot improve it by forcing other people to provide care for those "less fortunate" before you are "permitted" to take care of your own family.
> ...



Sorry! If you get confused, it's easy. dblack will be the one whose every word comes from FOX and Gomerville USA. 

Seriously though, I know I get it screwed up sometimes - especially when there's ginormous photos or something I don't want to include.


----------



## logical4u (Jan 15, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > IndependntLogic said:
> ...


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 15, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > IndependntLogic said:
> ...



What a lot of air to say nothing whatsoever.  Call me when you can give me something other than campaign speeches about "If we want to be a wonderful country, we have to give away stuff" and conflating federal governments with state and local governments.  This bilge wasn't even worth your worthless time to write, much less my valuable time to read.

"Libraries are great, so the federal government should pay for healthcare."  I'm embarrassed for you.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 15, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> waltky said:
> 
> 
> > Granny says, "Dat's right...
> ...



As stated before, only in America are people so gullible that they can be led to believe the health & welfare of our citizens should not be prioritized over the hundreds of other BS programs paid for. Gotta love the insurance & medical lobbies. They do one helluva job of buying politicians and marketing propaganda.[/QUOTE]

I wish it was only in America that people are so gullible as to believe "It's important = the government should provide it".  Sadly, idiots abound all over the world.

I'm just laughing my ass off at you and your empty, rah-rah rhetoric bitching about OTHER people's propaganda.  If you ever had a solid argument in favor of this nonsense, I must have blinked and missed it.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 15, 2012)

logical4u said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > waltky said:
> ...



Do us all a favor, and prioritize the "BS programs" so we know the way.  Tell us is everyone eligible for "free healthcare"?  Who pays the nurses, the aides, the doctors, the hospitals, the medical centers?  Do you think those people are just going to go to work every day without being paid, appropriately?  Just "who" is going to "pay" for this "right"?[/QUOTE]

What, you mean, "It's IMPORTANT, and it should be a PRIORITY, people are DYING without it" doesn't clear all that up for you?  I mean, that should settle the whole matter, shouldn't it?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 15, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > As stated before, only in America are people so gullible that they can be led to believe the health & welfare of our citizens should not be prioritized over the hundreds of other BS programs paid for. Gotta love the insurance & medical lobbies. They do one helluva job of buying politicians and marketing propaganda.
> ...



Be happy to. We pay more than every other country in the world COMBINED on defense. You think we're so evil that's necessary? Or that out soldiers are so bad at their job? Nope. You've been sold on it. 
How about the billions we just give away to the corrupt politicians of foreign countries? You prioritize THAT over making sure our vets get health & mental care?
But the idea of using tax dollars for the well-being of the citizenry extends only within the parameters you've been led to believe are "acceptable". 
So your ignorance on this subject is understandable. You've been programmed to believe something by those who prey on certain metaprograms in your political and cultural ideology & preferences. You don't know any better than to believe the bs they feed you, you just do. 
You believe you think for yourself and that it's a "coincidence" that I can tell you all your opinions on dozens of unrelated issues, with 90%+ accuracy but that you can't do this with me (it's that free & independent thinking thing). [/QUOTE]

There you go.  The federal government should stop providing national defense - which it's required to do by the US Constitution - so that it can provide cradle-to-grave healthcare for everyone - which it's NOT required to do by the US Constitution (Not that anyone gives a shit about that worthless, dirty piece of sheepskin, right?).  

'Nuff said.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 15, 2012)

archigogo said:


> healthcare should always be free, no one should suffer from their rights and worry about huge bills before they even step into the hospitals



There's no such thing as "free", Chuckles, no matter what your kindergarten teacher tells you.  Someone's always paying, so while you're fapping to your soaring rhetoric about "no one should suffer", why don't you grow the fuck up and tell us who gets to foot the bill?


----------



## IndependntLogic (Jan 15, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



LOL! Well sweetheart be embarrassed for me all you want. I'm not. Your ignorance is not due to a lack of intellect but of experience. Let me put it in simple terms and then you guys can feel brilliant by regurgitating the Glenn Beck soundbites.

We pay taxes. There's no getting around that.
The problem is not that we need NEW taxes to pay for healthcare.
The problem is that our government wastes so much money on other things and "giveaways" and you have all been told those other things are more important than the health of our citizens.
You have also been programmed to believe that health care is an "either / or" situation when it comes to "taking money from those who contribute", which is so stupid it's ludicrous but oh well.
And you all believe it.

We're going to continue paying taxes.
There is more than enough money in our revenue stream to pay for health care for every citizen.
This does not have to result in more money being taken from you, the rich or any other citizens.
This does not have to result in the elimination of private health care for those who want it.
This would be a tremendous boost to the economy.

You may now retort with some nice soundbites that were spoon-fed to you by FOX...


----------



## logical4u (Jan 15, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > IndependntLogic said:
> ...



They said, ..... as the country approaches 16,000,000,000 in borrowed revenues.  The country is currently operating on borrowed money, .... but hey, there is money to pay for "health care".  Take a look around; we were told that money was being spent on infrastructure (last two stimulus bills) and it went to the white house occupier's "corporate friends" (can you say "Wall Street").  The gov't will not "reform" medicaid/medicare/welfare/the food stamp program/unemployment benefits, and you think they are going to be responsible enough to clean those up to dedicate those same monies to "health care"?  And you are calling others naive, and ignorant?


----------



## IndependntLogic (Jan 15, 2012)

logical4u said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



There is a difference between "can" and "will". 
I am not saying they are ignorant because of what they think the government will or will not do. 
I am using ignorant in it's definitive sense. They have no knowledge of government run health care so they believe all the bs fed to them. 
But even then, there is a case that with our inept and corrupt government, we do occasionally get things right. How many people do you know on MediCare who refuse it so they can go pay for private insurance? When i was in the navy, I didn't know a single officer who paid for private insurance in favor of what we got for free - government run health care.
And I'm not talking about the money currently used in Medicare, welfare etc...

You think our politicians are corrupt? We give billions upon billions to the corrupt politicians of other countries every year. If we just stopped giving the taxpayer's money to them, we could provide millions of dollars of free health care every day and still be ahead.
Other areas of waste? You don't think maybe we spend a little too much on defense? Okay.

It's not that we don't have the revenues, it's that Bush and Obama have failed so miserably at handling our finances and everyone since Reagan has done such a poor job of prioritizing their use.


----------



## logical4u (Jan 18, 2012)

archigogo said:


> healthcare should always be free, no one should suffer from their rights and worry about huge bills before they even step into the hospitals



Who are you saying should pay the "huge bills", people that did not receive the care?


----------



## logical4u (Jan 18, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > IndependntLogic said:
> ...



And you, that is "you" are talking about that same gov't suddenly becoming less corrupt and in every way efficient enough to handle healthcare.  And in your fairytale world, the gov't will not use the massive database of individual medical costs and records to systematically start denying medical care to the more expensive, less productive 'citizens' (basically the "super race" only, it will be called the "healthy" or the "future")?  In your fairytale world, politicians will not access political enemies or their families health records to blackmail those people in exchange for "health care"?  Because after all, the gov't has proven time and time again that it can run business with less bureaucrats, less waste, and more efficiency than and "for profit" business.  Your unicorns broke out of the fence, again; you need to go catch them.


----------



## TheLonelySquire (Jan 18, 2012)

IMO healthcare is not a right for able-bodied adults. Affordable access to healthcare should certainly be available but not at the expense of others. We do need to provide social safety nets for chidren, those legitimately disabled, and elderly people (although I am flexible on the elderly as they should have planned sufficiently). I'm a conservative if that matters.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Jan 19, 2012)

logical4u said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



You make me laugh to the point that my lovely bride is asking what is so funny. 
The only American government official who has ever denied critical healthcare to those needing it is a Conservative Republican. No surprise.
In the meantime, I love your 'fairytale world". Dark evil villains creating an aryan race or whatever. You realize that government health care is provided in virtually every industrialized nation in the world right? Which of them have created these super races you refer to? 
But again, I get it. You have zero direct knowledge to draw from so you go to your little Glenn Beck Book of Responses. It IS funny to read.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 19, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > IndependntLogic said:
> ...



How many of those countries are not routinely running defecits in government health care spending forcing them to cut back on the very services you claim a government should provide? You libs just don't see the reality of government doing things for people. This is what you need to do. Everytime you say government should pay for x for people, substitute the word 'government' with 'you' or 'other people' or any othe pronoun for John Q. Taxpayer because that is where the money to pay for your care comes from. Your fellow citizens, not money tree in the rose garden. THAT is the reality. When you say government should pay for your healthcare you are really saying *I* should pay for your healthcare. To which I ask, why? Why is your health my responsibility more so than your own?


----------



## IndependntLogic (Jan 19, 2012)

Bern80 said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



You ask two questions as if they are one.
First: Is government health care profitable? No. It's not supposed to be. Is our military "profitable"? Nope. Should we get rid of it? Of course not. I love the programming that goes into convincing people that governments should always be profitable.
Second: Cutting back on benefits. I'm sure many countries are cutting back on benefits but none of the ones I've lived in are currently cutting benefits at all. Wait, check that. I had government run health care while in the military so I guess one is: The USA.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 19, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> You ask two questions as if they are one.
> First: Is government health care profitable? No. It's not supposed to be. Is our military "profitable"? Nope. Should we get rid of it? Of course not. I love the programming that goes into convincing people that governments should always be profitable.



No one is claiming government must be profitable. It does need to stick within a budget. Most other countries are having a very difficult time doing that. Forget profitable. They aren't even thinking about profits because there in the red in many cases billions of dollars.



IndependntLogic said:


> Second: Cutting back on benefits. I'm sure many countries are cutting back on benefits but none of the ones I've lived in are currently cutting benefits at all. Wait, check that. I had government run health care while in the military so I guess one is: The USA.



So let me get this straight. Based solely on results in the places you've experienced it, the U.S. was the one country that cut back your benefits. And that somehow lead you to believe government providing everyone's benefits would be a good idea?

Since you missed this I repeat:
You libs just don't see the reality of government doing things for people. This is what you need to do. Everytime you say government should pay for x for people, substitute the word 'government' with 'you' or 'other people' or any othe pronoun for John Q. Taxpayer because that is where the money to pay for your care comes from. Your fellow citizens, not money tree in the rose garden. THAT is the reality. When you say government should pay for your healthcare you are really saying I should pay for your healthcare. To which I ask, why? Why is your health my responsibility more so than your own?


----------



## IndependntLogic (Jan 19, 2012)

Bern80 said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > You ask two questions as if they are one.
> ...



LOL! You are VERY entertaining. Not terribly sophisticated or knowledgeable of anything outside Gomerville, USA or wherever it is you live, but entertaining nonetheless.
Okay since your ignorance has already been exposed, let's have some fun with your whackjobbery.
Actually, I would probably pay more for your health care than you would for mine. I'm in the tax bracket that would pay a couple extra points if things go Obama's way and I also employ others - which means I get double-dipped. So I would pay for my health care.
What you have been programmed not to consider is that of all the bs my tax dollars go to, health care would have among the highest benefits to American Citizens, to employers who actually Hire 100% American and the American economy. But seriously, you're too brainwashed and seemingly not smart enough to figure it out, even if clearly evidenced.

Finally, let's have some fun! What is it that makes someone (in this case me) a "Liberal". 
Is it their political beliefs and inclinations? Or is it just anyone who disagrees with you on so much a one issue?
It will be fun watching you dodge, avoid or cut & run from that question.


----------



## Euro (Jan 19, 2012)

> Okay since your ignorance has already been exposed, let's have some fun with your whackjobbery.
> Actually, I would probably pay more for your health care than you would for mine. I'm in the tax bracket that would pay a couple extra points if things go Obama's way and I also employ others - which means I get double-dipped. So I would pay for my health care.



One thing I wonder is why do the US HC cost so much?. The pr. capita spending in US is much higher than other countries. Both public and private spending is the highest in the world. The US HC system must be extremely inefficient and bureacratically organized. France that has the number one and best HC in the world spend far less money on HC than US, that are ranked nr. 37 worse than Costa Rica.
Total Per Capita > Health Care Funding statistics - countries compared - NationMaster

So the US bureaucrats must be extremely inefficient and greedy compared to other nations bureaucrats. I can understand Bern80s sceptic to government-run HC, because the US bureaucrats are less efficient and greedier than other nations bureaucrats. To make it better and cheaper youve to do something with all the bureaucrat costs the US system has. Because its far more bureaucratic than other systems, that makes it expensive. 

I also know that it is a tradition to pay government workers more money than private sector workers in US, in Europe and Canada private sector workers earn more money than public sector workers.
So with the tradition you have in US to pay youre government workers high salaries, the system will be more expensive. In Canada and Europe they control the salaries for the government workers.

You need to put more control on bureaucrats and politicians in US, control salaries on government workers to make HC cheaper. So it is hard to compare US with other systems because they dont have the tradtion for greedy and overpaid government workers as in US.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Jan 19, 2012)

Euro said:


> > Okay since your ignorance has already been exposed, let's have some fun with your whackjobbery.
> > Actually, I would probably pay more for your health care than you would for mine. I'm in the tax bracket that would pay a couple extra points if things go Obama's way and I also employ others - which means I get double-dipped. So I would pay for my health care.
> 
> 
> ...



You make good points. You'd have to live both here and abroad to compare. Here, we have bureaucrats in both public and private sectors. So that right there, multiplies the cost. Most of the public health care has to ALSO go through the private sector bureaucrats. The public sector folks have the job of making sure care is delivered but not abused. The private sector bureaucrats have the job of making sure profits are insured by providing as little care possible but not so much that the number of lawsuits resulting from this poor treatment, will be more expensive than just giving the treatment. Our insurance companies here hire specialized accountant called actuaries, just to determine exactly how badly the patients can be screwed before it backfires on them.
Sad eh?


----------



## logical4u (Jan 19, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > IndependntLogic said:
> ...



Famous words of libs/progressives/dem/socialists/communists/homosexual activists/islam extremists/environmentalists (pick one, they all act the same).... "this time it will be DIFFERENT"....


----------



## logical4u (Jan 19, 2012)

Euro said:


> > Okay since your ignorance has already been exposed, let's have some fun with your whackjobbery.
> > Actually, I would probably pay more for your health care than you would for mine. I'm in the tax bracket that would pay a couple extra points if things go Obama's way and I also employ others - which means I get double-dipped. So I would pay for my health care.
> 
> 
> ...



Cosmetic surgery is considered "health care".  Proceedures to assist people in weight loss are considered "health care".  Laser eye surgery is considered "health care".  Teeth whitening can even be considered "health care".  Dermotology proceedures like mole removal, acne treatment, rashes, abrasive skin cleansing are considered "health care.

I like the USA.  I think it is wonderful that you can spend your money however you want.  A lot of people are concerned about their health, and spend BAM to appear and stay healthy.  Much of that is "unecessary" to prolong their life, but they do, because they have the insurance or the money to do it.  The people that are claiming to want "health care" for all, seem to be preoccupied with reducing access to "health care" for those that can actually afford it, and forcing them to carry others financial responsibilities is WRONG.  
The same people that are screaming for the "republican canidates" to do the RIGHT thing, and the same ones that are demanding the gov't punish those that they hate and to do the WRONG thing.  Why?


----------



## IndependntLogic (Jan 19, 2012)

logical4u said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



And you make the points of whackjobs whether they're Liberal or Conservative: Zero. Which is to say, you don't address the topic, you offer nothing of substance, you just come in with BS. 
For example: What did I say would be different when? Uh oh. Direct question. Quick dodge! Change the subject! But don't address the topic or a direct question! Remember The Code of the Whackjob!  Don't address things directly!


----------



## HUGGY (Jan 19, 2012)

*Is healthcare a right? why or why not? 
*

No!  You have the right to consume.  That is all.  If you cannot keep up with the herd and consume as a good patriotic American you are worthless and the sooner you die and get off of the public dole the better.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 19, 2012)

Euro said:


> > Okay since your ignorance has already been exposed, let's have some fun with your whackjobbery.
> > Actually, I would probably pay more for your health care than you would for mine. I'm in the tax bracket that would pay a couple extra points if things go Obama's way and I also employ others - which means I get double-dipped. So I would pay for my health care.
> 
> 
> ...



You need to clarify your question, because you're asking one, but looking at the stats for a different one.

Do you want to know why healthcare prices are so high, or why Americans spend so much on healthcare every year?  While the two are related, they aren't the same question.

One of the reasons that we spend so much on healthcare every year is pretty simple:  because we can.  In many ways, healthcare is a luxury item.  We tend to think of it in terms of essential urgent care, ie. I fell and broke my arm or my kid has an unexplained rash or something like that, but a great deal of it isn't at all.

The fact is that when people have a high standard of living and a certain amount of discretionary income, most will divert at least some of that income to improving their lives through better health.  They will go to doctors more for non-essential things, like cosmetic dentistry or dermatological treatments.  They will schedule more well-patient visits, annual prostate exams, mammograms, and various other diagnostic tests.  You can spend thousands of dollars just on diagnostics before the doctor ever actually does anything to you, if that's your pleasure.  They will spend money on trying to lose weight, and on taking dietary supplements.  All of these things are factored into annual healthcare spending numbers.

You should also keep in mind that America has an aging population, and most of our money is in the hands of older people.  It should come as no surprise that the older people get, the more health concerns weigh on their minds, and the higher a spending priority they become.  I can't speak for other countries, but American senior citizens fully expect to continue living their lives more or less as though they were still middle-aged, and are more than willing to spend the money to achieve that, when they have it.

Now, the question of healthcare prices is a whole 'nother thing.  Healthcare prices are high because 1) in the case of anything covered by Medicare, Medicaid, or health insurance, the consumer is not the payer, which will always inflate costs, and 2) Americans as a group tend to abhor government price controls, so we have artificial price manipulation from one end, but we don't have it from the opposite end the way more socialist countries do.


----------



## Gagafritz (Jan 20, 2012)

Health insurance and health care are 2 different things.  People use them interchangeably but they are not.  As for a "right", there are rights but there are also duties, moral obligations, etc.  We have a moral obligation to help someone in distress.  We as human beings have some moral guiding principle to help one another.  It isn't the same as making a widget or something like that.    We do recognize that there is a need to help people in times of need but we also recognize that nothing is unlimited in scope either.  Society can help and step in but we can't be all things to everyone and there also comes a cost or personal responsility as well.


----------



## TheLonelySquire (Jan 20, 2012)

Gagafritz said:


> Health insurance and health care are 2 different things.  People use them interchangeably but they are not.  As for a "right", there are rights but there are also duties, moral obligations, etc.  We have a moral obligation to help someone in distress.  We as human beings have some moral guiding principle to help one another.  It isn't the same as making a widget or something like that.    We do recognize that there is a need to help people in times of need but we also recognize that nothing is unlimited in scope either.  Society can help and step in but we can't be all things to everyone and there also comes a cost or personal responsility as well.



Hi Gaga,

I'm interested in why you believe we have a moral obligation to help another person? I agree that we do, but others may not. I say this because where people get their moral guidance from is different from person to person. If someone is an atheist for example, they may feel they have no obligation, or a Christian may feel they have a deep one. 

What do you think?


----------



## TheLonelySquire (Jan 20, 2012)

Adeller said:


> We have a duty as humans to look after those less fortunate than ourselves, and those less fortunate have a right to demand that help from others.
> 
> Healthcare is absolutely a right.
> 
> brainalin.com



I agree with the first part of your statement. However, why do you feel someone has a right to demand help from another, and by extension, take what belongs to another without that person's consent?


----------



## Gagafritz (Jan 20, 2012)

It is a moral obligation as a fellow human being.


----------



## dblack (Jan 20, 2012)

Gagafritz said:


> It is a moral obligation as a fellow human being.



Exactly. Which is not AT ALL the same thing as a 'right'.


----------



## TheLonelySquire (Jan 20, 2012)

Gagafritz said:


> It is a moral obligation as a fellow human being.



Is your belief based on religious views or some other reason?


