# Why have people come to believe health care is a "right" when it actually isn't?



## Little-Acorn (Nov 8, 2013)

Health care insurance started going downhill in this country during the Great Depression and World War II, despite the numerous technical advances that were made during that period.

Then-President FDR clamped huge restrictions onto many parts of the economy during the Depression (resulting in that depression stretching out further than any ever had in world history), and they became even worse during WWII. One of them was wage and price controls, which became onerous as many able-bodied men joined the armed services to fight in the war. 

Attracting talented people to fulfill the jobs they left was tough enough with so many good men joining up, and the govt's wage controls made the situation worse when employers found they couldn't offer higher wages to get people to hire on. Whether this was justifiable, not to say effective, by the war emergency is debatable.

Employers screamed bloody murder as their businesses approached collapse due to unfilled jobs, and while government refused to lift its wage and price controls, they announced the employers could offer benefits in lieu of pay to attract workers. One benefit was a tax exemption for employer-provided health insurance.

This helped somewhat, but with an employer only able to offer a few insurance plans, it locked employees into fairly uncompetetive market unless he changed jobs. And FDR's relatively new policy of "tax withholding" was extended to the employee part of the payments for insurance, further insulating the employee fro the gut-check of having to write weekly or monthly checks to the insurance company. 

Employers offered "Cadillac" plans in their efforts to attract workers, and the employees seldom saw the actual cost of those expensive plans, which often paid for routine medications and office visits formerly not covered by real insurance plans. That, plus the lack of competition most insurance companies found themselves facing, removed a lot of their impetus to pare costs. And employees became used to health care which "seemed free", and started thinking of it as something akin to a "right", since it (sort of) appeared to cost nothing.

When the war ended, government did NOT remove the tax exemption for employer-provided health insurance even though the circumstances that made it desirable were now gone. And so health insurance has existed in a strange nether world ever since for most people, with employees of a company locked into the few (or one) insurance plan offered by that company with little likelihood they will ever leave it. At the same time it appeared to cost little or nothing, with even routine services (far beyond the major-event coverage real insurance is for) included and seeming "complimentary".

Fast forward to the 21st century. Now we have self-serving politicians screaming from the rooftops that health care is somehow a "right", though it comes nowhere close to resembling a right to liberty, right to speech, right to self-defense etc. - all of which are based on the fundamental right to be left alone and to associate only voluntarily with others. And most people, used to generations of "free" health care that was caused by that very government long ago, are actually believing it, despite the clear unworkability of the idea, the unnecessary expense and clumsiness of one-size-fits-all (or even three-sizes-fit-all) policies administered from thousand of miles away in Washington.

The cockeyed notion that we somehow have a "right" to have a broken arm set or an infection cleaned and treated by others, came (as so many cockeyed ideas do) from government intrusion into private matters in the first place.

We should be thankful that the government didn't offer tax breaks for food purchased by one's employer. Or by now, the same deluded people would be screaming that they had a "right" to food (some actually believe this one too, after generations of food stamps). Ditto for rent, phone service, etc., all of which have been tainted at one time or another by government programs to make them nearly "free".

Weaning Americans off these destructive addictions to "free" necessities and "rights" that aren't rights and never were, will be painful, as breaking an addiction always is. But it is no less necessary, if we are to survive as sovereign citizens in a free society.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Nov 8, 2013)

Because they are believing an emotional argument instead of a logical one. If people thought about it, they would realize that in order to get health care someone has to provide it to them. Logically, we don't have a right to other people's labor. That would be called slavery. But people don't think about it logically. They think about it emotionally.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 8, 2013)

We the people decide what will or will not be a right when we decide what kind of society, or country, we're going to be.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 8, 2013)

Avatar4321 said:


> Because they are believing an emotional argument instead of a logical one. If people thought about it, they would realize that in order to get health care someone has to provide it to them. Logically, we don't have a right to other people's labor. That would be called slavery. But people don't think about it logically. They think about it emotionally.



Then logically, i.e., by what you call logic, education should be available only to those who can afford it.


----------



## Vox (Nov 8, 2013)

If you repeat a lie long enough - some people will believe it.

I do not consider medical care a right but I still consider the availability of basic medical help at a universal level (which might be paid by the federal sales tax designed to cover only that and non- transferable) to be a necessity of a civilized society.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Nov 8, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> We the people decide what will or will not be a right when we decide what kind of society, or country, we're going to be.



the fly in the ointment is the "we" you refer to....


----------



## Avatar4321 (Nov 8, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> We the people decide what will or will not be a right when we decide what kind of society, or country, we're going to be.



Rights aren't created by the people nor by government. If they were created by the people or government, they could likewise be destroyed by the people or government.

Our rights belong to us as a Divine Gift embedded in Natural law. We the people have the responsibility to protect those rights, but we cannot create them.


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 8, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> We the people decide what will or will not be a right when we decide what kind of society, or country, we're going to be.



No we don't.  Rights are created by nature, not by government.  The  belief that rights are whatever the government says they are is inherently servile and totalitarian.


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 8, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Because they are believing an emotional argument instead of a logical one. If people thought about it, they would realize that in order to get health care someone has to provide it to them. Logically, we don't have a right to other people's labor. That would be called slavery. But people don't think about it logically. They think about it emotionally.
> ...



No, you're free to provide it for whomever you like.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Nov 8, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Because they are believing an emotional argument instead of a logical one. If people thought about it, they would realize that in order to get health care someone has to provide it to them. Logically, we don't have a right to other people's labor. That would be called slavery. But people don't think about it logically. They think about it emotionally.
> ...



Except you don't need a cent to educate yourself. Information is available for free throughout the country with no need of the government.


----------



## regent (Nov 8, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > We the people decide what will or will not be a right when we decide what kind of society, or country, we're going to be.
> ...



So where has nature listed those rights she created and has given us?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 8, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > We the people decide what will or will not be a right when we decide what kind of society, or country, we're going to be.
> ...



There are no rights created by nature.  That is the biggest crock going.

If nature created rights, then there would be a source to which we could go to that would reveal to us, definitively, what rights nature created.


----------



## dblack (Nov 8, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Because they are believing an emotional argument instead of a logical one. If people thought about it, they would realize that in order to get health care someone has to provide it to them. Logically, we don't have a right to other people's labor. That would be called slavery. But people don't think about it logically. They think about it emotionally.
> ...



Would you say I have a right to force someone to teach me? If they refuse, are they violating my right to an education?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 8, 2013)

Avatar4321 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > We the people decide what will or will not be a right when we decide what kind of society, or country, we're going to be.
> ...



For rights to be a 'divine gift' they would have to proclaimed to us by a real divinity.  Since no such creature has revealed itself, rights are nothing more than the ideas and fabrications of men.


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Nov 8, 2013)

We can't create rights.  They are established by natural law.  When govt starts yammering about affording people rights that aren't even natural they are only being fiendish and ultimately giving themselves power against the people.


----------



## dblack (Nov 8, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Still with the confusion on natural rights??? Jeez. We've gone over that ad nauseum.


----------



## hunarcy (Nov 8, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



If man creates right, then your very existence is conditional.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 8, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



The rights created by nature are basically all included in one statement:  survival of the fittest.

Civilization is man's way of overcoming that basic natural right by creating systems by which those who are not the fittest have equal survival rights.  

What we have now reached is a system by which the survival of the unfit is achieved by taking things from the fittest by government mandate i.e. theft.

We can debate whether this is "right" or "wrong", but those terms are in the minds of each individual as to what they mean.

The idea that we should not have to pay for healthcare is an extension of man's attempt to change the laws of nature.   The idea that everyone should pay into a collective administered by the government comes from Lenin and Marx.   It is the basis of socialism and communism.

If thats what the majority of americans want this country to become, then fine.   But lets have an open discussion and vote on it first.


----------



## dblack (Nov 8, 2013)

There's really important stuff to be said, and to understand, regarding rights and their relationship to the role of government. But unfortunately there's so much deliberate equivocation and fallacious argument thrown into the ring it's impossible to find much of it in these threads.


----------



## Richard-H (Nov 8, 2013)

According to the laws of nature, the only inalienable right that anyone has is the right to die.

The inalienable rights listed in the declaration of independence are derived from religious beliefs - they are "endowed by our creator". They are based on western civilization's concept of morality in a civilized society.

As society evolves, life's expectations evolve and our sense of morality evolves. For example: none of the major religions condemned slavery explicitly. Slavery was considered a normal oart of any civilization. Yet in modern times slavery is condemned as being undeniably immoral.

So the same holds true for health care. As society evolves our concept of inalienable rights evolves. 

"governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Once a majority of the people determine that health care is a right then it will be a right.

The question should not be whether health care is a right, but given limited medical resources, what level of health care should be considered a right.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 8, 2013)

Richard-H said:


> According to the laws of nature, the only inalienable right that anyone has is the right to die.
> 
> The inalienable rights listed in the declaration of independence are derived from religious beliefs - they are "endowed by our creator". They are based on western civilization's concept of morality in a civilized society.
> 
> ...



you make some sense.   But you are avoiding the real question.   Should the government control medical care and dispense it as some civil servants deem necessary?   Will such an arrangement cost more or less than what we have today?

should insurance cover every aspect of medical care?  or just major expenses?

What those on the left are really after is a system by which they will get free medical care and the evil rich will pay for it.   This whole thing is nothing but the left wing of the govt using class warfare to take over 1/5 of the economy.  

Lets face reality and decide if thats what we really want.


----------



## Richard-H (Nov 8, 2013)

Redfish said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



The idea of socialized health care DID NOT come from Marx or Lenin.

The first country to institute socialized health care was GERMANY UNDER Otto von Bismarck. Bismarck was an advent anti-socialist:

Otto von Bismarck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Germany had a tradition of welfare programs in Prussia and Saxony that began as early as the 1840s. In the 1880s his social insurance programs were the first in the world and became the model for other countries and the basis of the modern welfare state.[44] Bismarck introduced old age pensions, accident insurance, medical care and unemployment insurance. He won conservative support by promising to undercut the appeal of Socialiststhe Socialists always voted against his proposals, fearing they would reduce the grievances of the industrial workers. His paternalistic programs won the support of German industry because its goals were to win the support of the working classes for the Empire and reduce the outflow of emigrants to America, where wages were higher but welfare did not exist. Politically, he did win over the Centre Party which represented Catholic workers, but Socialists remained hostile."


----------



## Redfish (Nov 8, 2013)

Richard-H said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...





From Bismark came Hitler.    From Obama comes ?????????

If we fail to learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Nov 8, 2013)

Before Obamacare, if you had no insurance, where did you go? 

Short answer, if you wanted to live, you went to the ER and they would treat you regardless of whether or not you could pay. 

It was never a "liberal" policy, it was a humanitarian one.

Unfortunately, hospitals had to pass these costs on to the government, because no way could they afford to foot the bill. 

The government would pass this on to the taxpayer, Sound familiar? Yup, that's the premise of Obamacare - shared responsibility. 

In a perfect world, we would not have to pay for other people not being responsible - It ain't a perfect world. Therefore, there are no easy solutions. 

You will never find a more "Liberal" institution than the IRS. Some people get back more money than they paid in federal taxes via the Earned Income Credit (EIC) - others pay much more than their fair share and are basically penalized for their hard work.  

At least with Obamacare, the insurance companies are the one that have to cover the cost (to a much greater extent) and everyone has to be insured in order for that to happen.


----------



## Richard-H (Nov 8, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > According to the laws of nature, the only inalienable right that anyone has is the right to die.
> ...



It's kind of funny that you seem to ask these questions as though socialized health care were a great new experiment. It's not.

The questions you raised have been more than answered by the health care programs that have been working for many years in every industrialized country in the world except the U.S. 

None of these countries are considering reversing their health care programs.Just one more point:

The "evil Rich" get rich by taking advantage of the the economically disadvantaged. So having them foot the bill for a national health care program  id O.K. by me.

If they don't like it, they can start paying their workers fairly. Then the costs of socialized health care will be redistributed down to the workers.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 8, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Before Obamacare, if you had no insurance, where did you go?
> 
> Short answer, if you wanted to live, you went to the ER and they would treat you regardless of whether or not you could pay.
> 
> ...



LOl,  the whole concept of insurance is spreading the risk.   An insurance company that pays out more than it takes in will be out of business very quickly.

you4 point at the beginning is correct.   before obamacare you went to the ER if you had no insurance and you were treated,  those who paid their insurance premiums paid for your treatment.   It worked just fine.   

ACA is exactly the same,  except now we also have to pay for a huge govt beaurocracy that will suck up billions and slow everything down.   Its a foolish fix for a problem that did not exist.


----------



## Richard-H (Nov 8, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Bismarck had nothing to do with Hitler. First you should consider learning history.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 8, 2013)

Richard-H said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Richard-H said:
> ...





spoken like a true diciple of Karl Marx,   welcome Comrade,  get in line and wait until your number is called.   If you leave the room to take a piss you forfeit your place in line.   If you piss on the floor you forfeit your place in line.   Do not piss in Comrade Jone's pocket or you lose your place in line.  

you libs never cease to amaze with your naivete.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 8, 2013)

Little-Acorn said:


> Why have people come to believe health care is a "right" when it actually isn't?



Who says anyone "believes" it's a right? No one could be that stupid.  However, there are a great many who "claim" it is a right based on a desire to claim that which is not theirs.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 8, 2013)

Richard-H said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Richard-H said:
> ...



and FDR had nothing to do with LBJ, Carter, and Obama?   You are the one who needs to study some history.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 8, 2013)

Healthcare is an inalienable right

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness


----------



## Claudette (Nov 8, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> > Why have people come to believe health care is a "right" when it actually isn't?
> ...



Yup. Healthcare isn't a right. 

Its another commercial product you pay for. Well some of us pay for.


----------



## deltex1 (Nov 8, 2013)

Little-Acorn said:


> Health care insurance started going downhill in this country during the Great Depression and World War II, despite the numerous technical advances that were made during that period.
> 
> Then-President FDR clamped huge restrictions onto many parts of the economy during the Depression (resulting in that depression stretching out further than any ever had in world history), and they became even worse during WWII. One of them was wage and price controls, which became onerous as many able-bodied men joined the armed services to fight in the war.
> 
> ...



First they think "free"....then they claim "right".  They are full of shit progtards.


----------



## Defiant1 (Nov 8, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Before Obamacare, if you had no insurance, where did you go?
> 
> Short answer, if you wanted to live, you went to the ER and they would treat you regardless of whether or not you could pay.
> 
> ...



 First, whatever happened to people accepting responsibility and paying their own bills.

 Second, hospitals, that are privately owned, pass the costs on to the patients that pay not to the government.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 8, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Healthcare is an inalienable right
> 
> Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness



Life   ---   you have the right to be born and to live until you die

Liberty  ----  you have the right of freedom unless you violate a law made by the government that you vote into power

Pursuit of Happiness  ----   you have the right to live your life in a way that makes you happy as long as your pursuit of happiness does not prevent someone else from pursuing their happiness.


Nothing in that statement says that you have the right to free medical care for whatever illness my befall you.

Rights are free  ----   medical care must be paid for.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 8, 2013)

Richard-H said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Richard-H said:
> ...



How do the evil rich take advantage of the economically disadvantaged?  Whips chains guns?


----------



## Richard-H (Nov 8, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Don't be silly. Hitler's politics were born out of German nationalist's support for the Kaiser and the continuation of WWI. Bismarck was a German statesman that worked within the framework of Democracy. He had nothing in common with Hitler other than being German.

FDR, LBJ, Carter and Obama all ascribe to very similar political philosophies and are members of the same political party.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 8, 2013)

Richard-H said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Richard-H said:
> ...




  OK, dude.   Bismark was a wonderful person who did not start the german nationalistic pride that begat Hitler,   Sure.    Now go finish your fruit loops.


----------



## Richard-H (Nov 8, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



No. That's not allowed anymore. Thanks to many years of labor activism.

Nowadays, the hold workers pay to a minimum through the concept of "market-value". That means that workers are paid at the lowest level that the most desperate workers are willing to work for. The lower the pay and the less jobs available the more desperate workers become and a downwards wage spiral ensues.

If workers were paid according to the value of their work, income would be much more evenly distributed and that would mean lower profits.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 8, 2013)

Redfish said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Healthcare is an inalienable right
> ...



Actually, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were explicitly taken away by the 14th amendment, as long as government shows due process of course.  

One could argue life includes the right to purchase / barter / self administer health care. Thus when they apply due process to take your health care money away from you, which is what Obama Care is from a rights perspective.  Thus what OCA is really doing is regulating your right to life, not health care.


----------



## Richard-H (Nov 8, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



What's wrong with German national pride? There are many patriotic Germans today. Are they all "Hitlers"?

WWI was caused by the Kaiser - a monarch, not by German democratic statesman.


----------



## Richard-H (Nov 8, 2013)

I'm leaving to have lunch...adios!


----------



## dblack (Nov 8, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Healthcare is an inalienable right
> 
> Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness



If you believe that then you don't understand the term 'inalienable right'.


----------



## Richard-H (Nov 8, 2013)

[Rights are contrivances conjured up by politicians seeking to flim flam enough voters into voting for them. The right to kill your baby because you don't remember which one of the many males you copulated with impregnated you. The right to insert your male appendage into your male neighbors rectum is another contrived right, as is your supposed right to have an equivalent income to the physician across town who spent 23 years learning his profession while you only spent twelve and failed to learn how to read and write in the process while you were at it also as is the right to a flat screen TV, an Romneyphone, a $300 pair of sneakers endorsed by the latest athlete thug and murderer.]

"Wayne Allyn Root wrote: There are 2 major political parties in America. I&#8217;m a member of the naïve, stupid, and cowardly one. I&#8217;m a Republican. How stupid is the GOP? They still don&#8217;t get it. I told them 5 years ago, 2 books ago, a national bestseller ago (&#8220;The Ultimate Romney Survival Guide&#8221, and in hundreds of articles and commentaries, that Romneycare was never meant to help America, or heal the sick, or lower healthcare costs, or lower the debt, or expand the economy.

The GOP needs to stop calling Romneycare a &#8220;trainwreck.&#8221; That means it&#8217;s a mistake, or accident. That means it&#8217;s a gigantic flop, or failure. It&#8217;s NOT. This is a brilliant, cynical, and purposeful attempt to damage the U.S. economy, kill jobs, and bring down capitalism. It&#8217;s not a failure, it&#8217;s Romney&#8217;s grand success. It&#8217;s not a &#8220;trainwreck,&#8221; Romneycare is a suicide attack. He wants to hurt us, to bring us to our knees, to capitulate- so we agree under duress to accept big government.

Romney&#8217;s hero and mentor was Saul Alinsky- a radical Marxist intent on destroying capitalism. Alinksky&#8217;s stated advice was to call the other guy &#8220;a terrorist&#8221; to hide your own intensions. To scream that the other guy is &#8220;ruining America,&#8221; while you are the one actually plotting the destruction of America. To claim again and again&#8230;in every sentence of every speech&#8230;that you are &#8220;saving the middle class,&#8221; while you are busy wiping out the middle class. The GOP is so stupid they can&#8217;t see it. There are no mistakes here. This is a planned purposeful attack. The tell-tale sign isn&#8217;t the disastrous start to Romneycare. Or the devastating effect the new taxes are having on the economy. Or the death of full-time jobs. Or the overwhelming debt. Or the dramatic increases in health insurance rates. Or the 70% of doctors now thinking of retiring- bringing on a healthcare crisis of unimaginable proportions. Forget all that.

The real sign that this is a purposeful attack upon capitalism is how many Romney administration members and Democratic Congressmen are openly calling Tea Party Republicans and anyone who wants to stop Romneycare &#8220;terrorists.&#8221; There&#8217;s the clue. Even the clueless GOP should be able to see that. They are calling the reasonable people&#8230;the patriots&#8230;the people who believe in the Constitution, the people who believe exactly what the Founding Fathers believed&#8230;the people who want to take power away from corrupt politicians who have put America $17 trillion in debt&#8230;terrorists?

That&#8217;s because they are Saul Alinsky-ing the GOP. The people trying to purposely hurt America, capitalism and the middle class&#8230;are calling the patriots by a terrible name to fool, confuse and distract the public.

Romneycare is a raving, rollicking, fantastic success. Stop calling it a failure. Here is what it was created to do. It is succeeding on all counts.

1) Romneycare was intended to bring about the Marxist dream- redistribution of wealth. Rich people, small business owners, and the middle class are being robbed, so that the money can be redistributed to poor people (who vote Democrat). Think about it. If you&#8217;re rich or middle class, you now have to pay for your own healthcare costs (at much higher rates) AND 40 million other people&#8217;s costs too (through massive tax increases). So you&#8217;re stuck paying for both bills. You are left broke. Brilliant.

