# Health Care Is A Right Not a Privilege!



## merrill (Feb 1, 2012)

Health Care Is A Right Not a Privilege!

Let's be clear. Our health care system is disintegrating. Today, 46 million people have no health insurance and even more are underinsured with high deductibles and co-payments. At a time when 60 million people, including many with insurance, do not have access to a medical home, more than 18,000 Americans die every year from preventable illnesses because they do not get to the doctor when they should. This is six times the number who died at the tragedy of 9/11 - but this occurs every year.

In the midst of this horrendous lack of coverage, the U.S. spends far more per capita on health care than any other nation - and health care costs continue to soar. At $2.4 trillion dollars, and 18 percent of our GDP, the skyrocketing cost of health care in this country is unsustainable both from a personal and macro-economic perspective. 

Sen. Bernie Sanders: Health Care Is a Right, Not a Privilege


----------



## Meister (Feb 1, 2012)

merrill said:


> Health Care Is A Right Not a Privilege!
> 
> Let's be clear. Our health care system is disintegrating. Today, 46 million people have no health insurance and even more are underinsured with high deductibles and co-payments. At a time when 60 million people, including many with insurance, do not have access to a medical home, more than 18,000 Americans die every year from preventable illnesses because they do not get to the doctor when they should. This is six times the number who died at the tragedy of 9/11 - but this occurs every year.
> 
> ...



I'm willing to guess that 46 million also includes the illegals that reside in this country.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 1, 2012)

merrill said:


> Health Care Is A Right Not a Privilege!
> 
> Let's be clear. Our health care system is disintegrating. Today, 46 million people have no health insurance and even more are underinsured with high deductibles and co-payments. At a time when 60 million people, including many with insurance, do not have access to a medical home, more than 18,000 Americans die every year from preventable illnesses because they do not get to the doctor when they should. This is six times the number who died at the tragedy of 9/11 - but this occurs every year.
> 
> ...





Agreed, healthcare is a right.....that you can pay for if you want it.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 1, 2012)

Meister said:


> merrill said:
> 
> 
> > Health Care Is A Right Not a Privilege!
> ...




I would be willing to lay down good money.... that says you are right.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 1, 2012)

merrill said:


> Health Care Is A Right Not a Privilege!
> 
> Let's be clear. Our health care system is disintegrating. Today, 46 million people have no health insurance and even more are underinsured with high deductibles and co-payments. At a time when 60 million people, including many with insurance, do not have access to a medical home, more than 18,000 Americans die every year from preventable illnesses because they do not get to the doctor when they should. This is six times the number who died at the tragedy of 9/11 - but this occurs every year.
> 
> ...



It is only a right in the sense that one can not be denied treatment it is NOT a right that the Federal Government can force us to buy insurance.


----------



## eots (Feb 1, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpchEdtS0e4&feature=g-vrec&context=G2a42b8dRVAAAAAAAABQ]Ron Paul Heroically Stands Up to Chris Matthews - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Leweman (Feb 1, 2012)

If being born isn't a right ... how is being taken care of a right?


----------



## Cuyo (Feb 1, 2012)

syrenn said:


> merrill said:
> 
> 
> > Health Care Is A Right Not a Privilege!
> ...



I just commented in another thread that I hate when the debate is framed as "Right v privelige," but let me play devils advocate here.

When Bill shatters his leg and doesn't have insurance and will die without care... Let him die?


----------



## syrenn (Feb 1, 2012)

Cuyo said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > merrill said:
> ...




There is no emergency room that will deny service to urgent situations.  

That being said.... emergency rooms need to refuse anything that is not an emergency.


----------



## Cuyo (Feb 1, 2012)

syrenn said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



I know that's the way it is now, and it's a big part of why it's so broken.  Everyone loves to exercise that Truine brain and shout about how everyone should have to pay, but nobody's willing to let Bill die if he can't pay.

I think a mandate for most is a pretty damn good common ground... But at least partially because I'm not hearing a lot of alternatives from those who so hate the concept.


----------



## PredFan (Feb 1, 2012)

merrill said:


> Health Care Is A Right Not a Privilege!
> 
> Let's be clear. Our health care system is disintegrating. Today, 46 million people have no health insurance and even more are underinsured with high deductibles and co-payments. At a time when 60 million people, including many with insurance, do not have access to a medical home, more than 18,000 Americans die every year from preventable illnesses because they do not get to the doctor when they should. This is six times the number who died at the tragedy of 9/11 - but this occurs every year.
> 
> ...



The title of the piece is about helathcare being a right but the piece itself does nothing to prove that. It talks about how "bad" things are but that doesn't equal a right.

Healthcare is not a right. Spomeone has to provide that service, that person has spent a portion of his or her life getting the knowledge to provide that service. What you have tyhe nerve to claim is that you have a right to a portion of my life. You don't.


----------



## PredFan (Feb 1, 2012)

Cuyo said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > merrill said:
> ...



Wghen Bill shatters his leg, he goes to the ER. Then he is admitted into the hospital. If he can't pay, the hospital eats the cost. Bill is never thrown out on his ass.


----------



## Cuyo (Feb 1, 2012)

PredFan said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



As I stated two posts up, yes, that's the way it is, and _that's _the problem...


----------



## syrenn (Feb 1, 2012)

Cuyo said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...





I hate to tell you..... i have no issues ,zero, none......with letting people die.


----------



## Cuyo (Feb 1, 2012)

syrenn said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Hell, at least you're principled.  But I think you'll find you're in a minority even among your own.

All I hear is a lot of wanting healthcare costs to go down, without denying vital services, and without government intervention.  It's like saying "I want you to cut my grass, but only if you also give me a handjob."

While I don't agree with your position, at least it makes sense.


----------



## mskafka (Feb 1, 2012)

syrenn said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



The only problem with that, is that it's difficult to tell, just by looking at someone, whether or not they are an emergent patient.  That being said, some have figured out the system.  They know the magic words: "chest pain, breathing difficulty, etc..", and know how to get back to see a doctor.  Even if all they want is their lortabs refilled.


----------



## mskafka (Feb 1, 2012)

I have had patients start off as "injury from a fall" and after being placed on a long spine board with a history of congestive heart failure (had a very strict medical director who wanted EVERY trauma boarded) who eventually ended up with flash pulmonary edema, and intubated.  (breathing tube placed in trachea, and ventilated with a ventilator.)

She started with a little back pain, and ended up in ICU.  You just never know.  The elderly are VERY unpredictable.


----------



## Stephanie (Feb 1, 2012)

merrill said:


> Health Care Is A Right Not a Privilege!
> 
> Let's be clear. Our health care system is disintegrating. Today, 46 million people have no health insurance and even more are underinsured with high deductibles and co-payments. At a time when 60 million people, including many with insurance, do not have access to a medical home, more than 18,000 Americans die every year from preventable illnesses because they do not get to the doctor when they should. This is six times the number who died at the tragedy of 9/11 - but this occurs every year.
> 
> ...



well then, I think it only RIGHT I ask you to pay for my health care...


----------



## syrenn (Feb 1, 2012)

Cuyo said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...




I know i am in the minority.....i am also realistic and truthful. 

I really don't give a shit if your baby is not going to live another extra year without the 10 million dollar surgery. Say good by now instead of later and  don't waste the money. 

I really don't care if your 99 year old mother needs a heart transplant.... she wont live much longer anyway. Say good by now and not later. Don't waste the money OR organ. 

I don't care if you cant get your dick up and you WANT Viagra... tough shit... you wont die not having sex. 

I could care less if you want a sex change.... you wont die without one. 

You got shot gang banging...though. I don't care if you bleed out on a gurney.... you can wait till everyone else in the ER is taken care of.

The only way to make universal health care work is to put limits on what services you CAN have. 


So ...back to broken leg man.... ya patch him up. You put a plaster cast on him... not a high tech fiberglass one.  I don't care if you want rehab or psychical therapy...if you want it pay for it. I don't care if turns out is ugly... if you want a plastic surgeon to fix you... pay for it.


----------



## zzzz (Feb 1, 2012)

syrenn said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



So if you suddenly find yourself out of job because of some Chinese takeover, have your health coverage discontinued and you get acute appendicitis, you deserve to die because you have no insurance? That is essentially what you are saying. Not all the people without insurance are at fault. Some do milk the system but a lot of people have no recourse.

The healthcare industry is a for profit industry and to that end each level tries to maximize that profit. The doctor, the pharmacists, the hospitals, the nursing homes, the equipment suppliers, the drug companies and all the middle men. That is the way it is set up. It is not set up to provide affordable care but to make a profit and as much as they can.


----------



## Cuyo (Feb 1, 2012)

zzzz said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



All good points, and another crucial part of the debate.  Say your HMO buried in line 19 of page 40 of rider 3 in your policy that lymphoma isn't covered if you own a diabetic hamster... Then lo and behold, lymphoma... Diabetic hamster... figures. 

I know that's an extraneous scenario but this sort of thing does happen.  You may think you have great insurance for years, until 'The big one' happens... Suddenly some stipulation precludes you from receiving payment.  

But do we want THE GUBMINT to tell insurance companies what they CAN and CANNOT do???  What is this, Nazi Germany? I mean, won't the free market handle this sort of thing? Can't you just take it as a lesson learned and not use that insurance company anymore?

Universal single payer and laissez faire free-market are not the only two options, just as Smart Cars and Hummers are not your only two options.  Obamacare is a middle ground that for decades prior, we were not pursuing.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Feb 1, 2012)

merrill said:


> Health Care Is A Right Not a Privilege!
> 
> Let's be clear. Our health care system is disintegrating. Today, 46 million people have no health insurance and even more are underinsured with high deductibles and co-payments. At a time when 60 million people, including many with insurance, do not have access to a medical home, more than 18,000 Americans die every year from preventable illnesses because they do not get to the doctor when they should. This is six times the number who died at the tragedy of 9/11 - but this occurs every year.
> 
> ...



You don't have a right to someone else's labor.  End of story.

Oh, and Bernie Sanders is an admitted Socialist.


----------



## mskafka (Feb 1, 2012)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> merrill said:
> 
> 
> > Health Care Is A Right Not a Privilege!
> ...



That is true.  Bernie Sanders is a Socialist.  But if it came down to it....rather than watch someone die....I would help them.


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 1, 2012)

With rights come responsibilities.  Those who insist on universal healthcare must be willing to submit to healthy lifestyles.  The only logical penalty is withholding medical services from those who refuse to be healthy.


----------



## Oldstyle (Feb 1, 2012)

zzzz said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



If you've got acute appendicitus you go to any ER in the country and they admit you immediately and treat your condition.  THEY HAVE TO BY LAW!!!  You folks are astoundingly uneducated on this issue.

Our health care system needed reforms to make it more affordable...what we got was ObamaCare which ignored tort reform (gee, guess who the trial lawyers gave millions to?) and doesn't address the costs of illegals getting their health care through our ER's.  So now my health care premiums have gone up because the insurance companies are raising their rates now before they're not allowed to next year.  As with most things progressives touch...this has been a cluster you know what from the word go.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Feb 1, 2012)

merrill said:


> Health Care Is A Right Not a Privilege!
> 
> Let's be clear. Our health care system is disintegrating. Today, 46 million people have no health insurance and even more are underinsured with high deductibles and co-payments. At a time when 60 million people, including many with insurance, do not have access to a medical home, more than 18,000 Americans die every year from preventable illnesses because they do not get to the doctor when they should. This is six times the number who died at the tragedy of 9/11 - but this occurs every year.
> 
> ...



Ya know what would really help with that number?

Telling people that don't make enough to afford a kid to stop fucking.  Stop lying to them by telling them it's ok if you use birth control.  The bullshit that they are 99% effective is an out and out lie.


----------



## Cuyo (Feb 2, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> zzzz said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Maybe your preconceived notion of what 'us folks' believe is just off-kilter.  You don't seem to be listening at all.  I'm not aware of anyone who doesn't know that the ER will give service to non-paying customers... THAT'S the problem!  Who pays for it? Answer: Paying customers via higher medical costs, ergo higher premiums!



			
				Oldstyle said:
			
		

> Our health care system needed reforms to make it more affordable...what we got was ObamaCare which ignored tort reform (gee, guess who the trial lawyers gave millions to?) and doesn't address the costs of illegals getting their health care through our ER's.  So now my health care premiums have gone up because the insurance companies are raising their rates now before they're not allowed to next year.  As with most things progressives touch...this has been a cluster you know what from the word go.



Tort reform is a fart in the wind next to the systemic problems with the system, and this has been shown repeatedly.  The right to sue is a consumer protection, and why should bureaucrats be able to determine in a blanket fashion how much someone's life is worth?


----------



## Full-Auto (Feb 2, 2012)

Cuyo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > zzzz said:
> ...



Thats part of it, but we use the justice system as a judicial lottery. So its not just a fart.


----------



## Oldstyle (Feb 2, 2012)

Cuyo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > zzzz said:
> ...



Yeah, that was the story the trial lawyers were spinning.  It's estimated that defensive practices by doctors adds 1.4 billion dollars to the cost of health care every year...costs that we pick up.  So why WASN'T tort reform included in the health care reform act?  Because the Democrats got paid off by the trial lawyers to the tune of 234 million dollars in the 2008 election cycle...that's why.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 2, 2012)

Cuyo said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



I know that seems like the practical fix to many, but it is not. It is far too slippery slope and frankly probably wouldn't do that well in actually making people healthier either. That the federal government can make you purchase something from another private party is a precedent that has never existed before. It begs some big picture questions such as how free are you really if your government can make you spend your money? What _can't_ they make you purchase?

This is an analogy that a lot of people have a hard time swallowing, but I believe would be the best way to handle health care. You treat health care like you treat your car as far as their costs. Believe me there is far more in common between the two than not. The only major difference is the level of which people priortize the two, but even that isn't too different for a lot of people. In fact, short of life or death situation there are probably a lot of people that take more care of their cars than they do themselves.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 2, 2012)

Cuyo said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > merrill said:
> ...



I will never understand why the same people who shrug at the idea of killing millions of babies simply because their existence is inconvenient or at the suggestion of euthanizing the sick and elderly for the same reason somehow consider prolonging the existence of everyone else under all circumstances and at all costs the sacred, ultimate calling of people who don't even know the person.

God forbid we just stop deliberately offing people and let everyone else tend to themselves.  Not like that's both more sensible and more possible.


----------



## PredFan (Feb 2, 2012)

Cuyo said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



It is not THE problem and your summation that the individual mandate is good common ground is completely wrong.


----------



## PredFan (Feb 2, 2012)

zzzz said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



Not true in all cases. Many hospitals are non-profit or not-for-profit. Mine is non-profit.


----------



## PredFan (Feb 2, 2012)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> merrill said:
> 
> 
> > Health Care Is A Right Not a Privilege!
> ...



This is it right here. You can tell me thousands of stories about poor unfortunates, but it comes down to the FACT that no one has the right to a portion of anyone's life, and that is exactly what they are trying to lay claim to.


----------



## Fearandloathing (Feb 2, 2012)

Around 150 years ago K to 12 education became not only a right, but mandatory in most states.

We accept that today.  Taxes pay for 85% of it, allowing for private schools.

So, how can you have education mandatory, a right, and not something as essential as health care.

The right not to have it is one thing, but then what do you do about those who chose not to and then get their heads splattered open in a skiing accident?  Is anyone hard enough to simply let him die?