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 20, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> Based on your logic, we should have a huge surplus because of all the industrialized nations in the world, we're the only one who doesn't provide universal hc. But what do you know? No surplus! So your logic doesn't hold. As I've said, it's a matter of prioritization.



No we shouldn't. I am talking about health care budgest ONLY. You keep saying "just like every other industrialized nation" and I'm telling you that chances that you're going to get your cake and eat it to aren't good. Because if you go to government run healthcare like 'every other industrialized nation' it's likely that we will wind up with the same problem they have with such systems as well. That is consistantly running deficits in health care spending. To pretend there is nothing but positives with government run health care is simply naive.




IndependntLogic said:


> Actually, the government never cut my benefits. I've been out for decades now. But I volunteer at our local VA and am the DOO of an organization that helps vets. So while the GOP has supported wars & the military industrial complex, they have systematically cut the benefits of those they send to fight them. No surprise. On the other hand, Sweden, Austria, Canada, Indonesia and The Ukraine are all pretty much where they were.



That is a slightly different issue. If there's one group of peope who's medical beneifts should be paid for, it ougght to be service men and women. 



IndependntLogic said:


> LOL! You are VERY entertaining. Not terribly sophisticated or knowledgeable of anything outside Gomerville, USA or wherever it is you live, but entertaining nonetheless.
> Okay since your ignorance has already been exposed, let's have some fun with your whackjobbery.
> Actually, I would probably pay more for your health care than you would for mine. I'm in the tax bracket that would pay a couple extra points if things go Obama's way and I also employ others - which means I get double-dipped. So I would pay for my health care.
> What you have been programmed not to consider is that of all the bs my tax dollars go to, health care would have among the highest benefits to American Citizens, to employers who actually Hire 100% American and the American economy. But seriously, you're too brainwashed and seemingly not smart enough to figure it out, even if clearly evidenced.



Congratulations! Even with it put smack in front of you you chose to spend half a paragraph being insulting rather than actually listening and as a result came with nothing that could be remotely construed as a counter argument. The question was not who should pay more for whom or whom it would benefit. Of course it would benefit some people if government simply paid for people's health care. The question is, since government's money comes from the taxpayer, why does the taxpayer have a higher moral and financial obligation to maintain your health than you do?




IndependntLogic said:


> Finally, let's have some fun! What is it that makes someone (in this case me) a "Liberal".
> Is it their political beliefs and inclinations? Or is it just anyone who disagrees with you on so much a one issue?
> It will be fun watching you dodge, avoid or cut & run from that question.



Dodge what? It's not like your going to believe anything I say anyway. I'll retract the broad liberal label to the extent that I don't know whether you're liberal on most issues or not. I will say you quite objectively are liberal on this one as evidenced by an advocacy of expansion in central government power for purposes of providing a social service.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 20, 2012)

Gagafritz said:


> It is a moral obligation as a fellow human being.



No it isn't. The moral obligation is that you do what you can for yourself such that you don't unneccesarily burden me from living the life I want to live.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 20, 2012)

Gagafritz said:


> Health insurance and health care are 2 different things.  People use them interchangeably but they are not.  As for a "right", there are rights but there are also duties, moral obligations, etc.  We have a moral obligation to help someone in distress.  We as human beings have some moral guiding principle to help one another.  It isn't the same as making a widget or something like that.    We do recognize that there is a need to help people in times of need but we also recognize that nothing is unlimited in scope either.  Society can help and step in but we can't be all things to everyone and there also comes a cost or personal responsility as well.



There is nothing wrong with helping those less fortunate. I encourage it in fact. One is NOT however obligated to do so. Once you are obligated to someone you are endentured to them. And no person has the right to endenture another simply due to one's condition. Maybe I wind up going through a bad financial spot or health issue. It's great if people want to be charitable and help me out a little. But I have not right to demand or insist that they must help me. My problems are not their responsibility.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 20, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Euro said:
> 
> 
> > > Okay since your ignorance has already been exposed, let's have some fun with your whackjobbery.
> ...



Another reason we spend more is that we are a country of rather unhealthy habits. Nearly half of the U.S. is considered obese. Our diets are poor, etc. All leading to more health care needs down the road.


----------



## dblack (Jan 20, 2012)

Bern80 said:


> Another reason we spend more is that we are a country of rather unhealthy habits. Nearly half of the U.S. is considered obese. Our diets are poor, etc. All leading to more health care needs down the road.



Indeed. This is one of the riskiest aspects of making health care a government responsibility. Once the state is picking up the tab for your health care, they have a vested interest in your health, and will likely seek to dictate personal habits likewise. We're seeing this trend already, and health care financing is only _partially_ a government concern. When they're paying for all or most of it, I see widespread, intrusive regulations as inevitable.


----------



## Euro (Jan 20, 2012)

Bern80 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Euro said:
> ...



The government will get reports from doctors and consultants of what causes sickness. The government can stimulate you to live healthier. It can cut taxes and subsidize fruit,vegetables,fish etc. It can tax fat food, cigarettes and alcohol. That way the government can regulate the consumption in a way that makes people live healthier.

That way the government can stimulate the people to live healthy and cap HC costs through making people live healthier. Keynesian thinking into HC. US already have the food stamps, thats a way to stimulate to live healthier. I dont know what they can buy with it, but its basically healthy food, so it is a way to stimulate.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 20, 2012)

dblack said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Another reason we spend more is that we are a country of rather unhealthy habits. Nearly half of the U.S. is considered obese. Our diets are poor, etc. All leading to more health care needs down the road.
> ...



That is the other moral dilemma. So we go ahead and let government administer health care. Or at least pay for it (again actually paid by the taxpayer). Does the individual receiving the benefits not have an obligation to not waste or unneccessarily add cost to the benefits they are receiving? It would seem to me that since that I now have no choice but to fund another's health care, at the very least I ought to have a say in making sure you are not depriving me of more money than is neccessary. In a sense I should have some say in how you choose to live your life. All of you who say those more fortunate have an obligation to those less fortunate, do the less fortunate also not have an obligation to not waste the charity you say we are obligated to provide?


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 20, 2012)

Euro said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Then it comes down to a real simple decison. The above would obviously constitute a major reduction on individual freedom. Using government to socially engineer the behavior you deem 'good' neccissitates that. The simple decision is do you value freedom or security more? With freedom comes the responsibility that you live with the consequences of your choices. With security comes the consequence that there are fewer choices you are free to make.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Jan 20, 2012)

Bern80 said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > Based on your logic, we should have a huge surplus because of all the industrialized nations in the world, we're the only one who doesn't provide universal hc. But what do you know? No surplus! So your logic doesn't hold. As I've said, it's a matter of prioritization.
> ...



Well fine. Yes, what are called "Liberal" views in America would be considered very Conservative in most of the world. Also very stupid. We spend more than every other country in the world _combined_ on defense but we can't help our citizens and our economy with health care? Our priorities are just plain stupid sometimes but the AMA, Insurance idustry etc... have done such a good job of selling this bs, there are people who buy it. 
As far as believing what you say, you're the one with the closed mind. What have you presented to believe? You've only put forth your opinions. When faced with facts - like that the money is there, this country just budgets & prioritizes extremely poorly, you revert to FOX soundbites and labels.
Google health care in Indonesia. Combination of Public & Private sector health are. Fantastic stuff and probably among the least abused systems out there. Or check Sweden or Austria's. Even Japan.
Contrary to what you've been told, offering public health insurance doesn't mean private sector insurance has to go away. This is the only industrialized country in the world where someone ever has to consider health as a factor to switiching jobs or starting their own business. That's bad for the economy.


----------



## Gagafritz (Jan 20, 2012)

I think there is a religious imperative to help the less fortunate, but it is also just part of being a thinking, feeling human being.


----------



## Euro (Jan 20, 2012)

Bern80 said:


> Euro said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Well, you could easily afford HC by restructuring the military budget. US spends 700 billion $ this year on military. Most of it spent overseas, far away from USA.

In fact 20% of US federal budget goes to homeland security and military. So I would say that is to prioritate security before freedom. The big spenders in US is the republicans which you support. Its the pubs that are the big spenders on military and security. It is inflationary to spend so much money overseas on military. The dems at least want to spend the money on the home-market which will create jobs.

So I find it ironic that you as a republican talk about giving up freedom for security. Patriot act, Guantanmo where all created by pubs.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 20, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> *Are you daft or just lying? Please show me where I said that ANY government program is nothing but positives! What? You can't? Of course you can't. So really, please just quit lying, okay? Thanks.*



Actually it is you that would lying here. Please show me where I used the words 'any government program' or any other such phrasing that would indicate I was talking about anything other than healthcare. 'What? You can't? Of course you can't. So really, please just quit lying, okay? Thanks.' We're talking about healthcare. Grow a pair and address the reality that 'all other industrialized nations' with some for or other of UHC also run rather significant deficits in health care spending. 



IndependntLogic said:


> *And what about when they get out? Then again, why not the lawyer who foregoes the huge Wall St. salary in order to provide free legal counsel to the vetereans who are in need? Is he less deserving? Why?*



In my personal opinion vets should received medical benefits for life. Lawyers aren't vets. They didn't sacrafice themselves to defend the country. So yes I would say they are less deserving.



IndependntLogic said:


> *Why does the government have an obligation to provide a military? Streets? Highways? Libraries? Education? People allow governments to exist and to tax them in exchange for what they get in return. You claim that health care or health insurance is not something that should be provided. We simply have different opinons but what it comes down to and what you can't escape is that it is simply a matter of prioritization. Apparently you think giving $20B to Pakistan or $50B to let the government help profitible companies make more profits or whatever, is more important than health care. I don't.*



They federal government has only the obligations laid out for it in the constitution. Some of the things you listed indeed the fed doesn't have an obligation to provide even though they do. And not it has nothing to do with prioritization. You can not logically conclude that because I am not for governmetn UHC I must be for wars. In fact I don't think we should be or need to be spending what we spend on defense. That doesn't change my opinion that government should not provide healthcare. It will invariably require curbing people's freedom as I mentioned in another post and again your condition, whether it be your health or your financial one, isn't anyone elses responsibility or obligation to fix.




IndependntLogic said:


> Well fine. Yes, what are called "Liberal" views in America would be considered very Conservative in most of the world. Also very stupid. We spend more than every other country in the world _combined_ on defense but we can't help our citizens and our economy with health care? Our priorities are just plain stupid sometimes but the AMA, Insurance idustry etc... have done such a good job of selling this bs, there are people who buy it.



Again this not about substitutions. People use cliches like that all the time too which are 'also very stupid'. Cliche's like "we're the richest nation in the world so we ought to do this', or 'we spend so much on this, but not on that'. THEY ARE NOT RELATED. The reason we don't spend more tax dollars to provide health care is not because of how much we're spending on other stuff. The reason is because providing health care has not been deemed to be the government's responsibility.



IndependntLogic said:


> As far as believing what you say, you're the one with the closed mind. What have you presented to believe? You've only put forth your opinions. When faced with facts - like that the money is there, this country just budgets & prioritizes extremely poorly, you revert to FOX soundbites and labels.
> Google health care in Indonesia. Combination of Public & Private sector health are. Fantastic stuff and probably among the least abused systems out there. Or check Sweden or Austria's. Even Japan.
> Contrary to what you've been told, offering public health insurance doesn't mean private sector insurance has to go away. This is the only industrialized country in the world where someone ever has to consider health as a factor to switiching jobs or starting their own business. That's bad for the economy.




I'm not disputing you're facts. I agree that we could divert money from some things and probably pay for a lot of people's health care. It isn't a question of whether we can it's a question of whether we should. The answer is short some very basic safety nets, no, we should not. I asked before to someone else and so I ask you; what is more important to you? Government ensuring your security or government ensuring our freedom. You can't have it both ways. When government does one it takes away from the other. If you want government to keep you more secure via paying for your health care, then invarably you will lose some of your freedom. You will lose some financial freedom because everyone's taxes will have to go up. You will also lose some freedom of choice since I am now paying for healthcare I most certainly have a say in making sure you aren't behaving in a way that may result in encurring some unneccessary health care expenses. Deal?


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 20, 2012)

Euro said:


> Well, you could easily afford HC by restructuring the military budget. US spends 700 billion $ this year on military. Most of it spent overseas, far away from USA.
> 
> In fact 20% of US federal budget goes to homeland security and military. So I would say that is to prioritate security before freedom. The big spenders in US is the republicans which you support. Its the pubs that are the big spenders on military and security. It is inflationary to spend so much money overseas on military. The dems at least want to spend the money on the home-market which will create jobs.
> 
> So I find it ironic that you as a republican talk about giving up freedom for security. Patriot act, Guantanmo where all created by pubs.




First I'm not a Republican. Never assume about people what you don't know to be true. It makes you look really stupid. 

Secondly, as I said before, this is not about what we can or can't fiscally do. It's about what government _should_ do. All kinds of people say 'I think government should do more for people'. At which point I usually ask the question that you refused to answer. Is security or freedom more important to you?


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 20, 2012)

Gagafritz said:


> I think there is a religious imperative to help the less fortunate, but it is also just part of being a thinking, feeling human being.



One does not need religion at all to determine what is right and wrong. Your position presuppses that anyone less fortunate is a victim of circumstance and responsible for why they are where they are. Part of being a thinking, feeling human being is having the integrity to not hold other people accountable for your problems.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 20, 2012)

Adeller said:


> We have a duty as humans to look after those less fortunate than ourselves, and those less fortunate have a right to demand that help from others.
> 
> Healthcare is absolutely a right.
> 
> brainalin.com



Bullshit.  I have a duty to God to help others - which is NOT the same as "looking after them", as though they're retarded children - and they have NO right to DEMAND anything from me or anyone else who is not actually their family or in some other way responsible for them.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 20, 2012)

Gagafritz said:


> It is a moral obligation as a fellow human being.



Not everyone defines their moral obligations to other humans in the same way, or even defines "help" in the same way.  You should perhaps take a step back and consider that your particular view of the world and humanity is not THE view.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 20, 2012)

Bern80 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Euro said:
> ...



Well, that is a part of our high standard of living:  wanting to indulge ourselves without stint and still be able to avoid the consequences.


----------



## TheLonelySquire (Jan 20, 2012)

Gagafritz said:


> I think there is a religious imperative to help the less fortunate, but it is also just part of being a thinking, feeling human being.



See, I understand the religious part. However, if someone is an athiest and believes we are just a cosmic accident, I could also understand that person having no morality belief at all.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 20, 2012)

Euro said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



You can buy any food in the grocery store with food stamps, except for prepared foods such as the deli or hot foods.  So no, it's not "basically healthy food".  You can spend the entire amount on potato chips and ice cream, if you want.


----------



## TheLonelySquire (Jan 20, 2012)

Freedom.


----------



## logical4u (Jan 20, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > IndependntLogic said:
> ...



In most of the countries that instituted gov't "health care", those countries are now trying to "privatize" their health care because they cannot afford to continue gov't care.  You have stuff pointed out to you, and instead of looking at the history and where this usually takes you, you say: Oh that won't happen, here (this time it will be different).  Not that I would expect you to make that connection.  It seems you would prefer to financially break the country and let "more" people suffer (after the healt care system collapses), than actually think something thru.

Even when you can see that happening, you refuse to acknowledge that it is even possible.  And you want to accuse me of living in "fairy tale land".....


----------



## logical4u (Jan 20, 2012)

Adeller said:


> We have a duty as humans to look after those less fortunate than ourselves, and those less fortunate have a right to demand that help from others.
> 
> Healthcare is absolutely a right.
> 
> brainalin.com



How much are you, "you" willing to pay for someone else's care?  If a person has cancer, does not have insurance, lived their life making choices for pleasure and not survival, how much of your income or savings should have to go to that person?  Should "your" savings be wiped?  Should your income be halved to pay for someone else's "right"?

This country has been blessed.  Those blessings have been used to make this country's people, on average, the most generous people in the world.  What you are telling us, it that we must put our resources in "a common purse" (look it up in Proverbs), for anyone to decide how it should be used.  Who determines who gives how much?  Why don't people that choose to be non-productive have to contribute?  Why do you want to encourage poor choices?  

Once you have blown thru "your" income, and your savings paying for some else's health care, you can ask others for assistance.  They have the "right" to say NO.


----------



## logical4u (Jan 20, 2012)

Euro said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Have you watched what people "buy" with food stamps?  I have: steak, ice cream, brand name junk food.  I am watching my dollar, and have a cart full of what is on sale, or what I need.  Food stamps are not the answer to "healthier living".


----------



## logical4u (Jan 20, 2012)

Euro said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Euro said:
> ...



What do you do when the USA is attacked?  Your military budget has been slashed to the bone, and there are to many people getting "health care" to move money to the military.  How much "health care" do you think you will have when the country is CONQUERED because the military was disassembled , and the enemy has no one to stop them?  Do you think the "conquerers" will be giving you free health care?  Do you think they will care if you have food, or shelter?  Continue to be one of the sheep.


----------



## Euro (Jan 21, 2012)

logical4u said:


> Euro said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Soldiers are government workers, they are paid through the budget by tax-payers. They dont earn their own money, they get their money. Just like people on welfare,social services etc. The diifrence is that they get more. Those on food stamps or welfare spends their money on the home market and buy products, that stimulates the economy and creates jobs. Soldiers stationed overseas is a total waste.
Most of the overseas spending in Germany,Korea,Japan are unesseccary. They could have spent their money in US and created jobs in the US by buying products.

So it is an easy way to balance the budget is to cut their, or at least take the soldiers home. Then they can spend money on the home-market, that will create jobs and the economy will grow.

Those on welfare and social services arent the biggest problem since they stimulate the economy by buying products in us, that keeps the prices down. The soldiers overseas dosent stimulate the US economy in any way, its just a total waste that kills jobs and keeps the federal reserve busy printing money.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 21, 2012)

Euro said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Euro said:
> ...



I beg your fucking pardon?!  Soldiers don't earn their money?!  They're just like people on welfare?!

The difference, you braindead sack of feces, is that the military is a JOB.  They are EMPLOYED by the government.  They go to work every day, perform specific tasks, and . . . oh, yeah, their JOB includes risking their lives - or even giving them - to protect the rest of the country.  Sitting on your ass, collecting food stamps and TANF, is not a job.

"Soldiers don't earn their money."  You are cordially invited to go die, shitstain.  Get off my screen.


----------



## Euro (Jan 21, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Euro said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...


You have to understand the diffrence between government jobs and private sector jobs.

The private sector is what creates income, soldiers are paid by the income in the private sector. Government workers are mainly a cost, not all but soldiers are because they dont create anything. Government workers like soldiers are a cost more than people on food stamps and welfare becuase they produce nothing.

When I did my one year of mandatory military service, I was paid far less money than people on welfare and people on unemployment beneftis. Unemployed people and people on welfare gets about 2000$ a month. When I was a soldier I got 500$ a month in salary, I worked as a MP protecting an airforce base. I think that was fair, because their are other people that needed that money more than me. Sick,elderly,kids at school, or free HC. Those soldiers are young ,healthy etc. so they dont need so much.They can take care of themselves. Elderly,sick etc. cant. So if I get sick or when Im old I can get better services.

I agree that soldiers in wars like afghanistan should get paid and they do get paid about 50.000$ a year, but that war was a wrong decision and a unescecary war just like Iraq. But you are not risking your life when you protect a base in a country where their is peace. E.g. those soldiers in Germany,Japan,Korea and USA dont risk anything. They are mainly their only for presence. It hasnt been a war in those countries for the last 50-60 years.

By keeping the salaries on military down, you can keep the military budget low and provide the same services. It is very inefficient to spend so much money as US does on military. The government should spend its money in a way that benefits its people investing in businesses,infrastructure,schools,HC. You have to get something back from your taxes.

If you could decide how you would spend your tax money, would you have spent it 60.000 soldiers in Germany, 80.000 in Japan/korea, when 46 million americans are on food stamps?
I wouldnt, I would have taken back those troops, fired them and put the money into e.g. infrastructure,HC, job creation,education etc.
By doing that I would have cut government spending and created more private sector jobs.