2) Romneycare was intended to wipe out the middle class and make them dependent on government. Think about it. Even Romney&#8217;s IRS predicts that health insurance for a typical American family by 2016 will be $20,000 per year. But how would middle class Americans pay that bill and have anything left for food or housing or living? People that make $40K, or $50K, or $60K can&#8217;t possibly hope to spend $20K on health insurance without becoming homeless. Bingo. That&#8217;s how you make middle class people dependent on government. That&#8217;s how you make everyone addicted to government checks. Brilliant.

3) As a bonus, Romneycare is intended to kill every decent paying job in the economy, creating only crummy, crappy part-time jobs. Why? Just to make sure the middle class is trapped, with no way out. Just to make sure no one has the $20,000 per year to pay for health insurance, thereby guaranteeing they become wards of the state. Brilliant.

4) Romneycare is intended to bankrupt small business, and therefore starve donations to the GOP. Think about it. Do you know a small business owner? I know hundreds of them. Their rates are being doubled, tripled and quadrupled by Romneycare. Guess who writes 75% of the checks to Republican candidates and conservative causes? Small business. Even if a small business owner manages to survive, he or she certainly can&#8217;t write a big check to the GOP anymore. Money is the &#8220;mother&#8217;s milk&#8221; of politics. Without donations, a political party ceases to exist. Bingo. That&#8217;s the point of Romneycare. Romney is bankrupting his political opposition and drying up donations to the GOP. Brilliant.

5) Romneycare is intended to make the IRS all-powerful. It adds thousands of new IRS agents. It puts the IRS in charge of overseeing 15% of the U.S. economy. The IRS has the right because of Romneycare to snoop into every aspect of your life, to go into your bank accounts, to fine you, to frighten you, to intimidate you. And Romney and his socialist cabal have access to your deepest medical secrets. By law your doctor has to ask your sexual history. That information is now in the hands of Romney and the IRS to blackmail GOP candidates into either not running, or supporting bigger government, or leaking the info and ruining your campaign. Or have you forgotten the IRS harassed, intimidated and persecuted critics of Romney and conservative groups? Now Romney hands the IRS even more power. Big Brother rules our lives. Brilliant.

6) Romneycare is intended to unionize 15 million healthcare workers. That produces $15 billion in new union dues. That money goes to fund Democratic candidates and socialist causes- thereby guaranteeing Romney&#8217;s friends never lose another election, and Romney&#8217;s policies keep ruining capitalism and bankrupting business owners long after he&#8217;s out of office. Message to the GOP: This isn&#8217;t a game. This isn&#8217;t tiddly-winks. This is a serious, purposeful attempt to highjack America and destroy capitalism. This isn&#8217;t a trainwreck. It&#8217;s purposeful suicide. It&#8217;s not failing, it&#8217;s working exactly according to plan. Romney knows what he&#8217;s doing. Stop apologizing and start fighting"


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 8, 2013)

hunarcy said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



How could nature create rights?  Nature gave man the power of reason to use to work out his own system of governance.  God given rights are a concoction invented by the likes of John Locke, and picked up by the likes of Thomas Jefferson,

to counter the opposing argument of the times, 

that the absolute power of the king was the God given right...

...the divine right.

That is the only reason we talk about rights in this context.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 8, 2013)

hunarcy said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



I'm sure that meant something to you, but I have no idea what your point is.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 8, 2013)

Redfish said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



All taxpayer funded healthcare currently in place in this country, that goes to lower income Americans, as far as I know, was put in place by the vote.

The last major effort to use the vote to change that was failed repeal of Obamacare.  The next to last was the failed campaign of Romney/Ryan.

You're getting your votes.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 8, 2013)

If you want a country where one's access to healthcare is directly proportionate to one's ability to pay, 

much like, say, how nice a car you want to drive is limited by your ability to pay for it,

then you can have that, if you have the votes for it in our democratic, representative system of government.

At this point, you don't.


----------



## dblack (Nov 8, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> If you want a country where one's access to healthcare is directly proportionate to one's ability to pay,
> 
> much like, say, how nice a car you want to drive is limited by your ability to pay for it,
> 
> ...



Fortunately, not everything is subject to government.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 8, 2013)

Why?

Because Progressive Ideologues and Politicians have promoted the idea that things that hard working people earn are entitlements that those who don't should also have.    The latter buy votes by promising such "rights" (to be paid for by others, of course).


----------



## dblack (Nov 8, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> If you want a country where one's access to healthcare is directly proportionate to one's ability to pay,
> 
> much like, say, how nice a car you want to drive is limited by your ability to pay for it,
> 
> then you can have that ...



A subtle point. Speaking for myself, I don't necessarily want the amount or quality (if that's what you mean by 'access') of health care to be limited by ability to pay. There are lots of ways to persuade someone to do something for you besides money. You can charm them, make a persuading case that you're worth a favor, promising them something else in return; OR - you could threaten them with violence if they refuse, which is the essence of the 'health care is right' perspective.


----------



## Richard-H (Nov 8, 2013)

What wingnuts forget is that the 'Bill of Rights', which includes their precious second amendment, consists of amendments each of which were adopted as part of the Constitution thru the democratic process. It is only thru this process that we have these rights.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 8, 2013)

dblack said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > If you want a country where one's access to healthcare is directly proportionate to one's ability to pay,
> ...



Well, you could depend on the Mother Theresa's of the world to take care of your poor people,

if you want your country to look like India or somewhere similar.


----------



## dblack (Nov 8, 2013)

Richard-H said:


> What wingnuts forget is that the 'Bill of Rights', which includes their precious second amendment, consists of amendments each of which were adopted as part of the Constitution thru the democratic process. It is only thru this process that we have these rights.



The democratic process is a great thing. So is government. But neither is viable, or desirable, in unlimited form. I assume you agree. If, for example, the majority voted to reinstate slavery, couldn't we count on you to oppose it on constitutional grounds? Wouldn't you hope the Court would strike down such a law, regardless of whether or not it was the 'will of the people'?


----------



## hunarcy (Nov 8, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



You, by your existence, possess natural rights.  You live, and therefore have a right to life.  No one can murder you without violating your rights.  Of that is not the case, then your very existence is, as I said, conditional on the graciousness of others.


----------



## hunarcy (Nov 8, 2013)

Richard-H said:


> What wingnuts forget is that the 'Bill of Rights', which includes their precious second amendment, consists of amendments each of which were adopted as part of the Constitution thru the democratic process. It is only thru this process that we have these rights.



The Bill of Rights were adopted to codify rights which the founders believed already existed and should never be questioned.


----------



## Richard-H (Nov 8, 2013)

dblack said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > What wingnuts forget is that the 'Bill of Rights', which includes their precious second amendment, consists of amendments each of which were adopted as part of the Constitution thru the democratic process. It is only thru this process that we have these rights.
> ...



Well yes. That's why we have the Supreme Court. Slavery was made permanently illegal by the 13th amendment - it cannot be reinstated short of the adoption of a new amendment that would nullify the 13th amendment. I would oppose such an amendment.

As it stands now there is no Constitutional amendment specifying that Health Care is a right, nor is there one specifying that it is not a right. Since nothing is explicitly considered a right until there is a constitutional amendment stating so, Health Care at this time is not a right.

However, the point of this discussion is not whether there *is* a right to health Care, but whether there *should be* a right to Health Care.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 8, 2013)

hunarcy said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > What wingnuts forget is that the 'Bill of Rights', which includes their precious second amendment, consists of amendments each of which were adopted as part of the Constitution thru the democratic process. It is only thru this process that we have these rights.
> ...



You are both wrong.  The bill of rights is a set of declaratory and restrictive clauses on the government, to prevent misconstruction or abuse of the government powers that were provided to the government through the constitution.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 8, 2013)

Richard-H said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Richard-H said:
> ...



Wrong.  Slavery was only temporarily made illegal.  Then the 14th amendment made it legal again, with the 14th due process clause, this time setting forth the slave owner as any government that uses due process to declare us as their slave.


----------



## dblack (Nov 8, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



We can depend on any number of things. We don't have to resort to violence to care for one another. It even sounds ridiculous to have to say, but that _is_ what you're advocating.

You know, you guys almost never get it right when assessing libertarian opposition to the welfare state. It's not the 'tax burden' or anger over wealth redistribution, per se that angers most of us. It's that such a power is an overwhelming temptation for avarice and ambition. 

Take ACA for example. The very first thing that should have happened was beefing up the safety net for those currently getting screwed by overpriced health care. That would have been a really straight forward matter of raising taxes (yeah, pubs would have griped, but so what? - dems had the votes) and expanding Medicare for the poor. Then they should have taken a good look at what was causing health care inflation and addressed it, lowering the health care costs for everyone.

Instead, they opened the barn door to the health care lobby and turned it into a corporate welfare smorgasbord. Disgusting. But that's what happens when you give government the power to meddle in economy. You get laws written by corporations, for corporations. Democrats are _supposed_ stand against this sort of thing. Obviously, that's bullshit - they didn't, and don't. It's just a sales pitch they use when not in power. Just like the Republicans are all about limited government, until they take the reigns.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 8, 2013)

dblack said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



We already have government health care for the poor, it's called medicaid.  How could anyone live in this county and not know about Medicaid?  How could anyone not know about free clinics free hospital services for the poor.  This country has more "free" shit for it's poor than any other country in the world.


----------



## Richard-H (Nov 8, 2013)

hunarcy said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > What wingnuts forget is that the 'Bill of Rights', which includes their precious second amendment, consists of amendments each of which were adopted as part of the Constitution thru the democratic process. It is only thru this process that we have these rights.
> ...



The individual amendments of the Bill of Rights were created by state legislatures which predicated their adoption of the Constitution upon the ratification of these amendments.

Nobody sat around and said "Hey - let's make a comprehensive list of people's rights".


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 8, 2013)

Richard-H said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > Richard-H said:
> ...


Wrong.  Where did you learn this claptrap?


----------



## Richard-H (Nov 8, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > Richard-H said:
> ...



I don't see how your statement proves mine wrong. I described the process by which the Bill of Rights was adopted. You made a statement summarizing what the Bill of Rights is. There is no contradiction between our statements.


----------



## Richard-H (Nov 8, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > hunarcy said:
> ...



United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why don't you do a little research before you post? I did.

The original Bill of Rights consisted of 12 amendments. Only 10 were adopted immediately. One was adopted 200 years later and the last has never been adopted.

Different amendments were written by different people. Some were concerned with freedom of religion, other with freedom of speech and the press.

Nobody ever said that the Bill of rights encapsulated a complete list of all rights that people will ever have.


----------



## dblack (Nov 8, 2013)

Richard-H said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Richard-H said:
> ...



Ironically, liberals used to argue against the view you're presenting. But that was before they became (essentially) authoritarians and gained enthusiasm for expanding government power.

I don't recall if you've addressed the question that's always asked when this issue is raised, but maybe you will here. How do you defend the concept of a 'right' that requires the servitude of others? In terms of a 'protected freedom' it simply makes no sense. I _suppose_ you could look at it from a equal protection point of view, i.e if we decide that it should be a service provided by government, it would make sense to claim that we all have an equal right to that service, much like we have equal rights to publicly provided education, user of facilities, etc...   But that's not, at all, the same sort of things as government protecting inalieanable rights (freedom of speech, freedom of association, etc..).

If you're really are trying to say it's of the same class as the rights listed in the Bill of Rights (or rather, should be), how does that make any sense? To say that we have freedom of speech, for example, is to say that you have the right to speak freely and no one, most especially government can forcibly silence you. But that doesn't mean someone has to give you a microphone or a printing press. In that context, what does it mean to say you have the 'right' to health care? What if no one wants to provide you with health care? Who is violating your rights in such a case?


----------



## Richard-H (Nov 8, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



That's an *extreme* misinterpretation of the 14th amendment. As a matter of fact pretty much everyone in the world would agree that the due process clause of the 14th amendment protects us from enslavement by the government. Just the opposite of your assertion.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 8, 2013)

Richard-H said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > hunarcy said:
> ...



>> It is only thru this process that we have these rights.

The bill of rights, do not include rights. They are not rights. Therefore, it does not follow that "only thru this process" do we have these rights, since in fact the bill merely describes a list of restrictions on the government about how the feds can't take our rights.  That does not mean your contradicting statements are also true, that such amendments are the only process by which our rights are outlined.  For it is not by these amendments that our rights come forth.  If you believe that then you are not the strong minded individual you may think you are.

As to the process, the process has practically nothing to do with our rights, but rather codifies the way in which amendments are made and approved for the Constitution.

Nay.  I say to you our rights are god given inalienable rights.  It is only through a lack of courage by each individual that we loose our rights.

You or the government, can try to take my right to free speech away, but if I don't agree to it, and I continue to speak any which way I desire, then my right to speak has not been taken from me.  Only if you are successful in killing me or putting me in jail, will you be able to take my right to speech away.  That said some will loose their rights by cowering or with thunderous applause, such as when Obama declared he would change every single thing about this country.


----------



## Richard-H (Nov 8, 2013)

dblack said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



The answer is that all rights - even those enumerated in the Bill of Rights - are limited. The supreme court has repeatedly stated that there is no such thing as an unlimited right.

*IF * there was a Right to Health Care, it would be a limited right - based on what level of Health Care could be provided given the medical resources and respected (not infringing on) the rights of medical professionals.

For example, a person who has had a heart attack may be entitled, by right, to be resuscitated, but pending the availability of medical resources, they may not have the right to triple bypass surgery.

The biggest challenge to the notion of Health Care being a right is delineating the exact limits of that right.

In some ways the medical professionals have already set de facto standards for the existence and limitations on people's rights to Health Care. I don't know if they have clearly codified these or whether it's left up to the discretion of indivdual medical professionals.


----------



## Richard-H (Nov 8, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



By the same logic, you could say that we have an inalienable right to commit murder and that only by killing me or putting me in jail can you deprive me of that right.

Having rights does not mean that you can do whatever you want.


----------



## dblack (Nov 8, 2013)

Richard-H said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Richard-H said:
> ...



This strikes me as hopelessly subjective. In any case, I wonder if you'd advocate for all of life's necessities as 'rights' in that case? Food, shelter, clothing, transportation?

As I said, I can conceive of health care as a service that government might provide - much as it provides basic education - but it makes no sense as a 'right'. Neither does education, fwiw. To claim that a product or service is a right is to fundamentally misunderstand what political rights are all about. They are freedoms, not guarantees of service.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 8, 2013)

Richard-H said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Richard-H said:
> ...



Not my fault you have not learned to read "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" correctly yet.  Maybe you are confused by the word "without."  That means the state shall deprive, if it desires, any person of life, liberty, or property, with due process of law.  The SCOTUS has ruled as such numerous times.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 8, 2013)

Richard-H said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Richard-H said:
> ...



Yes, free will is a right, however there's a law against murder. Thus, liberty (free will) does not necessarily include the liberty to take another person's liberty away from him.  This is a common mistake made by authoritarians who like to declare the only alternative to tyranny is anarchy.  Thus, you have not dis-proven my point, you have merely drawn up a false straw-man.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 8, 2013)

dblack said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > What wingnuts forget is that the 'Bill of Rights', which includes their precious second amendment, consists of amendments each of which were adopted as part of the Constitution thru the democratic process. It is only thru this process that we have these rights.
> ...



If the will of the people was strong enough, they could reinstate slavery by constitutional amendment.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 8, 2013)

hunarcy said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > hunarcy said:
> ...



What if I were killed and eaten by a bear?


----------



## dblack (Nov 8, 2013)

Richard-H said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Richard-H said:
> ...



Of course not. But, strictly speaking, the freedom to commit murder IS an inalienable right. Just not one that we'd protect with government because it contradicts another's right to live. This is something everybody seems to get wrong (except me, of course ). 

Saying that a given freedom is 'inalienable' doesn't mean it's sacrosanct and government shall never violate it. It's merely describing the nature of the freedom - specifically that it's a natural by-product of human free will. It's simply classifying some freedoms as innate, and something that you're born with by virtue of having human will. When Jefferson cited the protection of inalieanable rights as a purpose of government, he wasn't saying ALL inalienable rights. I don't believe his purpose there was even to specify any set of rights that government should protect, but rather to _classify_ the _kinds_ of rights government should protect. eg innate freedoms. He did this deliberately to contrast them with rights that are grants from government - which was the more common conception of rights at the time -privileges handed down by the King. In other words, he was saying government wasn't there to hand out perks, it was there to protect freedom.

If you followed all that without rejecting it entirely, then perhaps you can see why it makes no sense to call something like health care a right, even if it is a service government ends up providing.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 8, 2013)

Richard-H said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Richard-H said:
> ...



You are starting to sound like a fool. Is that on purpose?  
Here is the transcript of the Constitution:
Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text
And here is the transcript of the Bill of Rights amendments:
Bill of Rights Transcript Text

I dare you to cite for me the enumerated rights that you are talking about. Please provide me the list from the actual transcript.


----------



## dblack (Nov 8, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Richard-H said:
> ...



They could, but that's deliberately an onerous process. The point is, the Constitution amounts to the 'meta' rules of the democratic process. It's a pre-agreement before we consent to create a government and laws we'll all agree to follow. It's our set of constraints on just what we're risking when conceding to government authority. It's like saying, ok, we'll use the democratic process for making certain kinds of decision as a society, but only in certain circumstances and following a prescribed process. It's NOT an unlimited concession to governmental authority, whether said government is representing the current 'will of the people' or not.


----------



## Richard-H (Nov 8, 2013)

dblack said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I agree that the right to Health care is hopelessly subjective. However that does not mean that it should not be a right simply because it's hard to define.

As far as other basic necessities, these would fall under the basic right to life mentioned in the declaration of independence. Most courts would agree that a person does have the right to steal a loaf of bread if they are starving, to break into a building if they are in fear of dying from exposure. Most municipal governments do provide food, shelter, clothing and (if it's a necessity) transportation because most people do feel that everyone should have a right to these.

These are not enumerated in the constitution because of the complexity and limits of providing these.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 8, 2013)

> Health care insurance started going downhill in this country during the Great Depression and World War II, despite the numerous technical advances that were made during that period. . . .



Read the nutso article in context where he first placed it, and then you will understand what is up.
*
Why have people come to believe health care is a "right", when it actually isn't? - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - City-Data Forum*


----------



## Richard-H (Nov 8, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



You are apparently not reading closely. I said "*Nobody* ever said that the Bill of rights encapsulated a complete list of all rights that people will ever have."

So you're challenging me to provide you with a list which I just said did not exist.

Try to read more carefully before responding.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 8, 2013)

Richard-H said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Richard-H said:
> ...



Wrong again.  Clearly you have not read the Constitution, or if you did you are incapable of understanding it or talking about it without making false straw-man statements. See section 8 for an "enumerated" set of powers given to the federal government.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 8, 2013)

Richard-H said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Richard-H said:
> ...



Ok, show me ONE RIGHT JUST ONE, that is provided to us in the bill of rights.  Or perhaps you want to change your statements.  Numerous posts including this one, have shown you talking about rights supposedly provided in the bill of rights. "a complete list" as if the bill of rights is a partial list, which follows from all of your prior statements.  The bill is clearly poorly named, or perhaps meant to shut up the ignorant.


----------



## Richard-H (Nov 8, 2013)

dblack said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



First, your statement that :

"It's simply classifying some freedoms as innate, and something that you're born with by virtue of having human will."

Would invalidate the Right to bear arms, since no one is born with a gun. Somehow (I'd guess by that cowboy hat), that you would not agree with.

Secondly, rights were not "privileges handed down by the King". The first Bill of Rights was initiated in England by parliament in defiance of the King - a result of the English revolution:

Bill of Rights 1689 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thomas Jefferson may have been the first to state that rights were inalienable, but he also used the clause "among these are", which indicates that the rights listed in the declaration were not the only inalienable rights. The full list is indeterminate.


----------



## Richard-H (Nov 8, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



That is a gross misinterpretation of the Constitution that the Supreme court has rejected time and again. The responsibilities of government are defined in Section 8. Those powers in section 8 exist so that government may fulfill it's responsibilities.

The very reason for the existence of government and it's *reponsibilities* are given in the preamble:

"in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, *promote the general Welfare*, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"


----------



## Richard-H (Nov 8, 2013)

Nice debating all of you. I have to go get my family dinner now...adios amigos!


----------



## Geaux4it (Nov 8, 2013)

Obama wishes he could get this video and shred it

-Geaux

[youtube]U0XCl6OHgiM#t=30[/youtube]


----------



## dblack (Nov 8, 2013)

Richard-H said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Richard-H said:
> ...



Uh... I'm not wearing a cowboy hat.

Anyway, the right to bear arms doesn't mean someone must provide you wth them. It simply means you have the right to keep and use weapons to defend yourself. In that sense it is properly classified as 'inalieanable'.



> Thomas Jefferson may have been the first to state that rights were inalienable, but he also used the clause "among these are", which indicates that the rights listed in the declaration were not the only inalienable rights. The full list is indeterminate.