----------



## Meister (Feb 2, 2012)

Fearandloathing said:


> Around 150 years ago K to 12 education became not only a right, but mandatory in most states.
> 
> We accept that today.  Taxes pay for 85% of it, allowing for private schools.
> 
> ...



oh brother...not another skiing accident.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 2, 2012)

Fearandloathing said:


> Around 150 years ago K to 12 education became not only a right, but mandatory in most states.
> 
> We accept that today.  Taxes pay for 85% of it, allowing for private schools.
> 
> ...




no one is saying it is not your right to have healthcare no one is denying you healthcare.... 

it is your right however,  to pay for healthcare if you want healthcare. 


and to answer your question.... i have no issues with letting people die.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 2, 2012)

Meister said:


> Fearandloathing said:
> 
> 
> > Around 150 years ago K to 12 education became not only a right, but mandatory in most states.
> ...




I guess this falls under the saying.... shit happens and then you die.


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 2, 2012)

Fearandloathing said:


> Around 150 years ago K to 12 education became not only a right, but mandatory in most states.
> 
> We accept that today.  Taxes pay for 85% of it, allowing for private schools.
> 
> ...



Why does your country's healthcare only provide full benefits if its in country?  Education is not a right in the US, its a priviledge.  You can also opt out in public education.  I'm guessing you got to what, seventh grade?


----------



## AmericanFirst (Feb 2, 2012)

merrill said:


> Health Care Is A Right Not a Privilege!
> 
> Let's be clear. Our health care system is disintegrating. Today, 46 million people have no health insurance and even more are underinsured with high deductibles and co-payments. At a time when 60 million people, including many with insurance, do not have access to a medical home, more than 18,000 Americans die every year from preventable illnesses because they do not get to the doctor when they should. This is six times the number who died at the tragedy of 9/11 - but this occurs every year.
> 
> ...


Health care is *NOT* a right, that is a big libtard* LIE!!!*


----------



## Listening (Feb 2, 2012)

merrill said:


> Health Care Is A Right Not a Privilege!
> 
> Let's be clear. Our health care system is disintegrating. Today, 46 million people have no health insurance and even more are underinsured with high deductibles and co-payments. At a time when 60 million people, including many with insurance, do not have access to a medical home, more than 18,000 Americans die every year from preventable illnesses because they do not get to the doctor when they should. This is six times the number who died at the tragedy of 9/11 - but this occurs every year.
> 
> ...



Pure unsupportable garbage.

Something is a right if it is granted under the authority of the governing body.

All you've done ehre is whine about why you think the government should take over the health care system.

It is sloppy and ignorant to use this kind of argument in support of a right.


----------



## Listening (Feb 2, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Fearandloathing said:
> 
> 
> > Around 150 years ago K to 12 education became not only a right, but mandatory in most states.
> ...



You would think food would be a right before health care.

Liberals: constant proof the evolution works in reverse.


----------



## Meister (Feb 2, 2012)

Listening said:


> merrill said:
> 
> 
> > Health Care Is A Right Not a Privilege!
> ...



Not if you're a socialist.


----------



## Listening (Feb 2, 2012)

Fearandloathing said:


> The right not to have it is one thing, but then what do you do about those who chose not to and then get their heads splattered open in a skiing accident?  Is anyone hard enough to simply let him die?



Yes.

And the issue will soon become that when you can't afford or won't buy health insurance, the government won't let you ski.

If you take risks, you eat the consequences.


----------



## Listening (Feb 2, 2012)

mskafka said:


> That is true.  Bernie Sanders is a Socialist.  But if it came down to it....rather than watch someone die....I would help them.



I would guess all your extra cash is going to charity then.

Right ?


----------



## Listening (Feb 2, 2012)

Good job gang.

You flattened this one before it got started !

Morons.......clean underwear is a right !


----------



## Meister (Feb 2, 2012)

mskafka said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > merrill said:
> ...



That is called charity when an individual steps forward with help.  Nobody is against that.


----------



## mskafka (Feb 2, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Just make sure that you know what it is that you're asking for.  I've seen doctors kill more than a FEW patients.


----------



## mskafka (Feb 2, 2012)

Meister said:


> mskafka said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...


 
Yes, but I have to have a doctor's orders.  And if the doctor is a psychopath (like some of the people on this thread; not you) then there's only so much that I can do.


----------



## mskafka (Feb 2, 2012)

> I would guess all your extra cash is going to charity then.
> 
> Right ?



No..."moron" (the only derogatory term you know, other than talking about your own underwear you wear inside-out starting on Wednesdays), it goes for my Copaxone injections ($3600/month-$80 because I have insurance) that I have to take daily-for multiple sclerosis, which I was diagnosed with last month.  And for the sackful of medications that I have to otherwise take, at 36, to keep my disease from relapsing.  I work full time with this horrible disease that slowly eats away at its patients.  

My vision comes and goes.  A month ago, I couldn't walk without a cane.  And ,yeah, I still take time to do charity work.  So you can keep your anoxic brain thoughts to yourself, if you're going to judge me, before you even know who the hell I am.  

Some of you people are absolutely repulsive.  ALL the hell it will take, is one little spill off that motorcycle, ATV, or any major traumatic injury.  And even if you DO have health insurance (which I'm assuming that most of you are smart enough to have, otherwise you wouldn't call everyone else morons....and due to your complacency) most insurances, once your bill reaches $1million,  you're OUT!  Shit out of luck, and jolly-well fucked.  So think about that the next time you want to run up a ramp on a dirt bike.  If you don't have millions saved for your trauma surgery, weeks in the trauma or neuro icu, and then MONTHS in rehabilitation, which will easily equal $1 million.  My advice to you is to show some humility.  Or it may be YOU, who is shown the door.    






Listening said:


> Good job gang.
> 
> You flattened this one before it got started !
> 
> Morons.......clean underwear is a right !



Clean underwear? Doubt you have much personal experience with that, judging from your posts, and how they stink on this subject.

"Morons", eh?  Don't be so hard on yourself.  You have to love yourself before others will love you.


----------



## mskafka (Feb 2, 2012)

I'm growing my hair out for "Locks of Love", regularly buy "The Contributor" (homeless newspaper in my city),  trying to help specialists understand my disease better, regularly give money to the homeless.  Do I go on TV or announce it to the newspaper?  NO!  Why?  Because the amount I contribute, is miniscule and unimportant.  

For a year, I paid my mother's rent, and most of her bills.....LAST YEAR, as a matter of fact.  So, yeah....most of my money has gone to charity.  Your arrogance...jeez...I have to stop before I have to work overtime for veneers from grinding my teeth.  Presumptuous creep.


----------



## dblack (Feb 2, 2012)

Cuyo said:


> I just commented in another thread that I hate when the debate is framed as "Right v privelige," but let me play devils advocate here.
> 
> When Bill shatters his leg and doesn't have insurance and will die without care... Let him die?



Not if I had anything to do with it. I assume you feel likewise. I think most people would agree.

You know, I'll tell you what I hate. I hate simplistic dichotomies that present us with a false choice; here the idea that if the government isn't taking care of us, we'll die in an alley or something.





mskafka said:


> That is true.  Bernie Sanders is a Socialist.  But if it came down to it....rather than watch someone die....I would help them.



So would I. So would most people. So would pretty much all doctors. So why do we need a friggin mandate?


----------



## dblack (Feb 2, 2012)

Listening said:


> You would think food would be a right before health care.



Well, I think most of the people who think health care is a right would agree that food is as well. That's really where all this is headed, and we need to address it. _*Is being taken care of a right?*_


----------



## Cuyo (Feb 2, 2012)

dblack said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > I just commented in another thread that I hate when the debate is framed as "Right v privelige," but let me play devils advocate here.
> ...



Nice try, but I ain't that guy.  I'm making a valid point.  A lot of the enlarged basal ganglias running around here just* love *to spout off about how everyone needs to pay for the services, but ignore the fact that unless you're actually going to deny them services, you've solved nothing.  Medical costs will rise, and premiums will rise in kind, end of story.

Single payer is probably the best for 'Most' people within a system, but I stand by my assertion that an individual mandate is a good common ground.

Interesting how virtually everyone who so hates the concept are all people who claim not to be affected by it (Eg, already have insurance anyways).


----------



## mskafka (Feb 2, 2012)

It will take a lot of these people having to experience for themself a serious illness with HUGE hospital and medication bills, to fully feel the sting of the costs of healthcare.  

I'm still trying to get over the: " I don't care if a baby dies", post.  Have you ever watched a BABY TAKE ITS LAST BREATH?  Have you ever walked into a house and found a  woman's husband of 50 years stiff, and had to tell her that there's nothing you can do?  

If you aren't in healthcare already (and I pray to God you aren't), it would do you some good to shadow a nurse and a physician for a few shifts.


----------



## dblack (Feb 2, 2012)

Cuyo said:


> Nice try, but I ain't that guy.  I'm making a valid point.  A lot of the enlarged basal ganglias running around here just* love *to spout off about how everyone needs to pay for the services, but ignore the fact that unless you're actually going to deny them services, you've solved nothing.  Medical costs will rise, and premiums will rise in kind, end of story.
> 
> Single payer is probably the best for 'Most' people within a system, but I stand by my assertion that an individual mandate is a good common ground.



I'm still waiting for compelling stats showing that unpaid care is a major source of health care inflation. I haven't seen it yet. What I've seen is that most uninsured people do pay their bills, even if they don't have all of it up front. EMTALA only requires immediate emergency care, not long term life-sustaining services.

It's not lack of insurance that's making prices go up. If anything, it's the opposite. It's our national habit of over-insuring that's driving health care inflation. There is virtually no downward price pressure from health care consumer who are 'covered' by standard group plans. In fact, they have exactly the opposite incentive. Once their deductible is met, it's entirely in their interests to seek the best, and the most expensive care they can arrange.

That's what makes the mandate doubly damning. Not only is a blatant abuse of the consumers right to refuse to purchase products they don't want, it's actually doubling down a health care financing strategy that's a proven failure.



> Interesting how virtually everyone who so hates the concept are all people who claim not to be affected by it (Eg, already have insurance anyways).



I'm always sort of fascinated by these kinds of comments. You often hear similar disparaging remarks about people who are opposed to heavily progressive taxes - even while they themselves aren't wealthy. Have you ever considered that _some_ people don't view politics from a "what's-in-it-for-me" perspective? Some of us are genuinely worried about what kind of world these policy changes will create. What kind of legacy will we be leaving our children? What kind of debt? What will life be like under a caretaker government? Will there be any room left for people who value freedom as much as security?


----------



## theHawk (Feb 2, 2012)

merrill said:


> Health Care Is A Right Not a Privilege!
> 
> Let's be clear. Our health care system is disintegrating. Today, 46 million people have no health insurance and even more are underinsured with high deductibles and co-payments. At a time when 60 million people, including many with insurance, do not have access to a medical home, more than 18,000 Americans die every year from preventable illnesses because they do not get to the doctor when they should. This is six times the number who died at the tragedy of 9/11 - but this occurs every year.
> 
> ...



Of course health care is a right.  I'm not aware of anyone going to jail for receiving health care.

Just because you have the right to something, doesn't mean the rest of us have to pay for you.


----------



## Cuyo (Feb 2, 2012)

dblack said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Nice try, but I ain't that guy.  I'm making a valid point.  A lot of the enlarged basal ganglias running around here just* love *to spout off about how everyone needs to pay for the services, but ignore the fact that unless you're actually going to deny them services, you've solved nothing.  Medical costs will rise, and premiums will rise in kind, end of story.
> ...



What do you consider a lot of money?  Not long ago in this thread, Oldstyle complained that: It's estimated that defensive practices by doctors adds 1.4 billion dollars to the cost of health care every year...costs that we pick up.

Here's the link to the first article that came up when I googled "Unpaid hospital bills."
Up to $49 billion unpaid by uninsured for hospitalizations - USATODAY.com





> Interesting how virtually everyone who so hates the concept are all people who claim not to be affected by it (Eg, already have insurance anyways).





> I'm always sort of fascinated by these kinds of comments. You often hear similar disparaging remarks about people who are opposed to heavily progressive taxes - even while they themselves aren't wealthy. Have you ever considered that _some_ people don't view politics from a "what's-in-it-for-me" perspective? Some of us are genuinely worried about what kind of world these policy changes will create. What kind of legacy will we be leaving our children? What kind of debt? What will life be like under a caretaker government? Will there be any room left for people who value freedom as much as security?



No.  Everyone acts in their own rational self interests.  You've been trained that puffing out your chest at such proposals is the manly, or gallant, or patriotic thing to do (Example: 'If you don't like it here move to Europe!' et al).  Why some are so receptive to such training is beyond me.

And btw, you got a little dramatic at the end there.  You continue to engage me with this empathetic approach, but I'm a fan of logic.


----------



## Listening (Feb 2, 2012)

mskafka said:


> It will take a lot of these people having to experience for themself a serious illness with HUGE hospital and medication bills, to fully feel the sting of the costs of healthcare.
> 
> I'm still trying to get over the: " I don't care if a baby dies", post.  Have you ever watched a BABY TAKE ITS LAST BREATH?  Have you ever walked into a house and found a  woman's husband of 50 years stiff, and had to tell her that there's nothing you can do?
> 
> If you aren't in healthcare already (and I pray to God you aren't), it would do you some good to shadow a nurse and a physician for a few shifts.



This thread is about health care being a right...or not.

You've made no argument whatsoever that it is a right.  End of story.

Rights are universal entitlements.  And this country has never done that in the area of health care.  We fund medicare because (besides being stupid) it is a law.  But, despite Lawrence O'Donnel's claim....it is not a right.

All you've done is rant against the health care system and it's costs.  I don't see anyone disagree with you.  That is one of the reasons you have shared risk in the form of insurance.

And I blame the GOP more than I blame the dems for the mess we are in.  We have let it go to far and we have propped up the insurance industry.

Stories of what people face are heartbreaking.  But your arguments are bunk.

Just like clearn underwear isn't a right.


----------



## dblack (Feb 2, 2012)

Cuyo said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



You're confusing how much we spend with price inflation. They're not the same thing. We're a rich country, and each year we get richer. We also have a growing population. Naturally we're spend more on health care, including care for the indigent. But the real problem isn't the total amount spent, it's the fact that the prices for basic health care services are rising much faster than the general rate of inflation. THAT is the core problem with health care. And it's the problem that PPACA and the mandate totally will actually make worse. 



> No.  Everyone acts in their own rational self interests.  You've been trained that puffing out your chest at such proposals is the manly, or gallant, or patriotic thing to do (Example: 'If you don't like it here move to Europe!' et al).  Why some are so receptive to such training is beyond me.
> 
> And btw, you got a little dramatic at the end there.  You continue to engage me with this empathetic approach, but I'm a fan of logic.



Sure, yeah. I was sent to a special 'teabagger' school as a child. I got an A in 'chest puffing'. 

Seriously though, why is perplexing to you that people would argue politics on principle (even if the policies in question aren't likely to immediately affect them)? Rational self-interest doesn't have to be short sighted.


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 2, 2012)

Healthcare is a highly regulated industry.  Can't buy many types of hospital equipment or even do certain procedures regularly without a certificate of need.


----------



## Rozman (Feb 2, 2012)

No one has to buy life insurance.
People choose to buy it.
No one has to buy car insurance.
If you want to drive you buy it.
If you want health insurance,you buy it.
If you can't pay for it give up some of the things
that you can do without.