----------



## beagle9 (Jan 21, 2012)

Euro said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Euro said:
> ...


Sounds like something Ron Paul would say, and that man is a basket case....Just saying....  B/


----------



## logical4u (Jan 21, 2012)

Euro said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Euro said:
> ...



....."Those on welfare and social services arent the biggest problem since they stimulate the economy by buying products in us, that keeps the prices down." ...
Is like giving your child "allowance" and then asking them to have it back to demonstrate "their contribution" to the family finances.  Not that you would ever look at it, like that.


----------



## logical4u (Jan 21, 2012)

Euro said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Euro said:
> ...



Gov't workers "cost more" than those on welfare??????   Don't they do jobs?  What do the people on welfare "give back" to society?????????  According to your logic, "eliminating" those on welfare would be a great way to balance the budget.


----------



## Euro (Jan 22, 2012)

logical4u said:


> Euro said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Soldiers overseas dosent keep the purchasing power on the home-market up. US has 300.000 soldiers overseas. Germany,Korea,Japan their is no war their.
I especially talk about soldiers,you could need more government workers in for instance infrastructure, R&D. But they suffer because of all the overseas spending.

But soldiers overseas is a total waste, and the its better to spend the money on the home market when the goverment pays the salaries.


----------



## Gagafritz (Jan 22, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Gagafritz said:
> 
> 
> > It is a moral obligation as a fellow human being.
> ...



I find it interesting that you would find the simple statement i made above somehow controversial.  I did not cloak it in religion or anything else.  Just a basic observation of being on the planet or existing.  Even animals help one another in times of distress.  I watched an episode of whale watchers where there was a humpack whale with its baby being attacked by those killer whale dolphins.  It was a gang banging group who repeatedly rammed and rammed the whales.  The mother wahle wnet through Herculian and stenous efforts and attempt to block and protect and would literaly block the attacks, then swim under her baby and propel it to the surface to breathe.  It was a very moving example of nature.  If you don't think there is some kind of univeral principle whereby creatures aid and assist others in distress, i really dont' know what to say to that.  And, nowhere did i see that was an excuse to leech off of others or whatever.


----------



## logical4u (Jan 22, 2012)

Euro said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Euro said:
> ...



So, you think that leaving us without overseas bases will be a good thing?  How do you propose we take care of shipping lanes (set up a tanker and oil refinery to travel with the fleet, along with a floating "dry dock")?  Are you suggesting we void our treaties with our allies?  Do you think that if we "evacuate" our troops from overseas, the enemies of liberty and freedom are going to say "I will not take advantage of those defenseless people"?

So we go back to having piracy on the seas world-wide (not just in select areas), anything that is "imported" will be more expensive (each vessel will need its own security force), and our enemies will have a clear path to invade any country on the face of the planet?  Just so that I understand what you are saying, do I have that right?


----------



## beagle9 (Jan 22, 2012)

logical4u said:


> Euro said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...


Exactly me thoughts as well, and you elayed them perfectly so I don't have to... Thanks


----------



## Euro (Jan 22, 2012)

logical4u said:


> Euro said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...


60.000 Soldiers in Germany, 60.000 soldiers in Japan. Both Japan and Germany have spent about 1% of its GDP  on military the last 60 years. 

NAVY ships and airforce is good to have, but I dont think a 100.000+ landbased soldiers in countries where their is peace does any good, its waste. Then its better to by some NAVY ships or planes that can secure ships. A landbased army cant secure civilian ships, then its better to spend the money on NAVY and airforce.


----------



## beagle9 (Jan 22, 2012)

Euro said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Euro said:
> ...


If these soldiers are a part of those societies in everyway expected of them to be, and they are a contributor to those societies economies just as well in some form or another, and those societies are a contributor back to them just as well in some form or another, then this is just merely setting up a straw man, as to be found in these arguments such as this for political purposes only, because the electorate would never understand the complexities of these set up's or situations talked about here. I bet Japan is glad our people were still in there after that Sunami...wow 

As for the one who is running or setting up this straw man argument to be used on the people for political reasons, it is most revealing to say the least upon how these set up's get going, and are being used in this election.


----------



## Euro (Jan 22, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> Euro said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Thats the problem they contribute to the economies in those countries by spending money their. I&#8217;m sure it is nice for Germany and Japan to not spend money on defence, and at the same time their businesess are stimulated while they buy products their and create manufacturing jobs their to supply the US army.

It was nescesccarry after ww2 when the region was unstable and they needed help, but they are self-managed now. And they have money to build their own defence now. Let them do that.

Back in US their are 40 million unemployed americans, cutting those soldiers will save billions and the government can create other jobs fot those back in US. That way they can stimulate the american economy and not the japanese,german or korean.

If those soldiers spends money in US, they will create american jobs instead of german or japanese jobs. But I&#8217;m sure Japan and Germany are happy to not have to spend money on military. But with 40 million americans on food stamps, they need those soldiers in US to stimulate the US economy. Many of those soldiers can probobaly create new private sector jobs in US to.


----------



## logical4u (Jan 22, 2012)

Euro said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Euro said:
> ...



Yes, those countries that are home to our overseas military bases are happy to have our soldiers spend "their" money there.  

Just a brief history lesson: WWI Germany was beaten and broken.  The first wack job that knew how to "sell" was welcomed with open arms, and not only threw the rest of the world (I believe only a small number of countries were NOT involved, one way or another) into a war were millions died, but also executed millions to take what was theirs.  Japan was also know for re-grouping, and aggressively attacking its neighbors.  Our military stationed there was and is a standing warning to any wannabe dictator that intends to sway his country's people into war, already has a "standing army" that he will have to battle BEFORE he can march on his neighbors.  Until the USA became a "world power" in WWII, Europe, Asia, and Africa had major wars, frequently.  Since the USA became a "world power", there has been fewer major wars, and less resources (though our tax dollars are an enormous amount), used for a military  the ready in every country that had borders to defend.

It amuses me that the same people that want our military cut to the bone, would be the first ones crying and pissing their pants when the invasion would come.  The same ones that think the entire world will behave on its own will not even ask those on "assistance" to provide for themselves.  What little hypocrits they are.


----------



## beagle9 (Jan 22, 2012)

Euro said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Euro said:
> ...


It is my thoughts that the military and this nation has made out quite well in these nations over the years (i.e. being a huge positive in so many ways looking back and forward, instead of the huge negative in which it is being touted within an election period and/or cycle now). These areas have assisted us tremendously as far as our inteligence community goes etc. where as we must keep tabs on this world always through these open channels, that which were open with the blood of this nation. 

Hey these things cost big time always, but they are a nessesary cost none the less. Now if we were talking about reforming or auditing the military, in order to see if we need to maybe tweak or make some nessesary changes in some of these areas, well ok then, but to talk of this blanket abandonment from the world in so many ways now, by saying that we are broke especially as a justification for it, when we are not broke by no means as a nation, is simply rediculousness at best in my opinion. This sounds just like something Obama would be suggesting or touting, but even he isn't that crazy I guess, where as he is simply staying well away from this kind of tactic or suggestion in an election situation, to even go anywhere near saying that we should be retreating from the entire world with our military and intel. 

He (Barack) may apologize to much here and there, but he is keeping us strong in the world so far (i.e. not speaking of a total retreat from it). Correct me if I am wrong now....


----------



## IndependntLogic (Jan 22, 2012)

Bern80 said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > *Are you daft or just lying? Please show me where I said that ANY government program is nothing but positives! What? You can't? Of course you can't. So really, please just quit lying, okay? Thanks.*
> ...



No deal. You also make the assumption that providing public health care means the elimination of private health care. Wrong. Why would it go away? If "The Market" operates as some claim, then the ONLY people who will use public health care, will be those who can't afford the superior quality, better doctors, prettier nurses or whatever provided by the private sector. Can't have it both ways! Either the market operates or it doesn't.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 23, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> Well you wrote "To pretend there is nothing but positives with government run health care is simply naive". Apparently you don't understand that what I meant was that, not only did I never say there was "nothing but positives" about health care, I would never say that about ANY government run program. So I didn't lie, you just didn't understand - but you still lied. So even if I dumb it down for you, you're going to come up empty: Show me where I ever said there is nothing but positives to a government run health care program. What? You cant'? Yeah we know...



You can't even admit a mistake when it's stuck right in front of your face. Your failure to acknowledge that there are very real problem that cuntries using such system are seeing now, today, suggests you are ignoring the negatives and lending credence only to the positives (though I can't find many of those either). That is why I called you naive on UHC. 



IndependntLogic said:


> Ah. Sounds like someone's been reading the Little Libertarian Book of Pat Answers. Okay got it. Guess what? I'm just fine and dandy with having LOTS of freedoms impinged upon. Freedom to own a nuclear weapon is guaranteed in the USC. I'm not disappointed that I don't have it. Freedom to sell heroin on street corners is guaranteed. Not missing that either. Now, what you should do is tell me why it applies only as you interpret it.



Tell you what only applies as I interpret it? The constitution. Not that I will convince you of this, but I don't believe the constution was ever meant to be 'interpreted'. The document says what it says. I believe the authors meant for people to be able to understand very simply what their rights were and what their government's obliations are. They did not intend for people to have to defer to supposed 'constitutional scholars' to tell them what their rights were or what government can or can't do.  




IndependntLogic said:


> Actually, yes I can and so do you. It's called common sense.



No I'm afraid you can't. You can't insist that government provide UHC and insist that you get to keep the same freedoms you had before it went into effect.



IndependntLogic said:


> I'm fine with that. I'm also fine with getting a driver's license - even thought that's UnConstitutional. Oh wait. Anything we legally decide to change through the legislative process becomes Constitutionally legal - unless you say it isn't of course...



Also not true. Passage of a law does not mean all laws passed are constitutional. Congressman take an oath also to uphold the constitution. If a president can violate his oath of office and thus be subject to impeachment, so to can congressman be impeached for violating theirs and passing legislation that is unconstitutional.



IndependntLogic said:


> But I will save much more than that on the cost of health care and the 60% of bankruptcies which are filed due to medical bills and subsequently passed along to the consumer of virtually every product and service. I (well not me) will also gain the freedom to switch jobs at will because unlike any other country in the world, I am no longer enslaved by insurance.



Enslaved by your employer? Get real. People switch jobs all the time. Including myself. Unless you're A complete idiot with no marketable skills whatsover, most any job is going to offer health insurance as a benefit. And why exactly do you deserve to save money on the backs of others?



IndependntLogic said:


> No deal. You also make the assumption that providing public health care means the elimination of private health care. Wrong. Why would it go away? If "The Market" operates as some claim, then the ONLY people who will use public health care, will be those who can't afford the superior quality, better doctors, prettier nurses or whatever provided by the private sector. Can't have it both ways! Either the market operates or it doesn't.



Maybe not. But by then what's the point? Or better yet what is your point? Is it that you believe it is the role of government to provide health care for all or do we just need a safety net for that really need it? If it is the latter I would simply suggest expanding medicare. Whether the tax payer should get to dictate to you how you live your life is dependent on what you want the government to pay for. I would be willing to compromise in extending medicare to those who need it as long as it doesn't pay for health care needed as a result of something you did to yourself.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Jan 23, 2012)

Bern80 said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > Well you wrote "To pretend there is nothing but positives with government run health care is simply naive". Apparently you don't understand that what I meant was that, not only did I never say there was "nothing but positives" about health care, I would never say that about ANY government run program. So I didn't lie, you just didn't understand - but you still lied. So even if I dumb it down for you, you're going to come up empty: Show me where I ever said there is nothing but positives to a government run health care program. What? You cant'? Yeah we know...
> ...



So hmmm. Remember when I first said it's simply a matter of priorities? That's what you just stated above. It's not whether government will waste money. It always will. Government will always have problems with it's programs - look at NASA's $1200 toilet etc... 
So if government is going to take our money and use it on something, I would prefer it do so on health care, rather than say giving $20B to the corrupt politicians of the country that helped hide bin Laden on us. Or on about two dozen government agencies I would eliminate altogether. Or on tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas. Or whatever. Of all the things our government blows money on, this is one that the whole world realizes is pretty basic.
Believe it not, as great as this country is, there are SOME things that other countries do better. I believe this is one.
I would offer a Single Payer Insurance System that was graduated based on income and required acclerating co-payments to help curb abuse. This is what Indonesia does. No one in that country has ever filed bankruptcy because of medical bills. Got any idea how many BILLIONS we pay as taxpayers, due to that aspect of our system alone? 
Google the Indonesian system (hopefully with a tad more open mind) and you'll see what I'm referring to. 
Hell, even the Ukrainian's have a system better than ours. It's basically private unless you're at a lower-middle class income level or until you hit a certain cost factor. Then you have the public option.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 24, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> You believe. Your belief is no more valid than anyone else's though. I believe the FF's created three branches of government! And one of those branches has the specific duty of interpreting laws and then comparing them to how they _interpret_the USC, in order to see if the two are congruent. Seems my belief has more evidence to support it as that's what we've done for a couple hundred years now.



Which would be true if we could safely assume that all judges interpret the constitution the same way and that they were always correct in that interpretation. But please for a second get real. We KNOW that's not the case. We wouldn't have the battles over judicial appointments we have if we could take on faith that judges would always interpret the constitution correctly.




IndependntLogic said:


> Never said I could insist the government provide UHC. But I can prove that the same freedoms can indeed exist if it did exist.



You really like to get stuck on I said/you said don't you? Do you understand the word 'if' is a qualifier? Hence why I used it. The reality is no you can't. What your missing is money is freedom. It is what allows people to exercise their right to do what they want to do. If you don't have money you have few choices. Soooo the fact remains, at the end of the day, even if government passed a health care plan where everyone paid into government and government handled all the costs of one's healthcare regardless of whether their health issues were a fault or no fault of their own, you would STILL be less free. Because a government plan that doesn't hold people accountable financially for their health is going to cost more for EVERYONE than a plan that does hold people accountable financially for their own health.




IndependntLogic said:


> I didn't say all laws are Constitutional. I said that laws are passed according to the Constitution and if they are passed they are legal. Of course they can later be _interpreted_ to be UnConstitutional - as will hopefully be the case with ObamaCare, for example.



That's a distinction without a difference bud. And most of it isnt' even true. Again, GET REAL. You really think today's congressmen are consulting the costitution to make sure the legislation they are trying to pass comports with it? Another naive belief we know not to be true. FDR would not have had to threaten to pack the supreme court if "all laws are passed according to the constitution' and the courts, as you say, have the final say on what is constitutional.




IndependntLogic said:


> Our neighbor worked for Enron his whole life. Wanted to switch jobs a couple times but his wife had some kind of bad disease (I think it may have been Parkinson's) and they wouldn't be able to get her covered (pre-ObamaCare) or if they did, it would cost them a mint. They were ENSLAVED to Enron. Until it went under of course. Then they lost everything. Good solid Conservatives, those two. Ironic eh?



The pre-existing condition issue is another moral dilemma. I'm not sure what the answer is, but some out of the box thinking is required. I would suggest some type lending option that gets people the money they need for expenses that can be paid off over time. What I do know is it is morally wrong to buy a home owners insurance policy AFTER your house catches fire and expect the insurance company to pay for it.



IndependntLogic said:


> So hmmm. Remember when I first said it's simply a matter of priorities? That's what you just stated above. It's not whether government will waste money. It always will. Government will always have problems with it's programs - look at NASA's $1200 toilet etc...
> So if government is going to take our money and use it on something, I would prefer it do so on health care, rather than say giving $20B to the corrupt politicians of the country that helped hide bin Laden on us. Or on about two dozen government agencies I would eliminate altogether. Or on tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas. Or whatever. Of all the things our government blows money on, this is one that the whole world realizes is pretty basic.



And I'm trying to get you to see when it comes to government spending it is NOT always about priorities. It is not a question of spending on this vs. that. Like I said, I would probably agree with you on a lot of things we shouldn't be spending money. But even if we had the money to spare that doesn't mean it is a good idea or that government SHOULD spend money on it. 



IndependntLogic said:


> Believe it not, as great as this country is, there are SOME things that other countries do better. I believe this is one.
> I would offer a Single Payer Insurance System that was graduated based on income and required acclerating co-payments to help curb abuse. This is what Indonesia does. No one in that country has ever filed bankruptcy because of medical bills. Got any idea how many BILLIONS we pay as taxpayers, due to that aspect of our system alone?
> Google the Indonesian system (hopefully with a tad more open mind) and you'll see what I'm referring to.
> Hell, even the Ukrainian's have a system better than ours. It's basically private unless you're at a lower-middle class income level or until you hit a certain cost factor. Then you have the public option.



Define 'better'. What is your metric for what makes another country's system 'better'? Because it appears to me, like most that advocate for UHC, you only have one metric that defines what makes an entire health care system good or bad and that is how much it costs the individual. Does Indonesia have the quality of physicians and medical resources we have? I doubt it. So what good is cheap if the actual quality of care is poor? That's kind of interesting because it reminds me of something you said before. 'Either the free market works or it doesn't', you said. Have you considered the free market IS working in our country (albeit not as well as it coud where health care is concerned)? A free market determines the price of something by variables such as it's scarcity and demand for it. The more demand and more scarce something is the more it will cost. In that sense it makes perfect sense that health care is going to be expensive. You want me to keep an open mind, then I ask you do the same and engage in some real objective introspection about _your own_ beliefs. Think bigger picture. Is your beef really that you just don't believe that people should be financially burdened with the cost of just plain surviving? Is health care something that you believe shouldn't be subjected to the free market? How do you know a free market won't accomplish the same goals if you really let them work? Or how about thinking REALLY big picture. Like humanities impact on our planet and whether or not we should be trying so hard, even demanding that others pay to do so, to save so many?


----------



## IndependntLogic (Jan 24, 2012)

Bern80 said:


> Define 'better'. What is your metric for what makes another country's system 'better'?
> Well one component would be "At all". Millions of people in this country don't get care AT ALL. So if you're hungry, you don't care whether or not other people get steak, even a peanut sandwich looks good. That would be one component. Another is cost to those who HAVE insurance. Two thirds of the bankruptcies in this country are caused solely or partly by medical bills - including the medical bills of those who HAVE insurace. You don't see a problem with this? I have personal experience in this regard. My brother got cancer and had insurance through the painting contractor he worked for. Long story but the result was that it ended up costing me $6 - $10K a month for quite a while. Of course, I could have gone the Ron Paul route and cheered "Let him die!" because he wasn't an expert in inrsurance loopholes etc...
> 
> Because it appears to me, like most that advocate for UHC, you only have one metric that defines what makes an entire health care system good or bad and that is how much it costs the individual. Does Indonesia have the quality of physicians and medical resources we have?
> ...



"let em die!" Yeah. heard that when Ron Paul spoke. Maybe some day when you crawl out of the Libertarian box, you'll realize there are other possibilities that are worth exploring. In the mean time I get it. You believe there is absolutely no possibility that anything could be better than letting those benevolent insurance companies handle everything.
BTW, knwo how many of the 25 largest health insurers have been ound guilty of wrongfully denying benefits and even wrongful death? 25.
Know how many of the "The Magical Market" has put out of business because hey! That's what happens if we let The Market handle things right? Bad companies just disappear? Wrong. The answer is zero. Every insurer who has been found guilty of repeatedly denying benefits is still out there! Same with drug manufacturers, auto makers etc... The Magical Market does not get rid of all those bad companies. That's a Libertarian myth. it does in many cases but it certainly doesn't in most. Look at the Fortune 500. Look at Moody's (you know, the fine folks who graded mortgage backed securities so highly), the examples go on ad infinitum.
So while I am a capitalist, I am also a realist. Oh well. 
Look I know you will not believe anything could possibly be better than what we have. Screw evidence, it's philosophy that's important. Seen it before.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 24, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> Well one component would be "At all". Millions of people in this country don't get care AT ALL. So if you're hungry, you don't care whether or not other people get steak, even a peanut sandwich looks good. That would be one component. Another is cost to those who HAVE insurance. Two thirds of the bankruptcies in this country are caused solely or partly by medical bills - including the medical bills of those who HAVE insurace. You don't see a problem with this? I have personal experience in this regard. My brother got cancer and had insurance through the painting contractor he worked for. Long story but the result was that it ended up costing me $6 - $10K a month for quite a while. Of course, I could have gone the Ron Paul route and cheered "Let him die!" because he wasn't an expert in inrsurance loopholes etc...