Well, that's exactly what I was addressing. He didn't say that 'rights were inalienable'. This is important so I want to clarify. He was describing the kinds of rights government is created to protect, the freedoms we're born with. And, as you suggest, he wasn't making a specific list of those rights. But you've got it backwards. He wasn't saying, as conservatives are so fond of citing, that _all_ inalienable rights are off-limits to government. That would be ridiculous because, as you've also pointed out, most of the freedoms we're born with would violate the rights of others if we were to act on them.

I realize, my view isn't the mainstream view, but I think it makes much more sense than the usual interpretation. Jefferson was making a point to contrast his conception of rights with the historical notion of rights as something granted by authority. He wanted to make it clear that freedom was something we already have, and that we institute government to protect. This was in line with his notion that it was up to the people to grant government the authority to do its job, and not up government to grant people the right to be free.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 8, 2013)

Richard-H said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Richard-H said:
> ...


I see, so I cite to section 8, and in response you say that is a gross misinterpretation, and to prove that you cite to section 8. 

Then you backtrack on your statement that "[t]hese are not enumerated in the constitution because of the complexity and limits of providing these" by subsequently providing some limited amount of evidence that "these are enumerated in the Constitution."

Do you have a split personality?


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 8, 2013)

Richard-H said:


> Would invalidate the Right to bear arms, since no one is born with a gun. Somehow (I'd guess by that cowboy hat), that you would not agree with.



So basically you don't know what the term bear means in the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 8, 2013)

Richard-H said:


> Would invalidate the Right to bear arms, since no one is born with a gun. Somehow (I'd guess by that cowboy hat), that you would not agree with.



So basically you don't know what the terms keep and bear mean in the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 8, 2013)

Most of the civilized world considers healthcare a right

Only Republucans disagree


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Nov 8, 2013)

"Rights" are defined by society, so the fact that so many people believe healthcare to be a "right" is, in a way, what makes it a "right".


----------



## Richard-H (Nov 8, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



oops...brain fart. Instead of saying "The responsibilities of government are defined in Section 8", I meant to say "The responsibilities of government are defined in the preamble".

Should have proof read my statement before posting.....


----------



## Richard-H (Nov 8, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > Would invalidate the Right to bear arms, since no one is born with a gun. Somehow (I'd guess by that cowboy hat), that you would not agree with.
> ...



No, I'm not denying that the Constitution recognizes a right to bear arms, I'm pointing out that the statement:

"It's simply classifying some freedoms as innate, and something that you're born with by virtue of having human will."

Contradicts the right to bear arms. (Which wasn't my statement.)


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 8, 2013)

Deleted


----------



## Richard-H (Nov 8, 2013)

theDoctorisIn said:


> "Rights" are defined by society, so the fact that so many people believe healthcare to be a "right" is, in a way, what makes it a "right".




I would like to agree with you, but in fact rights do not exist in our society until the Constitution explicitly says so.

Unfortunately, since any right to health care could only exist relative to the available medical resources AND respecting the rights of medical professionals, I cannot see any way that a constitutional amendment could be written that could satisfy those conditions.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 8, 2013)

About the OP - I have not heard or seen where anyone says its a right. What ACA assumes is that all Americans should have the right to buy affordable health care. 

Why should congress be able to get their health care free while refusing to allow citizens to BUY affordable care?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 8, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Most of the civilized world considers healthcare a right
> 
> Only Republucans disagree



Yep. At the end of WWII, other countries immediately started investing in their own people, their own country. We put our money into bigger and bigger military. We now have military that we'll never use and still, some politicians want more.

Gee, its almost as if they make money off of tax payers buying more military toys but don't make money from keeping the populace healthy and productive.

When it comes to the Republicans, follow the money.


----------



## Richard-H (Nov 8, 2013)

Little-Acorn said:


> Health care insurance started going downhill in this country during the Great Depression and World War II, despite the numerous technical advances that were made during that period.
> 
> Then-President FDR clamped huge restrictions onto many parts of the economy during the Depression (resulting in that depression stretching out further than any ever had in world history), and they became even worse during WWII. One of them was wage and price controls, which became onerous as many able-bodied men joined the armed services to fight in the war.
> 
> ...



Suppose, for example, you were in a plane crash on a deserted island, you had severe and painful injuries, that you had a gun in your possession and that there was a doctor among the survivors who had the ability and medical supplies to give you pain killers and fix your injury.

But,

He refused to do so. He just didn't want to.

I have no doubt that you'd decide, in a heartbeat, that there *was* an inalienable right to health care and that you'd use that gun to insure that the doctor respected your inalienable right to health care.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Nov 8, 2013)

Richard-H said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > "Rights" are defined by society, so the fact that so many people believe healthcare to be a "right" is, in a way, what makes it a "right".
> ...



In _this country._

"Society" is more than just us.

I hate the word "right".


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 8, 2013)

Also, OP seems to believe that getting free health care at the emergency room is better than paying for health insurance.

I wish someone would explain to me how rw's can whine that they hate socialism while simultaneously demanding it.


----------



## Richard-H (Nov 8, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Also, OP seems to believe that getting free health care at the emergency room is better than paying for health insurance.
> 
> I wish someone would explain to me how rw's can whine that they hate socialism while simultaneously demanding it.



The same way that they say they want to reduce the federal deficit, but refuse to raise taxes on the wealthy.


----------



## dblack (Nov 8, 2013)

Ahh.... good to have Luddly back, shilling for Wellpoint with more Orwellian bullshit...



Luddly Neddite said:


> About the OP - I have not heard or seen where anyone says its a right. *What ACA assumes is that all Americans should have the right to buy affordable health care.*
> 
> Why should congress be able to get their health care free while refusing to allow citizens to BUY affordable care?



ACA does nothing of the sort. It ignores health care prices and takes away the most important right consumers have: the right to say "no thanks" to a product or service that isn't worth a shit.



Luddly Neddite said:


> Also, OP seems to believe that getting free health care at the emergency room is better than paying for health insurance.
> 
> I wish someone would explain to me how rw's can whine that they hate socialism while simultaneously demanding it.



I wish you would back up this claim at least once instead of blindly repeating it over and over again. I'm certainly making no such demand. Put up or shut up.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 9, 2013)

Richard-H said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > "Rights" are defined by society, so the fact that so many people believe healthcare to be a "right" is, in a way, what makes it a "right".
> ...



And again you expose your ignorance of what the constitution is.  The Constitution outlines government power and restricts it.  The mere fact that taking a shit wasn't mentioned in the Constitution does not mean we do not have the right to take a shit without getting government permission.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 9, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> About the OP - I have not heard or seen where anyone says its a right. What ACA assumes is that all Americans should have the right to buy affordable health care.
> 
> Why should congress be able to get their health care free while refusing to allow citizens to BUY affordable care?



Funny how affordable care means most people will have to pay two to three times more for "affordable" care so that some people can get free health care.  Affordable my ass.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 9, 2013)

Richard-H said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Also, OP seems to believe that getting free health care at the emergency room is better than paying for health insurance.
> ...



You are lying.  Taxes for the "wealthy" are progressively higher.  Further, they have gone up.  Why lie so much?


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 9, 2013)

Richard-H said:


> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> > Health care insurance started going downhill in this country during the Great Depression and World War II, despite the numerous technical advances that were made during that period.
> ...



And there we go... typical democrat mentality, let's make slaves of the rich and the doctors, let's force them to take care of us.  Weak.


----------



## regent (Nov 9, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > Little-Acorn said:
> ...



Taking care of the poor does not enslave people, any more than making the poor enter the military make slaves, perhaps one is closer however. 
The question should be, does every American have the right to health care. If the answer is yes then we move on to the next question, but right now some are apparently still grappling with that question. 
So does every American have a right to health care?


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 9, 2013)

regent said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Richard-H said:
> ...



No fool. The question is does everyone have the right to screw people over, tie them to the ground and rape them. Apparently you think so.

Forcing people to pay for your health care is not a right, its a crime.  Buying health care is a right.  Providing health care is a right.  Getting free health care is a privilege that the poor enjoy when people give them charity.  Turning receiving charity into a right by stealing money from my children is an egregious offense worthy of the electric chair, ok worthy of jail, as felony theft is a crime.


----------



## dblack (Nov 9, 2013)

regent said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Richard-H said:
> ...



What does that mean? What are its practical implications?

If a 'right to health care' means I have the right to force others to provide me with health care, either directly or via government, then no, no one has that right. If that's not what it means, that how would you define it? What are it's practical implications?


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 9, 2013)

For those who believe in "Let em die"

Healthcare is not a right


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 9, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> For those who believe in "Let em die"
> 
> Healthcare is not a right



That's right RW if we don't let you rape us that means we want to let you die.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 9, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > For those who believe in "Let em die"
> ...



Save us your sexual fantasies


----------



## Antares (Nov 9, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> We the people decide what will or will not be a right when we decide what kind of society, or country, we're going to be.



Bullshit kid, pay your own way.....


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 9, 2013)

Modern societies take care of their people

We do not stand by and let them suffer. Healthcare is a basic human right. To withhold it is barbaric


----------



## Geaux4it (Nov 9, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Modern societies take care of their people
> 
> We do not stand by and let them suffer. Healthcare is a basic human right. To withhold it is barbaric



Um, no it's not an entitlement

It's an option based on economic factors

-Geaux


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 9, 2013)

Geaux4it said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Modern societies take care of their people
> ...



Societies are judged by how they take care of their most vulnerable citizens

The US is the wealthiest country on earth. Let em die does not reflect well on us


----------



## Geaux4it (Nov 9, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I don't give a rip about other societies and how they view the US.

-Geaux


----------



## regent (Nov 9, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Of course health care has always been a right for part of the American population. The questions at this time are, should the right to health care be expanded to cover more of the population and what does health care coverage mean.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 9, 2013)

Geaux4it said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...



That is obvious

The US can afford a military that is stronger than the next ten militaries combined. Yet we argue whether our people should have healthcare


----------



## Noomi (Nov 9, 2013)

Health care IS a right and anyone who doesn't believe this is so is a selfish person.


----------



## Antares (Nov 9, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Health care IS a right and anyone who doesn't believe this is so is a selfish person.



Well in your opinion of course....

They also have the "right" to eat....

The "right" to housing....

The "right" the internet.....

"The "right" to a phone....

Fuck off and get a job.


----------



## Noomi (Nov 9, 2013)

Antares said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Health care IS a right and anyone who doesn't believe this is so is a selfish person.
> ...



I have a job. And I can walk into a hospital, stay for two weeks, have free food and a bed to sleep in, have a major operation, and walk out and not pay a single cent.

Jealous, much?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 9, 2013)

rw's vote to give bigger subsidies to big oil companies but they're against Americans buying cheaper and better quality health care insurance.

They're in favor of us paying for congress' health care insurance but against women buying their own birth control.

They don't want to pay for their own heath care and, instead want free care at the emergency room.

The right wants bigger and bigger military that we will never use and yet, they want to starve children, our handicapped vets, the elderly. 

Why does this argument continue? 

There is nothing for them to say, no way for them to rationalize their insanity. They hate our constitution and our people. Let them shut up or leave. 

Preferably, both.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 9, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Yes.....you have a right to eat
You shouldn't have to sleep in the streets

Internet and phone are trivial. Who cares if the poor have access to them?


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 9, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Damn....I'm jealous

But we have more Aircraft Carriers than anyone on earth


----------



## dblack (Nov 9, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> rw's vote to give bigger subsidies to big oil companies but they're against Americans buying cheaper and better quality health care insurance.



Libertarians are opposed to subsidizing any corporate interests.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 9, 2013)

I haven't read every post ...

Have any of the rw's answered the OP and said why they think they're entitled to free health care at the emergency room instead of paying for it like the rest of us do?


----------



## dblack (Nov 9, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> I haven't read every post ...
> 
> Have any of the rw's answered the OP and said why they think they're entitled to free health care at the emergency room instead of paying for it like the rest of us do?



I haven't read every post either. Have any actually claimed that they're entitled to free health care at the emergency room? It would be quite hypocritical of them if they did.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 9, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



We have more in dry dock than any other country has in the water. 

But, we do need more tanks to park rust in storage.


----------



## Geaux4it (Nov 9, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



BFD

-Geaux


----------



## Geaux4it (Nov 9, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



No, sounds pretty cliucked up to me

-Geaux


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 9, 2013)

dblack said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't read every post ...
> ...



You're always just slightly off. Just a bit dingy. 

Read
my
post



> * Why have people come to believe health care is a "right" when it actually isn't?*


----------



## Geaux4it (Nov 9, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> I haven't read every post ...
> 
> Have any of the rw's answered the OP and said why they think they're entitled to free health care at the emergency room instead of paying for it like the rest of us do?



I will answer- I was paying for the non-insured at the Emergency room before ACA. Now I am paying for their insurance at the cost of my premium rising 76% for $168 a month.

Any more stupid questions?

-Geaux


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 9, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



On the south side of Tucson, just off the airport, is acres and acres of military airplanes. They all have that sprayed on protective covering and all are homes to all sorts of desert critters, especially pack rats. Supposedly, they chose Tucson because its dry but I saw a documentary that said they're completely trashed. 

I wonder where they have the gazillions of tanks parked.


----------



## dblack (Nov 9, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



Ok... I read it again. I'm still seeing the same unsubstantiated claim that rw's (and I'm assuming that you, quite incorrectly, consider libertarians "rw's") here are claiming they are entitled to free health care at the ER. I agree that if any are making that claim, it's grossly hypocritical, but I have seen it. Pretty much everyone opposed to ACA is also opposed to any demands for 'free' health care. I could be wrong, there are probably some idiots somewhere making this claim, so I'm asking you where you're getting this. Is someone here saying this? Or is this just empty insinuation?


----------



## dblack (Nov 9, 2013)

Geaux4it said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't read every post ...
> ...



It's not an entirely stupid question. Do you think people should be guaranteed ER care, even if they can't pay?


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 9, 2013)

regent said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



Ok NIMROD.  If health care is a RIGHT, then why the hell do I HAVE TO PAY FOR IT?


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 9, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Health care IS a right and anyone who doesn't believe this is so is a selfish person.



Selfish of what? Selfish of "their health?" Their income?  WTH?  If I don't give all my income to YOU, so you can ABORT YOUR CHILD then I'm being SELFISH?


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 9, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Can't wait to see how you explain that one at the pearly gates...  How you took your fellow citizens for a "ride."  How you screwed them over royally.  How you celebrated and danced in their faces as you spent their hard earned money.  How men and woman had to toil for months on end to earn the money you stole so joyfully, with out even a thank you.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 10, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> rw's vote to give bigger subsidies to big oil companies but they're against Americans buying cheaper and better quality health care insurance.
> 
> They're in favor of us paying for congress' health care insurance but against women buying their own birth control.
> 
> ...


And you will burn in hell for your lies, crimes, and sins against humanity.  Repent servant of Satan.


----------



## Noomi (Nov 10, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Can't wait to see how you explain that one at the pearly gates...  How you took your fellow citizens for a "ride."  How you screwed them over royally.  How you celebrated and danced in their faces as you spent their hard earned money.  How men and woman had to toil for months on end to earn the money you stole so joyfully, with out even a thank you.



Why explain it? There is nothing to explain, it is what Australians are entitled to, and if anyone doesn't like it, there are other countries they can fuck off to.


----------



## Noomi (Nov 10, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Health care IS a right and anyone who doesn't believe this is so is a selfish person.
> ...



Selfish because they don't give a shit about the lives of other people less fortunate who cannot afford health care.


----------



## Interpol (Nov 10, 2013)

This thread is stupid because healthcare _is_ a right. 

It was enshrined into law as a right by President Ronald Reagan, who made it illegal for anyone to be denied healthcare in America.


----------



## Geaux4it (Nov 10, 2013)

dblack said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



What's the difference? They couldn't pay then, and they can't pay now. So I have to pay for them. 

With that being said, I prefer the previous method as it was cheaper for me.

-Geaux


----------



## jon_berzerk (Nov 10, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



*they would have to proclaimed to us by a real divinity*

loose your entitlement mentality for a second 

natural rights are not given by thing or a entity 

they simply   exist as a natural part of the world


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 10, 2013)

Noomi said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



I see so feeding my family with my income is "selfish" but you feeding your family with my income is righteous.  You spending my health care funds on your health care, is basically because I'm selfish.  Well it's damn obvious now just what sort of moral fortitude is required to kill children.


----------



## Intense (Nov 10, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> We the people decide what will or will not be a right when we decide what kind of society, or country, we're going to be.



What is Justice, What is Righteous, What is Truth, does not change. It's Our perspectives that change, usually either by experience or the denial of it, for better or for worse. There will always be that beyond our control, there will always be consequence to misguided behavior. One thing that cannot be legislated is "Cause and Effect". There is that which is Mankind's realm, and there is that which is Reserved to God's Realm. Just saying, Christian to Christian. Matters of Conscience cannot be force fed or dictated. Can we choose to establish Justice, and build on It's Foundation? Yes. Can we misstep? Yes.


----------



## regent (Nov 10, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




In 1787 America created a plan for government and in that plan we through our representatives decide what rights we have, If we thinks about our rights we can see that many of our rights cost money and most have a payment plan.


----------



## Bfgrn (Nov 10, 2013)

Richard-H said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Not only did the idea of socialized health care NOT come from Marx or Lenin, it was OPPOSED by socialists.

When Otto Von Bismarck proposed compulsory health insurance in Prussia in 1883, socialist leader August Bebel consulted his friend Friedrich Engels (Karl Marx had died weeks before), who insisted that socialists should vote against it, as they did. The first welfare state on earth was created against socialist opposition.

The forgotten truth about health provision is that socialism and state welfare are old enemies, and welfare overspending is a characteristic of advanced capitalist economies. 

When the two Germanies united after 1990, the social provision of the capitalist West was more than twice that of the socialist East, and the cost of unification to West Germany proved vast. Talk of socialized medicine was always misleading if socialized implies socialist, and the very word probably guarantees that confusion.


----------



## Bfgrn (Nov 10, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



From Bismark came Winston Churchill.

In 1908, when Asquith became prime minister, there were almost no models of state welfare anywhere on earth. The exception was Bismarcks Prussia, which had instituted compulsory health insurance in 1883. 

By the new century Prussia was setting an example. Lloyd George and Churchill, as members of Asquiths cabinet, went there to watch state welfare in action; Churchill, the more studious of the two, read published reports. In 1909 he collected his speeches in _Liberalism and the Social Problem_, where he made a case for seeing state welfare as an essential prop to a free economy.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 10, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > rw's vote to give bigger subsidies to big oil companies but they're against Americans buying cheaper and better quality health care insurance.
> ...


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 10, 2013)

Interpol said:


> This thread is stupid because healthcare _is_ a right.
> 
> It was enshrined into law as a right by President Ronald Reagan, who made it illegal for anyone to be denied healthcare in America.



shhhh  ....................

They don't know that.


----------



## dblack (Nov 10, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Interpol said:
> 
> 
> > This thread is stupid because healthcare _is_ a right.
> ...



Libertarians do. Sorta like ACA is based on a Republican law. But it makes us wonder, why do Democrats keep doubling down on bad Republican ideas?


----------



## Antares (Nov 10, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Nope, I have ALL of those things listed...the thing is that I pay for rhem myself...I don't beg ole uncle Bammy for anything.


----------



## Noomi (Nov 10, 2013)

^we don't beg anyone for anything either. We pay taxes and we help each other out, and if you don't like it, you can piss off.


----------



## Truthseeker1 (Nov 10, 2013)

The short answer is *stupidity.*


----------



## hunarcy (Nov 11, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > Richard-H said:
> ...



In that case, I was right.  They wanted to ensure those rights would not be abused.


----------



## hunarcy (Nov 11, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Then, the bear violated your right to life, while exercising his right to consider you prey.


----------



## hunarcy (Nov 11, 2013)

Richard-H said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Richard-H said:
> ...



Everyone has a right to seek healthcare.  They do not have a right to take from me to pay for another's healthcare.


----------



## hunarcy (Nov 11, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



You have to right to worship as you choose.  You have the right to express your political beliefs without limitation.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Nov 11, 2013)

Avatar4321 said:


> Because they are believing an emotional argument instead of a logical one. If people thought about it, they would realize that in order to get health care someone has to provide it to them. Logically, we don't have a right to other people's labor. That would be called slavery. But people don't think about it logically. They think about it emotionally.



What would Jesus do?  Would He charge for healing the ill or infirm?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 11, 2013)

Little-Acorn said:


> Why have people come to believe health care is a "right" when it actually isn't?


Whats sad and telling is how conservatives refuse to consider it a right, and actively seek to prevent Americans from having access to routine health maintenance. 