----------



## mskafka (Feb 2, 2012)

dblack said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Nice try, but I ain't that guy.  I'm making a valid point.  A lot of the enlarged basal ganglias running around here just* love *to spout off about how everyone needs to pay for the services, but ignore the fact that unless you're actually going to deny them services, you've solved nothing.  Medical costs will rise, and premiums will rise in kind, end of story.
> ...



Here is one link.  If you aren't familiar, this is our teaching hospital and Level-One trauma Center in Middle Tennessee:

Vanderbilt University Medical Center - VUMC Bears Brunt of Uncompensated Care Burden



This is in Nashville, TN alone.  Where does the money come from to cover this?  Government?  Wouldn't that mean basically....us?  Feel free to dispute me.

Pretty astounding numbers, I would say.  Disagree?


----------



## Listening (Feb 2, 2012)

Still no argument that it is a right.

Just a lot of crying about how much it costs (and with merit).

Does not make it a right.


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 2, 2012)

We have some medical people on this thread.  Enlighten some of these posters with the survival rate of heart attack victims that have the event outside of the ICU or Emergency Room.  Yet these folks will rack up huge bills living what?  Less than a week?


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 2, 2012)

Here's an idea:  Allow people to opt out of healthcare when things will most likely be terminal.  Then compute the cost of care if they had been treated and give the surviving family half.


----------



## mskafka (Feb 2, 2012)

Listening said:


> Still no argument that it is a right.
> 
> Just a lot of crying about how much it costs (and with merit).
> 
> Does not make it a right.



It seems that Vanderbilt sees it as a right.  I've witnessed it.  They don't CARE about whether or not one can pay.  When someone is bleeding to death, I don't give a rat's ass whether or not they can pay.  

If they are eating in the hundreds of millions of uncompensated care....there is a problem.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 2, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> We have some medical people on this thread.  Enlighten some of these posters with the survival rate of heart attack victims that have the event outside of the ICU or Emergency Room.  Yet these folks will rack up huge bills living what?  Less than a week?




A general hospital bed..... will run you 10K a day. 

ICU... depending one what your problem is, can run you upwards of 30+K a day.


----------



## Listening (Feb 2, 2012)

mskafka said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Still no argument that it is a right.
> ...




Vanderbilt does not carry any sway in the matter of rights.

You may find it morally wrong for someone to be homless and offer them a room in your house.  That does not mean the government needs to offer housing to everyone. 

Many ER's in AZ have closed because they can't eat the cost of caring for the illegals who never pay dime.


----------



## Listening (Feb 2, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Here's an idea:  Allow people to opt out of healthcare when things will most likely be terminal.  Then compute the cost of care if they had been treated and give the surviving family half.



Kinda like my idea of having a social security account that has your name on it with your money in it.  You are near the end and don't qualify (like my mother stage 4 lung cancer but medicare still paid for chemo....I tried to talk her out of it....it killed her quicker than the cancer)...you can dip into the principle to pay for costs or you can pass it on to your kids.


----------



## mskafka (Feb 2, 2012)

Listening said:


> mskafka said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



I'm sure that Vanderbilt is not the only reputable medical center who is having this problem.  Vanderbilt treats PLENTY of gangbangers who are shot....have seen it.  

So what do you recommend that we do.  Just let them die?  Is that what Christ would do?  SO many of you are religious on here.  Are you a Christian?


----------



## dblack (Feb 2, 2012)

mskafka said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



No disagreement with the numbers, but both of you are missing my point. I'm not questioning that it's a significant amount. What I am questioning is how it's affecting health care inflation. No doubt those costs are passed on, but it's overhead. And overhead is relatively static. It may make health care more expensive than it needs to be, but it doesn't account for continually rising prices. 

Moreover, I'm questioning how a mandate would change things. We'll still be spending just as much to care for the indigent. (actually, probably more - insurance companies take a cut as middle men). 

I see two separate questions at the heart of the health care debate. One is what we do about people who can't afford health care. And the other is what to do about runaway health care inflation. Reasonable safety nets for the poor can address the first issue. But by ignoring the inflation issue, PPACA pretty much guarantees that we'll need a safety net big enough for all of us. I suspect that's the point.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 2, 2012)

mskafka said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > mskafka said:
> ...



Kindly show us anywhere that Christ talked about "charity by government".  Thanks.


----------



## Listening (Feb 2, 2012)

mskafka said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > mskafka said:
> ...



A. That is none of your business.

B. It has nothing to do with rights.

AZ has emergency rooms that are closing because of illegals.  That cuts out the legitimates from access to an ER.

Next, in Phoenix, the Mayo told Medicare patients to bring their checkbooks.  No longer taking medicare for routine visits......This is the same Mayo that Obama held up as the cost model he wanted to follow (and it is a good cost model).  That tells you how underfunded things are and Phoenix seniors are feeling it.

In the end, Health Care is not a right.  We don't want government in our health care.  That some don't have it and need it is addressed in other ways.  The government is not the only solution and in fact it is a pretty stupid solution.


----------



## mskafka (Feb 2, 2012)

dblack said:


> mskafka said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...




Good post, my man.  You're making me think.  You have a brain, and a heart....a rare combination.  I wish that I knew the answer.  Clearly, a single-payer system is not popular in the US.  I understand this.  So if this is such a bad idea....and Obamacare is such a bad idea....PRESENT ANOTHER IDEA....ANYONE.  Someone with business sense, who fully understands the health insurance system,  and who isn't going to suggest that we hand a neurologist a chicken after an exam.  Let's have some real answers.

And just as a side note: most of us don't go into healthcare for the money.  I'm a paramedic.  I sure as HELL didn't go into it for the money.  But I treat everyone the same-insured, uninsured....stinky, pleasant-smelling, wealthy and poor.  And I'll tell ya-the rich of the world-the puke, piss, and shit smells just as bad as everyone else's.  I know, as I've smelled and worn both.  So let's come up with a solution, and present it to these bozos in congress.  

We have brilliant people in here.  Help come up with a solution.


----------



## Listening (Feb 2, 2012)

dblack said:


> mskafka said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



If the government can force health care on you...what is next ?

That is the point.


----------



## Cuyo (Feb 2, 2012)

dblack said:


> No disagreement with the numbers, but both of you are missing my point. I'm not questioning that it's a significant amount. What I am questioning is how it's affecting health care inflation. No doubt those costs are passed on, but it's overhead. And overhead is relatively static. It may make health care more expensive than it needs to be, but it doesn't account for continually rising prices.
> 
> Moreover, I'm questioning how a mandate would change things. We'll still be spending just as much to care for the indigent. (actually, probably more - insurance companies take a cut as middle men).
> 
> I see two separate questions at the heart of the health care debate. One is what we do about people who can't afford health care. And the other is what to do about runaway health care inflation. Reasonable safety nets for the poor can address the first issue. But by ignoring the inflation issue, PPACA pretty much guarantees that we'll need a safety net big enough for all of us. I suspect that's the point.



Just look at numbers, it's quite logical.  Leave the emotion out of it.

If there are 100 people, and 70 pay into a pool for healthcare, and 1 uses it on any given day, you have 70 people paying for that 1 guy that day.  If all 100 are paying in, his bill is divided by 100 instead of 70.

An additional, though less measurable phenomenon, is that the 30 _without _health insurance will wait until they're_ very_ sick before seeing a doctor, and will go only when their fear for their life outweighs their fear of the bill.  A $18 Z-Pack can turn into pneumonia and a week in the hospital very quickly... And again, it's those 70 guys who DO pay for him.

Inflation to some extent is going to be inevitable under any system, as new healthcare procedures become available.  Your chances of receiving a treatment or procedure increase exponentially at the moment that treatment begins to exist.   But that does not negate the logic of an individual mandate.


----------



## percysunshine (Feb 2, 2012)

merrill said:


> Health Care Is A Right Not a Privilege!
> 
> Let's be clear.....



Your healthcare is your problem. Deal with it.


----------



## Cuyo (Feb 2, 2012)

percysunshine said:


> merrill said:
> 
> 
> > Health Care Is A Right Not a Privilege!
> ...



Yeah, but no, it's not.  It's everyone's problem.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 2, 2012)

Cuyo said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > merrill said:
> ...



How is YOUR healthcare EVERYONE'S problem, unless you're Typhoid Mary?


----------



## percysunshine (Feb 2, 2012)

Cuyo said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > merrill said:
> ...



Not realy. Healthcare problems are personal issues.


----------



## Cuyo (Feb 2, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...



As described in this thread and dozens of others, genius.  YOU and ME and EVERY OTHER paying customer are subsidizing the bills of the non-paying customers.  Do try to keep up.


----------



## mskafka (Feb 2, 2012)

Listening said:


> mskafka said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...





> A. That is none of your business.


My feelings are hurt....never to be consoled.  



> B. It has nothing to do with rights.


It has everything to do with rights, if you are beating your chest that you are a Christian; for some reason, I've gotten that impression from your previous posts.  

So what is your solution, Mr. or Mrs. "it's none of your business"?  You just don't know, I suspect.  Have you had the experience of having to depend on insurance for a serious illness.  Oh my, how self-righteous we've become "moron" (your word).  


If YOU have a better idea....if you're smart enough to come up with a solution, then what the hell is stopping you?  You'd rather bitch about something that you know jack shit about.  

Ride that "hands off my healthcare" bus.  Instead of arriving at a solution, while we continue to treat you.....what's stopping you?  

I'd rather spend my time trying to find ways to avoid having to intubate you-with the likes of CPAP, managing your pain with fentanyl, learning ways to resuscitate you with the new ACLS guidelines.  Why don't you get busy finding a way to make it possible for all to receive treatment, instead of saying that you and your ilk are the only ones who deserve treatment.  

Damn, I get sick of this crap.


----------



## mskafka (Feb 2, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...



OHHHH Jesus, Joseph, and Mary!  What the hell does that mean?


----------



## percysunshine (Feb 2, 2012)

Cuyo said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



The insurance model works just fine in healthcare. It is a voluntary participation system. Individuals can choose to get a benefit by pooling with other people to account for random events.


----------



## Cuyo (Feb 2, 2012)

percysunshine said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Soooooooo... Your position is that everything's just peachy?


----------



## mskafka (Feb 2, 2012)

Cuyo said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



So, we have completely stopped the pre-existing conditions rule on insurance?  Is this in every state?


----------



## percysunshine (Feb 2, 2012)

Cuyo said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



Not with the 800 pound government gorilla in the room with us. He keeps pissing on everything and gets grumpy when reality turns out to be more complicated than the planners said it would be.


----------



## dblack (Feb 2, 2012)

Cuyo said:


> If there are 100 people, and 70 pay into a pool for healthcare, and 1 uses it on any given day, you have 70 people paying for that 1 guy that day.  If all 100 are paying in, his bill is divided by 100 instead of 70.



Ok.. you're still missing the point. A one time change in policy that lowers costs in the short term won't amount to anything meaningful if prices continue to spiral out of control. Forcing the extra 30 people into the pool might give us a little extra cash to play with for a few years, but it won't solve the problem. And, if I'm correct in assessing the most significant driver of inflation (disconnected consumers), it will actually make the problem much worse in the long run.



> Inflation to some extent is going to be inevitable under any system, as new healthcare procedures become available.  Your chances of receiving a treatment or procedure increase exponentially at the moment that treatment begins to exist.   But that does not negate the logic of an individual mandate.



Expensive new treatments wouldn't quickly become the norm if people were paying for most of their health care out-of-pocket. In most other technology-based markets, advanced products and services don't become widely available until they figure out how to make the affordable. But in health care, _*largely because of the effect of insurance coverage*_, there is very little incentive to make procedures and service less expensive. That won't change until most of us are paying for our own health care, the same way we pay for all of the other necessities of life.

And that does negate the logic of the individual mandate, because it forces on us what we actually need less of.


----------



## mskafka (Feb 2, 2012)

Cuyo said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



WHY?????? Do people not seem to get this???  I'm sick of bashing me head into the wall trying to explain this.  The heads go into the sand, and everythings fine....UNTIL...said individual gets cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, scleroderma, leukemia, or one of the other lovely chronic diseases.....and then they say "Hey, wow.  I had no idea how much this shit cost."


----------



## percysunshine (Feb 2, 2012)

The last thing we need is the government managing our healthcare. Heck, if you needed an appendectomy, would you go to the post office?

Reality check time.


----------



## Cuyo (Feb 2, 2012)

percysunshine said:


> The last thing we need is the government managing our healthcare. Heck, if you needed an appendectomy, would you go to the post office?
> 
> Reality check time.



That's a ridiculous analogy. 

I'm starting to get a sneaking suspicion that you're not serious about debating this topic.


----------



## percysunshine (Feb 2, 2012)

Cuyo said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > The last thing we need is the government managing our healthcare. Heck, if you needed an appendectomy, would you go to the post office?
> ...



All debates start with an established set of principles. I gave you mine.  We can work into heated debate from there. Healthcare is neither a right, nor is it a privelege. It is a personal responsibility. Your turn.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 2, 2012)

Cuyo said:


> As described in this thread and dozens of others, genius.  YOU and ME and EVERY OTHER paying customer are subsidizing the bills of the non-paying customers.  Do try to keep up.



And that is why obamacare is no different then what we have now. So long as the majority will not pay a red cent into the system.. the ones who will be paying will have to carry them. Same thing we have now... except the ones who will be paying in my opinion will be getting less for their money and what they had before.


----------



## percysunshine (Feb 2, 2012)

syrenn said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > As described in this thread and dozens of others, genius.  YOU and ME and EVERY OTHER paying customer are subsidizing the bills of the non-paying customers.  Do try to keep up.
> ...



Insert 'slowly boiling frog' metaphor here.


----------



## mskafka (Feb 3, 2012)

percysunshine said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



'One pill makes you larger; and one pill makes you small.  And the ones that mother gives you, don't do anything at all!  Go ask Alice.   When she's 10-feet tall!   

(large inhale)


----------



## mskafka (Feb 3, 2012)

Rozman said:


> No one has to buy life insurance.
> People choose to buy it.
> No one has to buy car insurance.
> If you want to drive you buy it.
> ...



Yah, true.  But as you know, if your car is financed, and the bank that you're financed through finds out that their car is uninsured....you'll be getting a late-night visit from a tow truck.


----------



## dblack (Feb 3, 2012)

mskafka said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> > No one has to buy life insurance.
> ...



Right. And lots of us choose to drive used cars, bought and paid for, for exactly that reason.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 3, 2012)

Cuyo said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



So basically, dipshit liberals like you have ALREADY forced your health issues onto the rest of us, so that means we should allow you to force them on us even more?

I have a better idea. Why don't you back the fuck off and take care of yourself, instead of expecting to be looked after by people who don't actually give a damn if you live or die?  I'm not interested in buying you food so you won't starve, I'm not interested in buying you clothes so you won't freeze (although I might be a little interested, if the alternative is you going out in public naked), and I'm not interested in paying for your doctor so you don't rot away from the creeping crud.  If YOU don't care enough to prevent those things happening to you, why in the hell should I?

Your health is not my problem.  Your selfish need to live off of me and others, however, very much is.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 3, 2012)

mskafka said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



You don't understand English?  His healthcare, and YOUR healthcare, mean nothing whatsoever to me and my life, unless one of you is planning to contract something contagious and run around being Patient Zero and infecting other people, rather than getting off your dead, lazy asses and taking care of your problem yourself.