You don't need to preach to me about brother's with cancer. I AM the brother with cancer. I had cancer when I was four. It was a huge financial drain on my parents even being upper middle class. As an adult it continues to be a drain on my finances as well. You may not like the philosophy or the hyper ideological stance I have, but at the end of the day I have the integrity to say despite the unlucky, raw deal I was dealt through no fault of anybody at all, I STILL do not have the right the hold someone else fiscally accountable for my problems. 

Your above paragraph proves exactly what I said. Cost is the main factor that determines for you what constitutes a good health care system.



IndependntLogic said:


> Why do you doubt it? Oh yeah. The Conservative Media has told you so. So of course you trust whatever that media tells you. I've had health care in several countries and honestly, with the exception of the Ukraine, most were just as good and as quick as here in America. Contrary to what you've been told to believe, that includes Canada, btw.



Stop responding about what you think are the alterior motives behind my question and just answer the question. You don't know enough about me to be able to assume you know where I get my news. Nobody tells me what to believe. Something is either true or it isn't. In this case you may want to have a look at the WHO report the proponents of UHC are so fond of citing our 37th position on. If you dig a little deepr into that report those final country rankings came from ranking the countries in about 8 other metrics. Things like cost per indiviudal (the primary factor that leads to the U.S. low ranking), responsiveness, access to needed treatment etc. In the catagories that would constitute actualy quality of care, irrelevent of the cost, the U.S. is in the top 10 in almost all of those categories. In other words, the WHO study would disagree with that you would receive the same quality of care in other countries as you would the U.S.




IndependntLogic said:


> Dude, I am AT LEAST as much of a capitalist as you are. I own a business, create jobs, that sort of thing. But to think there is no price-fixing, no unfair denials and that health care is an either / or situation shows very limited thinking. Why not have BOTH public and private? You seem to dodge that rather quickly.



I'm not dodging it at all. Scroll back a few posts you would see that one of my suggestions is that if your goal is some type of minimal level of government paid for coverage, why not just expand medicare to those people.



IndependntLogic said:


> Again, your limited experience and thinking is showing. Do you think it's impossible to have both? You're wrong. We have it now. We just do a really crappy job of it.



As noted above my experience with health care is far from limited. the only thing starting to show in this thread is your foolishness in assuming what you can't possibly verify about me as being true.



IndependntLogic said:


> I guess the last fifty years would be evidence to that effect.



That presumes the last fifty years has actually been a free market. That would be a rather foolish presumption when you consider health care is the single most heavily regulated industry in the country.



IndependntLogic said:


> "let em die!" Yeah. heard that when Ron Paul spoke. Maybe some day when you crawl out of the Libertarian box, you'll realize there are other possibilities that are worth exploring. In the mean time I get it. You believe there is absolutely no possibility that anything could be better than letting those benevolent insurance companies handle everything.



Again you can not presume that because I am against something I must specifically be for something else.



IndependntLogic said:


> BTW, knwo how many of the 25 largest health insurers have been ound guilty of wrongfully denying benefits and even wrongful death? 25.
> Know how many of the "The Magical Market" has put out of business because hey! That's what happens if we let The Market handle things right? Bad companies just disappear? Wrong. The answer is zero. Every insurer who has been found guilty of repeatedly denying benefits is still out there! Same with drug manufacturers, auto makers etc... The Magical Market does not get rid of all those bad companies. That's a Libertarian myth. it does in many cases but it certainly doesn't in most. Look at the Fortune 500. Look at Moody's (you know, the fine folks who graded mortgage backed securities so highly), the examples go on ad infinitum.



No that is not the free market working. The libertarian idea is that when the consumer views a company in an unfavorable light due to some 'evil doings' by said company, the consumer will choose some alternative. Well to do that the customer first has to know about said 'evil doings'. How many people do you suppose know the above. I admit I didn't. And I'm pretty sure I'm not in the minority.


----------



## logical4u (Jan 24, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > IndependntLogic said:
> ...



"Eliminating" private healthcare is the plan (how else do you CONTROL your "subjects").  If the "gov't" or "gov't run schools" control the degrees given to doctors, don't you think they have way too much control over the medical economy?  If the gov't controls medical licensing, don't they get to say who gets degrees, how many degrees are handed out, and what those degrees cost?  They control that now (and people want to blame the insurance companies, a way for employers to give their employees more "wealth" without having to pay taxes on it).  If the gov't takes over the 17% (the touted amount of "healthcare"), of the economy in addition to what it already controls, aren't you concerned that a system is in place for a dictator to walk into the office of President (no matter what party), and take over?  If the gov't has your and your family's healthcare, they control you; they own you!  I simply do not understand why so many people are willing to sell themselves and their families into slavery for "healthcare", that they "believe" will be paid for by others (in truth, they will end up paying, one way or another).   It is truly similar to Pinoccio's "fun island" where kids go for a "free good time" and end up being asses shipped off to work in the mines.


----------



## Bird (Jan 24, 2012)

Bern80 said:


> Why do I ask?  To me it seems to be the most fundamental part of why some advocate for universal health care and why some advocate for privatized healthcare.  Every candidate on the dem ticket has a plan of some type for of universal or government run healthcare.  So I have to think that most of them think it is a right.  By extension then people basically have the right to good health it would seem.
> 
> The problem I have with it being a right is the concept of a 'right' itself.  A 'right' like the right to free speech or right to bear arms is something that is provided you without any cost or requirment to obtain access to.  You don't have to earn the right to free speech or pay a fee when you want to speak.  The conundrum I have with healthcare is if it is your right, that is you are under no personal responsibility to provide it for yourself, then who's responsibility is it, and why?  If I'm not paying for the services somone else must be.  According to Hillary anyway that will be increased taxes on the rich.  But wait healthcare is a right, so why should the rich be expected to pay for it?  It's a right so isn't it suppossed to be free to them as well?  Why should they be worried about their own health as well as those that can't pay for it?
> 
> Rush had a caller on today who was a female physician and basically asked the same question.  Why is she, a provider of a service like any other service, expected to provide it a reduced rate or free all together?  You can't control all aspects of your health anymore than you can control all aspects of your car working, but we expect people to pay to have their own car fixed even if not responsible for the problem, yet some have this expectation that when 'shit happens' where your health is concerned it's suppossed to be free to get 'fixed'.





  When and where I was born, doctors were old people that basically survived long enough to fix the broken body. You were born to live or you died as  an infant... tragic, but that was life. When you got old, you got sick and died- rather quickly too. Smallpox, mumps, and other creepy things were pretty horrible to contend with if your body was weak, but you could survive most if you had a strong body.  Diseases killed the rich, wealthy, and powerful equally, no discrimination there!
 Nobody got healthcare for free.. unless you were a child and/or your family could compensate the Doc in some way. Being a Doc was looked on as being a person of "good" morals standing and integrity.
  A Doc didn't cure you for money, but because he wanted and expected you to become a valuable member of the community by doing a fair share to propel the society forward. You couldn't "sue" the Doc for anything... you either trusted him or faired on your own.
 To a large degree Docs and dentists of our society should still have to graduate "up" to that level... no just go to school for a given amount of time. IMO, med school doesn't make you a good Doc.
  In large part, I have no problem with those old ways.


----------



## ClaimTechnologi (Jan 30, 2012)

As a basic framework for defining the sector, the United Nations International Standard Industrial Classification categorizes health care as generally consisting of hospital activities, medical and dental practice activities, and "other human health activities.


----------



## dblack (Jan 30, 2012)

logical4u said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Re: another thread floating around - wait till that push for this same kind of control will food.


----------



## Marshall (Feb 11, 2012)

maineman said:


> It is a right?  probably not.  Is it something that the richest most powerful nation on earth ought to provide to its citizenry?  I would say so.



Do you have a right to the fruits of your own labor? Apparently not if others have a right to take YOUR fruits from you for their ever expanding rights without the requisite labor on their part.

Charity is what you GIVE freely from your own resources. It is usually given to meet the NEEDS of others. It affirms both the giver and the receiver. 

Theft is what others TAKE from you. It Affirms neither the thief or the victim.

Governments which extract more than you are willing to GIVE become the agents of thieves who meet the DESIRES, not NEEDS of others (for a minimal 90% cut).


----------



## Marshall (Feb 22, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> Affordable healthcare should be a right.  We should not be a society where - regarding basic healthcare needs - people are less healthy simply because they're poor.  That is uncivilized.



So you prefer the politically connected to get the best health care others can buy rather than those who can actually afford it. A small group will always have the best care. How you divide the spoils is the only question. 

Now if you give free care to all, we'll all have nothing because doctors don't work for free and we're losing hundreds of doctors a day because reimbursement rates for Medicare and Medicaid are about 15% and falling.

This is what is wrong with Liberals in general. They completely ignore the fact that people react to the acts of congress. Taxes up means fewer tax payers. We have a DYNAMIC economy. Liberals act as though it's STATIC and people would work, even as their incentive is replaced by disincentive. The most destructive thing is over regulation which is a tremendous disincentive and gains almost nothing for anyone not in the business of bribery.

I have a right ot obtain all the health care I can get, not all I can make someone else pay for.


----------



## Listening (Feb 22, 2012)

Still no case for calling it a right as near as I can tell.

Some think it "should" be a right.....does not make it one.

Never has been up to this point.


----------



## Marshall (Feb 22, 2012)

geauxtohell said:


> It's not a right.  It's an obligation.


Since you quote the preeminent Idolater and intellectual fool, your opinion, though wrong is expected.


----------



## logical4u (Feb 23, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > IndependntLogic said:
> ...



Which party does the current President belong to?  Since you want to declare all Republicans villans (and believe me there are villians on both sides of the aisle).  The CURRENT President is cutting Medicare and Medicaid (translation: denying health care costs for the elderly).  But don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Here are some questions:
Do you think the insurance companies are going to operate at a loss?
Do you think that nurses and doctors will work for reduced wages as payments to medical facilities are cut?
Do you think medical facilities will invest in new, more advanced equipment if there will be no or few funds to pay for it?
Do you think the gov't improves efficiency of any system they operate?
That leaves us with two choices (or a combination of both)
The medical service will deteriorate
The medical costs will increase

Now go chase your unicorns because in your world, none of that is possible.


----------



## Listening (Feb 25, 2012)

Still not a right !


----------



## Dmitry Chernovsky (Mar 30, 2017)

How to protect yourself and your family from different incidents? Which insurance to choose for feeling safe for 100%? Which nyc insurance policies gives the best guarantees.
Blog - Best NYC Insurance That Covers All Your Needs | NYC-Insurance.com


----------



## dblack (Mar 30, 2017)

Listening said:


> Still not a right !



Still worth discussing to0. A free society depends on a common understanding of the concept of rights.


----------



## Camp (Mar 30, 2017)

Listening said:


> Still not a right !


Correct, but it is in the process of becoming a quasi one. That is why the failure of Congress to repeal the ACA and trump's failure to repeal or replace was so important and game changing. It has become an entitlement that Americans have accepted and support. Is Social Security a right? It may not be a right, but there is little chance of it disappearing. The same thing is happening to healthcare.


----------



## dblack (Mar 30, 2017)

Camp said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Still not a right !
> ...



But the "quasi" is the problem. Or rather the lack of understanding regarding what rights are, and why they are important. I think most people today define a "right" as "something everyone should have" and don't perceive the fundamental difference between a service like health care and things like freedom of speech or freedom of association.


----------



## manifold (Mar 30, 2017)

dblack said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



What about a service like that provided by police and firefighters? Is that a right?


----------



## task0778 (Mar 30, 2017)

manifold said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



Not in my view;  a Right is inherent, a choice a person makes to speak, worship, assemble, etc., without needing permission from anyone else.   You don't pay for it like you with a service like the police and firemen.


----------



## Camp (Mar 30, 2017)

task0778 said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Once a service becomes guaranteed by law it becomes the same as a "right". Law, since the Reagan era, has guaranteed that emergency life stabilizing health care is provided when a person goes to a hospital emergency room. Just like when other services are denied, those denying the service face strict and stringent criminal and civil charges for denying such services.


----------



## manifold (Mar 30, 2017)

task0778 said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



By that definition, would smoking crack not also be a right?


----------



## task0778 (Mar 30, 2017)

Camp said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



There may not be much that distinguishes one from the other, but they ain't the same thing.   The police and fireguys are paid from your taxes, but nobody has to pay for you to say or write what you want to.


----------



## task0778 (Mar 30, 2017)

manifold said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



If it's not against the law.   Maybe I should have added that caveat, your rights stop when they conflict with someone else's or when the public good is infringed upon.   IOW, you don't get to break the law.


----------



## Flopper (Mar 30, 2017)

Bern80 said:


> Why do I ask?  To me it seems to be the most fundamental part of why some advocate for universal health care and why some advocate for privatized healthcare.  Every candidate on the dem ticket has a plan of some type for of universal or government run healthcare.  So I have to think that most of them think it is a right.  By extension then people basically have the right to good health it would seem.
> 
> The problem I have with it being a right is the concept of a 'right' itself.  A 'right' like the right to free speech or right to bear arms is something that is provided you without any cost or requirment to obtain access to.  You don't have to earn the right to free speech or pay a fee when you want to speak.  The conundrum I have with healthcare is if it is your right, that is you are under no personal responsibility to provide it for yourself, then who's responsibility is it, and why?  If I'm not paying for the services somone else must be.  According to Hillary anyway that will be increased taxes on the rich.  But wait healthcare is a right, so why should the rich be expected to pay for it?  It's a right so isn't it suppossed to be free to them as well?  Why should they be worried about their own health as well as those that can't pay for it?
> 
> Rush had a caller on today who was a female physician and basically asked the same question.  Why is she, a provider of a service like any other service, expected to provide it a reduced rate or free all together?  You can't control all aspects of your health anymore than you can control all aspects of your car working, but we expect people to pay to have their own car fixed even if not responsible for the problem, yet some have this expectation that when 'shit happens' where your health is concerned it's suppossed to be free to get 'fixed'.


*No, it is not a right, at this time. Someday it will be recognized as a right but America is not ready for it.

We put a higher value on human life than ever before. We are more likely to ask why a person had to die if it could be prevented.  You need only look at the news for confirmation.  A fire killing a family was local news 50 years ago.  Today's it's national news.  A single solder killed in a raid will be headlines and likely to invoke national controversy. 75 years ago a battle in WWII costing thousands of American lives was headline news for a day or so.   The flu epidemic of 1918 killed a 680,000 Americans and the major news coverage was in the obituaries. 

A hundred years ago deaths from the most common diseases were not considered preventable.  It was just the will of God. Today nearly 50% of the 5 leading causes of death in US are considered preventable if the person get's the right kind of healthcare at right time.  It is only natural that people today should consider that they should have a right to healthcare that will save their lives regardless of their ability to pay. 

In order for healthcare to be treated as a right in the US, the politician divide that separates us now will have to change and it will with time.   *


----------



## manifold (Mar 30, 2017)

task0778 said:


> If it's not against the law. Maybe I should have added that caveat, your rights stop when they conflict with someone else's or when the public good is infringed upon. IOW, you don't get to break the law.



That seems a bit arbitrary to me. So you're saying that any of the rights you've enumerated could easily be taken away simply by outlawing them.

And I guess you're correct, rights are precisely what the law says they are. So if the law declares healthcare to be a right, it's a right.


----------



## task0778 (Mar 30, 2017)

manifold said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > If it's not against the law. Maybe I should have added that caveat, your rights stop when they conflict with someone else's or when the public good is infringed upon. IOW, you don't get to break the law.
> ...



I don't think rights can be taken away, that is one of the hallmarks of a right that distinguishes it from a service or privilege or anything else.   However, they can be mitigated or limited somewhat in the best interests of society.   And gov't cannot declare healthcare or anything else to be a right for the simple reason that laws can be repealed but rights can't.


----------



## Flopper (Mar 30, 2017)

task0778 said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


*There are different kinds of rights, human rights, sociologically rights, and legal rights.  Any discussion of rights requires a definition otherwise the discussion is pointless.*


----------



## Camp (Mar 30, 2017)

task0778 said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > task0778 said:
> ...


Rights are totally dependent on laws. The Constitution can be amended and that includes striking right granting amendments. Other rights are dependent on interpretations of the Constitution. An example is the right for a woman to choose and abortion. That can be changed and so can something as solid as the 1st, 2nd, etc. amendments.


----------



## task0778 (Mar 30, 2017)

manifold said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > If it's not against the law. Maybe I should have added that caveat, your rights stop when they conflict with someone else's or when the public good is infringed upon. IOW, you don't get to break the law.
> ...



The framers wanted to make sure everyone understood that the Constitution only grants the feds prescribed, specific, enumerated powers. The Ninth Amendment infers the corollary to this truth. The federal government may not exercise any powers not granted. And it makes clear that the few rights specifically highlighted in the Bill of Rights do not count as an all-inclusive list. The federal government cannot exercise ANY powers other than those granted.   And that includes taking away any of our rights.   And BTW neither can state or local gov'ts.


----------



## task0778 (Mar 30, 2017)

Camp said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



True, the Constitution can be amended and some amendments could be repealed, but not the Bill of Rights.   We know the 18th amendment was removed by the 21st, but that was not a a right granting amendment.


----------



## Flopper (Mar 30, 2017)

manifold said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


*We often speaks of rights guaranteed by the US constitution or federal laws but states also guarantee certain rights such as voting rights, rights to an education, and right to privacy. *


----------



## dblack (Mar 31, 2017)

manifold said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Yes. But not one currently protected by government.


----------



## Political Junky (Mar 31, 2017)

dblack said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > task0778 said:
> ...


Yet


----------



## dblack (Mar 31, 2017)

manifold said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



No. Those are services provided by government, not rights.


----------



## Yarddog (Mar 31, 2017)

Bern80 said:


> Diuretic said:
> 
> 
> > I don't mind looking silly, I've gotten used to it over the years
> ...




Picking up the slack for or helping those who cannot help themselves does not need to be linked to the elective Health Care Insurance others of us choose to pay.  There are other means but the US government under Obama was all to willing to want to pry into the health care decisions of every American.


----------



## dblack (Mar 31, 2017)

Flopper said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Yes. The term has many different applications. But the kind of rights protected by the Constitution are inalienable liberties - not claims on services.


----------



## dblack (Mar 31, 2017)

Camp said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



They're not dependent on the government - they're dependent on free will. The government merely chooses to protect a given right, or not. The government can violate a right, but it can't take it away from a person. 

Most people frame the concept of inalienable rights as a 'thou shalt not' kind of thing - as a commandment from on high that such and such a freedom shall not be violated. But that totally misses the point. Inalienable rights aren't sacrosanct, they're simply an inherent by-product of human free will. It's not that government can't stop someone from exercising inalienable rights - they most certainly can. It's that the capacity to exercise rights - the power to think and act - can't be taken from us. It's what we are.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 31, 2017)

maineman said:


> It is a right?  probably not.  Is it something that the richest most powerful nation on earth ought to provide to its citizenry?  I would say so.



You went off the rails when you thought it should be "provided to" people, rather than available for them to acquire themselves.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 31, 2017)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Judge Andrew Napolitano had an excellent column about this just yesterday.

Is Health Care a Right or a Good?


"Is health care a right in America?

In a word, no. Rights are either natural immunities -- existing in areas of human behavior that, because of our nature, must be free from government regulation, such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as well as speech, the press, religion, travel, self-defense and what remains of privacy -- or legal claims that we qualify or bargain for, such as the right to vote, which the Constitution presumes, and the right to use your property to the exclusion of all others and the right to purchase a good that you can afford.
But the federal government cannot create a right that the Constitution does not authorize. It can't constitutionally transfer wealth from taxpayers or employers to others and then claim that the others have a right to the continued receipt of the transfers. The Supreme Court has ruled that even Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are government largesse that Congress could terminate because no one has a right to them."