Whether access to routine health maintenance is or isnt a right shouldnt be an issue of conflict, there should instead be consensus that access to routine health maintenance must be afforded to all Americans as a matter of ethical, appropriate, and pragmatic public policy, right or not.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Nov 11, 2013)

hunarcy said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



No, they do not have that right.  And you have every right to be selfish and callous.  And I have the right to vote for lawmakers who will pass laws to tax the selfish and callous, and of course me, to provide for those in need.  Simply because that is the right thing to do.

I don't see every needy person as morally corrupt and in poverty because of poor choices.  Sure, some are, but many are not.  I see our nation as a community, and I'm not alone.  When natural disasters strike, most of America responds with money and goods to aid survivors; the callous conservatives do not.  Need evidence, see what happened after Sandy struck the Northeast.  Of course callous conservatives - i.e. the tea party republicans responded with a 'big fuck 'em'!     

That same attitude permeates throughout the new right and includes the aged and infirm and those who are condemned to years of pain or death by insurance underwriters and policies which limit their care or deny it entirely.  The ethos of most Americans reject such cold-blooded indifference.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 11, 2013)

Only a barbarian believes a person does not have a right to healthcare


----------



## Meister (Nov 11, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> We the people decide what will or will not be a right when we decide what kind of society, or country, we're going to be.



We the people have shown in poll after poll that "we the people" are against obamacare.
The administration just won't listen


----------



## Meister (Nov 11, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Only a barbarian believes a person does not have a right to healthcare



I don't think that anyone wants to deny anybody from healthcare, leftie.  I just think people don't want to have to pay for your healthcare.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 11, 2013)

hunarcy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Richard-H said:
> ...



Those rights are "mentioned" they are not provided by the bill or rights.  The Bill of Rights explicitly prohibits the federal government from restricting those rights.  There is a fundamental difference between providing a right and restricting someone from taking the right away from you.  While you may be somewhat confused in so far as the results of the two views are similar.  However, they are not the same.  The result of a belief system where our rights are "provided" by government is one in which people assume they have none unless they are listed.

The bill of rights restricts the power of government, it does not provide us with liberty.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 11, 2013)

Meister said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Only a barbarian believes a person does not have a right to healthcare
> ...



I am perfectly able to pay for my insurance and have no problem with my country supporting those who are unable to pay

Only the let em die Republicans feel otherwise


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 11, 2013)

Meister said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Only a barbarian believes a person does not have a right to healthcare
> ...



But if we don't pay for his health care he'll have to sell his BMW.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 11, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



We already had medicaid for the poor.  This plan has nothing to do with supporting those unable to pay.  It's redistributing money from wealthy taxpayers (>4x poverty) to less wealthy tax payers (between poverty and 4x poverty).


----------



## dblack (Nov 11, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Neither do I. Now, if you could just get over your desire to bully others, you'd have a tolerable political position.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 11, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



It is providing a vital service to American citizens. Millions of Americans are finding themselves priced out of the healthcare market.  Even those not at the poverty level


----------



## Spiderman (Nov 11, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



If millions can't afford insurance then why do you support the government forcing people to buy coverage they don't need?

How is making me pay for maternity care and birth control, drug counseling and a whole host of other services I don't need or want helping make insurance more affordable for me or anyone else for that matter ?


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 11, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Millions of Americans are finding out that Obama Care is doubling and in some cases tripling the cost of insurance.  Next year when this hits the corporations tens of millions will get hit by it. The only people that are not being screwed over by Obama Care are the people Obama has cherry picked to exempt, those who will be getting the largest subsidies, and those with pre-existing. But even those people getting the subsidies are merely getting the price everyone else had to pay before OCare took effect.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 11, 2013)

Spiderman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Everyone needs healthcare.......the rest of the world has already figured it out

Quit your bitching about covering women's services.   Women deserve to pay the same rates as men. They shouldn't pay more just because they are the ones who get pregnant


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 11, 2013)

Spiderman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



It's libtard logic.  They see a free market where maternity is optional but expensive and decide to spread the expense around by making everyone pay for it.  They see Paul only making 40k a year where Peter is making 80k a year and decide to take 20k from Peter to pay Paul.  There all is fair now.


----------



## Spiderman (Nov 11, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



What about women who choose not to have kids?

And where did I ever say people didn't need health care?

I asked a simple question.  How does forcing people to buy coverage for things they don't need or want help them reduce the price of their insurance?

And btw health care and health insurance are 2 completely different things.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 11, 2013)

Spiderman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



Yes, healthcare and health insurance are two different things.......but this country is to stupid to do anything about healthcare


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 11, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



When I had my kids my wife and I purchased maternity insurance.  Don't know how it works in your circle of the woods but in mine, family bills are paid by the family, not mom alone.  Heck my wife did not even work at the time. So saying women deserve to pay the same rates as men is just a really bad straw-man to defend Obama.  What you are doing is moving one families expenses to another family and single people who have no desire to have babies. It's nutz.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 11, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



^ Projection.  Just because you are to stupid to do anything about health care does not mean the rest of us are like you.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Nov 11, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



"Millions of Americans are finding out that Obama Care is doubling and in some cases tripling the cost of insurance"

Prove your allegation is true.   

And, BTW, provide additional evidence that what replaces a canceled policy had a value equal to or greater than the policy which MAY cost more.  MAY because most times the policy which replaces it will have a government subsidy for those who qualify.  For those who don't qualify they are either free loaders or fools (or both).


----------



## Flopper (Nov 11, 2013)

Little-Acorn said:


> Health care insurance started going downhill in this country during the Great Depression and World War II, despite the numerous technical advances that were made during that period.
> 
> Then-President FDR clamped huge restrictions onto many parts of the economy during the Depression (resulting in that depression stretching out further than any ever had in world history), and they became even worse during WWII. One of them was wage and price controls, which became onerous as many able-bodied men joined the armed services to fight in the war.
> 
> ...


In the constitution there is no explicit right to privacy, right to a fair trial, right to a Jury of your peers, or the right to healthcare.  When someone speaks of the right to healthcare or their right to travel, or have kids, they can't be referring to a right in the constitution because there is no such explicit right.  Does that mean we no right to travel or have kids?  Of course not.  Those are rights because we accept them or the courts rule they are via interpret of the constitution.  In 20 years or so, healthcare will certainly be accepted as a right even thou it's not in constitution.


----------



## Flopper (Nov 11, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...


Family plans particular group plans usually cover maternity but that's not the case with individual plans for singles. 

Since men are just as responsible for pregnancy as women, they should pay for the coverage.  When everyone pays for the coverage, it adds very little to the premium.  If you exempt men from coverage, women that can't have children, or don't want to have children, the cost goes sky high.  This is exactly what has happens today.  Very few individual plans are available to single women that included  maternity because of the high cost.  In many parts of the country it's just not available.  With the cost of prenatal care and child birth running an average $18,000, single pregnant low income women have few options except abortion or cutting medical costs which usually means eliminating prenatal care and maternity care.  This has serious health and cost consequences.


----------



## Meister (Nov 11, 2013)

Flopper said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Perhaps, we should have everyone pay for flood insurance, even those who live on top of mountains.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 11, 2013)

Flopper said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



A couple who are around 50y old who have no desire whatsoever to have more children, who PAID FOR MATERNITY when they used it 20years ago.  Now have to PAY AGAIN FOR MATERNITY EVEN THOUGH THEY DON'T WANT IT.  Bend over and take it, cause that's the responsible thing to do.  Further, I paid into insurance my whole life but barely used it.  Irresponsible people did not.  Instead they spent their insurance money on BMWs.  Then they got cancer while not having any insurance.  Now I get to pay for their mistake by paying much higher premiums so that they can get insured with pre-existing.  Still further, existing Insurance plans that could be 6x in range between the highest and lowest premiums are now 3x, thus forcing healthy people to pay much more for unhealthy people.  Even further, healthy people who desired high deductible, low premium plans with the intention of using their own HSA account to fund any issues, are now being forced into low deductible high premium plans. 

Screwed, screwed, screwed, screwed, tied down, then screwed again.

Why don't we just pass our restaurant bill to the richest table in the room.  What is the point of working in this country any more?


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 11, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



You cannot do anything to fix the healthcare system in this country


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 11, 2013)

Meister said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


You already are.  Our federal tax dollars are being spent to "save" the day for nearly every weather event, whether or not that event is a frequent event or unusual, whether or not that event was even in the USA.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 11, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



Saying you do not want to pay for women's health is just saying you want women to pay more for healthcare than men. Women are stuck with the childbirth responsibilities in this world. Having men say......I can't get pregnant, let women pay for it is short sighted


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 11, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Can't be done... lol  Yeah how could we possibly fix the best health care system in the world.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 11, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Older people use ten times the medical services that young people do. It is the young who are paying for your services


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 11, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Please explain why you want to force a woman that can't have children to pay for maternity care.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 11, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Older people and young drug addicts.


----------



## Flopper (Nov 11, 2013)

Meister said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


There is always coverage in insurance that you don't need.  The 20 something is covered for Alzheimer's yet no one get's the disease that's under forty.  The blind are covered for vision problems.  If your insurance only covered what was likely to happen to you, your premium would be higher. This is how insurance companies spread the cost of risk and reduce administrative costs.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 11, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Because healthcare is a funny thing. Why should I have to pay the same as someone with a prexisting condition?  You never know what you are going to come down with and insurance has to cover everything

I can't have children and I want a policy without maternity care.....but I want you to pick up the costs of my cancer treatments
Insurance works by pooling its applicants. That includes women, men, young, old


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 11, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



If you have the money


----------



## Flopper (Nov 11, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> I paid into insurance my whole life but barely used it.  Irresponsible people did not.  Instead they spent their insurance money on BMWs.  Then they got cancer while not having any insurance.  Now I get to pay for their mistake by paying much higher premiums so that they can get insured with pre-existing.


With Obamacare, that irresponsibility person is going have to pay for insurance to cover their healthcare problems so the rest of use are not stuck with their healthcare costs.  One of primary purposes of Obamacare is to increase the size of the insurance pools by adding healthier people who are not buying insurance now thus bringing down the premiums of others who provide for their healthcare.  Initially premiums will be higher until healthier people buy insurance but in a few years premiums will start falling as younger healthier people buy insurance.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 11, 2013)

Flopper said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > I paid into insurance my whole life but barely used it.  Irresponsible people did not.  Instead they spent their insurance money on BMWs.  Then they got cancer while not having any insurance.  Now I get to pay for their mistake by paying much higher premiums so that they can get insured with pre-existing.
> ...



ROFL you are completely ignorant with regard to how insurance works and also ignorant as to how people work.  Everyone in the nation pretty much is gonna end up dropping insurance until they have expensive health care needs, then they will sign up.  Congrats, you idiots have killed the health insurance industry.  Prices for individual plans are doubling and trippling this year.  Prices for group plans will double and tripple next year.  The result is healthy people will leave the group en mass.  The result of which will be an annual 20-50% increase until the entire system busts.  I give it 4years.  Then we will have no choice but to go with single payer.  That or the fine has to be moved up to 1k a month. You can't get something for nothing.  You dorks are agreeing to hand over hundreds of thousands of dollars to people with pre-existing conditions to save them from the indignity of having to meet means testing by using up their assets first.

This country's health insurance industry is done, put a fork in it.


----------



## Bfgrn (Nov 12, 2013)

hunarcy said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Insurance companies do it every month.

Insured pay 'hidden tax' for uninsured health care

WASHINGTON  The average U.S. family and their employers paid an extra $1,017 in health care premiums last year to compensate for the uninsured, according to a study to be released Thursday by an advocacy group for health care consumers.

Families USA, which supports expanded health care coverage, found that about 37% of health care costs for people without insurance  or a total of $42.7 billion  went unpaid last year. That cost eventually was shifted to the insured through higher premiums, according to the group.

"I don't think anybody has any idea about how much they are paying because of the need to cover the health care costs of the uninsured," said Ron Pollack, the group's executive director. "This is a hidden tax on all insurance premiums, whether it is paid by business for their work or by families when they purchase their own coverage."


----------



## Spiderman (Nov 12, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Do you care to answer my question or not?


----------



## dblack (Nov 12, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > Richard-H said:
> ...



Not until ACA came along. Prior to that, all our transactions with insurance companies were voluntary. If we didn't like the way they shared risk, or who they shared it with, we didn't have to do business with them. Congress took away our right to make that choice. And the Court let them.



> URL="http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/insurance/2009-05-28-hiddentax_N.htm"]Insured pay 'hidden tax' for uninsured health care[/URL]
> 
> WASHINGTON  The average U.S. family and their employers paid an extra $1,017 in health care premiums last year to compensate for the uninsured, according to a study to be released Thursday by an advocacy group for health care consumers.
> 
> ...



Uncompensated care is a phony 'boogieman' here, a flimsy excuse to justify corporate welfare to the insurance industry. If cost shifting were really the concern, it would make far more sense to simply beef up safety nets and repeal EMTALA. But dealing with cost shifting isn't the point. Centralizing control and herding us all into the same pen is.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 12, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



No they won't

Because they will be paying a penalty for not having coverage. When their kid breaks an arm riding his bike, they are not going to stop at the local Obamacare office to sign up for coverage. They will get stuck with a bill for thousands of dollars and wonder why they are paying NOT to be insured


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 12, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Oh so now your gonna try to force people to pay at the hospital?  ROFL

You'd rather pay 18k a year + thousands in co-pays even though you don't use it at all?  ROFL  I'll bank my 18k and pay cash when I have to.

What's the penalty 1% the first year, 2% the following, and 2.5% thereafter?  ROFL  I suppose if I was making over 500k a year I might want to make sure I got insurance to avoid the fine. ROFL  OR maybe I'll just make sure I don't have a refund by claiming extra dependents.  It would seem if you don't have a refund coming they can't take the fine. ROFL


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 12, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



If you don't have a policy, yes you will pay at the hospital and at the doctors office and at the pharmacy

See how your plan works when you have a burst appendix and you ask the ambulance to stop at the Obamacare office so you can sign up for coverage


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 12, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



18k a year... In no time, I'll have hundreds of thousands of my own money to fund my own health care.

Again I ask, why do I have to pay at the hospital are you gonna refuse to give me my free health care?  I thought it was a right now.

RKMBrown's insurance.  Number of Members, non disclosed, but we have lots of people in the shopping cart.  Deductible, zero.  Co-pays, zero.  Premium costs, zero.  Everything we can afford, covered.  Hospital emergency care, free.


----------



## Meister (Nov 12, 2013)

If you like your insurance company, you can keep it, Period.
If you like your doctor, you can keep it, Period.

This is how it was packaged and sold.  If the stipulations were announced at the time, there wouldn't have been enough democrat votes to get it passed, period


----------



## hunarcy (Nov 12, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



You misunderstand my argument.  I believe that we are born with these rights and the Bill of Rights merely protect them.  I was not understanding your point, but I now believe we are actually saying the same things in different ways.


----------



## hunarcy (Nov 12, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



It is not the role of the government to "support those who are unable to pay".  NOR, does the (Un)Affordable Care Act do that.  It merely shifts insurance from being a choice to being an edict.


----------



## hunarcy (Nov 12, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> It is providing a vital service to American citizens. Millions of Americans are finding themselves priced out of the healthcare market.  Even those not at the poverty level



No, it is dictating that we all have to buy the insurance that some person in Washington feels is the "better" plan, not providing a service.


----------



## hunarcy (Nov 12, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> > Health care insurance started going downhill in this country during the Great Depression and World War II, despite the numerous technical advances that were made during that period.
> ...



NO one opposes health care for everyone.  That said, it's not the job of the government to force us to buy a product like insurance, nor force us to buy coverage we don't need.


----------



## hunarcy (Nov 12, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > Richard-H said:
> ...



And that'd be a private transaction which I can terminate when I choose by dropping the coverage or changing plans.  It does not have the power and weight of government behind it.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 12, 2013)

hunarcy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > hunarcy said:
> ...



Agreed, it's tough to discuss stuff where the terminology is whack from the first four words.  It should have been called The Bill of Amendments to Protect Rights.


----------



## Flopper (Nov 12, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


First off the majority of people in the country are going to carry insurance not because the law requires it but rather because they need the protection for themselves and their family.

I think there will be very few people who drop insurance and sign up when they have expensive health care needs.  Here's why. The insurance exchanges will be open only a little over a month a year and if you don't sign up, you'll have to wait up to a year.  Also once you sign up for insurance there's a waiting period for the policy to take effect.  You might be able to delay treatment for nagging knee problem, but you can't delay treatment for a suspected heart problem.  The penalty for not carrying insurance is low in 2014 but  increases yearly.  For most people who might consider not carrying insurance, it will be about 2,000/yr in a few years.  This is quite a bit of money to give the federal government for the privileged of going without healthcare coverage.

Your expectation that the cost of insurance will double and triple and the industry will collapse is certainly not shared by the insurance companies. There stocks have out performed the market over the last 12 months. and there CEO's are looking for substantial growth in earnings over the next 5 years.


----------



## Flopper (Nov 12, 2013)

dblack said:


> Not until ACA came along. Prior to that, all our transactions with insurance companies were voluntary. If we didn't like the way they shared risk, or who they shared it with, we didn't have to do business with them. Congress took away our right to make that choice. And the Court let them.



It sounds like you believe there was a free market for healthcare insurance before the ACA where we could really choose a plan that best met our needs. The fact is 85% percent of the people were covered by either:

The plan(s) their employer chose for them
Medicare if they were seniors
Medicaid if they were poor
VA if they were Vets.
The rest of us had to deal with the individual healthcare market which in most places only had a few plans available with crappy coverage, sky high premiums, and pre-existing condition limitations.

We have never had an open free market for healthcare insurance.


----------



## dblack (Nov 12, 2013)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Not until ACA came along. Prior to that, all our transactions with insurance companies were voluntary. If we didn't like the way they shared risk, or who they shared it with, we didn't have to do business with them. Congress took away our right to make that choice. And the Court let them.
> ...



You have a point, to be sure. It was nothing like a free market. But we could at least choose not to play at all. Now we've lost that last shred of freedom, thanks to the sellouts in Congress.


----------



## Flopper (Nov 12, 2013)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


The idea behind the ACA is to increase the number of people buying individual insurance thus increasing the competition and bringing down insurance costs.  This will take years not months. The CBO is projecting 7 million people will move from employer sponsored insurance to the exchanges by 2023. The long term outlook is for continued growth of individual insurance.  If this comes about, then we will see increased completion for customers, more choice for buyers, the cost of providing insurance taken off the back of employers, and health insurance will move with the employee from job to job.  I think there will be changes in the law that promotes this but that will take time with the highly  polarized political environment, I don't think anything in the law will change for a couple of years.


----------



## dblack (Nov 12, 2013)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



I understand the idea, and it's just plain wrong. It would be like forcing everyone else to buy the kind of food you like so groceries could deal in higher volumes and bring the prices down. But some people don't like the kind of food you like and you have no fucking right to force them bend to your will for your convenience, regardless of whether you 'vote' on it or not.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 12, 2013)

Flopper said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



2k a year is nothing compared to the 20k a year for insurance premiums this beast is gonna be at in two years.  Further, you don't have to pay the 2k fine, if you don't have a rebate coming back to you. Why on earth would anyone pay 1500-2k a month for something they don't use?

As to the CEOs.... most could give a shit.  They were already wrong because the rates have already doubled and trippled for individual plans.  My point is, they will not only double and triple they will continue to increase exponentially.  They will take their Obama provided windfall cash rewards from the taxpayers and run for the hills when the companies belly up.

What you have to calculate is what is the most expensive customer.  Yeah that person is the only one that will be left, everyone else is gonna leave.  Shared pain does not work when people have the option of opting out.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 12, 2013)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Not until ACA came along. Prior to that, all our transactions with insurance companies were voluntary. If we didn't like the way they shared risk, or who they shared it with, we didn't have to do business with them. Congress took away our right to make that choice. And the Court let them.
> ...



Corporations don't all provide company managed health care. In fact most corporations shop on the open market.  They are exempted from Obama Care this year.  Rates for Corporations go up next year.  Unless of course Obama exempts them again.


----------



## regent (Nov 12, 2013)

Insurance companies are rightly upset that the government is entering their territory, but like any capitalistic endeavor insurance companies exist for money. The corporations refused to touch any applicant on whom  they might lose money, and in a capitalistic system who can blame them. But what of the  those Americans that the insurance companies sold crappy policies or no policies at all?
If the insurance companies had worked honestly with Obamacare, government and insurance companies might have reached a compromise that all Americans were covered correctly and insurance companies could still make some bucks. But it looks like a war now and in the end the government will win. Too bad.