And frankly, if one of you IS planning to be Typhoid Mary, my solution wouldn't be to pay for the doctor to treat you.  It would be more along the lines of paying for the bullet.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 3, 2012)

percysunshine said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Personally, I would like to have the option of health savings accounts.  My entire family is obscenely healthy by nature.  We virtually never go to the doctor except for annual checkups for the older members, and more frequent checkups for the toddler.  I would much prefer, rather than paying large premiums in each paycheck for health insurance we're mostly not going to use, just to have much smaller amounts put into an HSA, that we could then use only if and when something happens to require it.  Perhaps a very small insurance policy on the side for really catastrophic events.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 3, 2012)

mskafka said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



What makes you think I don't know how much it costs?  Why do you think I'm objecting so hard to having to pay for it for someone who isn't worth a bucket of warm spit to me?

Don't worry, I very much "get" that you dipshits have already imposed a bunch of total strangers on me, and somehow, that just doesn't add up to an argument that I should let you do so to an even greater extent.


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 3, 2012)

Ever notice how anything that promotes irresponsible actions costs everyone else a lot of money?


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 3, 2012)

What democrats want is to eliminate the rights of doctors to be paid for their services.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 3, 2012)

mskafka said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> > No one has to buy life insurance.
> ...



Yes, but that's not the government forcing you to buy something from a private company.  That's a private company, with whom you VOLUNTARILY entered into a contractual agreement, having conditions in that contract, and you being in breach of those conditions.


----------



## melonsmartin (Feb 3, 2012)

It is not insurance, which makes the lack of price increases. If so, it is the opposite. This is our national habit of over-insured, driving health care inflation. Little from the standard group plan "coverage" health care spending downward price pressure. In fact, they have exactly the opposite incentive. Once you have met their deductible, this is entirely in their interest to seek the best, most expensive care, they can be arranged.


----------



## Listening (Feb 3, 2012)

mskafka said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > mskafka said:
> ...



Do you ever get tired of making up stuff and then arguing against it ?

I know plenty and I've never said "hands off my healthcare".

What I said....listen please...was that this has nothing to do with rights.  Don't lecture people about talking on things they know nothing about as this is clearly what you are doing when you make that kind of statement.

I have said there is a problem.

But HEALTH CARE IS NOT A RIGHT.....period.

And leave my religious beliefs out of it.  It's none of your business.


----------



## dblack (Feb 3, 2012)

melonsmartin said:


> It is not insurance, which makes the lack of price increases. If so, it is the opposite. This is our national habit of over-insured, driving health care inflation. Little from the standard group plan "coverage" health care spending downward price pressure. In fact, they have exactly the opposite incentive. Once you have met their deductible, this is entirely in their interest to seek the best, most expensive care, they can be arranged.



???


----------



## Listening (Feb 3, 2012)

Health Care has never been a right.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 3, 2012)

Listening said:


> Health Care has never been a right.





It has always been a right. 


You have always had the right to pay for any and all medical care for yourself. No one is denying you the right or access to medical care.


----------



## dblack (Feb 3, 2012)

syrenn said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Health Care has never been a right.
> ...



Yeah, yeah... but you realize that the "health care is a right" crowd mean something different. They want to establish that having someone else take care of you is a right.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 3, 2012)

dblack said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...




Yes, they think health care is an _entitlement_.


----------



## frazzledgear (Feb 3, 2012)

Cuyo said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > merrill said:
> ...



WRONG WRONG WRONG.  Let's make it clear -YOU can't even identify the real problem so your opinion is pretty worthless!   Bill cannot be denied medical care for his broken leg that if left untreated would kill him and doesn't EVER need INSURANCE to get it treated or ever have the ability to pay for it to get it treated!  Your example was totally irrelevant and unrelated to the real problem.

Let's start by NOT pretending health INSURANCE is the same thing as medical CARE -much less lie and pretend it is the same as QUALITY care.  Certain people try to pretend these are all one and the same things -but they provably are NOT.   There is a DELIBERATE attempt to constantly mingle one with the other for purposes of DECEPTION.  And it is a very effective one.

In fact there is an inverse correlation in the prevalence of the former to the decline in the two others.  All Brits now have government health insurance.  But their government has started denying even curative treatment to those citizens it has decided just aren't worth the money.  In other words, even if it would cure the individual of their disease, even if it would improve the quality of their life -what matters under universal health insurance becomes the best financial interests of GOVERNMENT.  And NEVER AGAIN the best interests of the citizen himself first.  Which is why mortality rates for all sorts of common conditions like diabetes, high blood pressure, stroke, breast and prostate cancers are all rising in the UK.  They still pay for it and far more than they would if they paid it directly -but they sacrifice control and eventually the quality of their life. It becomes a system where when the average individual reaches the point in life where he finally really does NEED it the most -is when he will most likely be denied ACCESS to it.  But hey, I'm sure he will be told what a real bargain he got by over valuing the service itself, convinced paying more than 8 times as much for it as he would have voluntarily paid for it if he paid for it directly was a real bargain -because hey, when he was younger he could go see the doctor for "free" when he had a cold so the doctor could tell him it would go away on its own   -  but denied a hip replacement which would have improved the quality of his life and allowed him to live out the remainder of his life far more independently.   But was instead forced to live out the rest of his time in a wheelchair which takes years of life expectancy from someone and ended up dependent on others for that remaining time to boot.    What a bargain.   We can all only hope to experience it for ourselves so we can comfort ourselves with knowing how much we wasted on being able to see a doctor when we didn't NEED one only to be denied access to one when we did. 

By its very nature, when the best interests of the individual who still pays for it even indirectly and the best interests of government who merely collects that money conflict -it is the individual who will always lose, with government putting a dollar amount on the value of that individual's life and demanding the individual accept it.  No matter how valuable the individual himself finds his own life to be, HIS opinion becomes irrelevant when he isn't paying for it directly.  Even though he not only PAID for that government health care, he paid more than 8 times as much for it than if he had paid for his own medical care directly.   Are you too anxious to see nearly half your income disappear down the rat hole known as "government provided health care insurance" so that you too can receive a poor return on your money?  ROFL  

When people DO pay for it directly instead of handing control over to a third party, the quality of that person's life becomes PARAMOUNT.  Which is the foundation for the vast majority of our medical advancements.   Something that is not even particularly important to third party payees -including government.   Once the foundation of improving the quality of life of people and trying to return an individual to be as independent as possible regardless of their age is stripped from our medical system -so is quality of care.   The primary purpose of our medical system is NOT to save lives -because most people never see a doctor to save their life.  Its primary purpose is to treat the sick and return them to at least their previous level of health, productivity and independence and IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE even when cure is not possible.  Obama has openly said he wants to change that to a system that exists for the purpose of keeping healthy people healthy.  Something that is impossible.  Seeing a doctor when you have nothing wrong will not prevent you from getting sick.  And you won't need the specialized services of a doctor UNTIL you are sick.  Except for that teeny, minute group no doctor will be able to tell you are sick before YOU DO.  So Obama has said he wants to fundamentally change our medical system from one that exists to improve the quality of life for sick people in order to return them to a more productive life as soon as possible -to one that exists primarily for the benefit of people who don't need it at all.  Which is exactly what it becomes with universal government run health insurance.  It is certainly cheaper to treat healthy people than it is to treat sick people, isn't it?  So why not fundamentally change our medical system to one that exists for THEM instead?  

So which are you wanting to pretend is the "right" here?  That you have a "right" to the services of another person because you over-value the services they do?  The vast majority of people could go their entire lives and lead normal lives without seeing a doctor -what they use doctors for is to make their lives more COMFORTABLE.  Not because their existence is at stake.  Only a small fraction NEED medical care just to survive.  So let's not mix apples and oranges on that either.

Or do you mean to argue that you have a right to own a health care INSURANCE POLICY that will allow you to pretend your health care is free by forcing you to pay as much as 8 times more for your medical care than you would have VOLUNTARILY chosen to pay for it if you had just paid for it directly instead of paying a third party to pay your medical bills?  Which is it here?  Keep in mind insurance companies can't exist unless they get you to pay them MORE to pay your medical bills than it actually costs.  And you already have a RIGHT to own a health insurance policy if, like anything you want to buy -you can pay for it.  You are really talking about whether you have a "right" to insist everyone ELSE get one too -and THAT you have no right to demand.  Especially when it provably makes the cost of MY medical care more expensive.  So which of all these so-called rights do you REALLY think your discussing here with a stupid example like that when THAT isn't even a problem in this country????  People aren't being tossed in the road to die from their broken leg and nothing under discussion will change that -so why use an example that doesn't have a fucking thing to do with ANYTHING?  It only only tells me you are incapable of even being able to hold a rational discussion because you clearly don't even know the root source for our problems in the first place! 

In reality you already do have a right to purchase heath insurance which means you will likely pay 8 times more for medical care than you would have VOLUNTARILY chosen to pay for it if you just paid for it directly.  *What people like you REALLY mean in this debate is to claim a "right" to force everyone ELSE to spend 8 times more for THEIR medical care than they would have voluntarily chosen to spend on it too!  *  No such right.

We don't have a deteriorating medical system. * We have a deteriorating health insurance system because it is THIS industry that is the root cause of spiraling medical costs and it is causing damage to our medical system. * Not the other way around.  And yet people like you think the prescription to fix it is by not destroying the health insurance industry.  But by destroying the medical care system instead.  Oh sure -perfect sense!  If you lack any critical thinking skills, that is.  

The problem is not with the quality of your medical care in this country and it is not with access to medical care.  Did you realize that OUR medical system is responsible for more than 95% of ALL medical advancements worldwide?  Which we share with the entire globe.  NOT the Cuban, not the French, not Chinese and for sure not the UK or Canadian ones -but sure, its OURS you  see as "deteriorating" and believe it needs to be fundamentally changed to look like a proven INFERIOR one like they have in Canada or the UK????  Are you for real?  It is people like you who try to pretend owning a health insurance policy is the same as improving the quality of medical care and an "improved" medical care system and it is one of the biggest fucking LIES going around!  The source of the problem is with the cost of HEALTH INSURANCE  -which is linked to the increased costs its very existence has caused in medical services.  It is the existence of health insurance that is the root cause of the problem because the only way for health insurance companies -including government -to take in more than it pays out is by charging YOU more than you would have paid for it directly.  If you doubt that, then tell me why you think we don't have insurance for food where you can buy an insurance policy and it lets you go to the grocery whenever you want and take out as much food as you want.  Hey if you think that should work with medical services, it should work for ANYTHING you want in life.  But we don't do that because when you substitute "medical care" with ANY other goods or service -you instantly realize how fucking stupid it is to pay 8 times more for a good or service to a third party than you would VOLUNTARILY choose to pay for it if you paid for it directly.  Yes, there are such things as catastrophic medical costs -but the vast majority of us will never have them.  Are we REALLY so stupid we can't figure out a way to assist those who do come across catastrophic costs that would financially wipe them out -without wiping out ourselves at the same time?

If you NEED medical care, you can get it and the quality of that care is outstanding regardless of your ability to pay for it.  If you need to see a doctor in this country -your wait time to see one is a fraction of how long people in Canada or the UK will wait.  Which can be as long as 2 1/2 YEARS.  Which is why in the UK their mortality rates for all sorts of things like high blood pressure, stroke, diabetes, breast and prostate cancers have started rising.  When you have to wait a long time to see a doctor, what ails you will either go away on its own.  Or it gets worse and more resistant to treatment and you are more likely to end up in poorer health or even dead.  

We have a health INSURANCE problem in this country -and that problem is affecting the costs of medical care.  NOT the other way around.  The medical system is NOT the root cause of the problem -and if you can't even identify the root cause of the problem, then ANY suggestions or demands on how to fix it is FLAWED, based on incorrect assumptions and guaranteed to make it WORSE.  Health insurance guarantees you will pay at least 8 times MORE for your medical care by inserting and paying a third party to use that money to pay your bills and then pocket the rest as profit -than if you just paid for your medical care yourself.  The very existence of health insurance is THE root cause of spiraling medical costs which did not exist UNTIL the existence of health insurance coverage for routine medical care. Do you really need me to walk you through why it is inserting a MASSIVE industry in between you and the person giving you their medical services does this?  Really can't figure that out?  

I'll be glad to walk you through it  -but see if you can get through it on your own before coming back here and insisting the only possible answer to a health INSURANCE problem in this country which drives up the costs of medical care -is to destroy the single most productive and top quality medical system on the planet and replace it with one that when everything is functioning as intended (which becomes increasingly rarer) -is a mediocre one.   Our system is the BEST on the planet with no close second.  Ours is responsible for more than 95% of all medical advancements ON THE PLANET -which we then share globally.  Destroying our system because people like YOU can't figure out the true source of the problem -is sheer stupidity and one in which BILLIONS will pay the real price.  

We have a HEALTH INSURANCE problem -one that if we don't fix it, will destroy our medical system, the finest on earth.   The proper solution to this problem is NOT to pretend the source of the problem itself lies in the medical system which is struggling to overcome the problems INDUCED by the very existence of health insurance and still remain the best in the world in spite of the existence of this problem causing and destructive health insurance industry.  Unless you too have a real need to start seeing our own mortality rates for high blood pressure, diabetes, breast and prostate cancers, stroke etc. all start rising again insisting the source of the problem is the medical care system itself instead of properly identifying the real source of the problem is paramount in FIXING IT.  Since the source of the problem isn't in the medical care system itself, pretending destroying that will somehow "fix" it is really stupid.    

So this entire discussion is really about the people who are claiming they have a "right" to demand everyone pay more than 8 times more for their medical care than they would have VOLUNTARILY chosen to pay for it if they paid for it directly instead of indirectly.  NO SUCH RIGHT EXISTS.


----------



## chikenwing (Feb 3, 2012)

Leweman said:


> If being born isn't a right ... how is being taken care of a right?



Things that make you go mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


----------



## Cuyo (Feb 3, 2012)

syrenn said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > As described in this thread and dozens of others, genius.  YOU and ME and EVERY OTHER paying customer are subsidizing the bills of the non-paying customers.  Do try to keep up.
> ...



Actually, Obamacare does the opposite of what you insinuate.  There will be _more_ people paying, not less.

You're entitled to your opinions, but not your own facts.


----------



## Cuyo (Feb 3, 2012)

frazzledgear said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Long boring wall of text not read.

You should really read to the end of a thread before running your mouth.  I never said Bill was going to be denied care, and nobody thinks he is.  The point is, that unless you're willing to deny him care, spouting off that everyone needs to pay for their own is worthless.


----------



## dblack (Feb 3, 2012)

Cuyo said:


> Long boring wall of text not read.
> 
> You should really read to the end of a thread before running your mouth.  I never said Bill was going to be denied care, and nobody thinks he is.  The point is, that unless you're willing to deny him care, spouting off that everyone needs to pay for their own is worthless.



You should read the post when you have time. It makes a lot of sense.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 3, 2012)

Cuyo said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...




Of course more people will be paying....as they will be forced to pay for it regardless if they want obamacare or not.  It will also be more people seeking/getting/demanding care that they once did not pay for....but will be entitled to. 

It will be the same thing we have now but worse..... the non payers will out strip the ones paying.


----------



## dblack (Feb 3, 2012)

syrenn said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



If this bag of shit really does get forced on us, I plan on finegling things so that I'm a non-payer as much I possible. We owe it to the corporate stooges who passed this thing to game it for all it's worth.