"Yet under the Constitution, health care is not a right; it is a good -- like an education or a gym membership. You work hard, you decide what goods to purchase. If government gives you the good, that does not magically transform it into a right."

Can we nominate this guy for the next Supreme Court seat?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 31, 2017)

Diuretic said:


> Shattered said:
> 
> 
> > That leads to the answer "Get a job that offers it."
> ...



I can actually address this.  Employers became responsible for providing health insurance as an employment benefit because during WWII, government took control of wages and limited the amount of money an employer could offer to entice new applicants.  Employers therefore had to start offering other incentives.  The government then cemented the plan in place by making it tax-deductible for the employers, a perk that individuals do not get if they purchase their own insurance.

There is no particular reason that it must continue to be done this way, except for the fact that people have become accustomed to it, and are unable to fathom doing things a different way.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 31, 2017)

Bern80 said:


> DiogenesDog said:
> 
> 
> > __________________
> ...



Hospitals are more than willing to work with people on this subject (assuming that one is honorable enough to not want to stiff them).  They will be more than happy to set up a reasonable payment plan for you, they will work with you to fill out the forms to apply for Medicaid if you need that, and many hospitals have free clinics for the indigent.  If they don't, they can definitely tell you where to find one.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 31, 2017)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > I happened to agree with this and is another concept that I find truly fascinating.  Healthcare costs have become so expensive in this country that it is now the _expectation_ of employers to provide an insureance plan to their employees.  Again, paying for my healthcare isn't their responsibilty anymore than it is yours.
> ...



Yup, you are correct.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 31, 2017)

maineman said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > But many of those mechanisms are already in place.  Even if your homeless and on the street, if you are in urgent need of healthcare you will get it regardless of ability to pay.  Most states have some form of state sponsored health care with premiums that are quite reasonable or downright cheap.
> ...



I always get chills down my spine when leftists start throwing around words like "should" and "ought".

Learn the difference between "healthcare" and "health insurance", and contemplate the possibility of not being such a helplessly dependent infant.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 31, 2017)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The reality is that large employers can better afford health care for their employees because of their work force SIZE. Insurance is cheaper for large groups , not so cheap for small groups and nearly impossible for single families.
> 
> A change needs to occur where single families can get into some kind of group so that costs go down.



There are already groups who have formed collectives for buying health insurance for people with atypical jobs.  Right now, they're mostly unions, since leftists in government give unions concessions on behavior that regular people don't get.  How much do you want to bet such groups would proliferate if health insurance was a free market?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 31, 2017)

Diuretic said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > We have certain rights in this country, among them are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the right to private property.  We do not have the right to food, clothing, housing, and utilities.  Nor to health care.
> ...



What has that to do with anything?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 31, 2017)

M14 Shooter said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Why do I ask?  To me it seems to be the most fundamental part of why some advocate for universal health care and why some advocate for privatized healthcare.  Every candidate on the dem ticket has a plan of some type for of universal or government run healthcare.  So I have to think that most of them think it is a right.  By extension then people basically have the right to good health it would seem.
> ...



This is true.  I have a right to freedom of speech and the press, but that doesn't mean I have a right to expect the government to buy me a printing press or a megaphone.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 31, 2017)

CharlestonChad said:


> We live in a country that places an extremely high value on life and the avoidance of pain. Therefore, it is only logical that every man, woman, and child should have equally sufficient health care. The ones who are against giving everyone health care are those who don't know anyone without health care.



So what you're saying is that you believe that if people want something, it's "only logical" that the government should automatically provide it to them at taxpayer expense?

No one is against people having access to healthcare, Chuckles.  We're against the idea that we are obligated to provide it to other people at no expense or inconvenience to them, or that the government should mandate how WE receive healthcare in order to provide it to them.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 31, 2017)

CorpMediaSux said:


> > Why should you be forced to pay for the health care of others?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



May I ask you a question?  Are you, personally, a Christian?  Devout believer in the existence of God and His moral directives?

I ask because I'm curious as to the origin of your appeal to Christian moral authority in order to demand something that is in no way compatible with the actual Bible.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 31, 2017)

task0778 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > task0778 said:
> ...



Actually, it is technically as possible to repeal any of the Bill of Rights as it is to repeal any other Amendment.


----------



## Flopper (Mar 31, 2017)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Diuretic said:
> 
> 
> > Shattered said:
> ...


*If you work for a company with a lot of employees it's usually a lot cheaper than individual insurance since it's negotiated and the employer usually pays a portion of it. *


----------



## Mac1958 (Mar 31, 2017)

No, it's not a freakin' "right".

Whenever somebody wants something, they claim they have a freakin' "right" to it. The word is overused. 

Health care for everyone is not a "right".  It *is,* however, good economics and a moral obligation of an advanced society.
.


----------



## Onyx (Mar 31, 2017)

Rights are whatever the fuck we say they are


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 31, 2017)

Flopper said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Diuretic said:
> ...



Except that if health insurance was a free market, people would form their own groups to negotiate for insurance.  People with unusual jobs and employers do that now:  for example, the Screen Actors Guild.


----------



## dblack (Mar 31, 2017)

Onyx said:


> Rights are whatever the fuck we say they are



You can say that about any word or concept. Make up whatever meaning like. Fine with me. Just define it before you start using it thus. Otherwise, what's the point?


----------



## Onyx (Mar 31, 2017)

dblack said:


> You can say that about any word or concept. Make up whatever meaning like. Fine with me. Just define it before you start using it thus. Otherwise, what's the point?



A right is defined as a moral entitlement, and there is no such thing as a moral entitlement. 

The problem is that this is a debate centered around a social construct, and arguments shouldn't be made on the basis of social constructs. If you want to argue that ensuring everyone has healthcare would be for the good for each individual and the greater society, then fine.


----------



## task0778 (Mar 31, 2017)

Far as I'm concerned, a Right is inherent, it is not given to you by the gov't nor legitimately taken away.   It can however be constrained for the public good:  for instance you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded room.   In the case of health care, we are talking about a service provided by someone to someone else, for which they are or should be compensated.   Is there any other 'right' like that?   We are all free to speak, write, worship, assemble, etc as we please with no cost to anyone else.   But not health care, it may be a moral obligation or an entitlement proscribed by gov't, but it is not a right IMHO.


----------



## dblack (Mar 31, 2017)

Onyx said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > You can say that about any word or concept. Make up whatever meaning like. Fine with me. Just define it before you start using it thus. Otherwise, what's the point?
> ...



Hmm... I don't follow. If a right is whatever you say it is, what is it that you're saying it is? Are you going with "a moral entitlement"? If so, I agree with you. That's kind of silly. It's certainly not what I mean when referring to inalienable rights.


----------



## IsaacNewton (Mar 31, 2017)

"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe.
- Frederick Douglas -


----------



## ScienceRocks (Apr 1, 2017)

Should be! 

Healthcare = more healthy people and that means more working people to grow our economy.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 1, 2017)

Matthew said:


> Should be!
> 
> Healthcare = more healthy people and that means more working people to grow our economy.



Which still in no way makes it MY responsibility to make them healthy.


----------



## Flopper (Apr 1, 2017)

Mac1958 said:


> No, it's not a freakin' "right".
> 
> Whenever somebody wants something, they claim they have a freakin' "right" to it. The word is overused.
> 
> ...


*The ninth amendment to constitution states that that there are other rights that may exist aside from the ones explicitly mentioned, and even though they are not listed, it does not mean they can be violated.  There are federal or state laws that recognize a right to privacy, right to an education, and right to vote.  We have far more rights than those enshrined in the constitution.  

Ninth Amendment - Kids | Laws.com*


----------



## task0778 (Apr 1, 2017)

Flopper said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > No, it's not a freakin' "right".
> ...





Flopper said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > No, it's not a freakin' "right".
> ...



The Constitution doesn’t mention education and the Supreme Court has concluded that education is not a fundamental right under it.

The Supreme Court resolved this issue 40 years ago in a case about the means of financing the public elementary and secondary schools in San Antonio, Texas, called _San_ _Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973)_.

By a 5-4 decision, with Justice Lewis Powell writing for the majority, the court found that “the Texas system does not operate to the peculiar disadvantage of any suspect class” and that education “is not among the rights afforded explicit protection under our Federal Constitution. Nor do we find any basis for saying it is implicitly so protected.”


----------



## task0778 (Apr 1, 2017)

It is my opinion that social issues like health care, education, housing, and the like are not fundamental human rights.   They might be a moral obligation or imperative, but a gov't mandate does not make any of those things a right because anything the gov't can give or takeaway is by my definition not a right.


----------



## dblack (Apr 1, 2017)

task0778 said:


> It is my opinion that social issues like health care, education, housing, and the like are not fundamental human rights.



It's really hot a matter of opinion. It's a matter of definition. If, as most people who claim "health care is a right" are doing, you define a right as "something government should provide people" - then a right is potentially anything. If, on the other hand, you're to inalienable freedoms, then health care is clearly not a right. It's a service.


----------



## Flopper (Apr 1, 2017)

task0778 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...


*As the 9th amendment makes clear, there can be rights that are not spelled out in the US Constitution. They can be specified in laws both federal and state.  10 states have right to privacy laws. Many states address the right to an education in the their constitution. Every state either in their constitution or state laws establish the right to vote.*


----------



## Flopper (Apr 1, 2017)

dblack said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > It is my opinion that social issues like health care, education, housing, and the like are not fundamental human rights.
> ...


*It's matter of definition.
A right can be either a moral or a legal entitlement.  It can be in a constitution or in law making it a legal entitlement. However, it can also be a moral or fundamental right, that may or may not be enshrined in law.  *


----------



## dblack (Apr 1, 2017)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > task0778 said:
> ...



Uh huh. The purpose of government, according to Jefferson et. al., is to protect inalienable rights - inherent human free will.

We can quibble over definitions all day long, but this all really comes down to how we conceive of the purpose of government. Is it there to protect our freedom? Or to score entitlements for goups with influence?


----------



## Ernie S. (Apr 1, 2017)

manifold said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > If it's not against the law. Maybe I should have added that caveat, your rights stop when they conflict with someone else's or when the public good is infringed upon. IOW, you don't get to break the law.
> ...


Only with a Constitutional Amendment


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 2, 2017)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > task0778 said:
> ...



"Rights are either natural immunities -- existing in areas of human behavior that, because of our nature, must be free from government regulation, such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as well as speech, the press, religion, travel, self-defense and what remains of privacy -- or legal claims that we qualify or bargain for, such as the right to vote, which the Constitution presumes, and the right to use your property to the exclusion of all others and the right to purchase a good that you can afford.

But the federal government cannot create a right that the Constitution does not authorize. It can't constitutionally transfer wealth from taxpayers or employers to others and then claim that the others have a right to the continued receipt of the transfers. The Supreme Court has ruled that even Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are government largesse that Congress could terminate because no one has a right to them.

Of course, the federal government has been creating expectations that it calls rights for centuries. To stay in office, members of Congress bribe the rich with bailouts, the middle class with tax cuts and the poor with made-up rights to all sorts of things.

Yet under the Constitution, health care is not a right; it is a good -- like an education or a gym membership. You work hard, you decide what goods to purchase. If government gives you the good, that does not magically transform it into a right." - Judge Andrew Napolitano

Gosh, WHO should I believe?  It's a puzzler.


----------



## manifold (Apr 6, 2017)

task0778 said:


> *I don't think rights can be taken away*, that is one of the hallmarks of a right that distinguishes it from a service or privilege or anything else.* However, they can be mitigated or limited somewhat in the best interests of society*.



Reading this again, the second sentence more or less contradicts the first.

What is materially different between taking a right away verses mitigating or limiting it to the point where you're simply not free to do it?

And also, there is considerable disagreement about what constitutes "the best interests of society." For example, most people would agree that banning asbestos was in the best interests of society, but what about bans on the use of trans fats? A lot of disagreement on that one.


----------



## Flopper (Apr 6, 2017)

task0778 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...


*Which might explain why every country that beats the US in education recognizes every child's right to an education and more importantly, centralizes education policy as a key focus of the nation.  In this country, the qualify of a child's education depends on each state and local school district, a system that guarantees a wide disparity in qualify and relatively poor overall results.*


----------



## dblack (Apr 6, 2017)

Flopper said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Control of education is a powerful temptation. You pretty much control the future if you have that.


----------



## Flopper (Apr 6, 2017)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > task0778 said:
> ...


*And the opposite is true, lack of control and you have no control of the future.*


----------



## dblack (Apr 6, 2017)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Exactly. If the goal is for government to control society, it should definitely control education, health care, religion, culture etc...


----------



## Flopper (Apr 6, 2017)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


*No control is anarchy. Too much control destroys personal freedoms.  However, neither exist today, at least in education.  

Ideally, there should be balance between central control at the federal level and local control.  Currently the federal DOE provides practically no central control of education.  They do not mandate curriculum.  They have no control over teacher qualifications, hiring, school funding, school policies, or assuring the quality of education in schools. 90% of the work done by the DOE falls in two areas:*

*Management the Federal Aid to Education Program, including Pell Grants and the huge student loan portfolio.*
*Providing services to school districts in interpreting federal education law, civil rights assistance, creation of educational grants, and assisting schools with various WH and Congressional initiates. *


----------



## dblack (Apr 6, 2017)

Flopper said:


> Ideally, there should be balance between central control at the federal level and local control.



Why? That assumes we need some centralized control. But that's not established. Why is local control a bad thing, or why does it need to be 'balanced' with centralized control?

And another thing ... 

You omitted *individual* control altogether. Does that have any weight on your balance?
*

*


----------



## task0778 (Apr 6, 2017)

manifold said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > *I don't think rights can be taken away*, that is one of the hallmarks of a right that distinguishes it from a service or privilege or anything else.* However, they can be mitigated or limited somewhat in the best interests of society*.
> ...



I didn't say anything about limiting a right to the point where you're not free to use it.   But you can't just do as you please either, there is a very big difference between saying you have no right to free speech and saying your right is limited by saying you can't yell fire in a crowded room for example.

Yes, there is a wide range of opinions over what is in the best interests of society and what isn't.    Gun control is an excellent example of that.


----------



## dblack (Apr 6, 2017)

task0778 said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > task0778 said:
> ...



And health care isn't.


----------



## Flopper (Apr 6, 2017)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Ideally, there should be balance between central control at the federal level and local control.
> ...


*Even if each state and district makes the best decision in education for their state or district that is not necessarily the best decision for the nation or even the students because legislators and policy makers do not take into account the implications of the high mobility of the population. Today 25% to 53% of elementary and secondary students will migrate to other states.  Within states, students commonly move between districts.

Student migration is difficult enough for students without having to deal with a new curriculum that assumes mastery of topics that he or she was not exposed to in their previous school.  At the college level it can be more serious.  And then there are the pet projects of legislatures such as seeing that all students take a course in state history, or a course in skills of everyday living.  This might sound like a great a idea until the student enter college and find that they the calculus course they skipped to take a required state history class is going to cause them to take calculus as a noncredit remedial class.

In districts where low property taxes or other factors result in few dollars for education and overcrowd schools, student achievement suffers.  When these students migrate to other areas in the country that have more attractive job markets, these people find they are less qualified because of their poor education  their district or state provided. 

I certainly don't believe in complete central federal control of education, nor do I believe in complete local and state. Locally, parents do need some say in how schools are run but we also need to make sure that students get the kind of education they need regardless of where they attended school or where they plan to live and work.  In short, we need to standardized curriculum and we need more equity in school funding and that will not happen without some central control at the federal level.*


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 6, 2017)

It is a worth goal...yes.

Is it a right....not at all.


----------



## dblack (Apr 7, 2017)

Flopper said:


> In short, we need to standardized curriculum and we need more equity in school funding and that will not happen without some central control at the federal level*.*



Yeah. That's what you keep saying. Still don't see why "we" need this.


----------



## Flopper (Apr 7, 2017)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > In short, we need to standardized curriculum and we need more equity in school funding and that will not happen without some central control at the federal level*.*
> ...


*We need to standardize curriculum, eliminate the disparity in education funding, and encourage the implementation of techniques and policies that have been proven to be effective.  None of that is going to happen without some centralized control and leadership.*


----------



## dblack (Apr 7, 2017)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Why? Why do we "need" this? Why do you want to force it on people via government?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 17, 2017)

Doug said:


> Good question. But note: the right to free speech can be interpreted to mean only that the government shall not undertake measures to limit your free speech. Now suppose that every time you tried to speak, someone else stopped you from doing so -- say, by standing next to you with a bullhorn, or bombing your newspaper, or rioting outside your editorial office when you print a cartoon they don't like. Do you have the "right" to demand that the government protect your free speech?
> 
> We certainly feel we have the right to demand that the government protect us from criminals, for example. But should we? Do we have a "right" to pursue our lives unmolested by criminal predators?
> 
> ...



obviously not a right? If it was then more important things like food clothing shelter would also be a right and we'd be a full fledged communist country already, which is of course what treasonous liberals want!!

Our country was founded and grew great with people who wanted to be free not by people who wanted to mooch off others.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 17, 2017)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



It's not going to happen with it either.

The real bone cruncher is that you can hardly tutor your kids anymore.  The tests are given in a way that bascially says you have to do it this way only.  We teach them like dogs and reward them the way we reward dogs.


----------



## kellyd (Apr 17, 2017)

Bern80 said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > It is a right?  probably not.  Is it something that the richest most powerful nation on earth ought to provide to its citizenry?  I would say so.
> ...


I live in Canada, with a single payer health care system, and it isn't free. I pay for it with my taxes every year. Because everyone above poverty line pays into it, costs are low to me. The government forces me to pay it, like the local government makes me pay my property tax. This way, everyone gets to use the services that were purchased using our pooled resources. When you insure your car, you benefit from other payees when you total your car. Why is health care any different?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 17, 2017)

kellyd said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > maineman said:
> ...



Well, for starters, because your personal health is not a public good that is being used by other people, the way most of the things paid for by property tax, for example, are.  And car insurance which covers YOUR car in the event of an accident is voluntarily paid for by the car owners.  In the US, at least, the car insurance which is mandated by the government is to protect OTHER people's property from your stupidity.  You're perfectly welcome to leave your own car's damaged uncovered by insurance if you want to, so long as it's not owned by someone other than you, who is then going to suffer financially for your stupidity.


----------



## kellyd (Apr 17, 2017)

Cecilie1200 said:


> kellyd said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


But my personal health IS a public good. It enables me to remain in work and be a benefit to society. The more workers fit for work, the better.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 17, 2017)

kellyd said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > kellyd said:
> ...



No, your health is a good to YOU.  Being forced to support you if you're a non-working leech on society is a detriment to society, but if people are not demanding that you be kept by others like a pet rat in a cage, you really don't matter to anyone but you.  And don't think I don't find it VERY suspicious that the same people who are insisting that the non-productive be cosseted are also the ones who keep bleating that the personal, individual health of total strangers is a splendiferous public benefit I'm partaking in on the same level as public roads and police departments.


----------



## task0778 (Apr 17, 2017)

kellyd said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > kellyd said:
> ...



It should be your responsibility to be fit and healthy enough to work, no one else's.   I can see where a society has a responsibility to assist those who cannot be fit and healthy enough to work through no fault of their own, but that does not mean health care should be a right or an entitlement.   Nor does it mean the gov't is the only way to provide HC for everybody either.


----------



## kellyd (Apr 17, 2017)

Cecilie1200 said:


> kellyd said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


I'm a tax payer. I support those who are having a rough time. I don't mind doing so, because that way I don't have to worry about having a permanent underclass perpetuate year after year. Temporary help lets people get out of ruts, and helps them help themselves. The key is in the temporary.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 18, 2017)

kellyd said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > kellyd said:
> ...