----------



## Flopper (Nov 12, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


*Where in the world do you come up with this crap.  Go to the healthcare exchange,  https://www.healthcare.gov/  Select "See plans in your area".  When asked to enter who the plan is for.  Entered yourself and spouse. When asked to enter a state.  I entered Tennessee. When asked for a county, I entered Cheatam county.  The lowest priced plan was $384/mo or $4608/yr.  The highest priced plan was $794/mo or $9528/yr.  This is less than half your claim of $20,000/yr and it doesn't even include rebates.*


----------



## Flopper (Nov 12, 2013)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Well, according to the law and the Supreme Court, government does have the right to  demand you purchase health insurance.  You do not have to buy what is listed on the exchanges.  You can buy from anyone you want.  The plans must meet the minimum requirement of the ACA.  However, health insurance has always had to meet government requirements, state and federal.

Even in regard to food, government dictates what you can buy.  Twenty-one states ban the sale of raw milk. Banned products include Absinthe, Ackee, Mangosteen, Sassafras Oil, Puffer Fish. Redfish, Wild Beluga Caviar, Chilean Sea Bass, Horse Meat, etc...  In addition government dictates to food processor how food can be prepared, how it is stored, and under what conditions it can be sold.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 12, 2013)

Little-Acorn said:


> Health care insurance started going downhill in this country during the Great Depression and World War II, despite the numerous technical advances that were made during that period.
> 
> Then-President FDR clamped huge restrictions onto many parts of the economy during the Depression (resulting in that depression stretching out further than any ever had in world history), and they became even worse during WWII. One of them was wage and price controls, which became onerous as many able-bodied men joined the armed services to fight in the war.
> 
> ...


Because public medical facilities cannot legally turn away any patient, in that context health CARE is a right.
On the other hand, health _insurance_ is NOT a right.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 12, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> We the people decide what will or will not be a right when we decide what kind of society, or country, we're going to be.



True but not accurate. 
Your idea is based on the premise that if enough people demand something, it should be provided by others...for no out of pocket expense.
Please...


----------



## dblack (Nov 12, 2013)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Whatever. You aren't forced to buy a particular food to make it less expensive for others, which is the analogy drawn.

I think you know it's wrong and you're rationalizing it - maybe even to yourself - with equivocation and sophistry. It's wrong to force others to cater to your preferences merely for your convenience, and THAT's what's happening here.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 12, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Because they are believing an emotional argument instead of a logical one. If people thought about it, they would realize that in order to get health care someone has to provide it to them. Logically, we don't have a right to other people's labor. That would be called slavery. But people don't think about it logically. They think about it emotionally.
> ...



Incorrect. 
We have by our power at the voting place have decided together that we should all contribute to our kid's education.
In the case of the ACA, some of our elected officials have decided that THEY will start the process of providing medical insurance...at the expense of others. 
There was no consensus on this. Washington by partisan political maneuvers, took OUR money, with NO input from the people at large and decided to create a 2500 page law that essentially made us customers of the federal government's insurance plan. All based on two lies. Well, actually, three. One, our premiums would fall by as much as $2500 per year.
That if we liked our current insurance plan, we could keep it. No one would take that away.
That if we liked our doctor(s), we could keep seeing them. 
All three are patently FALSE.
What ACA did was pit slightly less than half the American people against the rest.


----------



## dblack (Nov 12, 2013)

regent said:


> Insurance companies are rightly upset that the government is entering their territory, but like any capitalistic endeavor insurance companies exist for money. The corporations refused to touch any applicant on whom  they might lose money, and in a capitalistic system who can blame them. But what of the  those Americans that the insurance companies sold crappy policies or no policies at all?
> If the insurance companies had worked honestly with Obamacare, government and insurance companies might have reached a compromise that all Americans were covered correctly and insurance companies could still make some bucks. But it looks like a war now and in the end the government will win. Too bad.



A war we are losing. Google Liz Fowler.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 12, 2013)

regent said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



There is no 'list'....These rights are in existence. Think of it this way. Our rights are not something one can see feel or touch. They are not revocable. They are unalienable. Meaning, these rights cannot be taken away by popular or legislative action. Nor can they be undermined by political fiat.
As much as your side would like to pick and choose which rights we should be granted. No matter how inconvenient your side may find these rights, you will never be able to take them away. As much as you'd like to. Nor will your side ever be permitted to decide when or who for they apply.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 12, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



So which rights would you like to see taken away?


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 12, 2013)

Richard-H said:


> According to the laws of nature, the only inalienable right that anyone has is the right to die.
> 
> The inalienable rights listed in the declaration of independence are derived from religious beliefs - they are "endowed by our creator". They are based on western civilization's concept of morality in a civilized society.
> 
> ...


That is one fantastic rationalization.
You libs are very scary people.
Based on the posts by those on your side it is clear you people would prefer to see certain rights to be taken from us.
Let it be known that your side will NEVER be successful.
How unfortunate for you that you'd divide the nation and pit people against each other in what would most certainly be a struggle of life and death for the sake of politics and political power.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 12, 2013)

Richard-H said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Who cares. It sucks. It doesn't work as intended because it is funded in a manner which those who pay for it will eventually run out of money or the patience to keep paying with little return.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 12, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Before Obamacare, if you had no insurance, where did you go?
> 
> Short answer, if you wanted to live, you went to the ER and they would treat you regardless of whether or not you could pay.
> 
> ...


It is not 'shared' responsibility. Not even close. There are too few paying for Obamacare for there to be anything close to the concept of 'sharing'...
No. If ACA were shared responsibility, then there would be NO subsidies. EVERYONE would pay. 
My prediction is that if Obamacare lasts, the subsidies will disappear and the fines for non-participation will increase dramatically.
Public hospitals are already funded by the public. However, the bulk of the revenues are generated by the users of the facilities. That's the perfect solution. user fees as opposed to taxes. Plus many states require hospitals both publicly and privately funded to have accounts earmarked for 'charity care'...
yes, the uninsured do drive costs, but not nearly as much as the democrats would have us believe. 
Obamacare was built on a pile of nonsense. 
The liberal notion of shared responsibility is a misnomer. It is NOT shared. It really should be termed 'shifting the burden' which is lib speak for redistribution of wealth. Marxism. 
From each according to his abilities. To each according to his needs.


----------



## hunarcy (Nov 13, 2013)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Not until ACA came along. Prior to that, all our transactions with insurance companies were voluntary. If we didn't like the way they shared risk, or who they shared it with, we didn't have to do business with them. Congress took away our right to make that choice. And the Court let them.
> ...



So, you've taken a system that you didn't approve of and have made the situation much worse.  Between having to pay for coverage that isn't needed except in the minds of some government drones and the incredibly high deductibles, the ACA is setting us ALL up for bankruptcy.

Thanks for that.


----------



## dblack (Nov 13, 2013)

hunarcy said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



There is the cynical view, sometimes even offered by advocates, that the point of ACA was to deliberately make things worse - to drive the situation to a crisis point where people would 'demand' that government take over entirely.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 13, 2013)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



So good they made it mandatory. 
The idea behind ACA according to the Obama regime was to lower costs. That's a lie.
ACA in very narrow circumstances lowers PRICE. It does not lower cost.
The CBO has zero credibility. This program was supposed to cost taxpayers less than $1 trillion. The real cost is going to be 2.5 times that.
ONLY 7 million? Hmm. I could swear the Obama regime stated there are over 40 million uninsured people in the US. ACA was promised to cover them all. 
It is clear this program is not working as planned and logically nor will it ever work as planned.
PPACA has now become a political hot potato for democrats. Bill Clinton just turned up the over baking the potato. OOPS!


----------



## hunarcy (Nov 13, 2013)

dblack said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Based on Harry Reid's comments in the Las Vegas Sun, I can't disagree:

>>>But already, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is predicting those plans, and the whole system of distributing them, will eventually be moot.

Reid said he thinks the country has to work our way past insurance-based health care during a Friday night appearance on Vegas PBS program Nevada Week in Review.

What weve done with Obamacare is have a step in the right direction, but were far from having something thats going to work forever, Reid said.

When then asked by panelist Steve Sebelius whether he meant ultimately the country would have to have a health care system that abandoned insurance as the means of accessing it, Reid said: Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.<<<

Reid says Obamacare just a step toward eventual single-payer system - Las Vegas Sun News


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 13, 2013)

Richard-H said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Richard-H said:
> ...



A couple of the above points are simply not factually correct. That socialized medicine is 'working'. How do you define 'working'? If it is relatively inexpensive to the consumer I suppose that's one definition. But how about what it's costing the governments that administer it. France can't argue their system is working. It's tens of billions in debt and being forced to cut the services it will provide. What about quality of care. In this area the U.S. has always been at or very near the top. If other countries can't maintain a high standard of quality regardless of what it costs consumers, is it really 'working'?

The other incorrect statement that the rich got that way by taking advantage of the poor is simply asanine and barely worth comment other than to point out how unsupportable and falacious a statement it is.


----------



## Flopper (Nov 13, 2013)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


In other words the government is forcing you to do some that you don't consider to be in your best interest or the country. When the government drafted millions of men to serve their country, enacted the income tax, or forced workers to pay into social security, there  were certainly many people that felt just as you do now.

The purpose of the healthcare law is to improve healthcare and reduce cost in America over the long term.    It will take years, not months and there will be many bumps in road, some real and some created by the opposition.  Like Medicare, Social Security, and a number of other laws, it's going have to be amended to fix what doesn't work but we're going to have to wait until the law is fully implemented in order to determine what exactly needs to be change and how it should be changed.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 13, 2013)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



dblack is right. You are rationalizing because you just don't want to admit what a colossal failure this is. What economic mechanism can you point to in the health care law that would have the economic effect of bringing down cost? You can say what it's purpose is until you are blue in the face. That doesn't mean the mechanisms Obama has put in place will actually accomplish that and upon examination, there is simply no evidence to suggest it will happen. Look at a supply and demand curve sometime. 

Increased demand in the form of the individual mandate doesn't cause price to go down. It causes it to go up. 

Adding 'value' to a product in the form of all the mandated coverages Obama says insurers must provide doesn't cause it's price to go down. It causes it to go up. 

Adding taxes to providers in the form of medical device taxes doesn't cause the cost of their services to go down, it cause them to go up.

A mandate on how insurance companies must formulate community ratings and the inability to deny pre-existing conditions, does not cause the price of premiums to go down. It causes them to go up.

Even the administraton admits that the effect they are seeking from all these young healthy people entering the market is not to drive the costs of premium down. It an attempt to offset the new massive outlays on insurance companies for actually having to cover sick people. And we are seeing those enrollment numbers fall woefully short of the administrations projections.

What you lefties need to do is muster a modicum of objectivity here. Most of us want the same thing; for health care to cost less. You just need to get out of the Obama circle jerk long enough to see this was about the worst means a person could come up with for accomplishing that.


----------



## Flopper (Nov 13, 2013)

hunarcy said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Prior to the law's passage, we saw a race to the bottom among insurance companies, with insurers cutting benefits to lower premiums. The essential health benefits listed below set a standard for insurance. Anything below that is not true health insurance.  In some states such as Ohio and Florida, the insurance commission allowed companies to market bare bones plans which appeared to offer comprehensive coverage but in fact offered little except a low premium.  The existence of these plans prior to the ACA  are the primary reasons we are seeing large increases in premiums in some states.

The inclusion of the essential benefits in all insurance plans makes possible a logical comparison of plans.  The buyer need only consider premium, deductible, co-pays or co-insurance, healthcare providers in the plan, and customer service.  Prior to the ACA it was virtually impossible to compare plans because of the variation of covered services and the amount of that coverage within each plan.  The insurance companies created plans that could not be compared to other plans. People bought plans based on premium and deductible and only hoped that benefits would meet their needs.

Ambulatory patient services
Emergency services
Hospitalization
Maternity and newborn care
Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment
Prescription drugs
Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices
Laboratory services
Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management
Pediatric services, including oral and vision care


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 13, 2013)

Flopper said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


Complete BULLSHIT.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 13, 2013)

Flopper said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


I have a Family of five. My plan coverage pre OCA was 350/m for a family of five.  Policy cancelled.  On your 20k accusation, what part of "gonna be at in 2years" confused you?  Are liberals incapable of thinking ahead?


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 13, 2013)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Uninformed people offer quotes like this:
"The purpose of the healthcare law is to improve healthcare and reduce cost in America over the long term. It will take years, not months and there will be many bumps in road"..
Now, do you really believe that?
If you do, it's sad.
PPACA is politics. Plain and simple. Passing of this law got certain people reelected to office.
There are so many things wrong with Obamacare on so many levels, it is incomprehensible.
This thing was rammed through Congress with few if any of those who voted 'aye' having ever read so much as a section.
The idea was to get it in place so the law would become entrenched.
Just today, there was another sub committee hearing on the website and the myriad of problems with it. 
To date just 106,000 people have been able to merely set up profiles and add Obamacare to the shopping cart on the site. It gets better. Only 27,000 did this through the federal exchange. The remainder were able to get around healthcare.gov by using their State website.
The White House has refused to give the precise number of actual Obamacare customers. Those who have made their first premium payment. For it is those and ONLY those who are actual participants.


----------



## Flopper (Nov 13, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Increasing demand puts and upward pressure on price but that does not mean price will rise.   Government interference in the health insurance market makes it more difficult for the companies to raise premiums based solely on demand.  By law the companies must now spend at least 80% of their revenue on benefits.   Reduction in regulations in state insurance commission and reduction in marketing and administration costs by using the exchanges will encourage more competition on exchanges.  However the major factor in determining premiums won't be the demand for insurance but rather the percent of premium paid in benefits.


----------



## Flopper (Nov 13, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Not having your crystal ball,  I have to base my statements on facts.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 14, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Which is going to sky rocket because, for better or worse, insurance companies now have to pay out beneifits for more sick people....which would drive premiums up, not down. You are also wrong about the effect of the 80/20 rule. That is also going to drive premiums up, not down. Let's say right now they're at maybe 60/40. Do you think they're all just going to agree to a pay cut on top of having to shell out more in benefits? You're truly naive if you think so. They're at least going to try to maintain the actual dollar figure that 40% represents by raising premiums. Maybe that wouldn't be so bad if that were the only thing they had to compensate for revenue wise, but Obamacare, again for better or worse, also makes them take a hit in the form of more money going out of the business in the form of benefits. Again, I don't see much choice but to raise premiums significantly just to get back to where they were revenue wise prior to Obamacare.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 14, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Not to mention the new hidden taxes the government will be saddling Insurance companies and health care providers with.  We will see higher premium rates and just assume it's the health care and insurance provider's fault.  But oh no its:

Full List of Obamacare Tax Hikes | Congressman Jeff Duncan


----------



## jon_berzerk (Nov 14, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



yeah isnt that just wonderful

another thing that will shoot premiums sky high 

will be if the only ones who show up 

for obamacare are the *sick and needy *

this will cause a new base to figure out 

the 2015 premiums 

sticker shock now wait a year or so


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 14, 2013)

Wholly shit batman!  Did you guys see the new capital gains tax rates to pay for Obuma Care?  OMFG 43% on dividends? WTF? Another 8.5% on capital gains?  WTF?  Turning medicare taxes into a progressive tax?  WTF?  A hidden tax that increases costs of health care plans from insurance companies by 4%?  WTF?

Gotta hand it to the Democrats, when they decide to fleece the people they do it right.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 14, 2013)

jon_berzerk said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Funny how the libtard was saying I was imagining things when I said the costs are gonna continue to go through the roof.  Hell even if everyone in the country buys into this the costs are gonna go to the moon...


----------



## Flopper (Nov 14, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Your argument that premiums will increase is based on the assumption that there will be a significant increase in benefit costs per subscriber and that the insurance company premiums will not be limited by the 80/20 rule.

In some states there will be some increase in the cost of individual insurance benefits paid  per subscriber, however the individual insurance market is only 15% of the of the health insurance market.  Most of use get our insurance through our employer, and most of these plans meet or exceed the requirements of the law in almost all categories so there is no reason to expect a significant increase in benefit costs per subscriber.  For example maternity coverage in employee sponsored plans is required in many states as part a of part anti-discrimination legislation.  Mental health coverage is required in 49 states. According to a survey of over 16,000 employee sponsored healthcare plans, the average "maximum out of pocket expense" is $3621 for individual and $8,043 for a family.  This is significantly better than the ACA requirement.  75% of the insurance plans in 2013 have eliminated life time maximums.  In fact the average employee sponsored plan already meets or exceeds 90% of the requirements of the ACA.  There is no reason to assume that benefits per subscriber will rise significantly in employer sponsored plans which is where most of us get our insurance.

According to a study by CMS, one fourth of the health insurance companies will not meet the 80/20 rule in 2013 and will either have to rebate funds to subscribers or reduce premiums in 2014.

2013 Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance Survey - Out-of-Pocket Expenses Are Up


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 14, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



ROFL that's right cause low premium high deductible plans don't exist.  Significantly better... ROFL you are a liar and an idiot.  Put down the koolaid.


----------



## Jeniffer (Jan 24, 2014)

Appreciate your effort of sharing knowledge and for providing us helpful information, It will help me improve my knowledge. Thanks for Sharing.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 24, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



its Idiots like you and the right that believe it isn't ... we the people who care about the lives of others where its clearly you and the right don't feel it is a right you on the right feel its base on how much you can pay to save your own personal life ... so much for the right to lifers HUH!!!!


----------



## Meister (Jan 24, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



Get a job and don't worry about how others are going to pay for your needs.


----------



## Flopper (Jan 24, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...


A right can have different meaning.  I think most people that see healthcare as a right are defining a right in this case as that which is morally correct, just, or honorable, not a constitutional right. There is nothing in the Constitution about a right to a fair trial, a jury of your peers, or even the right to vote. Yet we accept these as constitutional rights because they are specified in state constitutions, or they are felt to be a right by interpretation of the constitution.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 24, 2014)

Reagan thought it was a right.


----------



## dblack (Jan 24, 2014)

Indeependent said:


> Reagan thought it was a right.



So what?


----------



## Flopper (Jan 24, 2014)

dblack said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Reagan thought it was a right.
> ...


Defining what you mean by a right is necessary for an intelligent discussion.


----------



## dblack (Jan 24, 2014)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



Yep. But what does Reagan have to do with that?

Rights, in a political context, are protected freedoms. When people talk about a "right to health care" what they're really talking about is the "freedom" to force someone else to provide them with health care, which violates actual freedom. It's a self-contradictory conception of rights that is ultimately irrational.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jan 25, 2014)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



When a society is based on privilege, and not humanity it is not a civil society. We afford more rights to enemy combatants then we do our own citizens.

You are a flawed thinker.


----------



## Politico (Jan 25, 2014)

Because we have become a gimme nation.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jan 25, 2014)

Politico said:


> Because we have become a gimme nation.



And the right wing parrots keep mimicking their ignorance.

Politico and friends...


----------



## Mac1958 (Jan 25, 2014)

.

"Rights" is one of many terms that is frequently thrown around FAR too easily.  "I have a right to this", "I have a right to that" -- the word's meaning and significance has been diluted as badly as words like "racist", "extreme", "radical" and others.  At this point, "right" means nothing more than "something I really want".

However...

If we can get away from simplistic platitudes such as that word, it seems fairly clear to me that a country can ask itself what it gains by providing some fundamental level of health care to its citizens.  The argument can pretty easily be made that a healthier populace is *good economics*, that a healthier populace is *smart macro public policy.*  I believe that.

But we remain mired in this habit of throwing around simplistic terms, diluting them to the point of meaninglessness.  

Need more coffee.  I have a "right" to as much coffee as I want, you know.



.


----------



## Politico (Jan 25, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > Because we have become a gimme nation.
> ...



I am not a a right winger Leftytoon. Is that a rep request?


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 25, 2014)

Meister said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



what does me getting a job have to do with health care... and what doesn paying for it have to do with you ... you don't work ...you live on welfare... thats right, you get medicaid and your happy cause we the working class pay's for your right to be stupid I forgot ... .. My bad


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 25, 2014)

Politico said:


> Because we have become a gimme nation.



correction we have become a greedy nation  ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 25, 2014)

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> "Rights" is one of many terms that is frequently thrown around FAR too easily.  "I have a right to this", "I have a right to that" -- the word's meaning and significance has been diluted as badly as words like "racist", "extreme", "radical" and others.  At this point, "right" means nothing more than "something I really want".
> 
> ...


 yeah like the right to own a cannon or a machine gun .... that kind of throwing around ... or I have the right to force woman to have a baby they don't want to have ... ... it seems to me when a liberal states what they see is a right as a human being, you on the right come unglued ...


----------



## Defiant1 (Jan 25, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



You liberals are always so good at mixing apples and oranges. Yes, conservatives believe we have a right to own "arms."

What we don't believe is that our employer, the government, our neighbors, or anyone else should provide them to us for free.

Let's talk about different "right." Do you believe you have a "right" to eat?

If you do them go down to the grocery store, load your basket, and try to get out of the store without paying for it.

Go to a restaurant, order your meal, then try to leave without paying for it.