----------



## Listening (Feb 4, 2012)

syrenn said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...


 
Bravo.....

Mr. Shaman posts a link to Forbes that has a title "Obamacare is working" and the main point of the thread is that it has pulled more young people into the system (who don't need health care) so that old people (who do) don't have to pay as much.

That was the definition of "working".

In other words, it was robbing the young of their liberty.

Great job.


----------



## Listening (Feb 4, 2012)

Cuyo said:


> Long boring wall of text not read.
> 
> You should really read to the end of a thread before running your mouth.  I never said Bill was going to be denied care, and nobody thinks he is.  The point is, that unless you're willing to deny him care, spouting off that everyone needs to pay for their own is worthless.



I am quite willing to deny him care.

Can we get back to a free market system now ?


----------



## Listening (Feb 4, 2012)

mskafka said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> > No one has to buy life insurance.
> ...



And you'll be taking the bus.

So what ?


----------



## Listening (Feb 4, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



I have an HSA and I love it.  It has really made me a more concious consumer of health care.


----------



## Listening (Feb 4, 2012)

mskafka said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



That you abuse your head is your problem.

That people find out how expensive it is to have these diseases is a real problem (meaning it really does exist).

This in no way supports the argument that health care is a right.

When you call it a right or you estabish it as a right, you create all kinds of obligations.

This country was founded on the concept of negative rights (i.e. what the government can't do to you).  13 little states were formed up and they each had their own unique rights (including, in some instances, a state supported religion).

Since that time, several states have dabbled in health care.  Most notable being Mass. which passed Romneycare.  You can look at it for what it really does and does not do.  Many people are NOT familiar with Tenncare....not the same thing, but still and effort to insure the uninsured.  It nearly went bankrupt because once it got going....lots of people were added to the roles.  Many of those have been dropped.  Again....another expeiment that has learnings.

Many people will say....you can't do it state by state because you don't get the economy of scale.  But when I point out that Sweeden and Denmark are about the size of AZ and that Ohio could probably kick Norway's ass all by itself (based on population...) and these three are touted as examples of successful programs...and BTW, CA could take on Cananda by itself.....there is this strange silence.

If you want run state run health care, get your govenor to implement it.  Even liberal states like WA and OR have some kind of program...but they don't have single payer.  Why ?


----------



## Greenbeard (Feb 4, 2012)

Listening said:


> Mr. Shaman posts a link to Forbes that has a title "Obamacare is working" and the main point of the thread is that it has pulled more young people into the system (who don't need health care) so that old people (who do) don't have to pay as much.
> 
> That was the definition of "working".



That's referring to the (very popular) extension of dependent coverage, which doesn't seem to be what you're thinking of here.


----------



## Cuyo (Feb 4, 2012)

Listening said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Long boring wall of text not read.
> ...



That's two...TWO... In the thread who say they're willing to deny care.

Virtually everyone on the right spouts off about how everyone has to pay, but so far you and Syrenn are the only two that have the brass to say yes, deny him care.  Kudos to both of you - Seriously.

But you need to understand, 1. nobody in the governing process has brought this to the table, and 2. This phenomenon is not exacerbated by Obamacare, in fact Obamacare is likely to _reduce_ the instances.  In theory, that's why it works.  In practice, we'll all have to find out together.


----------



## Listening (Feb 4, 2012)

Cuyo said:


> That's two...TWO... In the thread who say they're willing to deny care.
> 
> Virtually everyone on the right spouts off about how everyone has to pay, but so far you and Syrenn are the only two that have the brass to say yes, deny him care.  Kudos to both of you - Seriously.
> 
> But you need to understand, 1. nobody in the governing process has brought this to the table, and 2. This phenomenon is not exacerbated by Obamacare, in fact Obamacare is likely to _reduce_ the instances.  In theory, that's why it works.  In practice, we'll all have to find out together.



I look forward to your rep.

Taken at face value, there are two things here.

One, you are correct....nobody wants to address the hard issues.  We don't have unlimited resources.  Do we really want to spend a bunch of money on end of life care ?  Once you start to address those questions, it becomes easier to look at how things get structured.

I don't care what Obamacare does or does not do.  I simply do not want a federal health care system.  History is loaded with examples of good intentions gone bad.  Social Security took about 40 years to prove what a millstone it was.  Do I really want that for my grandkids ?

That does not mean we don't have issues in the way we delivery health care.


----------



## Listening (Feb 4, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Shaman posts a link to Forbes that has a title "Obamacare is working" and the main point of the thread is that it has pulled more young people into the system (who don't need health care) so that old people (who do) don't have to pay as much.
> ...



My post says what it says.  The definition of "working" (according to Forbes) is that it is forcing young people to pay into the system.


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 4, 2012)

Health care is not a right nor priviledge, its a freedom of choice.


----------



## Greenbeard (Feb 4, 2012)

Listening said:


> My post says what it says.  The definition of "working" (according to Forbes) is that it is forcing young people to pay into the system.



Young people aren't being forced to do anything, the decline in uninsurance among the under-26 crowd over the past year or two is due to the fact that they _want_ to remain on their family insurance plans. They're under no obligation to do so.


----------



## Listening (Feb 4, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > My post says what it says.  The definition of "working" (according to Forbes) is that it is forcing young people to pay into the system.
> ...



This has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Did you read the article Shaman referenced ?


----------



## dblack (Feb 4, 2012)

Listening said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Long boring wall of text not read.
> ...



And I _wouldn't_. Neither would most doctors or hospitals. No offense, Listening, but if you were a doctor, or ran a hospital in the real world, you'd likely not fare too well. I don't think most people would feel comfortable under the care of physicians with such a callous disregard for life.

But here's the point that Cuyo is missing - despite the fact that this is happening, that hospitals treat people who might not be able to pay, it's voluntary. In practical terms, EMTALA was a pointless law, as there were precious few incidents of emergency patients being turned away. In reality, it was a wedge law to give government leverage for things like the PPACA and insurance mandates. The fact of the matter is, the same dynamic existed before (in emergencies, doctors treat first, ask for payment afterwards), and if EMTALA were repealed, it would continue to be the standard practice.

Cuyo is confusing the argument about over-insurance being destructive to market dynamics with the problem of caring for the indigent. They are unrelated issues.


----------



## Listening (Feb 4, 2012)

dblack said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



I said I'd be willing to deny him care.  Don't read any more into than that.

I agree with the rest of your post.....but it goes beyond that.

When we finally address what we are willing to do as a society (and not as a government), for each other in this area...then the fixes will take place.

Until then. we will continue to battle over something we likely all (mostly) agree on.


----------



## dblack (Feb 4, 2012)

Listening said:


> I said I'd be willing to deny him care.  Don't read any more into than that.
> 
> I agree with the rest of your post.....but it goes beyond that.
> 
> ...



I guess it comes around to a rather paradoxical view of democracy. If the point of democracy is to enact the 'will of the people', then in most case you don't need to bother with voting and passing laws. Our will is enacted every day in the decisions we make and the goals we pursue. 

But the practical product of democracy isn't an accurate reflection of the will of the people - it's forcing the will of the _majority _on everyone else. It's a tool for enforcing conformity. 

I look around and see widespread agreement that we should care for the people who fall through the cracks. If that conviction is genuine (and I believe it is), then why do we need laws dictating how we go about it?


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 4, 2012)

dblack said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > I said I'd be willing to deny him care.  Don't read any more into than that.
> ...



You have crossed over to a republic versus democracy.  Then you ventured into socialism.


----------



## Greenbeard (Feb 4, 2012)

Listening said:


> This has nothing to do with what I was talking about.
> 
> Did you read the article Shaman referenced ?



Yes, and the portrayal of the dependent coverage provision as some kind of risk management mechanism is incorrect. As is your suggestion that these kids have been forced into coverage they don't want or need against their will.


----------



## dblack (Feb 4, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



Eh? Care to elaborate?


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 4, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > This has nothing to do with what I was talking about.
> ...



Didn't read the article, but Michigan State University is mandating all students have medical coverage to attend.  A recent development.


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 4, 2012)

dblack said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



No need to taint your research.  Just look up the definitions of democracy and republic.  Note the differences.


----------



## Greenbeard (Feb 4, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Didn't read the article, but Michigan State University is mandating all students have medical coverage to attend.  A recent development.



A recent development for that institution, perhaps. My undergrad alma mater made health insurance mandatory for students years ago. As have many other universities.

That's not what we're talking about here.


----------



## dblack (Feb 4, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



I know what the words mean. I was just wondering what you meant. Now I'm not.


----------



## Listening (Feb 5, 2012)

Health care is still not a right.


----------



## percysunshine (Feb 5, 2012)

Listening said:


> Health care is still not a right.



It is, and always has been, a personal responsibility that ends when a person dies.

This stuff is not rocket science.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 5, 2012)

If healthcare is a right, so is slavery.

You cannot demand of someone to fill a need that you have at their expense.  That is called theft.  If they must provide for this need from anyone who demands it, they have been enslaved to the demands of others, for they cannot refuse.

Health care is a commodity to be traded and paid for.  To say otherwise is to deny it's very nature as a service and product that must come from somewhere.

I suppose the only right to free health care is that which you can do for yourself, to yourself, with no training, materials or space to do it in save what you have provided for yourself alone.


----------



## Greenbeard (Feb 5, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> If healthcare is a right, so is slavery.
> 
> You cannot demand of someone to fill a need that you have at their expense.  That is called theft.  If they must provide for this need from anyone who demands it, they have been enslaved to the demands of others, for they cannot refuse.



Have ER personnel been slaves for the past quarter century?


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 5, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > If healthcare is a right, so is slavery.
> ...


So ER personnel aren't paid now?  Reading comprehension failure much?

I stated specifically that if you demand a need be filled without compensating them, it is the same as slavery.

ER Personnel have a shitty job that apparently they love AND pays well enough to attract lots of people to the job.  So let's be honest here, they aren't slaves... yet.  But the instant they have to provide care without compensation for themselves (and if the hospital doesn't get paid, they don't get paid) or they don't feel they are being justly compensated they will leave the profession.  Then, when you have a mass exodus of medical professionals, how are you going to get care?  Force them to work at gunpoint?

That is why when you get down to it with this "healthcare is a right" bullshit, you endorse slavery.


----------



## Greenbeard (Feb 5, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> So ER personnel aren't paid now?  Reading comprehension failure much?
> 
> I stated specifically that if you demand a need be filled without compensating them, it is the same as slavery.



Of course they're paid. But they're also required to provide care without regard for the patient's ability to pay in certain circumstances (for now--I realize the House leadership is working on undermining that requirement), meaning they do provide a great deal of uncompensated care. Granted, that's a larger problem for the greater institution they serve but you get my point.

If you're suggesting they're only slaves if they get paid _nothing by anyone_, not that they're mandated to provide some set of services for which they're not compensated, then rest assured: there's no realistic scenario (even theoretical) in which that would happen. On the other hand, if you're defining "slavery" to mean they have to provide some services without an expectation of compensation--well, that's been the case for quite some time. So I'll ask again: are they slaves?


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 5, 2012)

Uncompensated care happens.  That's part of why the cost of health care is so high so they can cover the losses created by defaults in the payment process.  Simple fact of life.

Now, if you sit there and say, well health care is a right and should be provided at no cost to EVERYONE, well, that's just stupid for starters.  Who'd work for a job where they couldn't get paid (for how would the hospital pay them), and paid well when the cost of training is extremely difficult and long?   (this isn't flipping burgers here)  Nobody. Who's going to manufacture drugs given away for free?  Nobody.  Who's going to build a surgical ward if they can't be paid for the work?  Nobody.

So where are you going to get doctors, medical supplies and places to practice medicine?  Are you going to use force to get them into service?  Congrats, you just restarted slavery without the little deflections that make all the more palatable.


----------



## Greenbeard (Feb 5, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> Now, if you sit there and say, well health care is a right and should be provided at no cost to EVERYONE, well, that's just stupid for starters.  Who'd work for a job where they couldn't get paid (for how would the hospital pay them), and paid well when the cost of training is extremely difficult and long?   (this isn't flipping burgers here)  Nobody. Who's going to manufacture drugs given away for free?  Nobody.  Who's going to build a surgical ward if they can't be paid for the work?  Nobody.



This thread is about a Bernie Sanders op-ed and he hasn't suggested anything like that. He obviously favors single-payer, though his own bill is interesting in that it follows a Medicaid-like model (_not_ a Medicare model) in which individual states retain control and responsibility for a state-specific program with some degree of flexibility.

But he doesn't suggest that no one pays for it (he primarily favors a mix of taxes on income and wages to fund his legislation) and he doesn't suggest that providers not be paid for their services.

So I don't know what you're arguing against.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 5, 2012)

merrill said:


> Health Care Is A Right Not a Privilege!
> 
> Let's be clear. Our health care system is disintegrating. Today, 46 million people have no health insurance and even more are underinsured with high deductibles and co-payments. At a time when 60 million people, including many with insurance, do not have access to a medical home, more than 18,000 Americans die every year from preventable illnesses because they do not get to the doctor when they should. This is six times the number who died at the tragedy of 9/11 - but this occurs every year.
> 
> ...



18,000 deaths a year? In 2009 2,437,163 people died. If your satatisitic is accurate you are worried about a little over 0.7% of the deaths every year. Twice as many people commit suicide as die from your preventable illnesses, yet you don't seem to be worried about them. Is that because you don't really care about people?

By the way, a lack of health insurance does not mean a lack of health care. Requiring people to buy insurance is going to make access to health care harder, not easier.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 5, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Now, if you sit there and say, well health care is a right and should be provided at no cost to EVERYONE, well, that's just stupid for starters.  Who'd work for a job where they couldn't get paid (for how would the hospital pay them), and paid well when the cost of training is extremely difficult and long?   (this isn't flipping burgers here)  Nobody. Who's going to manufacture drugs given away for free?  Nobody.  Who's going to build a surgical ward if they can't be paid for the work?  Nobody.
> ...


What am I arguing against?  The very idea that healthcare of is an inalienable human right.  It is not.  It is a function of trade and the market with value and must be compensated fairly.  This marxist 'each according to their need from each according to their ability' bullshit needs to get exposed for the evil it is.


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 5, 2012)

Greenbeard didn't like the discussion, so he thought he would just reframe it.  Typical liberal crap.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 5, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Greenbeard didn't like the discussion, so he thought he would just reframe it.  Typical liberal crap.


I thought that hump on the back of his neck looked like his ass.


----------



## Greenbeard (Feb 5, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> It is a function of trade and the market with value and must be compensated fairly.



No kidding. Those who make the "rights" argument, clumsy as it is, obviously concede that. Their proposals invariably do _not_ take an EMTALA-esque approach in which care must be provided to everyone willy nilly without regard for ability to pay or provider compensation (as you seem to enjoy implying), most of them simply want a basic slate of services paid for via public insurance. Reimbursement structures are generally addressed in great detail in their various proposals. I'm sure others are fine with near-universal multi-payer private coverage, with its multitude of different reimbursement structures.

Your caricatures and absurd slavery analogies have very little to do with that they're arguing.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 5, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > It is a function of trade and the market with value and must be compensated fairly.
> ...



I bet I can find some otherwise intelligent people who would be happy to argue that complete access to all available health care is a right and that it should be provided regardless of ability to pay. Your transparent attempt to argue that those people don't exist, or that they do not actually mean what they say, just proves that you are not arguing from a position based on reality, you prefer to live in a dream world where your stupid ideas actually work despite the fact that idiots will be in charge of them.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 5, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > It is a function of trade and the market with value and must be compensated fairly.
> ...