We're not talking about "temporary help", though, are we?  No, you're touting the wonders of Canada's single-payer health care system, which turns every single citizen into Precious, the Persian cat on a velvet cushion with a diamond collar, on the unfounded assumption that keeping them healthy whether they're willing to do so for themselves or not is some great, amorphous "public good" to everyone else.

To be blunt, I'm really not interested in having a discussion where universal government control hides behind the skirts of extreme hard cases.

The truth is, as long as I live in a society where modern, 21-century medical care is available to be procured by anyone who wishes to do so, there will be enough people with the personal responsibility and motivation to keep themselves healthy and functional to provide all the public good I can allegedly derive from such things.  People who cannot be bothered to look after themselves with a governmental nanny to care for their daily needs (which would NOT include those statistically uncommon people who literally cannot care for themselves, just so you know) are not really going to be of much benefit to those around them no matter what happens.


----------



## kellyd (Apr 18, 2017)

Cecilie1200 said:


> kellyd said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


The world is littered with examples of people who needed temporary help, and were able distinguish themselves later. Misfortunes happen, financial crashes etc. JK Rowling, for example, wrote Harry Potter while on benefits. What you propose sounds more like you want to return to the conditions Dickens wrote about. Or Upton Sinclair. Those were times where workers had no value, and their societies were highly socially unequal. Most countries rose above such barbarism. I find it odd to see America yearning to return to that


----------



## kellyd (Apr 18, 2017)

Cecilie1200 said:


> kellyd said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


For those "hard cases" you mention, I'd rather pay for them to sit idle playing PlayStation, than have them robbing my house, or carjacking me


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 18, 2017)

kellyd said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > kellyd said:
> ...



What I propose is EXACTLY what you keep running back to to try to justify your country's blanket nanny state.  So make up your mind.  If you think saying "help the truly helpless, and insist that everyone else take personal responsibility" sounds like Dickens (and can you BE any more melodramatic?), then stop telling me over and over that the hard cases are the reason that you're touting single-payer systems.

Once again, we are not talking about the hard cases, and I'm not interested in hearing you constantly trying to hide your "take care of me, Daddy Government, because I'm too stupid and lazy to handle it myself" crap behind the skirts of anomalous extremes.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 18, 2017)

kellyd said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > kellyd said:
> ...



See, there you go again, yabbering about the hard cases instead of making a case for why the entire country needs the government to hold their hand and wipe their bottoms.


----------



## dblack (Apr 18, 2017)

kellyd said:


> For those "hard cases" you mention, I'd rather pay for them to sit idle playing PlayStation, than have them robbing my house, or carjacking me



Then you should do that! The issue is whether you have the right to force others to play along.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 18, 2017)

dblack said:


> kellyd said:
> 
> 
> > For those "hard cases" you mention, I'd rather pay for them to sit idle playing PlayStation, than have them robbing my house, or carjacking me
> ...



And by the way, can we deal with the assumption that if you don't appease the masses by caring for them like prize Poodles, they'll automatically become ravening criminal mobs?


----------



## dblack (Apr 18, 2017)

Cecilie1200 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > kellyd said:
> ...



I was thinking that it's essentially the logic of those who think it's better to play ball with the mafia then to call the police.


----------



## Flopper (Apr 18, 2017)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


*The need for standardize curriculum, better techniques, and more equitable funding should be obvious to anyone.  I've tried to explain it but you've either closed your mind or you're not listening so I'm not going to repeat.*


----------



## Flopper (Apr 18, 2017)

task0778 said:


> kellyd said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


*Keep in mind, when you say rights, there are different definitions. 

For example, there are fundamental rights that is those that are listed in US constitution as interpreted by the courts.  There are also rights specified in state constitutions such as a right to public education which exist in many state constitutions.  There are rights as expressed in state laws such a parents rights, patient rights, and right to privacy.

Then there are also rights that pertain to a particular issue or group such as labor rights, LGBT rights, disability rights, prisoner rights, etc...   These rights may be defined in or through interpretation of federal and state constitutions or laws. And then there are inalienable rights, such as the right to live or right to protect yourself,...

The right to professional free healthcare will happen but it's years in the future, probably about the time when most of the population is job sharing and the government is paying 80% of the healthcare costs.  I don't see this as avoidable.  The advances in life saving and life extension healthcare are going to be so expensive, essential no one is going to be able to pay for it except the government which of course means a much larger portion of GDP is going to go healthcare. *


----------



## kellyd (Apr 18, 2017)

Flopper said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > kellyd said:
> ...


The costs aren't so great right now that Canada is unable to provide great single payer health care that is funded by taxpayers. Already Canadians are living longer than Americans, as a result of universal health coverage. I pay just under 600 bucks per year to cover me and the kids. It's good value, because insurance companies aren't driving the costs


----------



## Flopper (Apr 18, 2017)

kellyd said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > task0778 said:
> ...


*The Canadian healthcare system is much more efficient than in the US and a lot cheaper.  However, it does have drawbacks such as long wait times for less serious problems.  Of course that varies a lot but can be pretty annoying particular for people in the US who are use to seeing their doctor in 24 hours.

I'm in the US and I have some pretty intense healthcare problems and I see several doctors on a regular basis.  Most of the time when I have a problem, I just call the doc describe my symptoms and she or he sends me to the lab for some diagnostic tests and a day or so later I have a prescription. That works well for me because I see these doctors several times a year and are thus very familiar with my problems.  Every time I have a problem, I would hate to have to go to the doctor.  I wonder how that would be handled Canada.      *


----------



## dblack (Apr 18, 2017)

Flopper said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > kellyd said:
> ...



And then there are things that aren't rights at all, but get labeled so by proponents of the welfare state:



> *The right to professional free healthcare will happen but it's years in the future, probably about the time when most of the population is job sharing and the government is paying 80% of the healthcare costs.  I don't see this as avoidable.  The advances in life saving and life extension healthcare are going to be so expensive, essential no one is going to be able to pay for it except the government which of course means a much larger portion of GDP is going to go healthcare. *



The attempt to label various services as "rights" is disingenuous propaganda. It's a lever on the common, and correct, understanding that government's primary mission statement is to protect our rights - above all other state interests. But the real goal has nothing to do with rights, some people just want government to control health care, even if it must violate our rights to do so.


----------



## kellyd (Apr 18, 2017)

Flopper said:


> kellyd said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


I too suffer from a chronic condition, but I can see my doc whenever I want to. If I can wait until the next day, I can drop in at emergency (I have asthma). I have never had to wait a long time, for anything medically necessary. Being such a large country, those in rural areas have it harder to access care, but I'm sure that is true there too. I don't know anyone who has waited long for necessary care. Elective or cosmetic procedures can take more time, as more urgent cases take precedence. Nobody is bankrupted because they can't afford hospital bills, but hospitals should be shot for their expensive parking fees. Those guys are sharks, lol


----------



## kellyd (Apr 18, 2017)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > task0778 said:
> ...


To me there is a certain dignity in rights. They are an expression of our fundamental and mutual humanity. There is nothing dignified in having a sick populace. Nobody is served by it.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 18, 2017)

Doug said:


> Good question. But note: the right to free speech can be interpreted to mean only that the government shall not undertake measures to limit your free speech. Now suppose that every time you tried to speak, someone else stopped you from doing so -- say, by standing next to you with a bullhorn, or bombing your newspaper, or rioting outside your editorial office when you print a cartoon they don't like. Do you have the "right" to demand that the government protect your free speech?



Bad example, assault is a criminal offense. All of the acts you describes are assault. Government is not protecting your right of free speech, but rather prosecuting criminal offenses.



> We certainly feel we have the right to demand that the government protect us from criminals, for example. But should we? Do we have a "right" to pursue our lives unmolested by criminal predators?
> 
> Also note that on the "right to bear arms", again, this is a kind of negative limitation on the government, not a positive demand that they provide you with arms to bear. However, if someone tried to take away your guns, you would expect the government to ... well, at least to come and carry away their corpse.
> 
> So ... are there any "rights" at all which require that the government do something, as opposed to refrain from doing something?



We are a nation of laws, we do not allow assault to occur without response..


----------



## dblack (Apr 18, 2017)

kellyd said:


> To me there is a certain dignity in rights. They are an expression of our fundamental and mutual humanity. There is nothing dignified in having a sick populace. Nobody is served by it.



Hmm.. ok, well, how do you define rights? When Jefferson claimed that the purpose of government was to secure rights, what did he mean?


----------



## kellyd (Apr 18, 2017)

dblack said:


> kellyd said:
> 
> 
> > To me there is a certain dignity in rights. They are an expression of our fundamental and mutual humanity. There is nothing dignified in having a sick populace. Nobody is served by it.
> ...


I presume rights are to be decided by the electorate, through the enactment of legislation and/or constitutional amendment


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 18, 2017)

kellyd said:


> There is nothing dignified in having a sick populace. Nobody is served by it.



just like having a population without enough food clothing and shelter so lets add health care as a right and become a nation of moochers rather than a nation of workers!!!!!!


----------



## dblack (Apr 18, 2017)

kellyd said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > kellyd said:
> ...



Wow... really? So if the electorate decided that slavery was cool again, owning another person as property would be a 'right'?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 18, 2017)

kellyd said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > kellyd said:
> ...


as long as the Constitution prevents stealing from other people to secure your right to their property.


----------



## kellyd (Apr 18, 2017)

dblack said:


> kellyd said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Isn't that how democracy works? There is nothing inherently good about the will of the people. Legislation is only as good as the people shaping it. Slavery was legal until enough people decided to change the existing laws.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 18, 2017)

kellyd said:


> Isn't that how democracy works? .



which is why our genius founders thought of it as mob rule and gave us a Constitution!!


----------



## task0778 (Apr 18, 2017)

kellyd said:


> To me there is a certain dignity in rights. They are an expression of our fundamental and mutual humanity. There is nothing dignified in having a sick populace. Nobody is served by it.



You seem to be taking the responsibility for your health and well-being from the individual and placing it with the gov't.   Which I have a problem with, for a couple of reasons.   First of all, a right has to do with the freedom to do something rather than get something.   You don't pay for it and neither should anyone else.   I'm not sure there's much dignity in creating a burden on society for the failure to take care of yourself.   I get that times are difficult, but if we get into the habit of allowing people to be irresponsible then we've created yet another division between us and we don't need more divisiveness.


----------



## dblack (Apr 18, 2017)

kellyd said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > So if the electorate decided that slavery was cool again, owning another person as property would be a 'right'?
> ...



It is. Which is why our founders decided against  democracy and, instead, set up a constitutional republic, with democratically elected representatives. It was specifically because their definition of rights didn't depend on democratic consensus. The rights they recognized where inherently part of human free will, not a matter of legislation.


----------



## kellyd (Apr 18, 2017)

task0778 said:


> kellyd said:
> 
> 
> > To me there is a certain dignity in rights. They are an expression of our fundamental and mutual humanity. There is nothing dignified in having a sick populace. Nobody is served by it.
> ...


where do you get the impression health care isn't paid for? I pay for it, as does everyone else, apart from those who earn too little to pay. But the interesting side effect of universal health care is that more people are WELL ENOUGH to work. Poverty isn't necessarily a moral failing, but a confluence of many factors, state of health being one of them


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 18, 2017)

kellyd said:


> I pay for it, as does everyone else, apart from those who earn too little to pay.


actually the whole point of thread is that most americans don't pay for it but rather get it from govt in a very very inefficient way that costs us 4 times what it should!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 18, 2017)

kellyd said:


> . But the interesting side effect of universal health care is that more people are WELL ENOUGH to work



stupid lie as if a significant number are too sick to work and would be able to with communist health care. How many??????????


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 18, 2017)

kellyd said:


> Poverty isn't necessarily a moral failing, but a confluence of many factors, state of health being one of them



most importantly its a  failure of crippling liberal programs designed to buy votes


----------



## dblack (Apr 18, 2017)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



I haven't noticed. You simply take it as a given that its obvious. But it's not obvious to me, why anyone should be allowed to use government to force their will on others.


----------



## kellyd (Apr 18, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> kellyd said:
> 
> 
> > . But the interesting side effect of universal health care is that more people are WELL ENOUGH to work
> ...


There are many in the US off on disability, I believe? Try treating their ills, and find out the answer to that question. Seems logical to me at least


----------



## task0778 (Apr 18, 2017)

kellyd said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > kellyd said:
> ...



Isn't that the point of the thread, to make health care a right so everybody gets it for free?   How many people are on Medicaid today or are getting HCI wholey or partly subsidized by the taxpayers?   How many go to ER across the nation and by law have to receive treatment?   Do these people pay for services rendered if they have no insurance?   There's a lotta people who do not pay for their healthcare;  it's paid for by the taxpayers in many cases, and that would increase exponentially if we had a UHC system.   

I'm sure you know that Britain has a UBC system.   But everybody there has to pay for it whether they use it or not.   And it's everybody who pays, from your first dollar of income up to approx $30k, they pay 20% to support that UHC.   You think that would go over well here in the US?   I don't think so.


----------



## kellyd (Apr 18, 2017)

task0778 said:


> kellyd said:
> 
> 
> > task0778 said:
> ...


If you ask most British people, they may moan about the NHS service, but they point to it as a source of national pride. When they hosted the Olympics, they included a segment on the NHS in the opening ceremonies. As a Canadian, I feel it is a unifying thing, something that binds us together. It's our service, and we are proud


----------



## dblack (Apr 19, 2017)

kellyd said:


> If you ask most British people, they may moan about the NHS service, but they point to it as a source of national pride. When they hosted the Olympics, they included a segment on the NHS in the opening ceremonies. As a Canadian, I feel it is a unifying thing, something that binds us together. It's our service, and we are proud



That's fine. But the question of whether government should provide health care isn't the same as whether or not it's a right. Most people who say "health care is (or should be) a right" are simply saying it's something they'd like government to provide. Other's think government shouldn't get involved, and the two sides argue. So the health-care-as-a-right argument becomes a proxy for whether government should be tasked with ensuring that everyone gets health care. But it muddies the concept of rights and promotes confusion about the role of government and our Constitution.

Constitutional rights aren't services the government is required to provide us. They are freedoms the government is prohibited from violating. They stand as limitations to what government can do in performing its various functions. So, for example, the Constitution specifies a postal service as a government service. That doesn't make postal service a right. And, more importantly, it doesn't give the post office the power to violate our rights when conducting its business.

We could do the same thing with health care that we've done with the post office. We could amend the Constitution and make it a legitimate function of government. But it still wouldn't be a right, nor would it be an excuse to violate our actual rights.


----------



## kellyd (Apr 19, 2017)

It just seems like a "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" type argument. It shouldnt be a philosophical argument. Congress should be responsive to the requirements of those who placed it in power. People want health care, not philosophy


----------



## esthermoon (Apr 19, 2017)

I think healthcare is a right for everybody because health is absolutely necessary for a good life. It's not something you can say "I don't care about it".
So all governments should grant healthcare (especially poor people need that because if you're rich you can pay for your health, if you're not you need help!)


----------



## dblack (Apr 19, 2017)

kellyd said:


> It just seems like a "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" type argument. It shouldnt be a philosophical argument. Congress should be responsive to the requirements of those who placed it in power. People want health care, not philosophy



Rights aren't merely philosophy. They are practical limits on the power of government.


----------



## debbiedowner (Apr 19, 2017)

kellyd said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > task0778 said:
> ...



You can purchase private health insurance Canada, can't you?


----------



## kellyd (Apr 19, 2017)

debbiedowner said:


> kellyd said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


I have a private policyfor the extras, yes, for me and the kids


----------



## debbiedowner (Apr 19, 2017)

kellyd said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> > kellyd said:
> ...



Is that $600 per year for your private plan?


----------



## debbiedowner (Apr 19, 2017)

I keep seeing all these threads on health care and not health insurance, you all know there is a difference. You can have health care without insurance or you can purchase health insurance and if so lucky never have any health care but just die.


----------



## kellyd (Apr 19, 2017)

debbiedowner said:


> kellyd said:
> 
> 
> > debbiedowner said:
> ...


The supplemental plan costs me $200/ month for me and the kids


----------



## kellyd (Apr 19, 2017)

kellyd said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> > kellyd said:
> ...


It covers prescriptions, dental and other stuff not covered by our health system


----------



## task0778 (Apr 19, 2017)

kellyd said:


> It just seems like a "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" type argument. It shouldnt be a philosophical argument. Congress should be responsive to the requirements of those who placed it in power. People want health care, not philosophy



They want health care if somebody else pays for it.   How many of them are willing to pay 20% of their income for it, like they do in Britain?   I saw a report recently that says the average Canadian family pays almost $12,000 a year for their health care, how many people want that?


----------



## kellyd (Apr 19, 2017)

task0778 said:


> kellyd said:
> 
> 
> > It just seems like a "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" type argument. It shouldnt be a philosophical argument. Congress should be responsive to the requirements of those who placed it in power. People want health care, not philosophy
> ...


I know I don't pay that. 2.5k-3k sounds closer to the mark


----------



## task0778 (Apr 19, 2017)

kellyd said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > kellyd said:
> ...



The Fraser Institute has released a study estimating the costs of Canada’s government monopoly, a.k.a. single-payer health system. A typical Canadian family of four will pay $11,735 for public health care insurance in 2015. The study also tracks the cost of health care insurance over time: Between 2005 and 2015, the cost of health care for the average Canadian family (all family types) increased by 48.5 per cent, dwarfing increases in income (30.8 per cent), shelter (35.9 per cent) and food (18.2 per cent).





Moreover, general government revenue—not a dedicated tax—funds health care, making it difficult for Canadians to decipher how much of their tax dollars actually go towards health insurance.

The study finds the average Canadian family with two parents and two children earning $119,082 will pay $11,735 for public health care insurance in 2015. A single individual earning $42,244 can expect to pay $4,222.

- See more at: “Free” Canadian Health Care At $12,000 Per Family | Health Policy Blog | NCPA.org

Canadian health care is popular with healthy Canadians who never really have to use it. But if you’re sick, look out. A 2014 study by the Fraser Institute found that wait times for medically necessary treatment in Canada have increased from 9.3 weeks in 1993—not great—to 18.2 weeks. Wait times were especially bad if you needed hip, knee or back surgery (42.2 weeks) or neurosurgery (31.2 weeks).


----------



## kellyd (Apr 19, 2017)

task0778 said:


> kellyd said:
> 
> 
> > task0778 said:
> ...


I cant say I personally have waited for anything medically necessary. My mum just had a knee replacement, and hers took 11 weeks to get done. I know that delivery is more difficult in rural areas, as Canada is very large, but I'm sure the same is true in the US.


----------



## Flopper (Apr 19, 2017)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > task0778 said:
> ...


*No, what most people want is healthcare that will be there when they need it regardless of their financial situation. Whether it is controlled by the state, the federal government, or whoever is not a major concern of anyone accept political pundits.*

*Although the rights specified in constitution have changed little, people enjoy many rights today that are not listed in the constitution such as the right to an education, the right to marry who you choose, the right to privacy, and the right to vote. Healthcare will become a right, not because it's listed in the constitution but because people will accept it as such and it will be codified in law. *


----------



## Flopper (Apr 19, 2017)

task0778 said:


> kellyd said:
> 
> 
> > task0778 said:
> ...


*A guaranteed right doesn't make it free.  You have the right to keep and bear arms but that doesn't mean you will get a free gun from government.  *


----------



## task0778 (Apr 19, 2017)

Flopper said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > kellyd said:
> ...



The right to keep and bear arms is all about your right to own a firearm;  the gov't cannot deny you that right without due process.   It has nothing at all to do with actually providing one.   The right to health care is about providing health care to everyone and that is a different kettle of fish.   For that reason, health care is not a right, it is an entitlement that can be modified or even abolished.


----------



## Flopper (Apr 19, 2017)

debbiedowner said:


> I keep seeing all these threads on health care and not health insurance, you all know there is a difference. You can have health care without insurance or you can purchase health insurance and if so lucky never have any health care but just die.