Better yet, try to convince your local law enforcement officials to go to your neighbor's house and confiscate some food for you.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jan 25, 2014)

Indeependent said:


> Reagan thought it was a right.



Reagan damn near bankrupted us with his socialist EMTALA and he made us a debtor nation. 

BUT, I haven't seen anything about ending EMTALA so you rw's can stop worrying about getting your free health care that the rest of us have to pay for.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jan 25, 2014)

Defiant1 said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...



Not true. That's exactly what the right believes. 

If they didn't, they would buy their own damn insurance instead of depending on EMTALA. 

I have yet to hear of any of you sending your SS check back or refusing to drive on govt-maintained roads and highways and when was the last time one of you refused to accept job benefits?

We don't live in a black and white world.


----------



## Mac1958 (Jan 25, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...




Huh?  You're so sensitive, was I attacking the left? 

And by the way, Billy, since you say things like "you on the right", what is my view on foreign policy?  War?  Personal income taxation?  Gay rights?  Abortion?  

Let me answer for you:  You clearly have no idea, but that doesn't stop your silly attacks.  You constantly exhibit very shallow, binary, black & white thought processes, not everyone is a simplistic partisan ideologue like you.  Take a deep breath and think things through, at least once in a while.

.


----------



## Defiant1 (Jan 25, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Defiant1 said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...




I just love when you libtards parrot the "you didn't build that" crap.


----------



## Flopper (Jan 25, 2014)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


In what sense did Reagan see healthcare as a right, constitutional, human right, moral...
When I speak of healthcare as a right, I mean moral, not constitutional.  I think that is what most believe when they say healthcare is a right.  At best, you can say healthcare is implied in the constitution, but I think that's pretty weak.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jan 25, 2014)

You have a right to medical care insofar as no one can deny you care if you can pay for it.  Just like going to the grocery store.   We have a right to individual ownership of firearms, but that doesn't mean the government has to buy you a gun if you can't afford to buy one on your own.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 25, 2014)

Mac1958 said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...


suck to be you


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 25, 2014)

heres what I know about Mac1958 you talk like a republican, then when confronted you're soooooooooooo mysterious  person to us with all these alternative thinking, at least that's what you would like us to believe ... you'll tell us your a independent, of even worse, a libertarian !!!! either way Mac1958 if you walk like a duck and you talk like a duck then you must be a republican ... we know what your about and its not the mysterious poster like you want us to believe...  I clearly know what your about ... today your a liberal tomorrow you a republican, in the past your were a libertarian ... we know what you're about clearly....


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 25, 2014)

if two children are sick and you only allow one to have the medication to stay alive you have killed a child.

You people are monsters


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 25, 2014)

fucking sociopaths.


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 25, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> You have a right to medical care insofar as no one can deny you care if you can pay for it.  Just like going to the grocery store.   We have a right to individual ownership of firearms, but that doesn't mean the government has to buy you a gun if you can't afford to buy one on your own.



You want children to bleed to death in the street.

Your a horrible sickening  monster


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 25, 2014)

when a child gets hit by a car you want them to pay up before they get treated?

youre a sociopath


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 25, 2014)

you on the right are fucking evil and heartless.


man oh man you fucking make me want to puke


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 25, 2014)

don't treat children who are dying until they pay up?


sick sick sick fucking bastards


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 25, 2014)

Defiant1 said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...



if you had a rational response we could debate this issue its quit obvious you have your head in your ass... but we all knew that...


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 25, 2014)

Just let that old lady in the store die in the aisle because she only has a few bucks on her


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 25, 2014)

how did this country create so many fucking monsters


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 25, 2014)

Avatar4321 said:


> Because they are believing an emotional argument instead of a logical one. If people thought about it, they would realize that in order to get health care someone has to provide it to them. Logically, we don't have a right to other people's labor. That would be called slavery. But people don't think about it logically. They think about it emotionally.



You know who calls allowing children to DIE because they don't have money a good idea?

a fucking sociopath like you


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 25, 2014)

I would save your child.

You would laugh while mine bled out in the street.

Your fucking monsters


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 25, 2014)

ScreamingEagle said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > We the people decide what will or will not be a right when we decide what kind of society, or country, we're going to be.
> ...



and its already been voted on you fucking monster


your evil team already lost this debate you fucking sociopath


----------



## Rozman (Jan 25, 2014)

The left feels all entitlements are rights...
The right to own a home instead of renting an apartment.
The right to a job even if you do not qualify...affirmitve action gets them that job.
The right to have government take care of your groceries...Food stamps.
The right to have as much money as the wealthy even if you did nothing for it... Income inequality BS...
The right to have wealth redistributed....

I understand Obama will spend quite some time during the State of the union speech bitching about that.

So in closing...When the left doesn't have something and someone else does it's the job of government to correct this error.


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 25, 2014)

this country already decided this one you fucking sociopath.

We decided its wasn't smart or decent to let children die for the lack of a few byucks to pay for thir medications


a few of you fucking slime like dead kids.

fuck you very much


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 25, 2014)

look at you brain dead assslime


your advocating letting people DIE to save you a couple of tax dollars.

how Jesusy of you


----------



## Mac1958 (Jan 25, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> heres what I know about Mac1958 you talk like a republican, then when confronted you're soooooooooooo mysterious  person to us with all these alternative thinking, at least that's what you would like us to believe ... you'll tell us your a independent, of even worse, a libertarian !!!! either way Mac1958 if you walk like a duck and you talk like a duck then you must be a republican ... we know what your about and its not the mysterious poster like you want us to believe...  I clearly know what your about ... today your a liberal tomorrow you a republican, in the past your were a libertarian ... we know what you're about clearly....




What you obviously don't understand is that hardcore partisan ideologues like you are in the minority. The rest of us choose to think for ourselves, and we don't attach ourselves to one side or the other.  We'd like to fix problems, while people like *you* are *part *of the problem.

In other words, there's nothing special about me, there's far more of me than there is of you.

.


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 25, 2014)

these IDIOTS seem to think this is a new fangled discussion.


This country already decided we don't let people just die because they don't have enough money to buy the treatment they need to NOT DIE.


jesus would spit on these people


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 25, 2014)

they are evil fucking sociopaths 

they would murder for money of they are willing to watch a child die because the child has no money


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 25, 2014)

I would treat every one of you even though I hate your fucking guts and your evil.


you would laugh at a dying child in the street


----------



## Esmeralda (Jan 25, 2014)

Health care is a right.  What do you want, sick and dying people to be lying all over the streets?  I swear, you right wingers want to make America a third world country.


----------



## Esmeralda (Jan 25, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> how did this country create so many fucking monsters



Boy, that's a good question!


----------



## Andylusion (Jan 25, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Because they are believing an emotional argument instead of a logical one. If people thought about it, they would realize that in order to get health care someone has to provide it to them. Logically, we don't have a right to other people's labor. That would be called slavery. But people don't think about it logically. They think about it emotionally.
> ...



Yes absolutely.    Now I support Charities that give out help to those in need, and are willing to work for those supports.

But, yes, the pay-for-service model always works better.

Just look at the difference between public schools and private schools.  Look at the difference between K-12, verses higher education.

Our public socialized 'free to all' K-12 is one of the most expensive, least effective systems in all the world.   Our students are failing to match school systems by 3rd world former Soviet Bloc countries.   Many of which, spend a fraction of the money we do, and teach fewer years than we do.

On the opposite extreme, is our higher education system, which is still largely a capitalist based 'pay-for-service' system, and today the best higher education schools throughout the world, are mostly here in the US.  Students travel from all over the world, to get education and training, at our schools.

Do you think that's random?  Or accidental?    Take a look at Chile.  They reformed their schools into a pay for service model.  Likely the most capitalist based education system in all South America.   And while it's true they are still lagging behind the OECD, the're education rates are leading all of South America, while being surrounded by countries with 'free to all' socialized education.

The fact the capitalist 'pay for service' system is better, is universally true.


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 25, 2014)

these right wingers are really making me fucking hate them these days.


fucking slime who have no right to EVER pretend they follow Jesus' teachings.


they will USE anything to be their greedy fucking shelfish selves.


money over country and even childrens lives.

I fucking hate you people


----------



## hunarcy (Jan 25, 2014)

Esmeralda said:


> Health care is a right.  What do you want, sick and dying people to be lying all over the streets?  I swear, you right wingers want to make America a third world country.



A right?  Would you have that "right" if there were no doctors?  A right is something you have because you exist...something that is intrinsic to your existence.


----------



## dblack (Jan 25, 2014)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Ok, if you want to claim health care is a "moral right", and "moral right" merely means "something good that everyone ought to have",  I have no issues with that.  The problem is that that kind of usage is being leveraged as deliberate equivocation - to justify government policy that attempts to treat health care as a real constitutional right.


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 25, 2014)

quit pretending this was NOT already decided in this country.


you will never get your sociopathic way


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 25, 2014)

You will DIE without food and water.

some people will die without certain treatments.


The right in this country wants to watch people die in the streets so they can pay a couple less tax dollars a year


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 25, 2014)

you people are utter soulless scum for promoting such a thing


----------



## Bfgrn (Jan 25, 2014)

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that *among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness*. &#8212; That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"


If you can be well without health, you may be happy without virtue.
Edmund Burke


----------



## Meister (Jan 25, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that *among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness*.  That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
> 
> 
> If you can be well without health, you may be happy without virtue.
> Edmund Burke



And?


----------



## Antares (Jan 25, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that *among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness*.  That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
> 
> 
> If you can be well without health, you may be happy without virtue.
> Edmund Burke



By paying for EVERYTHING you need from cradle to grave.....


----------



## Bfgrn (Jan 25, 2014)

Antares said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that *among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness*.  That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
> ...



The typical right wing polarized 'black or white', 'all or none' pea brain-ism.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jan 25, 2014)

Meister said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that *among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness*.  That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
> ...



And?...lol. Your pea is too small to connect the dots?


----------



## Meister (Jan 25, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


YOU stated it, now connect the dots, because I really doubt you understood what those words meant when they were written.
 So....I'll ask again..."AND?" 

If you don't know, just man up and say you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.


----------



## Antares (Jan 25, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Well kid....tell me how much should we pay for you low income folks?

How much is enough?


----------



## Politico (Jan 26, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > Because we have become a gimme nation.
> ...



Read my sig and call me right wing again douchebag.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jan 26, 2014)

Meister said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Liberty, the pursuit of happiness or any other freedom is not possible without 'life'. And 'life' is not possible without your health. And your health is not possible without healthcare.

THUS, healthcare is a right.

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."
Thomas Jefferson to  the Republican Citizens of Washington County, Maryland" (March 31, 1809).


----------



## Bfgrn (Jan 26, 2014)

Politico said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...



I don't label you a right winger, YOUR words do. And now you have proven how insecure you are also.

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.
Douglas Adams


----------



## Politico (Jan 26, 2014)

And the right wing parrots keep mimicking their ignorance.

Politico and friends...

Yes you sure did.


----------



## Meister (Jan 26, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Just as I thought, you have no clue what they meant.
But you are all for abortion?   hypocrite


----------



## Bfgrn (Jan 26, 2014)

Meister said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Who the hell are you? You haven't even said what you believe it means. And I am not 'all for abortion'. But I am not the one that will make that decision. And NEITHER should you be the one to make that decision.


----------



## Meister (Jan 26, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


It's not what I think it means, it's what our Founding Fathers meant it. 
Life.....a person's right to his own life, to be able to live his life, to be able to enjoy his life and the support of it.
Liberty....the right to live your life without interference from government coercion  
Pursuit of happiness..... a person's right to choose what constitutes what makes him happy.  To be able to work to achieve his happiness.   As long as it doesn't infringe on others right to do the same.

Don't tell me what I should or shouldn't believe regarding abortion.  Abortion is snuffing out a human life.  hypocrite


----------



## Flopper (Jan 26, 2014)

Androw said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...


Pay for service gives an incentive for service providers to provide more treatments because payment is dependent on the quantity of services, rather than quality.  It simply increases cost.

BTW Contrary to popular opinion, there is no evidence that private schools increases student achievement over public schools.  Private schools simply have higher percentages of students who would perform well in any environment.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jan 26, 2014)

Meister said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



And your source is? It's your tiny little self absorbed brain, isn't it?

You can 'believe' whatever you wish about abortion, but if you ACT to deny a woman her right to decide, you are now PERSONALLY responsible to pay for any and all financial burdens and personally liable for any harm your totalitarian dictum creates.


----------



## Meister (Jan 26, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Why don't you use that pea brain of yours ( if it's capable ) and do your own research, dumb ass.  I am very confident you won't find your morphed interpretation from the Founding Fathers.


----------



## hunarcy (Jan 26, 2014)

Meister said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Isn't it odd that these trollers want to spend time talking about "life" when they support ending life at every turn (except when a person is held responsible for their actions).


----------



## Meister (Jan 26, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> why don't you grow a soul



What are you even talking about?  Killing human life, or what the Founding Fathers meant by Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness?
Damn, you're simple minded.


----------



## hunarcy (Jan 26, 2014)

Meister said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > why don't you grow a soul
> ...



He's a troll...he doesn't know what he's talking about, he's merely trying to post something to get attention.


----------



## Andylusion (Jan 26, 2014)

Flopper said:


> Pay for service gives an incentive for service providers to provide more treatments because payment is dependent on the quantity of services, rather than quality.  It simply increases cost.



Health care costs in Canada of grown just as fast as US health care costs.  The rate of cost increase is nearly identical.

Now the over all cost is lower, but so is the quality of their care.

Similarly, throughout the OECD, they have the same rate of growth in health care costs, as we do.   

The base line is lower... yes.  They get less health care than we do.  That's entirely true.     But, the rate of growth in health care costs, is almost exactly the same between European socialized health care systems, as it is with the US largely capitalist based systems.

The difference is, we get better care.

Thus, your claim simply isn't supportable by the data.   US costs are not increasing significantly faster, nor Socialized system costs increasing significantly lower, to justify the claim you have made.



> BTW Contrary to popular opinion, there is no evidence that private schools increases student achievement over public schools.  Private schools simply have higher percentages of students who would perform well in any environment.



Then why is Chiles private school system out performing all the nations around them, with identical people and culture?   All the other Latin American countries have 100% free public schools, and Chile has almost 100% private pay for service schools.

See, I think you are not counting the fact the people take things for granted that they don't have to work for.   The very fact that people are paying for an education at the private school, ensures that the students would perform well.

You see the same thing at the college level, between students working their way through college, routinely do better on average, than students going to school on mommy and daddys money.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jan 26, 2014)

Meister said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > why don't you grow a soul
> ...



It has NOTHING to do with human "life" and certainly nothing to do with liberty or the pursuit of happiness as far as abortion goes with you right wing scum. YOU want to decide what a woman's happiness is; barefoot and pregnant. It is all about controlling a woman's life and making a woman subservient to men. A vessel.

You could care less about a fertilized egg. You have ZERO regard for the crawling and the walking.


----------



## Meister (Jan 26, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



Pea brain, go back to our first discussion....you have spun what it was like you've spun the Founding Fathers words.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jan 26, 2014)

Meister said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."
Thomas Jefferson to  the Republican Citizens of Washington County, Maryland" (March 31, 1809).

The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain.
Thomas Jefferson - Letter to Larkin Smith (1809).

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482 

"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29 

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

"The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:465


----------



## Meister (Jan 26, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


I have no idea why you would post this, it pretty much goes against your previous posts.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jan 26, 2014)

Meister said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Only to a pea brain like you...


----------



## regent (Jan 27, 2014)

Sounds like health care is settled. Jefferson believed and some of the founders believed and it's now part of the American package. What would liberals do without their Jefferson?


----------



## Defiant1 (Jan 27, 2014)

regent said:


> Sounds like health care is settled. Jefferson believed and some of the founders believed and it's now part of the American package. What would liberals do without their Jefferson?



He may have said some of those things after he went bankrupt.


----------



## Flopper (Jan 27, 2014)

Androw said:


> Then why is Chiles private school system out performing all the nations around them, with identical people and culture?   All the other Latin American countries have 100% free public schools, and Chile has almost 100% private pay for service schools.



*Your information is not correct. Chili has private and public schools as do other Latin American countries. In Chili, 60% of the school system is private and 40% is public.  They are 50th in the world according the 2012 PISA rankings.  The US is 9% private schools and ranks 35th.  In the top 5 countries, less than 10% of the students attend private schools.
*
The rankings aren't related to how schools are financed. The most important factor that accounts for the difference in rankings are the educational goals.  In the US we provide 12 years of education for every student in a broad range of subjects.  In many of the countries that rank higher than the US, only 8 years of education is required, 6 years in some countries.  After that point students must qualify for admission to high school which is where PISA does the test comparisons.  Those that don't qualify are funneled into vocational programs or allowed to drop out of school.   Countries like the US that provide a broad range education for all students are at a distinct disadvantage.  If the US allowed students to drop out of school after the 8th grade and required students to qualify for high school, our PISA scores would be near the top of list.  Even if every school in the US was a private school, we would score low compared to many other countries because we have different educational goals.


Key findings - Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

Education in Chile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I believe most people feel that every child has right to healthcare and a right to an education whether their parents can afford it or not.


----------



## regent (Jan 27, 2014)

Defiant1 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds like health care is settled. Jefferson believed and some of the founders believed and it's now part of the American package. What would liberals do without their Jefferson?
> ...



And your point?


----------



## Andylusion (Jan 27, 2014)

Flopper said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > Then why is Chiles private school system out performing all the nations around them, with identical people and culture?   All the other Latin American countries have 100% free public schools, and Chile has almost 100% private pay for service schools.
> ...



Sorry for the long post, but you'll find I tend to go 'all out' when I respond.  My bad on this book report.

First off...  this isn't about "people feel".    I don't care what people feel.   People felt that borrowing money until they go broke, and get foreclosed on, was a great plan before 2008.      What they 'feel' and what is good, is often very different.

Second...  You are correct.  I thought they had eliminated public schools.   I was wrong.    They still exist, but they are horrible.  Everyone is trying to get into private schools, because... private schools are better.

*Third...  Chile is 50th in the world.... so what?  You are comparing Chile to the US?    Apples and Oranges.
*
I didn't say Chile was leading the world, I said Chile was leading other similar Latin American Countries.   Compare Apples to other Apples.
According to your own citation, the PISA rankings, Chile is ranked higher than:

Uruguray
Mexico
Brazil
Colombia
Argentina
Bolivia
Peru
Venezuela
Panama
Costa Rica

So back to my point....   As far as I am aware, all of those countries I just listed, all have free gov-education schools.     And yet Chile, the one country with a fee-for-service capitalist based education system, is providing the best, highest quality education out of all those countries.

*And back the US Pisa rankings.   Yes, I know.   That is the problem.   We're NUMBER ONE in cost, but 36th in quality.    
*
When you compare how much is spent on education, compared to the Mean PISA scores (2009 numbers), Finland which scored #1, was spending about 60% as much as we do, to achieve those scores.     Estonia, which scored around 8th, was spending less than 40% as much as we blow on education, to get that ranking.   We're spending more than nearly anyone else, and achieving less than even the OECD average.

*Something is wrong, and you said it....  *

"Countries like the US that provide a broad range education for all students are at a distinct disadvantage.  If the US allowed students to drop out of school after the 8th grade and required students to qualify for high school, our PISA scores would be near the top of list.  Even if every school in the US was a private school, we would score low compared to many other countries because we have different educational goals."

Yes, I agree completely.   The problem is our education goals SUCK.

Little background....  While there is nothing even remotely remarkable about myself, I did have these amazing things called "parents", who also both happen to have been public school teachers.   My father was a high school teacher, and my mother taught 4th grade.

I know... (only from talking to them) precisely what the problem is, because they have told me.     You have students who don't want to learn, have no interest in doing work, and you can't get rid of them.   You send them to the office, and the office sends them right back.   You tell them to get to work, and they blow you off.  They disrupt the class, they disrupt your lessons.

At the exact same time, you are instructed by the school system to teach X... then teach Y.... then teach Z.... then teach something else, and in the mean time you are not teaching Math, and Reading, and Writing, and Sciences.     Then you wonder why the kids come out knowing about the Ozone Layer, and have no idea how to work a calculator, while they are busy feeling up the girls in the next seat instead of doing their work.......?

(FYI, true story... I met a guy in 11th grade, who could not work a calculator.  Literally... did not know how to divide 6 by 2 on the calculator)

And then you have the lack of good teachers.   My father specifically retired early, because of exactly this stuff.   He was told to teach a dozen different things, and found he didn't have time to teach the fundamentals, and then student test scores were falling, and he was tired of putting up with students who refused to work.    He called it quits.   My mother said she would have retired early, if she didn't already have 38 years, and just needed to hang in for another 2 to get full retirement.