No attempt to make it sound reasonable is going to make the belief that one private individual is obligated to provide a product and service to another private individual, under the force of government intervention, anything other than slavery.  "Just a little slavery" is not an improvement.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 5, 2012)

ANd here are two articles to illustrate the problem he denies will happen. Doctors will quit and students will not go into the profession, causing a shortage of health care providers. What will you do then as the lines grow longer from increased "free" usage and the system quickly is overwhelmed? Draft doctors back in? You won't have the money to pay them proper and that means forcing them in some means to take up the extra freight or let those waiting on the list to wither and get worse before they can see a doctor... you know... like they already do in britain and every other socialized medicine system in the world.


http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2010/12/11/obamacare-study-finds-40-of-doctors-may-quit/


http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45252


Unintended consequences still happen, and they cannot just be 'swept under the rug' as an inconvenient side effect.


----------



## Listening (Feb 5, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> I bet I can find some otherwise intelligent people who would be happy to argue that complete access to all available health care is a right and that it should be provided regardless of ability to pay. Your transparent attempt to argue that those people don't exist, or that they do not actually mean what they say, just proves that you are not arguing from a position based on reality, you prefer to live in a dream world where your stupid ideas actually work despite the fact that idiots will be in charge of them.



Methinks I can recall our current President saying it was a right.

Now, that does not qualify him as intelligent....just sayin'.


----------



## Listening (Feb 5, 2012)

Calling it a right....or attempting to qualify it as one opens up all kinds of opportunities.

The Kansas state senate just passed a "resistance" bill to Obamacare.  One RINO senator voted against it saying he knows the SCOTUS will hold up Obamacare (wonder what else he "knows" ?...or why we even bother with the political process for that matter).

It would be great if people talked about fullfilling societal obligations through mechanisms other than the government.  

It still ain't a right....never has been one.


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 5, 2012)

The medical industry...

..too big to fail.


----------



## dblack (Feb 5, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> The medical industry...
> 
> ..too big to fail.



The insurance industry, in any case. PPACA is essentially a bailout of corporate health insurance. They painted themselves into a corner, and we taxpayers get to bail them out. It's the American Way.


----------



## Listening (Feb 5, 2012)

dblack said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > The medical industry...
> ...




Just another example of what the collaboration between our government and big business can produce.

You'd think we could concieve dinosaurs given the strange combinations of DNA we create.


----------



## Listening (Feb 5, 2012)

frazzledgear said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



This is so well said.

I wish others (including myself) were so thoughtful.


----------



## mskafka (Feb 5, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> mskafka said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



You are without a doubt, one of the most hateful people I've ever encountered.  And btw....fuck you.  I have a full-time job and a PPO.  You don't know a damned thing about me, or the others you insult.  You'd better pray to God, or burn some incense to whatever god or golden calf you worship, that you will always have your health.  Because if you ever become suddenly seriously ill, (like I did 3 months ago) you're going to go through it alone....that is, if you talk to and treat people-(that you encounter face-to-face) like you do in here.

You're a miserable soul, and seem to get morbid satisfaction out of making others miserable.  I've paid my dues and paid into the system for 19 years.  So if I suddenly need some help, I've certainly paid enough in to be entitled to SOME of the money that I've contributed.  

I work in healthcare, so I see this stuff played out, on a daily basis.  I kind of feel sorry for you.  You're so miserable that you can't see through the fog of your own ignorance.  

Good health and good luck wishes to you, because karma's a bitch.  How will you feel when you're potentially facing your own mortality?  I can tell you from personal experience-what you think is important, becomes irrelevent....kind of like the hate that you spew in here.  Everything is black or white to you.  And if someone disagrees with you, or finds your posts comical, you automatically label them as a lazy, deadbeat, welfare-cheating, liberal, communist, etc...  Along with your charming vocabulary full of profanity.

I'm sorry that you've reached this level of misery in your life, that you have to come in here and take it out on people who are actually trying to have civil discussions with others.


----------



## Liability (Feb 5, 2012)

Health care is not a right.

It is, often, a benefit.

It is a service.

If one needs it and cannot afford it, it is often provided for with the generosity of other people's money.

Health care is, in some ways, a privilege.

But, as noted in this very thread, there is nobody in this country who will not receive emergency care in an -- emergency.

This does not necessarily cover all illness.  Holy cow.  Who would have imagined that life can be hard and even cruel sometimes?  Does life kinda suck sometimes?  Yes.

Does the Constitution -- or any institution of man -- guarantee us freedom from undesired suckiness?

If so, please share the source.  I can't find it spelled out in the text of the Constitution or even in the darkest corners of its umbras and penumbras.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 6, 2012)

Congress makes all kinds of laws based upon the premise that pushing workers into unions makes a better working environment for the worker.
And then bans their own employees from doing so.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 6, 2012)

Liability said:


> Health care is not a right.
> 
> It is, often, a benefit.
> 
> ...



I agree and providing health care as a benefit takes away the individual has to be responsible for the costs of their health care.
And the for profit private health care market understands that very well and runs their business model accordingly.
As a result of that we pay 3 times more for the same health care as all other countries with private health care. 
With a population that is about half as healthy as those other countries. 
The current system is fucked. We are a fat, lazy, diabetes prone country as a result of benefits provided- "My health care is free so why do I care what it costs" system.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 6, 2012)

Cuyo said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



Suuuure there will.  Because telling people, "You'll be taken care of whether you work or not" ALWAYS makes more of them step up to the plate and start working their butts off.    Just like spending 5 trillions dollars on bullshit was BETTER for the economy, not worse.

What color is the sky in CrazyLiberalLand, anyway?  And just how long do you delusional freaks expect the rest of us to listen to you tell yourselves lies and pretend that you're sane, reasonable adults instead of psychos?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 6, 2012)

Cuyo said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...




Try it this way, if your tiny little liberal brain can stretch far enough to wrap around the concept.

No one's really DENYING him jack shit.  But we're perfectly willing to allow him to do without if his lazy ass isn't willing to get it for himself.  "Denying" would mean - in RealityLand, as opposed to CrazyLiberalLand - actively keeping him from getting care no matter what he did.  Only in CrazyLiberalLand is refusing to pay for a total stranger's medical care DENYING him medical care.  You're lazy-ass, selfish buddy Bill is more than welcome to get his broken leg fixed . . . as long as he pays for it.  If HE doesn't care enough to pay for it, why should I?

Get your lazy, greedy liberal hands out of my pockets.  My kids need that money more than you do, and unlike you, THEY matter to me.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 6, 2012)

mskafka said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > mskafka said:
> ...



You are, without a doubt, flattering yourself that I care about being seen as "hateful" by someone who thinks she could EVER have a right to take other people's hard-earned money for herself, because she "has a right" to it.  Please disabuse yourself of the misconception that YOU are any sort of admirable, or even decent, human being whose liking and approval is sought by ANYONE.  The more you talk, the more repulsive I find you, and the more grateful I am that I'm incapable of ever saying something noxious enough to be viewed as "nice" in the evil, through-the-looking-glass world you live in.

Don't you worry about whether or not people love me, twat.  I know lots of decent, sane, good people who are deserving of being treated with respect.  You just aren't among them.  I don't waste courtesy on evil trash.

The more you talk, the more convinced I am that I'm right in saying that your continued existence is worth nothing to anyone but you.  I look at people like you and think, "Saving THAT is what you want to take money away from my children for?  Fuck THAT."  Bravo for your ability to make your opponents' case for them, just by your toxic, whining existence.

So let me just say it again, in case I haven't been clear up until now:  if you get sick, buy your own healthcare or die.  You add nothing to anyone else's life by existing.


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 6, 2012)

Either of you two ladies like a chocolate?

Willfully spreading a killer disease and the death penalty as a consequence doesn't sound that far off does it?


----------



## mskafka (Feb 6, 2012)

Listening said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Long boring wall of text not read.
> ...



Oh if only we could deny annoying people care.  It isn't just welfare-moochers who abuse the system.  911 gets calls regularly from patients with constipation, "I've vomited once", "my back has been hurting for two weeks, but I need an ambulance at 4 AM.".....

And the self-righteous, "personal responsibility" people do it just as often as those in section 8 housing.  

Legally...it is a right.  I have a duty to act.  I cannot turn down a patient, regardless of the issue.  Insurance or not...ability to pay or not.  Whether I've slept in 20 fucking hours or not, and you stubbed your yellow crusty toenail.


----------



## mskafka (Feb 6, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> mskafka said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Oh....you're just angry at me because you've driven the legs of your chair through your pressboard floor.


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 6, 2012)

These carmel ones are pretty good.


----------



## mskafka (Feb 6, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> These carmel ones are pretty good.



Chocolate with caramel and cyanide center? Sodium pentathol infusion?  

You so funnnyyyyyyyyyy!


----------



## Greenbeard (Feb 6, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> ANd here are two articles to illustrate the problem he denies will happen



If I'm the "he" you're referring to, quote whichever post you're referencing so I can at least have some idea of what it is you think I've been saying.


----------



## Ropey (Feb 6, 2012)

I think the title needs to be  "Should Health Care be a Right and Not a Privilege"

Since it is a privilege and not a right.


----------



## mskafka (Feb 6, 2012)

by Healthcare Blue Book

The cost of an appendectomy, average, where I used to live.

$9,929

The bulk of the price is a 4-day admission...probably on a med/surg floor.  Pretty minor surgery.  

by Healthcare Blue Book

Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

$56,227 


If you think it's a wise choice to walk around without insurance, I hope that you have plenty of savings.  This isn't counting the additional costs such as follow-up and so on that you will encounter.  

If you're over 50 and you don't have health insurance (by choice), and you have a cardiac history in your family.  You'd better start saving.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 6, 2012)

Ropey said:


> I think the title needs to be  "Should Health Care be a Right and Not a Privilege"
> 
> Since it is a privilege and not a right.





Health care is not a privilege. It is not something that is _only available _to a few. Health care is available to everyone in this country. 

Everyone has the same access to the same health care by the same doctors and the same hospitals.... health care is not kept for the privileged few.


Everyone has the right to pay for the health care they want to receive.


----------



## koshergrl (Feb 6, 2012)

mskafka said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...


 
Constipation, along with dehydration and a couple of other things are considered one of the 4 silent killers in residential care.

I haven't worked in the business for a while, so I can't remember the rest of them, but I do remember those two.


----------



## dblack (Feb 6, 2012)

mskafka said:


> by Healthcare Blue Book
> 
> The cost of an appendectomy, average, where I used to live.
> 
> ...



The predominant insurance model we've been saddled with is not viable. It's fundamentally irrational to think that you can pay a low monthly fee and have all your health care expenses magically taken care of. This delusion is killing us. 

The fact of the matter is, insurance is a bad deal. It's a gamble that, for most of us, doesn't pay off. The more you can pay out of pocket, and the less you must use costly insurance, the better. Not only is it a bad investment at a personal level, it's deeply destructive to the health care market. 

To fix it, we've got to get it through our heads that we have to pay for health care, just like we pay for everything else. We need to remove all the legal infrastructure propping up the delusion and, if anything, encourage people to have _less_ insurance. Only then will real market pressures come to bear, only then will providers have a genuine incentive to bring down prices and provide cost effective care.


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 6, 2012)

mskafka said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > These carmel ones are pretty good.
> ...



There is rarely responsibility when consequences don't exist mskafka.  The discussion was getting over heated IMO.  Just taking it down a notch.  Maybe coconut is more your taste?  I'm kind of partial to the toffee centers.


----------



## Ropey (Feb 6, 2012)

syrenn said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > I think the title needs to be  "Should Health Care be a Right and Not a Privilege"
> ...



Health care is a privilege for those US citizens who can not afford to pay for it. All others can.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 6, 2012)

Ropey said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Ropey said:
> ...



If you are receiving health care and not paying for it....its an entitlement.


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 6, 2012)

Healthcare is an opportunity.  Some choose to use it, others not.  I'm very healthy, but my wife uses our plan frequently.  I'm not getting younger, my time will come and the risk out weighs the short term savings.  Besides insurance is about shared risk.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 6, 2012)

mskafka said:


> by Healthcare Blue Book
> 
> The cost of an appendectomy, average, where I used to live.
> 
> ...



I just got a $70,000 bill because I had kidney stones. Can you explain why I should think a 10,000 bill for an appendectomy or a $60,000 bill for a bypass is something I should worry about? What we need to do is find a way to get the market involved and drive the cost down, not have the government come up a way to force other people to pay for it.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 6, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> mskafka said:
> 
> 
> > by Healthcare Blue Book
> ...



Right now government allows your health insurance premiums to be tax deductible for the entity that pays your health insurance premiums.
End that and employee provided health insurance where THEY, instead of you, is in charge of the plan and ONLY then will you see change.
40 years ago 85% of all group health insurance paid for by the employer the employee was in charge of paying the bill and then filing with their insurance.
TODAY, 85% of group health insurance paid for by the employer, NO EMPLOYEE IS INVOLVED in the decision making of if the bill is valid or not. 
WAKE UP DUMB ASS AMERICANS.
Blank check health care is alive and well in American disguised as private health care with out the roof premiums. 
It either ends or it IS OVER in less than 10 years. UNSUSTAINABLE.


----------



## mskafka (Feb 6, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> mskafka said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Oh, I'm used to her verbal abuse.  Just trying to imagine the background-a rebel flag and budweiser sign on the wall, or is it contemporary art?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 6, 2012)

You folks need to get off your high horse and listen up and listen good.
I own 3 corporations and know first hand what is going on with the current American "health" care system we now have in place.
And I oppose the Obama plan outright so any claims that I am "left wing nut" or other BS is moot.
My fellow Americans, the current private group health care paid for as a benefit to employees is LONG broken. Why? Most Americans have taken advantage of it, over utlilized the benefits for everything imaginable and the claims paid have run up the health care for private industry from 6% of GNP a generation ago to 17% of GNP today.
Does anyone here have a brain?
Does anyone here understand capitalism?
Does anyone here admit that the private health care industry has exploited the group health care industry where the health insurance company AND NOT THE CONSUMER, is paying the tab always and that is THE ONLY REASON why health care costs have tripled as a % of GNP in a generation?
If not then you are a dumb ass. The current system is UNSUSTAINABLE. 
Allowing insurance companies, AND NOT THE COMSUMER, to price the market HAS BEEN AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN the problem.
End tax exempt status for all group health insurance and only allow it for the individual policy holders.
The fraud is that being in a group policy "lowers costs" LOL, what a LIE that is! The industry under that model has tripled as a % of GNP IN A FUCKING GENERATION.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 6, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> mskafka said:
> 
> 
> > by Healthcare Blue Book
> ...



Great Americans like you are informed and never hesitate to speak your mind without a political ideolgy behind it on this issue.
You sir, I respect greatly as the health care issue is the biggest financial issue we face as aging Americans.


----------



## rdean (Feb 6, 2012)

Considering medical bills are the number one cause of bankruptcy, "health care" isn't a "right" nor a "privilege".

Health Care is a necessity.  I thought that would be obvious to those on the right who claim they are so "fiscally conservative".  Guess that's not the case.


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 6, 2012)

I wonder if a kidney transplant would have been cheaper?  Hope you passed a four carat flawless diamond.