*I think what is meant is a right to professional healthcare without regard to your ability to pay.  That can be accomplished by socialized medicine in which the government provides the service or by goverment insurance, such as Medicare/Medicaid with private providers, or private insurance with government subsidies and private providers.  One of the biggest problems in our system is we use all of the above which results in the most expensive healthcare in the world and not the best care.*


----------



## Flopper (Apr 19, 2017)

task0778 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > task0778 said:
> ...


*It can be an entitlement and a constitutional right.  In fact, the meaning of entitlement is having a right to something or the amount to which a person has a right.  If it is recognized as a constitution right, the entitlement can not be removed.  If congress recognizes it as a right but not a constitutional right it can be removed.*


----------



## task0778 (Apr 19, 2017)

Flopper said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



I don't think so, anything the gov't can give you can also be modified or taken away unless you're talking about a Constitutional amendment.   Which requires ratification of what 35 states?   I suppose that eventuality is technically possible, but for now we do not have an entitlement that is also a constitutional right.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 19, 2017)

Flopper said:


> *  One of the biggest problems in our system is we use all of the above which results in the most expensive healthcare in the world and not the best care.*



the only problem with our system is it is not capitalist it is socialist or Cuban which we know will not work. Do you understand?


----------



## kellyd (Apr 19, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > *  One of the biggest problems in our system is we use all of the above which results in the most expensive healthcare in the world and not the best care.*
> ...


Do you consider the postal service communist, or Cuban?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 19, 2017)

kellyd said:


> Do you consider the postal service communist, or Cuban?



yes, and a good example, like health care and education, of what happens when monopolistic bureaucratic soviet govt runs something.


----------



## dblack (Apr 19, 2017)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > *The attempt to label various services as "rights" is disingenuous propaganda. It's a lever on the common, and correct, understanding that government's primary mission statement is to protect our rights - above all other state interests. But the real goal has nothing to do with rights, some people just want government to control health care, even if it must violate our rights to do so.*
> ...


*I realize that the popular consensus among liberals is that people form their political convictions primarily from self-interest. They are surprised when voters vote against programs and policies that help them personally - usually pointing to it as a sign of ignorance, and not giving them credit for any kind of broader vision. How many times will liberals be surprised by this before they start to question their assumptions?*



> Although the rights specified in constitution have changed little, people enjoy many rights today that are not listed in the constitution such as the right to an education, the right to marry who you choose, the right to privacy, and the right to vote.



*Can I ask how you define a 'right'? You're clearly using a different definition than I am. My understanding is that rights are freedoms that are off-limits. Whatever else government may be trying to accomplish, it isn't allowed to violate individual rights in the process. Rights protect the freedom of the individual from the will of the people.*


----------



## dblack (Apr 19, 2017)

Flopper said:


> A guaranteed right doesn't make it free.  You have the right to keep and bear arms but that doesn't mean you will get a free gun from government.



*That's a good analogy. The right to bear arms also doesn't mean the government has to ensure that you have 'access' to guns, or that gun dealers must provide you with a gun, regardless of your ability to pay. Yet both of these are central to the presumed "right to health care", aren't they?*


----------



## kellyd (Apr 19, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> kellyd said:
> 
> 
> > Do you consider the postal service communist, or Cuban?
> ...


And yet it wasn't designed to be a business. It was designed to serve the people. Soviet has nothing to do with it. Much like the electoral college, the postal service is made to serve rural people, disadvantaged by their distance from populated areas. Instead of perceiving it as soviet, why not celebrate it for its role as a vital national glue?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 19, 2017)

kellyd said:


> And yet it wasn't designed to be a business.



and so it costs us 4 times what it should cost us thus depriving many of the quality they could afford in a capitalist system. Do you know why everybody starved to death in USSR and Red China?? Because of the national glue you insanely talk about.


----------



## kellyd (Apr 19, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> kellyd said:
> 
> 
> > And yet it wasn't designed to be a business.
> ...


I suppose you could argue the same thing about the armed forces? You could get the job done with private contractors, no need for pensions, etc. But would it be right?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 19, 2017)

kellyd said:


> I suppose you could argue the same thing about the armed forces?



I have heard many argue that free market consumer oriented health care is a good idea but never anyone argue that it would work for the military. care to try again??


----------



## kellyd (Apr 19, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> kellyd said:
> 
> 
> > I suppose you could argue the same thing about the armed forces?
> ...


The military is also a socialistic system. I was following your argument logically.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 19, 2017)

kellyd said:


> The military is also a socialistic system.



actually socialism is about govt ownership control management of business not the military. Sorry to rock your world.


----------



## kellyd (Apr 19, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> kellyd said:
> 
> 
> > The military is also a socialistic system.
> ...


No, that is communism


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 19, 2017)

kellyd said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > kellyd said:
> ...



???? so what???? socialism is a stepping stone to communism according to Marx and???????????????


----------



## kellyd (Apr 19, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> kellyd said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


Just that you seem to be picky and choosy about what is acceptable socialism


----------



## Flopper (Apr 19, 2017)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



*Right - a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.

Inalienable Rights, that is they are not bestowed by law, custom, or belief, and which cannot be taken or given away, or transferred to another person. Although there is no one list that everyone accepts, the following rights are generally accepted as inalienable:
to act in your own self defense
to own private property
to work and enjoy the fruits of your labor
to move freely within your country
to think freely
to be secure within one's home  
Generally inalienable rights are accepted in a court of law even though there may be no statue that guarantees them.

Rights that are guaranteed by constitutions.  In the US those rights could be guaranteed by the US constitution, such as the right to bear arms or right to free speech.  State constitutions may add detail to US constitutional rights or guarantee additional rights like the right to an education or a right to a speedy trial.

Rights are also guaranteed by laws both federal or state, such as civil rights, voting rights, right to privacy, right to marry, etc..

The bottom line is a right is a very general term that often needs qualifying.*


----------



## dblack (Apr 19, 2017)

Flopper said:


> The bottom line is a right is a very general term that often needs qualifying.



*Yep. That's what I'm trying to do. Let's qualify the terms we're using and drop all the equivocation. The inalienable rights protected by the Constitution are utterly different than goods and services provided by government to appease the majority.*


----------



## manifold (Apr 20, 2017)

Flopper said:


> Which might explain why every country that beats the US in education recognizes every child's right to an education and more importantly, centralizes education policy as a key focus of the nation. In this country, the qualify of a child's education depends on each state and local school district, a system that guarantees a wide disparity in qualify and relatively poor overall results.



Don't believe the hype. Other countries don't do any better at educating anyone, they just cheat the statistics.


----------



## kellyd (Apr 20, 2017)

manifold said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Which might explain why every country that beats the US in education recognizes every child's right to an education and more importantly, centralizes education policy as a key focus of the nation. In this country, the qualify of a child's education depends on each state and local school district, a system that guarantees a wide disparity in qualify and relatively poor overall results.
> ...


Where did you learn that? My kids went to school around the world as we were on postings, and I can say that the calibre of teacher was high, and the support of families for their children's education was awe inspiring. In those countries, being a teacher is a highly respected profession. I pity teachers here


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 22, 2017)

kellyd said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



What is it with you leftists and your "all or nothing" reasoning that if the government does anything, that makes it okay for the government to do EVERYTHING?

The USPS (I know nothing about how the postal service works in Canada) is a department of the US government.  It is specified as such in our Constitution.  There is nothing "communist" about having a governmental structure that performs certain functions.  That has no bearing on the fact that there are many, MANY more things which are not the purview of the government, nor should they be.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 22, 2017)

kellyd said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > kellyd said:
> ...



Because, as has been proven, there are some functions that the USPS serves that can now be done better by private enterprise.

Likewise, a free market system in healthcare, with perhaps governmental assistance only for those who truly cannot acquire healthcare on their own, would provide better service.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 22, 2017)

Cecilie1200 said:


> kellyd said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



 Yes the few who truly could not afford capitalist healthcare could be given Vouchers convertible to cash at the end of the year so they would shop carefully for their healthcare among providers competing on the basis of price and  quality. Capitalism would probably reduce the cost of healthcare 80%


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 22, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > kellyd said:
> ...



I know that's how it's working for me.  My family chose a high-deductible, low-premium health insurance with an HSA, because we're rarely sick enough to require a doctor.  This shifted the priorities when choosing our doctors significantly.  It became necessary to actually research the doctors in my area to find one who was competent and experienced and ALSO had a low fee scale for routine office visits, in order to minimize the use of my HSA funds so that they would be available in the event of a catastrophic illness.  I probably wouldn't have bothered to check their fee scales at all if I'd had health insurance that just covers everything and charges me out the ass for premiums.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 22, 2017)

Cecilie1200 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


Yes and if everybody was shopping like that with their own money for price and quality the downward pressure on price would be tremendous .


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 22, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



True.  One need only look at procedures that are not typically covered under health insurance.  Typically, a new procedure like that is expensive when it first comes out, and then the prices start dropping as more and more people start to provide it, and more and more people hear about it and want it.  Also, advancements in those areas progress fairly rapidly, since there's a large profit motivation involved in finding new and better ways to do those things.


----------



## Flopper (Apr 22, 2017)

Cecilie1200 said:


> kellyd said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


*The Post Office is not a department in the US government and the Postmaster General is no longer a cabinet member.  Since 1971, it has operated as an independent agency of the executive branch. The Postmaster General is not appointed by the president but rather the Governors of the Postal Service.  It is considered a non-partisan, non-political position. 

The only mention of the Post Office is in Article 1 Section 8 in which congress has the power to pay 
"To establish Post Offices and post Roads"*


----------



## dblack (Apr 22, 2017)

Flopper said:


> The Post Office is not a department in the US government and the Postmaster General is no longer a cabinet member.  Since 1971, it has operated as an independent agency of the executive branch. The Postmaster General is not appointed by the president but rather the Governors of the Postal Service.  It is considered a non-partisan, non-political position.
> 
> The only mention of the Post Office is in Article 1 Section 8 in which congress has the power to pay
> "To establish Post Offices and post Roads"


So what? How do these irrelevant details make the postal service "communist"?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 22, 2017)

Cecilie1200 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



yes !!! So much of the talk is about the price of health care under our incredibly inefficient libsocialist system but forgotten is all the innovation that would take place if we had a capitalist system. The USSR, for example,  did not produce one consumer innovation during its existence!


----------



## Flopper (Apr 22, 2017)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > The Post Office is not a department in the US government and the Postmaster General is no longer a cabinet member.  Since 1971, it has operated as an independent agency of the executive branch. The Postmaster General is not appointed by the president but rather the Governors of the Postal Service.  It is considered a non-partisan, non-political position.
> ...


*I never made that claim.*


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 22, 2017)

Flopper said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > kellyd said:
> ...



The Postmaster General may not be a Cabinet member, but the USPS is still owned and operated by the federal government.  Their employees are still classified as federal government employees, and still receive government benefits.

Please note that the Postmaster General, by your own assertion, is still appointed by government officials.  Know any private businesses run that way?


----------



## dblack (Apr 22, 2017)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Ok. Then I'll go back to my first question. So what?


----------



## Flopper (Apr 23, 2017)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


*The post offices are owned by the government and employees are government employees but the post office is not operated by the government.  The USPS is an independent agency operated by the Postal Service Board of Governors.  The members of the Board are not government employees nor is the Postmaster General.*


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 23, 2017)

Flopper said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Riiiiight.  Owned by the federal government, staffed by federal government employees, governed by a Board of Governors containing people appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and compelled by legislation directing their operations and service mandate, but not part of the government.

Okay, Spanky.  You go with that.


----------



## debbiedowner (Apr 23, 2017)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



He's correct

United States Postal Service - Wikipedia

Are postal workers federal employees?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 23, 2017)

Flopper said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



whatever, there are 1000 forms of libsocialist monopoly soviet bureaucracies  that are horrible inefficient and stupid


----------



## IResist (Apr 24, 2017)

The only way healthcare in this country can fully function is by ensuring it is a right. The U.S. signed the U.N. Declarations of Human Rights and made healthcare one.

Yes. I believe it is one.


----------



## dblack (Apr 24, 2017)

IResist said:


> The only way healthcare in this country can fully function is by ensuring it is a right. The U.S. signed the U.N. Declarations of Human Rights and made healthcare one.
> 
> Yes. I believe it is one.



Do you also believe adequate food is right? Housing? Transportation? Internet access? What is your criteria for what should be a "right" and what shouldn't?


----------



## IResist (Apr 24, 2017)

dblack said:


> IResist said:
> 
> 
> > The only way healthcare in this country can fully function is by ensuring it is a right. The U.S. signed the U.N. Declarations of Human Rights and made healthcare one.
> ...



I feel like if those aren't rights, they should all be affordable and accessible. They are necessities in one way or another. Free market healthcare is a failure, in my eyes and going towards single payer means we advance towards the rest of the civilized world.


----------



## dblack (Apr 24, 2017)

IResist said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Do you also believe adequate food is right? Housing? Transportation? Internet access? What is your criteria for what should be a "right" and what shouldn't?
> ...



How is that different?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 24, 2017)

IResist said:


> . Free market healthcare is a failure,


sorry to rock your world but we don't have anything like free market health care. Thats when people shop with their own money, prices are published, and providers compete on basis of price and quality. It would lower prices 80% and add 10-20 years to our life spans. Make sense now?


----------



## Mr Natural (Apr 24, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> sorry to rock your world but we don't have anything like free market health care. Thats when people shop with their own money, prices are published, and providers compete on basis of price and quality. It would lower prices 80% and add 10-20 years to our life spans. Make sense now?



Doctors are going to jump at the chance to see you in their office for forty bucks.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 24, 2017)

Mr Clean said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > sorry to rock your world but we don't have anything like free market health care. Thats when people shop with their own money, prices are published, and providers compete on basis of price and quality. It would lower prices 80% and add 10-20 years to our life spans. Make sense now?
> ...



well in Red China nobody could afford anything and thus starved to death under socialism then they switched to capitalism and prices dropped 80% and people started getting rich. Do you understand?


----------



## Mr Natural (Apr 24, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> well in Red China nobody could afford anything and thus starved to death under socialism then they switched to capitalism and prices dropped 80% and people started getting rich. Do you understand?



a. This is not Red China

b.  Healthcare is not like other commodities.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 24, 2017)

Mr Clean said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > well in Red China nobody could afford anything and thus starved to death under socialism then they switched to capitalism and prices dropped 80% and people started getting rich. Do you understand?
> ...



a) it would be like Red China if libs got their way and made it even more socialist and less capitalist

b) health care is identical to other commodities but more important so should be more subject to free market discipline on price and quality and innovation. USSR did not produce one single consumer innovation. with capitalism we might cure disease in 10-20 years. Do you know why it encourages such rapid innovation??


----------



## task0778 (Apr 24, 2017)

dblack said:


> IResist said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...





dblack said:


> IResist said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



If I may I'd like to add my own opinion, which is that you shouldn't have a right to something you have to pay for.   As a society we can make food, housing, health care, etc, an entitlement which is given and regulated by the gov't and can be taken away as necessary.   But I can't see declaring any service or commodity that must be paid for by somebody as as a right.


----------



## Flopper (Apr 24, 2017)

Mr Clean said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > sorry to rock your world but we don't have anything like free market health care. Thats when people shop with their own money, prices are published, and providers compete on basis of price and quality. It would lower prices 80% and add 10-20 years to our life spans. Make sense now?
> ...


*So much of the money that doctors make is from patients with chronic diseases such as asthma, COPD, cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc.  There is always a need to monitor these patients. If you pay doctors 40 dollars a visit, they will see most of them twice as often.  *


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 24, 2017)

Flopper said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



the future of medicine( like cars)  is new sensors from your body or car to a computer managed by Watson. The sooner we let capitalist innovation come to bear the sooner we can cut medical costs down to nothing!!


----------



## IResist (Apr 24, 2017)

task0778 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > IResist said:
> ...



It is a right if we all subsidize each other through taxpayer dollars. That's how it goes. We the taxpayers pay into Social Security and Medicare. We pay into healthcare to subsidize the sick. Every other industrialized country has figured it out because they got on board that healthcare is a right. As long as we have free market healthcare, we are going to lag behind other countries in terms of healthcare systems and we won't be winning. I believe it is a right as nobody should be turned away for treatment and for profit healthcare is inhumane.


----------



## Flopper (Apr 24, 2017)

*Whether healthcare is a right or not is a silly question because, a right means different things to different people.

Obamacare failed to control cost simple because the insurance pools did not contain enough healthy people to offset the cost of those with serious conditions.  Removing the mandatory requirements will only drive the cost higher.  Now Trump is threatening to remove subsidies for the poorest of the poor if he doesn't get his border wall money and the House is trying to get support of the far right by cutting government support even further.

The bottom line is the deficiencies in Obamacare coupled with Republican changes will drive premiums through the ceiling.  This will make single payer far more attractive to individuals, businesses. and those on government subsidies.*


----------



## IResist (Apr 24, 2017)

I would say that while Obamacare isn't perfect, it has also saved lives. Rates were rising faster before the ACA and replacement proposals included defunding emergency rooms and eliminating preexisting condition protections.

A healthy populous is a productive populous. People are alive today because of Obamacare. From what I read of other countries models, maybe they aren't perfect across the board, but they seem to be better systems than what America has had.


----------



## Political Junky (Apr 24, 2017)

I can imagine what Jesus would say.


----------



## Political Junky (Apr 25, 2017)

Flopper said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


The US once could be proud of our schools.


----------



## IResist (Apr 25, 2017)

Political Junky said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > task0778 said:
> ...



Well, the most educated states in the country went blue, the least educated went red. Not to mention the only states which had problems with Medicaid expansion were the ones that fought it.


----------



## Political Junky (Apr 25, 2017)

kellyd said:


> kellyd said:
> 
> 
> > debbiedowner said:
> ...


It's great that it's available to Canadians.


----------



## Political Junky (Apr 25, 2017)

IResist said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


The Right thinks we should only have trade schools. You can see why the wealthy promote that thinking.


----------



## dblack (Apr 25, 2017)

task0778 said:


> If I may I'd like to add my own opinion, which is that you shouldn't have a right to something you have to pay for.   As a society we can make food, housing, health care, etc, an entitlement which is given and regulated by the gov't and can be taken away as necessary.   But I can't see declaring any service or commodity that must be paid for by somebody as as a right.



Exactly. What they're really saying with "health care is a right" is, "government should control health care".


----------



## Flopper (Apr 25, 2017)

dblack said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > If I may I'd like to add my own opinion, which is that you shouldn't have a right to something you have to pay for.   As a society we can make food, housing, health care, etc, an entitlement which is given and regulated by the gov't and can be taken away as necessary.   But I can't see declaring any service or commodity that must be paid for by somebody as as a right.
> ...


*Healthcare services are always controlled by someone.  Your employer picks your insurance company.  Your insurance company decides what doctors you can see. Then your doctor decides on a treatment.  Then your insurance company decides whether they will approve the treatment.  The service providers decides if they will accept your insurance as payment for treatment. 

I have been on Medicare for a number of years as has my wife, siblings, and mother and father when they were a live.  We have never had a problem getting services approved or finding good doctors and hospitals that accept Medicare.

When I had employee sponsored insurance we changed insurance companies every 3 or 4 years, different networks, different doctors, and different rules.  When we traveled we were out of network. When the specialist didn't get the referral, we couldn't see the doctor.  At one time my wife needed to see a neurosurgeon.  It took 4 months to get an appointment because the insurance company only had 3 in their network. Doctors would enter and leave the network and we never knew who we could see without calling the insurance company.  And when I had to change employers, it was another mess.

We had individual insurance for one year when I was self employed. There was only two companies to choose some from.  We completed a 28 page medical questionnaire and a medical exam for myself and each dependent.  They rejected my oldest daughter because she had asthma and allergies and she went into a high risk pool waiting list and she no insurance for that year.  