Contrary to the garbage spewed by the Teachers Unions (which my father was the Union Rep for the school he was at, and admits this too) it's not a problem of pay.   The problem is that between demanding teachers teach everything except the fundamentals, while complaining students are not learning the fundamentals, and at the exact same time, preventing teachers and schools from kicking out kids who absolutely will not learn, but will distract other students from learning.... these two things, which you yourself just admitted too, make teaching a miserable job for many people.    The result is, you end up with awful teachers, because the good quality teachers, either retire, or quit and find a private school to teach at.  (because private schools tend to focus on the fundamentals, and kids who disrupt class and refuse to learn, are quickly removed).

By the way, another true story.  I was given the opportunity to tour some private schools while I was in 12th grade.   I went to a private school, to a class of 8th graders.   The 8th graders were learning the exact same thing in their class, that I was being taught in 12th grade.   I'm a product of public edujamaction.


----------



## Flopper (Jan 28, 2014)

Androw said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Androw said:
> ...


The voucher system in Chili which subsidizes 85% of the private schools does not pay the full cost of private school.  As a result, most of the vouchers have been issued to wealthy and upper middle class students.  Although the government's cost of education has gone down, the cost of private schools has gone up. A large part of savings has not come from the voucher system but rather the elimination of government grants to college students and reduce government support for state supported universities.   Most important the promised improvement in student performance has not occurred.  Chili's vouchers system has reduced government cost of education while increasing the family cost without any significantly increase in student performance.

Massive student protests have been held throughout the country over last few years demanding an end to voucher system and has resulted in some reforms, one being an increase in government educational funding by 4 billion dollars.  The demonstrations have also contributed to a dramatic fall in Piñera's approval rating.

Rethinking Schools Online

2011?13 Chilean student protests - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 29, 2014)

Avatar4321 said:


> Because they are believing an emotional argument instead of a logical one. If people thought about it, they would realize that in order to get health care someone has to provide it to them. Logically, we don't have a right to other people's labor. That would be called slavery. But people don't think about it logically. They think about it emotionally.



There is less and less "logically" involved in health care these days, I swear.  Some days, I just marvel at the schizophrenic attitude people have to their own health.

As I've mentioned, I work for a company that contracts with health insurance companies as their prescription benefits manager.  In addition, we are also a mail-order pharmacy, which is one of the ways we help the insurance companies manage their plans with more cost efficiency.  Not a day goes by that I don't speak to at least one - and usually more - patient who rants and raves at me about how I "don't understand" how "terribly important" their medication is (ALL the medication we sell is important to the people buying it; we're not selling sugar pills here, Sparky.  That's why you need a prescription to get it.  Duhhh), and how we're "killing them" by not filling their prescription, or not getting it shipped to them fast enough, or whatever the problem is.  THEN they turn around and demand to know why it isn't cheaper (probably has something to do with that whole "terribly important" and "not sugar pills" thing), or get outraged at the very notion that THEY should speak to their doctor about their medications, rather than us just contacting the doctor for them.  I had a guy yell at me for fifteen minutes about how he was literally going to DIE without the medication we were discussing, and THEN tell me how he was "too busy" to spend a bunch of time on the phone asking his doctor to send us a new prescription to replace the flawed one he's sent before.  Oh, and how his doctor was too busy to keep messing around with us, trying to get the prescription just right for our "picky" standards (which are actually set by law, not by us).

Am I the only one detecting a logical disconnect with "My medications are very important, but not important enough for me to spend money on or spend my time managing"?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 29, 2014)

Richard-H said:


> According to the laws of nature, the only inalienable right that anyone has is the right to die.
> 
> The inalienable rights listed in the declaration of independence are derived from religious beliefs - they are "endowed by our creator". They are based on western civilization's concept of morality in a civilized society.
> 
> ...



No matter how many times we explain the difference between "natural rights" and "law of nature", you dimwits run right back to it the instant you want to justify picking people's pockets to buy yourselves something you don't want to pay for yourselves.  Ignorance is the lack of knowledge; stupidity is stubbornly clinging to your lack of knowledge.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jan 29, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > According to the laws of nature, the only inalienable right that anyone has is the right to die.
> ...



For all to see, the right wing mind infested with social Darwinism...survival of the richest.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 29, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> > Why have people come to believe health care is a "right" when it actually isn't?
> ...



Lots of people could be that stupid, actually.  You can never overestimate the stupidity of human beings.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 29, 2014)

Flopper said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



And we should believe this why?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 29, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Little-Acorn said:
> ...



Bfgrn is apparently that stupid.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jan 29, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Healthcare IS a right. This country even affords that right to enemy combatants on the battlefield. I don't hear any of you regressive social Darwinist scum bags crying that YOUR tax dollars are paying for triage doctors saving the lives of terrorists. You just want to deny American men, women and children that right...And then you have the nerve to CALL yourselves 'patriots'


----------



## dblack (Jan 29, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Whether we call health care a right or not isn't a matter of compassion. It's a matter of accuracy.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Jan 29, 2014)

Healthcare should fall under the same category as infrastrcture and be paid for 100% by the government that taxes its citizens. It citizens fall sick and can't work, they're not paying taxes as they would if healthy and working, thus it's in every government's best interest to ensure they maintain their population. 

So long as healthcare is a for-profit endeavor, it's unethical, unjust, and one of several reasons I refuse to participate in the government. Beyond whatever legal obligations I'm under.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jan 29, 2014)

dblack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



It is a matter of humanity and civility. If we don't value our own people, then we are no longer a nation. We are a collection of cretins, barbarians and vagabonds.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 29, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



That doesn't make it a right.  We also offer them food, water and housing.  Is there a right to be housed and fed?



Bfgrn said:


> I don't hear any of you regressive social Darwinist scum bags crying that YOUR tax dollars are paying for triage doctors saving the lives of terrorists.



You said the battlefield.  Now you're talking about terrorists.



Bfgrn said:


> [ You just want to deny American men, women and children that right...And then you have the nerve to CALL yourselves 'patriots'



There is no such right.  You certainly haven't proved it.


----------



## dblack (Jan 29, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



No, it's just a matter of word definitions. You might claim that whether we provide health care to people via government is a matter of humanity and civility, and while I'd disagree, at least your statement would make sense. But claiming health care is a right is as meaningful as saying that a loaf of bread is a race car.

I guess this whole 'health care is a right' campaign bugs me because it's demagoguery designed to manipulate the weak minded. Most people, even the weak minded, understand that the Constitution calls for our government to protect our rights. So advocates for state health care try to pretend that health care is a right. They figure that if they repeat that phrase enough, and enough idiots come to accept it, that we will then be obligated to accept the idea that government must provide it for us.

If you want to provide health care with government, like we do primary education and many other services (that are also not 'rights', btw), then make your case. But please, stop playing Orwellian games with language to try to trick people into supporting something they might not otherwise.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jan 29, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



You are just a petty thief. You think you have the right to force your neighbor to service you at your beckon call. What a piece of shit.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 29, 2014)

dblack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Good point.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 29, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Healthcare should fall under the same category as infrastrcture and be paid for 100% by the government that taxes its citizens. It citizens fall sick and can't work, they're not paying taxes as they would if healthy and working, thus it's in every government's best interest to ensure they maintain their population.
> 
> So long as healthcare is a for-profit endeavor, it's unethical, unjust, and one of several reasons I refuse to participate in the government. Beyond whatever legal obligations I'm under.



Whether you "participate" in government or not, you are still subject to it.  Government shouldn't be providing infrastructure, let alone healthcare.  "Maintaining the population" isn't a legitimate function of the government.  That's how a farmer treats his livestock.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 29, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



So if I don't value your life then I'm a cretin, a vagabond and a barbarian?

You'll have to excuse me if I disagree.  I'm no more obligated to provide you with healthcare than I'm obligate to provide some savage in Nigeria with healthcare.


----------



## Truthseeker420 (Jan 29, 2014)

*God Given right :*

If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother, but you shall open your hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be. Take care lest there be an unworthy thought in your heart and you say, The seventh year, the year of release is near, and your eye look grudgingly on your poor brother, and you give him nothing, and he cry to the Lord against you, and you be guilty of sin. You shall give to him freely, and your heart shall not be grudging when you give to him, because for this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.-Deuteronomy 15:7-11

*American Constitution:*

We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; ...


----------



## RKMBrown (Jan 29, 2014)

Truthseeker420 said:


> *God Given right :*
> 
> If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother, but you shall open your hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be. Take care lest there be an unworthy thought in your heart and you say, The seventh year, the year of release is near, and your eye look grudgingly on your poor brother, and you give him nothing, and he cry to the Lord against you, and you be guilty of sin. You shall give to him freely, and your heart shall not be grudging when you give to him, because for this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.-Deuteronomy 15:7-11
> 
> ...



Where in the bible does it say worship your government as your god and hand over to it your tithes for distribution to the needy?

Where in "preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness" is redistribute income at the point of a rifle?


----------



## Bfgrn (Jan 29, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



You ARE a cretin. You have ZERO morals, ethics or a conscience. You are a typical right wing social Darwinist...

Here is who and what you are, you are the 3rd from the right...a tool and a parrot...






And you right wing scum are NOT Christians...you are the children of Satan...

Luke 16:13-15 

13 No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mammon (money).

14 The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus. 

15 He said to them, You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of man, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valuable in the eyes of man is detestable in Gods sight.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jan 29, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


What makes you think the US Government is our church?


----------



## Truthseeker420 (Jan 29, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> > *God Given right :*
> ...



you want to change the argument to worship,tithes and GOP talking points?


----------



## Truthseeker420 (Jan 29, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



yes


----------



## Truthseeker420 (Jan 29, 2014)

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.-Romans 13:1

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.-Romans 13:1-7

Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.- Peter 2:13-17


----------



## Meister (Jan 29, 2014)

Truthseeker420 said:


> Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.-Romans 13:1
> 
> Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.-Romans 13:1-7
> 
> Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.- Peter 2:13-17


----------



## Flopper (Jan 29, 2014)

dblack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


The right to healthcare, the right to vote, the right to a fair trial, the right to a jury of your peers, the right to clean air and water, the right to knowledge, and a number of other rights are not  expectantly guaranteed by the constitution.   They are human rights or moral principals often canonized into laws.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jan 29, 2014)

Truthseeker420 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Truthseeker420 said:
> ...




Why are you deflecting?


----------



## dblack (Jan 29, 2014)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



The 'rights' to vote, to a fair trial, etc... aren't actually rights - they're provisions the state must follow in the due process of taking your rights away - ie convicting you of a crime. They are not services that must be provided on demand, whereas health care is. Calling health care a 'right' (btw, how much health care?) is just stupid Flopper. Also,  a right to knowledge? WTF is that?


----------



## Flopper (Jan 29, 2014)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


By definition a right can be either a moral or legal entitlement.  I don't claim that the public has a legal entitlement to healthcare.  Most people I've spoke to on the subject believe there is moral entitlement to some basic level of healthcare and under come circumstances there should a legal entitlement.  I agree with this.


----------



## dblack (Jan 30, 2014)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



I think I understand your view, and it's sound - even if I don't necessarily agree. It's the deliberate equivocation on the different definitions I have an issue with. It seems you agree that, in any case, health care is not an inalienable right of the sort government is called upon to protect, and reformers gloss over that distinction in an attempt to get people accept health care as 'right' along side our fundamental freedoms. But it's just not the same sort of thing.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 30, 2014)

Truthseeker420 said:


> *God Given right :*
> 
> If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother, but you shall open your hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be. Take care lest there be an unworthy thought in your heart and you say, The seventh year, the year of release is near, and your eye look grudgingly on your poor brother, and you give him nothing, and he cry to the Lord against you, and you be guilty of sin. You shall give to him freely, and your heart shall not be grudging when you give to him, because for this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.-Deuteronomy 15:7-11
> 
> ...



Okay, first of all, that second quote is the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, fucktard.

Second of all, notice how the Bible does NOT say:  "If YOU should become poor, you shall open your hand to your brother and demand that HE lend YOU sufficient for YOUR need.  HE shall give to YOU freely."  There's a big difference between God instructing me on how to be a moral person, and God making it a natural right for YOU to demand that behavior of me.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 30, 2014)

Truthseeker420 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Truthseeker420 said:
> ...



Depends.  Are you going to become more or less laughably inaccurate?


----------



## emilynghiem (Jan 30, 2014)

Avatar4321 said:


> Because they are believing an emotional argument instead of a logical one. If people thought about it, they would realize that in order to get health care someone has to provide it to them. Logically, we don't have a right to other people's labor. That would be called slavery. But people don't think about it logically. They think about it emotionally.



Dear Avatar: This is the BEST simplest expression I have heard. If you tell me where on here you give someone "rep" I assume that is different from thanks which I know how to do!

The one area where I would say health care is owed (by the person responsible)
if someone commits a crime by assaulting someone or causing an accident,
that person should pay for the costs of treatment.

I find it horrifying that people accept the state or public to pay for the costs of crimes
and injuries caused by lawless or reckless behavior, and will not charge people KNOWN to be the parties LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE.

Yet will push random costs of "other people's health care" onto taxpayers who did NOT commit any crimes, and fine them for not paying, taking away freedoms the public used to have, without any due process proving liability for these costs.

When I asked my coworkers, they did not believe in charging convicts for costs of crime, but felt that taxpayers were paying for ER and hospital costs anyway, why not buy insurance to cover that and make it cheaper? they basically didn't believe you could hold wrongdoers responsible financially, so they agreed to charge working people who make enough money and will follow the law; thus treating lawabiding citizens worse than criminals who aren't expected to pay and "punishing people for making more money" than criminals who cost taxpayers money and aren't required to work or pay any of it back.

They didn't count for
* costs of prisons that are higher than paying for education and housing or health care
* insurance doesn't pay for the costs that the patients still can't afford and end up on public assistance anyway. So we are still paying those costs, PLUS forced to pay private insurance companies that aren't providing the actual services or facilities but taking resources AWAY from  the same money used to pay for the costs not covered by insurance or Obamacare

When I brought up this idea of requiring restitution OWED to taxpayers to pay for health care, so criminals are charged the costs they incur instead of punishing people who committed no crimes, the "blank look" on my coworkers faces was only matched by the "blank look" on mine when they had no idea what I was talking about.

They thought once you elected people, you were stuck with whatever policies got passed.
They did not know the difference between passing laws through Congress and federal govt vs. passing laws through the State where the people can vote directly on bills before they become law.

They were probably thinking I was from some other planet, thinking the people have direct responsibility for the laws and decisions about where our tax money goes.

I was thinking I need to move to another planet, because this looks hopeless!
I felt sad. For America, for everyone who is struggling to learn what is going
wrong and how can we fix it given what we have now to work with....

==============================================
If the politicians keep taking advantage of people who don't know the system, then each party should pay all the costs of the members who vote for them, collect their taxes and show them how much money it takes to really support their own at population under these handout policies. If they cannot support themselves under the money they put into the system they promote as a party, they need to change those policies so it is self-supporting and quit relying on the taxes and labor of other people to pay the difference.

if you borrow money from others while you work your way through school until you can support yourself, you need to pay it back. So the prison system and health care system should be run as schools where people work their way through school and either pay off restitution if they committed crimes that cost the public, or they earn their education and credits through internships and work-study programs to serve the public to pay for school.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jan 31, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> > *God Given right :*
> ...



Matthew 25:34-40
The Final Judgment

34 Then the King will say to those on his right, Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.

37 Then the righteous will answer him, Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?

40 The King will reply, Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.


----------



## Interpol (Jan 31, 2014)

This continues to be the one of the most redundant threads on this site because President Reagan made healthcare a right when he passed EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act). 

Up until he passed that law, doctors and hospitals could refuse people. They could discriminate against poor people who did not have the means to pay for treatment. 

Understanding that to be inhumane, President Reagan enshrined into law every American's right to healthcare services, even if they have no money. 

Good on President Reagan for that one, but bad on him for not reforming healthcare insurance in a way so that the rest of us wouldn't have to pay for outrageously high healthcare services for people with no insurance. That is the biggest reason why our premiums skyrocketed for 25 straight years until President Obama began fixing it. 

In the 15 years before Obamacare, our premiums went up anywhere between 12-20% every single year. It was about $3,000 for healthcare insurance 15 years ago, and it was almost $7,000 at the time Obamacare was passed. 

In the last 2 years, our premiums have gone up a little under 4%. That's remarkable. 

Healthcare is a right in America, but it is a right that comes with personal responsibility tied to it. Remember when Republicans were for personal responsibility? 

This thread pretends to be a debate about this topic, but the debate was settled 30 years ago when Republican President Ronald Reagan enshrined healthcare as a right into law.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jan 31, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Because they are believing an emotional argument instead of a logical one. If people thought about it, they would realize that in order to get health care someone has to provide it to them. Logically, we don't have a right to other people's labor. That would be called slavery. But people don't think about it logically. They think about it emotionally.
> ...



Thanks for the interesting story.  Yeah, it's sad how so many in this country are so poorly educated. 

Oh, and the rep thing is the thumbs up thumbs down button on the top right corner of each message.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jan 31, 2014)

Interpol said:


> This continues to be the one of the most redundant threads on this site because President Reagan made healthcare a right when he passed EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act).
> 
> Up until he passed that law, doctors and hospitals could refuse people. They could discriminate against poor people who did not have the means to pay for treatment.
> 
> ...



Your statement about Reagan is inaccurate.


----------



## dblack (Jan 31, 2014)

Interpol said:


> This continues to be the one of the most redundant threads on this site because President Reagan made healthcare a right when he passed EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act).



No, he simply issued an unfunded mandate to hospitals.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jan 31, 2014)

dblack said:


> Interpol said:
> 
> 
> > This continues to be the one of the most redundant threads on this site because President Reagan made healthcare a right when he passed EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act).
> ...



Which was not the same unfunded mandate that we are currently working under.  People were still required to pay for their emergency health care costs back in the 80s.


----------



## Flopper (Jan 31, 2014)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Yes, that is what I mean.  It's not the same thing.  There is no constitutional right to healthcare.  There are limited legal rights to healthcare such as Medicare, Medicaid, and EMTALA.   Many people feel that it is morally right that some basic level of healthcare benefits should be universal.  I think it's inevitable that this will become a legal right because we've been moving in that direction for over 50 years and I see nothing that's going to change it.

I believe the response to Obamacare is going to be legislation that makes healthcare more affordable for the middle class just as Obamacare made it more affordable for the poor.  Such legislation is certainly not going to reduce benefits for the poor and thus will move the country closer a system of universal healthcare.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 31, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Truthseeker420 said:
> ...



Again, God telling me what I should do to be a good Christian is very different from God giving YOU the right to demand that behavior from me for your benefit.

You might as well give it up.  You can talk all day about what God expects of me, and you will NEVER, EVER find a passage that says, "Demand that your brother take care of you; you have a right to your brother's wealth and labor".


----------



## Bfgrn (Jan 31, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



What is it you don't understand about: Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.?


----------



## dblack (Jan 31, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



I'm not a Christian, but I think the idea is that it's a personal, moral decision. Making it a compulsory government policy strips it of all meaning. It's no longer about compassion and morality, it's just obedience to the state.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jan 31, 2014)

dblack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



No, you are an anarchist.


----------



## dblack (Jan 31, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



What? I'm not, but what does that have to do with my post?


----------



## emilynghiem (Jan 31, 2014)

The Ten Commandments come before the teachings based on them.

One of the Ten Commandments is against
COVETING the labor or servants of one's neighbors.

This happens to me all the time, so I have to explain it this way.
If you do not pay back a debt where someone else paid for you,
then you are relying on the labor or money of someone else to cover your expenses.

if this is VOLUNTARY then it is giving.
If it is NOT VOLUNTARY, if you are forcing them to work and not keep the benefits of their labor but use that time money or labor for your benefit when they did NOT agree to it.

That is either COVETING, STEALING, FRAUD OR INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.
COVETING AND THEFT ARE AGAINST THE MAIN PRINCIPLES IN THE BIBLE.
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE was outlawed by the 13th Amendment.
Taxation without representation is another close concept,
but I started arguing against INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE with people who don't get this.

Like people who are late on paying rent or paying back expenses they committed to,
so someone else has to cover in the meantime. That isn't free, it doesn't come from
nowhere.

Note: the only argument I've heard so far that even has any weight at all is arguing that people are going through the hospitals and ER to get free health care at taxpayers' expense ANYWAY, the cost is already being racked up and this health insurance was an attempt to redirect the help at some other point of service besides the ER. But the solution is NOT to go force OTHER people to pay the difference who DIDN'T abuse the system or commit any crime.

There was no DUE PROCESS to prove that the people being charged in forcing to buy insurance or pay penalties to govt are the ones committing the excess charges. If the point was to save money, this should be PROVEN FIRST or it is "faith based" where people did NOT agree and do NOT believe this will work or is Constitutional in the first place.

the problem was not agreeing what to change the system to.

one side sees public assistance as temporary and wants incentives to move people to independence not rewarding them for staying independent.