Increasing premiums have driven my boss to offer health insurance with a large deductable and copay.  Since you have to pay for some big up front costs, it gives people pause before running to the doctor.


----------



## dblack (Feb 6, 2012)

rdean said:


> Considering medical bills are the number one cause of bankruptcy, "health care" isn't a "right" nor a "privilege".
> 
> Health Care is a necessity.  I thought that would be obvious to those on the right who claim they are so "fiscally conservative".  Guess that's not the case.



So, should government always be responsible for the number one cause of bankruptcy?

What about number two?


----------



## mskafka (Feb 6, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> mskafka said:
> 
> 
> > by Healthcare Blue Book
> ...



Yes.  I had to enter my zip code to get those figures.  Clearly, your zip code would bring up different numbers.

Damn....it just hit me.  What the hell did they do to you?  They must have given you one hell of a work up.  For KIDNEY STONES?  It's usually narcotics, anti-emetics, and waiting for it to pass.  Something must have gone awry, or you live in a zip code where the streets are lined in gold.  Jeez!


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 6, 2012)

dblack said:


> mskafka said:
> 
> 
> > by Healthcare Blue Book
> ...




Well said and 100% on it!


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 6, 2012)

rdean said:


> Considering medical bills are the number one cause of bankruptcy, "health care" isn't a "right" nor a "privilege".
> 
> Health Care is a necessity.  I thought that would be obvious to those on the right who claim they are so "fiscally conservative".  Guess that's not the case.



So why don't Americans take care of their health?

Perhaps you would prefer the whole country go bankrupt from subsidizing the costs?

Exercising your right to live your life as you see fit, does not entitle you to my property or modifications to it for your benefit.


----------



## mskafka (Feb 6, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > mskafka said:
> ...



Well, at least you're gentlemen about it; and from the business end, you know what you're talking about.  You're not crude and blaming one group over another.

For my part, because I work in healthcare and about 3/4 my family work in healthcare, it's just in the blood.  You will never get me to say that healthcare isn't a right.  It's not being contrary...it's not that I don't face facts...it's that I cannot imagine NOT taking care of someone who needs my help.  Most healthcare providers (key word most) will say the same thing.  People who are in it at my level sure as hell don't do it for the money.  There is the adrenaline rush of some of the more challenging patients.  But then there are the kidney stone patients...the look of gratitude when their pain is finally managed, and you stop their vomiting.  (We're usually full of gratitude at that moment, as well.  )

Or a woman that I treated years ago who had lost her husband a week earlier.  She was in a group therapy session for grieving widows and widowers.  She had barely slept for a week, and was understandably inconsolable.  Got orders for IV valium.  The transport was less than 10 minutes.  It was rewarding to see that woman sleeping peacefully, when I left.  Sure it was a temporary fix, but it was one that she needed at that moment.  

Okay....I'll put the violin and piano away.  Seriously.  It gets in your blood.  It's hard to imagine doing anything else.


----------



## Sunshine (Feb 6, 2012)

dblack said:


> mskafka said:
> 
> 
> > by Healthcare Blue Book
> ...



db, I'm going to have to think about this for a while and see if I can get my head around it.  

But, until I have turned it over a few times, I'll just say this from the insider's view.  It's not our system of insurance that is killing us.  What's really killing us is how unhealthy the American population is becoming, first with our population becoming top heavy with the elderly, and second with morbid obesity and concomitant diabetes rampant amongst the age group who should be the most healthy.  These things don't resond to 'market pressures.'


----------



## mskafka (Feb 6, 2012)

Sunshine said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > mskafka said:
> ...



Now this is DEFINITELY someone who knows.  In 17 years, it seems that people have doubled in size.  This is a HUGE part of the costs.  That lovely stuff called high fructose corn syrup.  I don't buy into the BS that it's "harmless".


----------



## rdean (Feb 6, 2012)

dblack said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Considering medical bills are the number one cause of bankruptcy, "health care" isn't a "right" nor a "privilege".
> ...



Number two is what Republicans shower on the US.

Obviously, when people go bankrupt over medical bills, it's the people who suffer.  The same people who get taxed to fund the government.  They end up "stuck" with the bill.

Right wingers have this bizarre idea that our government is some kind of separate cabal that "controls" the US.  It's part of their right wing brainwashing.


----------



## dblack (Feb 6, 2012)

mskafka said:


> Well, at least you're gentlemen about it; and from the business end, you know what you're talking about.  You're not crude and blaming one group over another.
> 
> For my part, because I work in healthcare and about 3/4 my family work in healthcare, it's just in the blood.  You will never get me to say that healthcare isn't a right.  It's not being contrary...it's not that I don't face facts...it's that I cannot imagine NOT taking care of someone who needs my help.  Most healthcare providers (key word most) will say the same thing. ..



I hear ya. I'm a software developer. I'm very passionate about what I do. It's my steadfast conviction that each and every American has a right to their very own complex data-driven webapp (whether they want it or not). And of course they should get this webapp regardless of their ability to pay. The government should subsidize their shiny new webapps as they are very expensive.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 6, 2012)

mskafka said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...




I agree.... i cant imagine not taking care of someone.... I understand what you mean by its in the blood 

You do realize that you can do it for free and not get paid for it. Same for the doctors. Since that is never going to happen, health care costs are going to be high. No way around that. 


The problem comes when i walk out of the ER with a band aid, some neosproine and a prescription.......and it costs me 6K


----------



## Sunshine (Feb 6, 2012)

rdean said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



And now you are a mind reader.............groovy!


----------



## Sunshine (Feb 6, 2012)

mskafka said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Good post.  I can't say my financial rewards aren't good in what I do. They are.  But I really like my work too, and you see far greater results than I do because 'helping' the really mentally ill comes in increments and one just has to be satisfied with that.  

We have choices to make.  Healthcare is a resource and it is not an unlimited resource.  We have  a LOT of unhealthy people in the world to day.  And soon the choices will be unavoidable.  I have a VERY expensive illness.  My medicine costs $100K/year minimum.  Right now I work, have good benefits and still exceeded my catastrophic deductible for 2011.   And that happened from August to October.  OK. That's fair.  But let's look at the big picture.  Let's say I become unable to work, to do anything but take up space.  How do I justify those expenses in addition to medication I'm already on when it will deny a young working family benefits they need to take care of their sick children.  Now, it's easy to just pick _any _old person and make this point.  But I use _myself _to make this point. So, it's personal, now.  And I do believe it is reasonable to believe that one day in the not too distant future a choice will have to be made that involves me.  We already have ethics committees that make some pretty low level decisions along this line.  But as the population ages, and if our youth don't adopt healthier lifestyles these choices will be a part of my life and yours.  That is inevitable.


----------



## Sunshine (Feb 6, 2012)

syrenn said:


> mskafka said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



They use you 6K bandaid to build a room in the new wing.


----------



## mskafka (Feb 6, 2012)

syrenn said:


> mskafka said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Most volunteer clinics want nurses, not paramedics.  I never said that I would ALWAYS work for free.  Especially because we work 24hours on/48hours off.  Sometimes we do 2-3 calls in 24, and sometimes we do 15.  I can tell you, at about 3 am, and you're on your 12th call, things begin to get a little fuzzy.  

I'm all for talking about tort reform.  Outside of preferring to live indoors, healthcare is risky.  There's a lot of liability that comes with every level.  And if a provider makes a mistake and gets in trouble with the state in which they practice, that information goes online for the WHOLE world to see (whoever has internet access that is) until that individual dies.  Finding a job after that is difficult.  It's the kind of thing that gives me nightmares; literally.  So NO...I would not be willing to work for free ALL the time.  

Taking away malpractice entirely, though, is not something you want.  Not all physicians are created equally.  Nurses, paramedics, pharmacists, and others, save patients' lives EVERY DAY.  There isn't one, who's been been in the profession for more than a year who hasn't tapped the doc on the shoulder at least once when he or she was about to do something, and asked:  "You sure you want to do that, doc?"


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 6, 2012)

Learning about you is nice mskafka.  My family was involved in the independent pharamcy business for over 40 years.  You see a lot there too.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 6, 2012)

rdean said:


> Considering medical bills are the number one cause of bankruptcy, "health care" isn't a "right" nor a "privilege".
> 
> Health Care is a necessity.  I thought that would be obvious to those on the right who claim they are so "fiscally conservative".  Guess that's not the case.



Medical bills are not the number one cause of bankruptcy. I just got a $70,000 medical bill and see no need to declare bankruptcy because the hospital does not intend to send a collection agency after me if I don't pay. In fact, they already knocked $20,000 off it, and we haven't even started to discuss why they charged me for meds I didn't take.


----------



## mskafka (Feb 6, 2012)

syrenn said:


> mskafka said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Well, it depends.  If there was suturing involved?  Did a cosmetic surgeon have to come in and do the suturing?  Was there an EMS transport involved?  ANY radiology=CHACHING!  Lab$ drawn?  

Some of it is defensive medicine.  If you go to the ER with a headache (no, that's not ridiculous if you have migraines or complex migraines) you're going to get a CT scan, unless you adamantly refuse.  Why?  Too many brain hemmorhages were sent home over the years; most of them didn't survive for the ambulance transport back to the ER.  

You go in with heartburn and you're over 40, you're probably going to get a 12-lead EKG.  Again, too many people were sent home after a GI cocktail, and a script for tagamet, who were having a heart attack.  It's not only that physicians and other providers don't want to get sued, we don't want to feel responsible for someone's death.  

Many of you seem to have ideas on the business end, on how to deal with this problem.  Have you tried submitting them to someone-like your representative or senator?


----------



## percysunshine (Feb 6, 2012)

When rdean turns 18, and is sitting in a retirement home, he will become a multi-millionaire off selling tickets to people amused by his babblings.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 6, 2012)

mskafka said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > mskafka said:
> ...



I was in the hospital because the anto emetic they were giving me didn't work, I spent half the day puking. The bill was the total after about 5 days in the hospital passing the stones and another 3 days recovering from renal failure.


----------



## mskafka (Feb 6, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Considering medical bills are the number one cause of bankruptcy, "health care" isn't a "right" nor a "privilege".
> ...



I don't remember...were you the one with kidney stones?  Were you admitted?  How many nights?  That seems VERY steep.


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 6, 2012)

You're not going to solve medical cost problems by asking government to do something.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 6, 2012)

Sunshine said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > mskafka said:
> ...



Ever wonder what would happen if people actually had to pay for health care costs that came from being overweight?


----------



## percysunshine (Feb 6, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> You're not going to solve medical cost problems by asking government to do something.



Well, they will feel better about themselves. That has to count for something.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 6, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Either of you two ladies like a chocolate?
> 
> Willfully spreading a killer disease and the death penalty as a consequence doesn't sound that far off does it?



I would have no problem imposing the death penalty on those few evil bastards out there who've been found to be deliberately spreading HIV/AIDS.  Murder is murder, in my book, and that's pretty damned heinous.


----------



## Sunshine (Feb 6, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Unfortunately, not all of the overweight is from sloth and gluttony.  There are several medications, heart meds, psych meds, seizure meds, that change a person's metabolism and cause them to gain weight.  Sometimes the person can fight it off, but it's a terrible battle, and sometimes the condition being treated precludes strenuous exercise.  The 90s was the 'decade of the brain' and we got a lot of new meds, but they brought with them new maladies as well.  Some actually cause a person to get what is called 'metabolic syndrome.'  They become diabetic just from taking a particular medication.  Even weight control doesn't stop this in some cases.


----------



## mskafka (Feb 6, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> mskafka said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



OH WOW!!!  Okay, now that makes more sense.  Now if there are medication discrepancies, sure, look further into it.  So I'm guessing that they tried both zofran and phenergan?  Oncology has mastered treating nausea.  They would definitely be the ones to consult.  Or even a pharmacist.  

Questions, questions....you poor thing.  Were they not keeping a close enough eye on your labs, or did you already have kidney problems?


----------



## syrenn (Feb 6, 2012)

mskafka said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > mskafka said:
> ...




It was a kitten bite.... a quick  cleaning, a bit of neosprin, a band aid...and a prescription for antibiotics..... no suturing, no labs, no x-rays, no transport.


Six thousand dollars. 




I come from the medical end..i know what is involved.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 6, 2012)

mskafka said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



It does, doesn't it? I am still going through the bill to see what it includes, and why I am being billed for things that I don't remember. I know I was drugged, but they had to wake me up to give me pills, and I was not taking pills 5 times a day. For the rest of it, see my previous reply to you.


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 6, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Either of you two ladies like a chocolate?
> ...



You totally missed the chocolate part...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 6, 2012)

Sunshine said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



Never said it was, I understand that obesity is a complex issue, which is why I oppose government mandates on things that do not directly cause obesity.


----------



## mskafka (Feb 6, 2012)

syrenn said:


> mskafka said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



OMG!  That's robbery.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 6, 2012)

mskafka said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > mskafka said:
> ...




It is a prime example of what is broken in health care. My 6K...goes to pay for all the people who don't pay. obamacare is nothing more then the same robbery.



however.... it is my right to go and seek medical, and my right to pay for the medical treatment i showed up for.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 6, 2012)

mskafka said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > mskafka said:
> ...



I told them I wanted phenergan because I had it before, and it worked. They were reluctant to give me an IV because I had a history of irritation with it, I can actually feel it going in unless it is diluted. I don't remember what they were using at first, I think it was zofran, but they eventually agreed to my request for phenergan. As for the renal failure, I think it was just that it actually took 5 days to pass the stones. The problem I was worried about by then was apnea caused by the meds. There is nothing like not being able to breath to get your attention, even if it is just a couple of seconds.


----------



## mskafka (Feb 6, 2012)

syrenn said:


> mskafka said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Now are you talking about all the people with insurance?  I have PPO, which I pay premiums for, of course.  My MRI's that I got for diagnosis (4 to be exact) over $2K each.  I paid around $150 for each.  Now do you all have problems with EVERY type of insurance?  

Because I had this insurance for 7 years before I REALLY had to use it.  Or are you referring more to the state insurances?  (taking Obamacare out of the equation, entirely)


----------



## rdean (Feb 6, 2012)

Sunshine said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



It's not that difficult when your are looking at an open book.  One written in crayons and caricatures.


----------



## Ropey (Feb 6, 2012)

syrenn said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



I was under the impression that it's a privilege to those who can not afford it since they must follow certain criteria to gain the entitlement.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 6, 2012)

Ropey said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Ropey said:
> ...




No criteria needed or necessary to walk into an emergency room and be treated.


----------



## Ropey (Feb 6, 2012)

syrenn said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



When it comes time to pay?


----------



## syrenn (Feb 6, 2012)

Ropey said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Ropey said:
> ...




you walk in... get treated...and walk out. They can bill you till they are blue. That does not mean you will pay. 

they do not demand payment up front for treatment, or prof that you can pay for it.


----------



## Ropey (Feb 6, 2012)

syrenn said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Sounds rather messed up to me.  No wonder you Americans have been fighting over this for so long.


----------



## mskafka (Feb 6, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> mskafka said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



So then dilute it.  We have 100mL IV bags for phenergan dilution.  It can cause tissue necrosis.  That kinds of irritates me, because it would have taken just a few more seconds to dilute some phenergan for you.  Zofran doesn't seem (from the people I've treated with it) to work as well as phenergan.  Now zofran doesn't sedate the patients as much, and they are a little easier to interview; but if it worked in the past, and one dosage of zofran didn't work.....I just hope they gave you the phenergan then.  There is this almost irrational fear of phenergan these days.  