Government control is nothing compared to insurance companies running the show which is exactly where congress is headed with healthcare. *


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 25, 2017)

Flopper said:


> *Government control is nothing compared to insurance companies running the show which is exactly where congress is headed with healthcare. *



insurance companies or any companies in a capitalist system spend billions trying to figure out how to please their current customers and potential new customers. It is the only way to survive. This is why capitalism is so beautiful. Too bad stupid stupid liberals made healthcare insurance capitalism illegal in 1946 with McCaren Ferguson!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 25, 2017)

dblack said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > If I may I'd like to add my own opinion, which is that you shouldn't have a right to something you have to pay for.   As a society we can make food, housing, health care, etc, an entitlement which is given and regulated by the gov't and can be taken away as necessary.   But I can't see declaring any service or commodity that must be paid for by somebody as as a right.
> ...



yes health care is right which really means you have a right to steal it from others!! This is the liberal philosophy on everything. It's a perfect way to destroy everyone's incentive to work. Its how USSR and Red China slowly starved 120 million to death.


----------



## IResist (Apr 25, 2017)

Capitalism isn't beautiful. It's predatory. Doctors would still get paid under a national healthcare system through our tax dollars.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 25, 2017)

IResist said:


> Capitalism isn't beautiful. It's predatory..


100% stupid and liberal. Try going into business as a predator and see how well you do. Try going into business  with a great product that everyone loves and see how well you do?

See why we have to conclude that liberalism is based in pure ignorance?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 25, 2017)

IResist said:


> . Doctors would still get paid under a national healthcare system through our tax dollars.



so??? do you have any idea what your point is???


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 25, 2017)

IResist said:


> Capitalism isn't beautiful. It's predatory..



China just switched to capitalism and instantly eliminated 40% of the planets poverty. Thats predatory when socialism starved 60 million to death in China?? Slow?????


----------



## IResist (Apr 25, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> IResist said:
> 
> 
> > Capitalism isn't beautiful. It's predatory..
> ...



You know who predators are? Insurance companies. They care about profit, not about health. Nationalizing healthcare insures everyone has it as they should. We have capitalism with many impoverished.

People can't love the product if it's an obscene amount. That's why a national healthcare system is needed and insurance companies must be eliminated.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 25, 2017)

IResist said:


> You know who predators are? Insurance companies. They care about profit, not about health.


why display your ignorance first??? That would be like saying Tesla cares about profits not whether your car runs. How long would they survive with that attitude in a Republican capitalist economy?? If you want insurance companies to care about health you have to deregulate them and let them compete.

China just deregulated to capitalism and instantly eliminated 40% of the entire planets poverty. Now do you understand? I pride myself on making things easy enough to understand so that even a liberal can understand. Please tell me I"m correct.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 25, 2017)

IResist said:


> . We have capitalism with many impoverished.
> .



hate to rock your world but Medicare, Medicaid, Schip, TriiCare, IHS, community clinics etc are not capitalist. Please tell me you understand???


----------



## IResist (Apr 25, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> IResist said:
> 
> 
> > . We have capitalism with many impoverished.
> ...



Except Medicare isn't for the impoverished and Medicaid is for those who are. Everyone should have something.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 25, 2017)

IResist said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > IResist said:
> ...



you said we had capitalism. Do you admit to being very very slow?? and then trying to change the subject????


----------



## IResist (Apr 25, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> IResist said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



We have both in this country. As it should be. Having either total capitalism or total socialism is not a good idea. A mixed system does well.


----------



## dblack (Apr 25, 2017)

IResist said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > IResist said:
> ...



What we have is corporatism - essentially the worst aspects of capitalism and socialism combined.


----------



## IResist (Apr 25, 2017)

dblack said:


> IResist said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Much of this is because this country has socialism for the rich.


----------



## dblack (Apr 26, 2017)

IResist said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > IResist said:
> ...



Is socialism only for the poor?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 26, 2017)

Ernie S. said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > task0778 said:
> ...





President Reagan made healthcare an entitlement for every single individual in the nation.

*"Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA)*

In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. Section 1867 of the Social Security Act imposes specific obligations on Medicare-participating hospitals that offer emergency services to provide a medical screening examination (MSE) when a request is made for examination or treatment for an emergency medical condition (EMC), including active labor, regardless of an individual's ability to pay. Hospitals are then required to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with EMCs. If a hospital is unable to stabilize a patient within its capability, or if the patient requests, an appropriate transfer should be implemented."
Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) - Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services


----------



## IResist (Apr 26, 2017)

dblack said:


> IResist said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



It seems like socialism for the poor is demonized while socialism for the rich isn't.


----------



## dblack (Apr 26, 2017)

IResist said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > IResist said:
> ...



I suppose it is. But that's not how I see it. I oppose mixing socialism with capitalism because it inevitably creates "socialism for the rich". That's why I'm saying it's the worst of both worlds. It mixes the greed and profiteering of capitalism with the pervasive state power of socialism.


----------



## IResist (Apr 26, 2017)

dblack said:


> IResist said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Are you in favor of a total capitalism country? We do have socialist elements in America.


----------



## Flopper (Apr 26, 2017)

IResist said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > IResist said:
> ...


*Have you noticed that health insurance companies always refer to their product as a "healthcare plan", not an insurance policy.  This is because they control your healthcare.  The only type of plan where you control your healthcare is indemnity plans that few have today because of the premium cost and/or limited benefits.

Most people with private insurance, have a manged care plan, HMO, PPO, POS, etc..  Managed care plans have networks of doctors that contract with the insurance company to provide services at a fixed fee. To go out of network will mean you either have no coverage or greatly reduced benefits.

The network is the first tool insurance companies use to control your healthcare.  They select the doctors and hospitals you can use. Second, the company controls your healthcare via a primary care doctor. This is the person who directly controls your healthcare for the insurance company.  If your primary care doctor doesn't think you need a specialist or hopes to keep the insurance company happy,  you don't get to see a specialist.  If your doctor decides on a special treatment, then the insurance company decides if it will pay for that treatment. Last, if the doctor prescribes medication, the insurance company decides whether to pay for that medication.

Insurance companies make money by maximizing premiums and minimizing claims.  There is nothing wrong with that if the customer can evaluate the quality of various products versus cost.  Most people can't do that because of the difference in products.  Also, the customer has to have a sufficient number of alternatives which most people don't have since their insurance options are determined by their employer.

Replacing insurance providers with a government provider just changes who will control your healthcare.  *


----------



## IResist (Apr 26, 2017)

With a universal system you could see whoever you want.


----------



## Flopper (Apr 26, 2017)

dblack said:


> IResist said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


*If you have pure capitalism in healthcare, millions will die needlessly.  Most of the healthcare industry is regulated capitalism. which is not a bad idea.  What is wrong is the regulatory system is screwed up. If we can't straighten it out so everyone has good quality healthcare at an affordable cost, then we will have to socialized medicine with full government control. *


----------



## IResist (Apr 26, 2017)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > IResist said:
> ...



May every person in the House who votes for this bill be voted out in 2018.


----------



## dblack (Apr 26, 2017)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > IResist said:
> ...


I have no idea what you mean by 'pure capitalism', but I'm not advocating abolishing safety nets. Conservatives often refer to those as socialism, but they're not. * 



			Most of the healthcare industry is regulated capitalism. which is not a bad idea.  What is wrong is the regulatory system is screwed up. If we can't straighten it out so everyone has good quality healthcare at an affordable cost, then we will have to socialized medicine with full government control.
		
Click to expand...

*
I'm not entirely sure what you consider "regulated capitalism". The kind of laws that I'm opposed to are those that mandate behavior for the sake of a social agenda. Laws against fraud and deception, laws that require transparency, laws limiting pollution, are necessary and proper. It's when we start using the power of the government to manipulate society's economic decisions that we're playing with fire. That's the kind of middle ground between socialism and capitalism that I find far worse than either extreme.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 26, 2017)

Flopper said:


> * What is wrong is the regulatory system is screwed up.. *


odd how that happened in USSR Red China East Germany Cuba Cambodia NOrth Korea Venezuela and 68 other countries. Do you think they were regulating to create poverty or that it was a natural manifestation of liberal regulation.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 26, 2017)

Flopper said:


> *If you have pure capitalism in healthcare, millions will die needlessly. *



backwards as always,  millions died needlessly when you had pure socialism in USSR Red China etc, obviously!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 26, 2017)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > IResist said:
> ...


how stupid and utterly liberal???? you say regulation is screwed up and then you propose full govt regulation to fix it???? OMG!!!!! That's like when Stalin wanted an even grander 5 year plan after the first one killed 10 million!!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 26, 2017)

Flopper said:


> *If you have pure capitalism in healthcare, millions will die needlessly. *



it would not have to be pure capitalism as long as the vast majority were shopping with their own money, prices were published, and suppliers competing on basis of price and quality prices would come down 80% and 10-20 years would be added to our life expectencies!!.


----------



## Ernie S. (Apr 27, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...


That's emergency care. Abortions, birth control and sex reassignment surgery and associated hormones are hardly emergency. Yeah, Reagan opened the door, but Democrats have opened it up to where we are paying for all kinds of elective crap.


----------



## Ernie S. (Apr 27, 2017)

IResist said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > IResist said:
> ...


How about an example of socialism for the rich.


----------



## dblack (Apr 27, 2017)

Ernie S. said:


> IResist said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



The bankster bailouts.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 27, 2017)

Ernie S. said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...




"Abortions, birth control and sex reassignment surgery and associated hormones are hardly emergency."

So?

As I said, since 1986, every individual in this nation has had healthcare.


----------



## Flopper (Apr 27, 2017)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


*Pure capitalism is where the market is the dominant sector. The markets would essentially provide the framework of society with no regulation from the government. The most extreme form of free-market/laissez-faire capitalism. 

Under a pure capitalistic system, there are no rules for business. Large businesses absorb smaller business until they control the means of production so new businesses can not compete and thus the free market is no longer free. Pure capitalism like pure socialism has never existed because neither is practical.  Both are self destructive.  Capitalism existed today only as regulated capitalism. 

The closest thing to pure capitalism is probably the settling of the American Wild West. *


----------



## dblack (Apr 27, 2017)

Flopper said:


> Pure capitalism is where the market is the dominant sector. The markets would essentially provide the framework of society with no regulation from the government. The most extreme form of free-market/laissez-faire capitalism.
> 
> Under a pure capitalistic system, there are no rules for business. Large businesses absorb smaller business until they control the means of production so new businesses can not compete and thus the free market is no longer free. Pure capitalism like pure socialism has never existed because neither is practical.  Both are self destructive.  Capitalism existed today only as regulated capitalism.
> 
> The closest thing to pure capitalism is probably the settling of the American Wild West.



It sounds like you're using "pure capitalism" as a synonym for anarchy, and that's definitely not what I advocate. I just don't want government mandating our economic decisions. State power and economic power should be kept separate. Combining them is like combining state power and religious power, and is a bad idea for the same reasons.


----------



## Flopper (Apr 28, 2017)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Pure capitalism is where the market is the dominant sector. The markets would essentially provide the framework of society with no regulation from the government. The most extreme form of free-market/laissez-faire capitalism.
> ...


*Anarchy would be the result of pure capitalism. 

In some cases, I think the government has gone too far with regulations but that doesn't mean there should be no regulations at all.  There are some actions that effect the economy that government should take. For example, many regulations are necessary such as bank regulations that protect depositors, regulations on Wall Street to prevent insider trading and full disclosure of public stock and bond offerings, and protecting the air we breath and water we drink, etc...

Regulations are a two edged sword.  They can add significant business costs. However, they can help businesses comply with the law as well as protecting the public. 

Most regulations benefit both the business and the the public. Those environment studies, applications, notices, and hearings which businesses hate often uncover serious potential damage to the environment and save the company huge future cleanup costs and severe financial penalties.  Regulations also clarify legislation as to how it effects various businesses.  And it the business is sued, often the strongest evidence of legal compliance to the law is proof of adherence to the regulations which grew out of the law.

As soon as Obamacare was signed into law, insurance companies, pharmaceutical manufactures, and hospital associations were clamoring for the regulations.  Without those regulations, each company would be making it's own interpretations of law and would not know exactly what it needed to do to be in compliance with the law.

Whether we like it or not, regulations are needed.  If we don't like regulations, then we shouldn't pass the laws.        *


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 28, 2017)

Flopper said:


> *. For example, many regulations are necessary such as bank regulations that protect depositors,        *



wrong, stupid and liberal of course!!! Banks in Europe and USA were very heavily regulated and of course that's exactly what  caused the collapse. If depositors for example had to be careful instead of lulled into false sense of security that monopoly soviet genius govt was protecting them they would demand very very conservative banks that protected their money, not gambled with it !!!
Do you understand?

magical soviet govt never works but liberals lack the IQ to understand how individual freedom works!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 28, 2017)

Flopper said:


> *
> Under a pure capitalistic system, there are no rules for business.*



of course that's totally stupid and  liberal. Under capitalism employees and customers make the rules for business and they are harsh indeed with 10,000 corporations a month being driven in bankruptcy primarily because they cant provide the best jobs and products in the world to raise our standard of living at the fastest possible rate. You have learned this 45 times now. Do you finally understand?


----------



## dblack (Apr 29, 2017)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > It sounds like you're using "pure capitalism" as a synonym for anarchy, and that's definitely not what I advocate. I just don't want government mandating our economic decisions. State power and economic power should be kept separate. Combining them is like combining state power and religious power, and is a bad idea for the same reasons.
> ...



Guess you'd have to be more clear on what you mean by pure capitalism. Free markets (ie free societies) require a government and laws to ensure the freedom required for them to operate. Let's dispense with pretending free markets are anarchy, k?


----------



## Iceweasel (Apr 29, 2017)

Flopper said:


> *Anarchy would be the result of pure capitalism.
> 
> In some cases, I think the government has gone too far with regulations but that doesn't mean there should be no regulations at all.*


I'm not going to waste time with all of your nonsense but do you have any idea what you are talking about? First off, who is for removing all regulations? The argument is over business killing regulations. It's especially hard on small business, formerly known as the backbone of America. 

Anarchy is a Mad Max movie, no regulations except what you can kill and take.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 29, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > *. For example, many regulations are necessary such as bank regulations that protect depositors,        *
> ...





magical soviet govt never works but liberals prefer it because they lack the IQ to understand how individual freedom works!!









 Thank You! x *1* 
List


----------



## Flopper (Apr 29, 2017)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


*In a country with pure or unfettered capitalism there would be no regulatory laws and regulations that hindered commerce, no enforceable legal safety standards for food, medicine, cars, and other consumer products. Business's could sell miracle cures for disease that did nothing.  Safety in food packaging would be left to the integrity of the producer.  Highway safety equipment in cars would optional and available only in the more expenses vehicles.   Wall Street would be free to disclose only information that helped them sell their stock and bond offerings reserving the real information for businesses associates.   There would no requirements for businesses to protect the water we drink nor the air we breath.  The only protection the public would have would be lawsuits after the damage was done directed at businesses that may be long gone.

That is pure unregulated capitalism.  It exist nowhere today and has probably never existed.  Under such a system the most powerful corporations would force the competition out of business destroying the free market.  This is why we regulate capitalism.  It is like nuclear energy.  If harnessed it can be of tremendous benefit but if unregulated, it can destroy all.*


----------



## Flopper (Apr 29, 2017)

Iceweasel said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > *Anarchy would be the result of pure capitalism.
> ...


*The question raised by Dblack was what I meant by pure capitalism and that is what I was addressing. Hopefully, no one is in favor of removing all regulations, however I'm sure there are a few nuts on this board that advocate such.*


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 29, 2017)

30065"]It sounds like you're using "pure capitalism" as a synonym for anarchy, and that's definitely not what I advocate. I just don't want government mandating our economic decisions. State power and economic power should be kept separate. Combining them is like combining state power and religious power, and is a bad idea for the same reasons.[/QUOTE]
Anarchy would be the result of pure capitalism.[/quote]

Guess you'd have to be more clear on what you mean by pure capitalism. Free markets (ie free societies) require a government and laws*  Under such a system the most powerful corporations would force the competition out of business destroying the free market.  This is why we regulate capitalism.  It is like nuclear energy.  If harnessed it can be of tremendous benefit but if unregulated, it can destroy all.*[/QUOTE]

You idiot we regulate communism to keep it communism too? It's like saying we freeze ice cream to keep it ice cream.

A Libcommie does not regulate to keep it capitalism but rather to change it to socialism.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 29, 2017)

Flopper said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


Lib lacks IQ to see that Republicans want all possible regulations to keep it capitalism while liberals want regulation to change it socialism.


----------



## dblack (Apr 30, 2017)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Guess you'd have to be more clear on what you mean by pure capitalism. Free markets (ie free societies) require a government and laws to ensure the freedom required for them to operate. Let's dispense with pretending free markets are anarchy, k?
> ...



That's all more or less how I see it. But... anarchy?

The only thing I would disagree with in your characterization is the notion that a free market implies no laws that impede commerce. That implies the law is subordinate to commerce, and that's not so. The law should be protect liberty and justice, regardless of the impact on commerce. If, for example, a business is defiling the commons with pollution government _should_ impede them, regardless of how it impacts their bottom line.



> Under such a system the most powerful corporations would force the competition out of business destroying the free market.



Now this is worth discussing. Especially since I see good reason to be concerned with the opposite. It's virtually impossible for a business to exert the kind of control you're talking about legally. It takes a complicit government to make it happen. The regulatory regime, for purely pragmatic reasons (politicians generally aren't experts in the fields they're regulating), almost always works in 'partnership' with the dominant players in the industry they are regulating. And those dominant businesses exploit that relationship to control their markets - to thwart competition from other businesses, and prohibit alternatives for customers.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 30, 2017)

Flopper said:


> * Business's could sell miracle cures for disease that did nothing.*




they do now!! Go into a vitamin shop and ask for something for cancer and heart disease and they will sell it to you. This is good since it keeps everyone alert and thinking and growing. Imagine if a magical liberal govt could protect you from everything? We'd be a nation of helpless complacent fools, and then we'd  be genocidally wiped out en masse when one libNazi bureaucrat gave us something deadly or denied us something life saving.

A liberal simple lacks the IQ to understand how freedom works. Liberals should be defined as stupid and deadly as our Founders, in effect, defined them.


----------



## Flopper (May 1, 2017)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


*I agree it would be impossible for a business to exert the kind of control needed to force all completion out of business in today's world, but not in the hypothetical world of pure capitalism.

I disagree a bit with your characterization of regulatory agencies. First, they are not politicians.  They are career employees.  Let's look at the process.*

*The law is passed, the House codifies the law in the US Code, and the GPO makes the law available to all who want it.  Laws rarely contain the details business, government, and the public needs to apply the law to particular circumstances.  For example, clean water legislation might limit carcinogens that are put into rivers, and streams, and drinking water but not actually identify them or safe levels.  Since groundwater is involved, many thousands of businesses are effected.  This would mean a lot of regulations have to be created in order for the public to comply with the law. Usually the law will specify an agency that will be responsible for enforcement and creating regulations.*

*When the law reach the regulatory agency, the first step is to determine if regulations are needed.  If so, the agency will determine which areas require regulations.  *
*Assuming the regulation require technical expertise, a committee is formed of specialist in the field including the agency personnel to workout the details in the regulations.*
*After creating the proposed regulations, Notice of the Proposed Rule Making is published in the Federal Registry. This will contain a request for comments from interested parties.  *
*After comment are received the rules are finalized and published. *
*Complains are accepted and reviewed to determine if changes are needed in the regulations.*
*After the regulations are completed, they are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations.*
*Transparency in rule making is accomplished by publishing minutes of all meetings for review by all interested parties. *


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 1, 2017)

Flopper said:


> *I agree it would be impossible for a business to exert the kind of control needed to force all completion out of business in today's world, but not in the hypothetical world of pure capitalism.
> *


 what?????capitalism is all about competition!! Capitalism is not allowed to end competition. If it did it would not be capitalism. This is why capitalists agreed to anti-trust 100 years ago.
 You are a Marxist tool always drawn to support regulation, but only as a prelude to socialism.

Why are you always talking about the need to regulate it rather than the millions of lives it has saved from starvation? Because you are a Marxist tool without the IQ to know it!!


----------



## dblack (May 1, 2017)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


Thanks for the summary. That's pretty much what I've always assumed. It's straight up corporatism.


----------