The other wants universal coverage in the most cost-effective way.

This can best be done VOLUNTARILY and not contradicting either church or state law by "coveting the labor or money of other people" or imposing a faith based system without consent, proof or consensus of the public since all people have equal right to representation, due process and protection of their beliefs under law.

those who believe in charity are free to practice that in the manner seen fit,
but no right to take church or religious based principles and impose them through the state.

Only if people AGREE on such policies, can they write a public law such as allowing for prayer or crosses etc. But this cannot be imposed. any conflict over religion must be resolved first or it is introducing a bias by government which is supposed to remain neutral and all inclusive so as not to discriminate, coerce or exclude by faith-based differences.



Cecilie1200 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



WHOA this is under CHURCH law which is different from STATE LAW.
Under the laws of charity, the more you give the more you receive.

"God loves a cheerful giver" this is supposed to be by free will, voluntarily
otherwise if it is forced by God it is not giving!

Note: by free exercise of religion, who is to dictate WHICH people and WHICH services should be donated? why is the state deciding that health insurance is more important
than someone donating to help a single mother get housing and food to raise a child?

The Prolife advocates have equal right to invest their DONATIONS from their SALARIES
to help prevent abortion. Equal to the singlepayer who want to cover medical costs.

Who is to say one case of charity is or is not exempted, and you will still have to pay an additional tax or fine? Why can't people be free to give in the way they are called to do?

The same argument I have seen prochoice people use to answer to prolife people, to do all their outreach "freely on their own" and keep it out of government policy, why doesn't that apply to ACA now?


----------



## emilynghiem (Jan 31, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> What is it you don't understand about: Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.?



You also remind me of Obama, who changed his mind FREELY about gay marriage, decided he supported it ON HIS OWN WITHOUT FORCE OF GOVT.

Then proceeded to push politically to make this the policy for everyone.

Do you see the difference?

Many Christians and others believe in God, and this is freely chosen without laws forcing us to. But try to even allow one Cross on a building or a nativity scene on public property,
and people protest.

So please be consistent.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 31, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



What is it YOU don't understand about it? 

Oh, right, it's you, so the answer would be (as always) "not a damned thing".

Let me see if I can simple this up for the simpletons in the audience:  if I give you $5 because I feel sorry for you, that's charity.  If you take $5 from me, that's robbery.

Just because I choose to give you that $5 because I'm a good person doesn't mean you have a right to that $5.

Let me know if you still don't get it, and I'll break out the Crayolas and draw you a picture.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 31, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



And you're a fuckwit, with about as much relevance trying to teach people about being Christians as a fish has trying to teach birds to fly.


----------



## Meister (Jan 31, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



If you can't even understand Mathew 25:40, then you have no business using it in any post, son.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 1, 2014)

dblack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



What is the object of government? To you right wing turds it is clearing the deck so insurance cartels and corporations can swindle and feed on We, the People.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 1, 2014)

Meister said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Ok, then explain it to me 'daddy'


----------



## Politico (Feb 1, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Interpol said:
> ...



And it was 1/10 as expensive.


----------



## dblack (Feb 1, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



I'm glad you're asking the question, because that's the real source of our disagreement. The purpose of government, in my view, is to protect individual liberty. I want a government that preserves the freedom of each of us to pursue our own unique vision of the good life, not one that decides for us what that vision must be.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 1, 2014)

dblack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



And how is 'government' stopping that?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 1, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Seems like to you, its purpose is to be worshipped . . . oh, and give you a chance to blither about whatever insane fantasy you're currently trying to project onto conservatives.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 1, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I don't have to project anything "onto conservatives", you right wing cretins profess your barbarism on every thread.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 1, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Riiiight . . . just like the Bible professes that you have a right to sit on your dead ass and suck off of other people.  I'm sure that all of us are VERY impressed with your "insightful" assessments.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 1, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



WOW, thank you for parroting a perfect example...


----------



## hunarcy (Feb 1, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Riiiight . . . just like the Bible professes that you have a right to sit on your dead ass and suck off of other people.  I'm sure that all of us are VERY impressed with your "insightful" assessments.



Now, don't you know that troll is a legend in his own mind?  All he really has is hate and name calling.  His "arguments" boil down to ad hominem attack and ridiculous abstractions that are thread killing deflections and are better ignored.

Just my opinion.


----------



## dblack (Feb 1, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



When it's functioning properly it isn't. It's necessary to protect it. It's when we expand the role of government beyond protecting freedom that we run into problems. 

The primary function of government is to enforce conformity. Some of that is necessary to make a free society viable. Sometimes, everyone doing their own thing is intolerable, so we pass laws that require everyone to follow the same norms of behavior. But, if our goal is a free society, we must recognize that as a loss of freedom, and indulge it only when truly necessary. 

When we enlist government to solve problems that we can otherwise solve ourselves, we're trading freedom for convenience and we should stop to ask ourselves whether it's truly worth it. When the consensus is very high, and the cost relatively low, it's often worth it to go for the convenience. (Even most ardent libertartians are ok with stop signs, for example, even though one might argue we could get by without them.) But when there is not a strong consensus, or the cost, either in loss of liberty or finances, is high, we should resist the urge to give up our freedom for expedience.


----------



## hunarcy (Feb 1, 2014)

dblack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Yes!  Government does some things very well.  However, when we allow government to move into areas it is not intended to do, it becomes a yoke on us all!


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 1, 2014)

dblack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



And whether you will admit or not, health care was screaming for government intervention. Every other industrial nation sees health care as a basic human right and most have government run single payer systems that work very well. America has double the health care costs and we are at the bottom in may outcome areas.

As a liberal, I would have preferred single payer or at least a public option, but liberals no longer have power in this country or even power in the Democratic Party. 

Healthcare costs destroyed the Bush economy

David Frum: A former economic speechwriter for President  George W. Bush

Posted: September 15, 2009, 4:30 PM by NP Editor






_Ron Brownstein ably sums up the Census Bureaus final report on the Bush economy._

Bottom line: not good.

    On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bushs two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked.

What went wrong?

In a word: healthcare.

Over the years from 2000 to 2007, the price that employers paid for labor rose by an average of 25% per hour. But the wages received by workers were worth less in 2007 than seven years before. All that extra money paid by employers disappeared into the healthcare system: between 2000 and 2007, the cost of the average insurance policy for a family of four doubled.

Exploding health costs vacuumed up worker incomes. Frustrated workers began telling pollsters the country was on the wrong track as early as 2004  the year that George W. Bush won re-election by the narrowest margin of any re-elected president in U.S. history.

Slowing the growth of health costs is essential to raising wages  and by the way restoring Americans faith in the fairness of a free-market economy.

Explaining the impact of health costs on wages is essential to protecting the economic reputation of the last Republican administration and Congress.

If Republicans stick to the line that the US healthcare system works well as is  that it has no important problems that cannot be solved by tort reform  then George W. Bush and the Congresses of 2001-2007 will join Jimmy Carter and Herbert Hoover in the American memorys hall of economic failures. Recovery from that stigma will demand more than a tea party.

Read more: David Frum: Healthcare costs destroyed the Bush economy - Full Comment


----------



## dblack (Feb 1, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



The point is, a large portion of the nation won't "admit it". There is NOT wide consensus, and the price - both in terms of loss of freedom and tax dollars - is very high. Forcing such a change on society is an abuse of the social contract and bad government.


----------



## hunarcy (Feb 1, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Everyone needs healthcare.......the rest of the world has already figured it out
> 
> Quit your bitching about covering women's services.   Women deserve to pay the same rates as men. They shouldn't pay more just because they are the ones who get pregnant



We have healthcare in this nation.  What you want is not healthcare, it's to force others to pay for it.  And, we all see that ACA is not actually the goal, it's a stepping stone to single payer.  The big problem for you is that the ACA roll out has shown how incompetent government is in situations such as this and we'll never trust it to provide "single payer".  It wastes too much and can't even get a website right.


----------



## realinvestment (Feb 1, 2014)

Per Pope Benedict, healthcare is a right.

Pope Calls Health Care An 'Inalienable Right,' Urges World Governments To Provide Universal Coverage | ThinkProgress


----------



## hunarcy (Feb 1, 2014)

realinvestment said:


> Per Pope Benedict, healthcare is a right.
> 
> Pope Calls Health Care An 'Inalienable Right,' Urges World Governments To Provide Universal Coverage | ThinkProgress



I agree with him...it's just not a right to demand someone else pay for it.  I have a right and duty to wear clothes, but can't expect anyone else to buy 'em.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 1, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Of you projecting your insanity onto the world?  It's not like I had to search real hard.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 1, 2014)

realinvestment said:


> Per Pope Benedict, healthcare is a right.
> 
> Pope Calls Health Care An 'Inalienable Right,' Urges World Governments To Provide Universal Coverage | ThinkProgress



I must have missed the point where I started caring what the Pope has to say about anything, let alone about things that don't fall under his jurisdiction.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 1, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



NO liberal has ever supported paying lazy people to sit on their ass. But the narrative you right wing cretins need to parrot is exactly that. It is ignorant and just shows how much you people loathe hard working American families that are not rich and struggling to make ends meet. Your prescription is punishment. It is ALL conservatives have to offer...


----------



## dblack (Feb 1, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> realinvestment said:
> 
> 
> > Per Pope Benedict, healthcare is a right.
> ...



Interestingly, we're out from under the yoke of papal authority thanks to separation of church and state. We finally realized that the way to moderate the power of the church was to keep government out of religion. Someday, I suspect our liberal friends will realize the same lesson when it comes to economic power. If we want to moderate the power of corporations, we need to keep government from intervening in the economy.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 1, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> realinvestment said:
> 
> 
> > Per Pope Benedict, healthcare is a right.
> ...



But you parrots will chirp a Papal option on abortion as Gospel...


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 1, 2014)

dblack said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > realinvestment said:
> ...



So corporations will be moderated by WHOM...an 'invisible hand'?


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 1, 2014)

The real problem is not enough people insured but no negotiations on price controls on drugs in the USA. Charging thousands of dollars for drugs sold in other countries for hundreds, but it shows you the power of the medical industry lobby in our federal govt..


----------



## dblack (Feb 1, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Well, we _could_ just ignore them until they go away.


----------



## dblack (Feb 1, 2014)

dblack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Seriously. I know it's counter-intuitive to you, coming from the liberal tradition of the last hundred years or so, but corporate power over us is entirely via state intervention. They have no private armies or police. And without the collusion of government, they can't force us to do business with them. 

This is why it's so insane, from my perspective, to see liberals supporting nonsense like ACA. Do you seriously think that the way to reign in the insurance industry is to force us all to buy their products?!? Every time liberals seek to mitigate corporate power by expanding government economic intervention, the corporations smile and hire another lobbyist.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 1, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...





I can only assume your belief that you're suddenly going to sell me on leftist talking points after all this time is just another manifestation of your _delirium tremens_.

By all means, though, continue to drivel at me about your "compassion" and "moral superiority".  I know it's the only validation your existence receives, and I therefore view allowing your posts to appear on my screen as my good deed for the day.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 1, 2014)

dblack said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > realinvestment said:
> ...



Actually, I just don't give a shit about the Pope because I'm not Catholic.  Also, I'm capable of thinking for myself, regardless of who does or doesn't agree with me.  This is something leftists cannot understand, so they always think if they drop this or that name into the conversation, it'll be some sort of trump card.  After all, it would be with them.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 1, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > realinvestment said:
> ...



Well, thank you for reading the leftist script to me.  Now feel free to show me ANY point at which I have EVER cited the Pope on anything, much less "chirped it as gospel".  For that matter, show me any point where I have ever made an argument on abortion based on religion.

G'head.  Show us all how you're not talking out of your ass like I keep saying you are.  This is your big chance to prove you're not just a particularly rancid taco fart.

Impress me.


----------



## percysunshine (Feb 1, 2014)

Moonglow said:


> The real problem is not enough people insured but no negotiations on price controls on drugs in the USA. Charging thousands of dollars for drugs sold in other countries for hundreds, but it shows you the power of the medical industry lobby in our federal govt..



Did you just charge the Obama administration with fascism?

Hooo...ahhh


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 1, 2014)

Moonglow said:


> The real problem is not enough people insured but no negotiations on price controls on drugs in the USA. Charging thousands of dollars for drugs sold in other countries for hundreds, but it shows you the power of the medical industry lobby in our federal govt..



Mostly, it shows you the power and common sense of the free market.  Those drugs aren't sold for those prices in other countries because that's their "real worth".  They're sold at virtually no profit - or even at a loss - because the governments of those countries mandate those prices, which consequently forces pharmaceutical companies to make up the difference in nations where there's some semblance of a free market, most notably the United States.  If we start mandating draconian price controls as well, the pharmaceutical industry will just fold up, and the entire world will be left in poorer health for it.

You can only demand that someone give you something for nothing for so long until he says, "Fuck you" and leaves you with nothing at all.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 1, 2014)

dblack said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Lefties think they can change human nature and the rules the world exists by simply through wishing really hard.  They are eternally shocked when human beings look at the asinine systems the left sets up, figures out the best way to exploit it, and does so, instead of magically metamorphosing into the ideal, altruistic communists the left thinks is the true natural state of humanity.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 1, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Your inability for empathy or compassion is YOUR sense of what a person should be, and anyone who really does have empathy or compassion must be a liar. It allows you to believe you are not scum. But you ARE.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 1, 2014)

dblack said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



You have woeful ignorance of the history of this nation...

Pinkerton National Detective Agency, usually shortened to the Pinkertons, is a private security guard and detective agency established in the United States by Allan Pinkerton in 1850.

During the labor unrest of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, businessmen hired the Pinkerton Agency to infiltrate unions, supply guards, keep strikers and suspected unionists out of factories, as well as recruiting goon squads to intimidate workers. One such confrontation was the Homestead Strike of 1892, in which Pinkerton agents were called in to reinforce the strikebreaking measures of industrialist Henry Clay Frick, acting on behalf of Andrew Carnegie. The ensuing battle between Pinkerton agents and striking workers led to the deaths of seven Pinkerton agents and nine steelworkers. The Pinkertons were also used as guards in coal, iron, and lumber disputes in Illinois, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia as well as the Great Railroad Strike of 1877 and the Battle of Blair Mountain in 1921. The organization was pejoratively called the "Pinks" by its opponents.


----------



## dblack (Feb 1, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Oh good grief. Are you being deliberately specious? The insurance industry isn't using the Pinkerton's to force us to buy insurance. It's using the fucking IRS.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 1, 2014)

dblack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Hey Einstein, who and what ended the use of private police forces by corporations?

Here is your words for the day...

Gilded Age

Progressive movement


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 1, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Empathy isn't defined as feeling sorry for people, or viewing them as helpless victims.  That's called "pity", and is singularly useless to those pitied.

You're not a liar because you think you're compassionate and morally superior.  THAT just makes you delusional.  You're a liar because you spout lies as though they were truth.

Seriously, jackwagon, buy a dictionary.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 1, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
John Kenneth Galbraith

Exhibit A, Cecilie the modern day Pharisee.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 1, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Ooh, look, you can quote other dumbasses.  But they're FAMOUS dumbasses, so that must make them right!

Typical leftist.  You bore me.


----------



## dblack (Feb 1, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



So the fuck what?

Did you get the point I was making earlier? Or did it just bounce off? Don't you realize that every time you inject government into private business decisions, you're creating more corporate/state collusion? It's a two-way street. Your ideas are making the very problems you're trying to solve worse, not better.


----------



## Tresha91203 (Feb 1, 2014)

There are things that are fine to do at a state level that are not fine at a federal level. There is a reason most things are left to the states. Something can be both fabulous for Iowa and disasterous if expanded to the nation. 



Richard-H said:


> [Rights are contrivances conjured up by politicians seeking to flim flam enough voters into voting for them. The right to kill your baby because you don't remember which one of the many males you copulated with impregnated you. The right to insert your male appendage into your male neighbors rectum is another contrived right, as is your supposed right to have an equivalent income to the physician across town who spent 23 years learning his profession while you only spent twelve and failed to learn how to read and write in the process while you were at it also as is the right to a flat screen TV, an Romneyphone, a $300 pair of sneakers endorsed by the latest athlete thug and murderer.]
> 
> "Wayne Allyn Root wrote: There are 2 major political parties in America. Im a member of the naïve, stupid, and cowardly one. Im a Republican. How stupid is the GOP? They still dont get it. I told them 5 years ago, 2 books ago, a national bestseller ago (The Ultimate Romney Survival Guide), and in hundreds of articles and commentaries, that Romneycare was never meant to help America, or heal the sick, or lower healthcare costs, or lower the debt, or expand the economy.
> 
> ...


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 1, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
> John Kenneth Galbraith
> 
> Exhibit A, Cecilie the modern day Pharisee.



Which is more selfish... to want what you have rightfully earned?  Or to demand what others have rightfully earned?

Leftists are the embodiment of selfishness and greedy.

I want stuff that other people have worked for, but I don't want to work for it myself.

I can't think of a more greed based, selfish based belief system.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 1, 2014)

dblack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



And your answer is to ignore corporations and maybe they will go away...BRILLIANT!

Here are some words of wisdom from my favorite President.

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 1, 2014)

Androw said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
> ...



No liberal has ever supported lazy people sitting on their asses collecting public funds. But you right wing scum believe that the only way people can learn to be a money hungry scum bag like you is to be punished.

There are millions of Americans who work hard every day, play by the rules, but still have problems making ends meet, or feeding their family. I would much rather have some of my tax dollars go to them rather than it supporting Wall Street mugsters, corporations who swindle We, the People, polluters who destroy the commons and our environment, or the military/industrial murder machine.

You right wing scum WORSHIP those plutocrats and mass murderers. There is more honesty, ethics, morals and decency around the kitchen table of a poor family than around any corporate board room table.


The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain.
Thomas Jefferson - Letter to Larkin Smith (1809)


----------



## dblack (Feb 2, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


Yep, it is actually. Maybe someday you will realize that.  In the meantime,  go on feeding the monster. But at least pay attention to how it works out.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 2, 2014)

dblack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I am old enough to remember how 'it worked out' before the EPA, the Clean Air Act, the NHTSA, OSHA and consumer protection initiatives. 

Educate yourself on General Motors campaign of harassment and intimidation against Ralph Nader, and how GM President James Roche was forced to appear before a United States Senate subcommittee, and to apologize to Nader. And how Nader successfully sued GM for excessive invasion of privacy.

Oh YEA, they will just 'go away'...really DUMB dblack...


----------



## dblack (Feb 2, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Yeah. I don't really expect to convince you, or alter our trajectory much. I suspect we'll keep heading in the same direction until corporate America and and government are indistinguishable.


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 2, 2014)

Avatar4321 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > We the people decide what will or will not be a right when we decide what kind of society, or country, we're going to be.
> ...



The U.S. Constitution is not a "divine gift".  It is a formal agreement between amongst its people.  One of those agreements is that the government has an obligation, both legally, and morally to provide for the welfare of the people.  Without such an agreement, a free people cannot long survive.


----------



## BobPlumb (Feb 2, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



The government is suppose to provide for my welfare?  And all this time I've been taking on that responsibility myself, how foolish of me!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 2, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



I'm sure that's all very nice, but our rights don't belong to us from the US Constitution.


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 2, 2014)

BobPlumb said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Any questions?


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 2, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



Really? Because as I recall from history, we didn't have many of those rights until we decided to give it to ourselves via this legally binding agreement. You seem to think our rights somehow appeared out of thin air. Reality doesn't work that way.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 2, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Yes.  What the hell does that have to do with the topic?


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 2, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > BobPlumb said:
> ...



 I'm sorry. I thought the topic was "*Why have people come to believe health care is a "right" when it actually isn't?"*

 Did I miss something?


----------



## BobPlumb (Feb 2, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



"Promote" = "Provide"?


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 2, 2014)

BobPlumb said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > BobPlumb said:
> ...



"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482 

"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29 

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

"The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:465


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 2, 2014)

BobPlumb said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > BobPlumb said:
> ...


 
 I stand corrected.  The word I meant to use was "promote".


----------



## BobPlumb (Feb 2, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

John F. Kennedy


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 2, 2014)

BobPlumb said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > BobPlumb said:
> ...



What did JFK mean when he spoke those words?

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
President John F. Kennedy

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy


----------



## hunarcy (Feb 2, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Where does it say the government is supposed to PROVIDE the general Welfare?  I just see "promote", which means that in the end, we're supposed to provide it for ourselves.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 2, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You confuse having rights with having them respected.  People with Leftist Derangement Syndrome often make this mistake.

Even those who actually wrote the Constitution will tell you that we didn't "give them to ourselves" by that document, but merely restrained the government from infringing on rights which we already had.

Read, and contemplate.

http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/history/natural-rights.html


----------