Apnea?  Good grief!  Well, surely they had you on a heart monitor and a pulse oximeter.  We have orders to also put the patient on oxygen.  I'm not sure what they were giving you narc-wise.  If phenergan is what works for you, speak up if you have to go through it again...or have your wife or whomever is with you speak up.

If they send you a survey about your hospital experience, make sure you fill it out.  I promise you that they look at that stuff.


----------



## mskafka (Feb 6, 2012)

syrenn said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



I have a co-pay.  If I'm vertical and breathing, even in ER, I have to pay the co-pay.  Of course that isn't the balance, but...


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 7, 2012)

syrenn said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



And that is the problem.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 7, 2012)

syrenn said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



That is the problem.


----------



## Meister (Feb 7, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Ropey said:
> ...



And that will continue to be the problem when Obamacare kicks in, Gag.  This is just how the illegals will get their obamacare.


----------



## Outback (Feb 7, 2012)

Meister said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Then thus problem remains except that this isn't about rights verses privileges.  It's theft by illegals isn't it?


----------



## syrenn (Feb 7, 2012)

mskafka said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Ropey said:
> ...



I am fully covered too. I pay for very good insurgence.... i pay for my health care.  

The bill is still 6k regardless if my insurance company pays the bill or i pay the bill out of pocket.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 7, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Ropey said:
> ...




That is a huge part of the problem, but not the entire problem.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 7, 2012)

Meister said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...





The way i see "national health care" ...it is covering its citizens. It does not cover the world....or the worlds illegal immigrants. So long as illegals may use a system i pay for i am totally against it. So long as it is set up as some pay and others don't... i am totally against it.


----------



## TheLonelySquire (Feb 7, 2012)

Healthcare, in and of itself, is NOT a right. That's patently ridiculous.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 7, 2012)

TheLonelySquire said:


> Healthcare, in and of itself, is NOT a right. That's patently ridiculous.





Think about that.... there are many "meanings" being used for the word "right" Does not everyone have the individual right to seek, find_ and pay_ for health care? 



I feel that the word "right" to health care is being confused with _entitlement _to health care.


----------



## bennylee (Feb 7, 2012)

.


----------



## bennylee (Feb 7, 2012)

poor people should not get heath care as they do not deserve it. Why should i who earns a good wage pay for those less unfortune than I ? Yes i can afford to do the things i want,  go on holidays with my family and friends and work normal hours. Why should the poor that work 50 hour weeks get a free ride. If they wanted to they could get a better job it's not hard.
In summary if your poor no one cares get a better job and try harder. This is capitalism at it finest ! 
For those that agree with me, well your a loser, you'll never be a good person as your incapable of decency, morals, humility and everything that makes a good person be!


----------



## Meister (Feb 7, 2012)

bennylee said:


> poor people should not get heath care as they do not deserve it. Why should i who earns a good wage pay for those less unfortune than I ? Yes i can afford to do the things i want,  go on holidays with my family and friends and work normal hours. Why should the poor that work 50 hour weeks get a free ride. If they wanted to they could get a better job it's not hard.
> In summary if your poor no one cares get a better job and try harder. This is capitalism at it finest !
> For those that agree with me, well your a loser, you'll never be a good person as your incapable of decency, morals, humility and everything that makes a good person be!



You kind of give yourself that warm and fuzzy feeling don't you?


----------



## Listening (Feb 7, 2012)

TheLonelySquire said:


> Healthcare, in and of itself, is NOT a right. That's patently ridiculous.



I am not sure if you are saying that claiming it is not a right is patently rediculous or...?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 7, 2012)

TheLonelySquire said:


> Healthcare, in and of itself, is NOT a right. That's patently ridiculous.



Tell that to the American worker who demands it.
And to seniors who insist on it.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 7, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> TheLonelySquire said:
> 
> 
> > Healthcare, in and of itself, is NOT a right. That's patently ridiculous.
> ...


What?  Something for nothing?  That sounds great!  Sign me up... wait... what?  You mean that means it may hurt me in increased taxes?  That's not fair!!!  Make someone else pay!  I shoudn't be forced to pay for what I use!


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 7, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > TheLonelySquire said:
> ...



Amazing to me that when I solicit for employees and they come the first thing they want to know is how many days off they get, sick pay, overtime and health care benefits, etc.
I tell them I offer NONE of the above and pay contract labor. Most Americans are so stupid, fat and lazy they do not even qualify for my jobs so they are eliminated fast but the ones that do qualify still would rather have security rather than FREEDOM.
The ones that stand out as the most spoiled are former military and police. Now, do not get me wrong as I respect what they DID in their jobs and know it was probably for low pay and long hours but none of that matters now as they are in the private workplace. Those guys demand and get pissed if you do not bend over backwards and pay their deductibles and co-pays as a benefit.
I tell them all to grow up, grow some stones and be responsible for THEIR OWN HEALTH CARE. I had a former FBI agent working for me and his wife threatened to sue me if I did not pay her baby G man over time for nights and weekends and provide transportation or the costs of it for regular doctor visits.
We need to start from the top down. MIlitary, yes they get it and free for their service time. Not service related they get a reduced rate. Everyone else top to bottom government worker end the free ride yesterday.


----------



## Sunshine (Feb 7, 2012)

syrenn said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



They don't have to treat you if it is not an emergency.  According to EMTALA any hospital that accepts Medicare or Medicaid must evaluate the patient regardless of ability to pay and is only required to treat if it is an emergency.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 7, 2012)

Sunshine said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Ropey said:
> ...


life threatening emergency at that.


----------



## Sunshine (Feb 7, 2012)

One reason I support a national healthcare policy is that we can stop subsidizing medical facilities for  indigent care.  There are subsidies paid to facilities that the general public knows nothing about.  And will never even be able to ascertain the amounts until it is stopped.  If there was no indigent care, then there would not be subsidies under the table to hospitals for it.

_



			2) Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments
Hospitals treating a large share of low-income and Medicaid patients incur higher
operating costs. Disproportionate Share (DSH) payments offset these additional costs.
Medicaid federal and state DSH programs require hospitals to provide charity care to
individuals who meet certain criteria. DSH payments offset the cost of caring for these
individuals. Hospitals access DSH funds through state programs in accordance with
each states matching rate.12 The state of Missouri makes DSH payments to certain
hospitals above what it reimburses other providers for Medicaid services. Overall, these
additional payments go to hospitals that provide healthcare for a relatively high number
of Medicaid patients, provide some charitable care, and have significant levels of bad
debt. *Interestingly, while DSH payments were originally designed primarily to cover the
contractual allowances resulting from Medicaid and bad debt losses, hospitals have
ultimately used these funds to cover charity care.*13
		
Click to expand...

_
http://www.mffh.org/mm/files/HospitalChairtyCareIssueBrief.pdf

I would rather see everyone covered in a fee for service or HMO type of model and know what we have to pay than to keep dropping boulders of money in the laps of facilities that do not have to account for it as it related to any or all individual patients.  They just get a chunk of money to do with as they please.  And many hospitals are for profit entities, making money is their bottom line.  They will do that any way it takes.  Putting a stop to open ended indigent care would solve that problem.


----------



## Sunshine (Feb 7, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



If it does not meet criteria for emergent care, the person is referred to a doctor or clinic.  It was abominable the way the welfare mothers abused the emergency system in Nashville when I first moved there.  They didn't want to be bothered to go to a doctor's office, so they just went to the ER for everything, earaches, colds, hot ears, you name it.  The answer to this type of abuse is to evaluate, and refer to a clinic.  When they get tired of the drill, they will stop it.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 15, 2014)

RetiredGySgt said:


> merrill said:
> 
> 
> > Health Care Is A Right Not a Privilege!
> ...


But for you, retired seargent, it is a right.  Your HC is free.  Want to give it up, please??


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 15, 2014)

There is a big difference between someone who has served in the military with the understanding that doing so comes with certain benefits...and someone who hasn't worked at all.

The former has earned that benefit.  Bernie Sanders for some unknown reason believes that the latter has earned their right to free health care as well, even though they haven't gotten off the couch and haven't risked their lives in service to their country.

Why should the Sgt. give up what he has earned simply because someone else (who hasn't joined the military) isn't eligible?


----------



## emilynghiem (Jul 15, 2014)

[MENTION=34634]merrill[/MENTION]
Health care is a right if you are paying for that under a contract.

If people believe in spiritual health care through nonprofit charities,
it is an equal right to pursue, practice and pay for that by Religious Freedom.

You do NOT have the right to deprive other people of LIBERTY and EQUAL CHOICE in providing health care for free
through charitable means, just because YOU believe in paying for it through government. But that's what these
laws do -- they penalize people for not buying "insurance as the ONLY choice" for health care, and deprive people of the right
to invest that same money into teaching hospitals or medical internships that could provide free health care without as much govt restrictions.

If Christians do not have the right to make YOU pay for their church programs they have a right to, you do not have the right to make people pay for running your ideas for health care through government, especially where they RELIGIOUSLY disagree.

This is unconstitutional.

People like you and Obama have every right to pursue your own beliefs in the manner you see fit, but no right to impose this on other people with Constitutional rights to pursue EQUAL means of health care WITHOUT running it through govt. This is NOT a requirement!

If you act like that is the "only way to provide health care"
you sound like Christians who believe their religion is the only way to God.

That is not lawful to impose, require or tax through govt, and neither is your belief!



merrill said:


> Health Care Is A Right Not a Privilege!
> 
> Let's be clear. Our health care system is disintegrating. Today, 46 million people have no health insurance and even more are underinsured with high deductibles and co-payments. At a time when 60 million people, including many with insurance, do not have access to a medical home, more than 18,000 Americans die every year from preventable illnesses because they do not get to the doctor when they should. This is six times the number who died at the tragedy of 9/11 - but this occurs every year.
> 
> ...



What about Prolife advocates who believe that a baby's right to life is a right
not a choice? How can you politically exclude their beliefs by religious freedom,
but then ESTABLISH these beliefs by law that health care is a right not a choice?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 15, 2014)

Big Fitz said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > TheLonelySquire said:
> ...



No, what I mean is the American worker be they Democrat, Republican or Bull Moose expects someone else, THEIR EMPLOYER, to pay for their health insurance.
Us self employed folks for 35 years have always paid for OUR OWN.
Add in seniors that demand to choose their health care when someone else is paying for it.
Real world. 
As long as a 3rd party, SOMEONE ELSE be it an insurance company or Medicare, is paying the tab prices will remain triple what other countries have for better coverage. 

Go back to where You and I both pay FOR OUR OWN health insurance and end the disaster known as employer paid for group "health care" insurance and Medicare which is a train wreck full of fraud.


----------



## froggy (Jul 15, 2014)

Obamas plan for health care is "You keep the insurance companies in riches and pay your own doctor bill.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 15, 2014)

Rshermr said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > merrill said:
> ...



It is a privilege he earned.


----------



## emilynghiem (Jul 15, 2014)

[MENTION=22602]Cuyo[/MENTION] 





Cuyo said:


> I just commented in another thread that I hate when the debate is framed as "Right v privelige," but let me play devils advocate here.
> 
> When Bill shatters his leg and doesn't have insurance and will die without care... Let him die?



If he wants to pay the costs using insurance or whatever, that's fine.

But people who want to manage charity hospitals or spiritual healing programs
outside of govt should not be penalized for exercising other natural choices of health care
besides buying insurance. That should remain in the free market and not mandated by govt which methods or choices people use.

Insurance is not the only way, nor the best way to cover more people and costs.
Look at the taxes wasted on prisons and costs of crime.
If you are going to go after people being irresponsible and dumping costs on others,
why not go after CRIMINALS proven to have committed a crime and incurred costs.

Why go after LAW ABIDING citizens who haven't committed crimes and are happy to pay for health care on their own terms and free will,
and DEPRIVE THEM of their liberties -- because of the costs or crimes of other people?

Why not hold people responsible for their own costs, and then if they want to use insurance to cover those costs, that is their choice! You can still regulate insurance without forcing people to buy it. If all the people who BELIEVE in singlepayer or govt health care paid into the plans THEY BELIEVE in, that is  plenty to negotiate group rates. there is no need to force it on more people who don't believe in paying for health care through govt.


----------



## Vermonter (Jul 16, 2014)

Nobody has the "right" to someone else's labor. Period.


----------



## Listening (Jul 16, 2014)

froggy said:


> Obamas plan for health care is "You keep the insurance companies in riches and pay your own doctor bill.



You can keep your plan....until we take it away.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 16, 2014)

Listening said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > Obamas plan for health care is "You keep the insurance companies in riches and pay your own doctor bill.
> ...



And lets never forget that if we had capitalist health care the cost would be about 20% of what it is now. Under capitalism people shop carefully with their own money and suppliers compete on basis of price and quality. Very probably life expectancy would be 100 today under capitalism.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 16, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...



Some of my favorite phone calls at work are from people who are just now discovering, after YEARS of wasting health resources because someone else was paying the bill, what their health care actually costs.  "When did that start costing so much?" is not an uncommon question.  I am forbidden by my job to respond, "What did you THINK it was costing?"


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 16, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



yes and still it does not occur to liberals that socialism destroys all the incentives to lower price and raise quality.


----------



## jasonnfree (Jul 16, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



So taxpayers are forced to buy insurance under obamacare  and this is wrong, but they're forced to pay for retired military guys insurance and it's ok?


----------



## emilynghiem (Jul 16, 2014)

jasonnfree said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



If they don't consent to be taxed, the govt is not representing their consent and interests.

If people don't want to pay for military insurance,
then why not let Republicans and Libertarians pay for military and VA benefits,
and let Democrats play for this ACA mandated insurance they don't agree with either.

Why NOT let each person pay for the plans through their party that represents them.
Sounds better than this mess of neither party agreeing to pay for the other plans;
Why not let them pay for their own.

Like Catholic church members pay for their own priests and policies,
and Hindus and Muslims pay for their own mosques and community programs.

Why not separate and let people represent their own policies
since this health care issue is a personal matter of choice, beliefs and values,
that should NOT be dictated, denied or discriminated against,
much less penalized by government based on creed.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 16, 2014)

jasonnfree said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



If you don't like it feel free to deduct it from your taxes.

Paying taxes and being forced to buy something are two different things. Not surprised you don't understand that though.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 16, 2014)

jasonnfree said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Health insurance for members of the military are part of their pay package.  They agree to defend us and we agree to pay them.  It's kind of how things WORK!

Forcing taxpayers off plans that they liked and onto other plans or face ever increasing fines just so you can support the health care of those that don't pay Federal taxes at all is about as "wrong" as you can get!  In case you haven't been paying attention...a government run health care system for veterans is proving to be a total cluster fuck.  So tell me again why I should be enthusiastic about moving towards that system for everyone?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 16, 2014)

Or would you like me to *trust you* that the government folks running THAT are going to have their shit together as opposed to the clowns that are now running the IRS and the VA?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 17, 2014)

Yeah, health care is a "right".
Seniors have a "right" to have a hobby called going to the doctor anytime they want to and parents with group health insurance have a "right" fill up the waiting rooms of pediatrician offices with Johnny and Suzie that have nothing wrong with them other than the common cold.
As long as someone ELSE is paying for it they are for making health care a "right".


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 17, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Yeah, health care is a "right".
> Seniors have a "right" to have a hobby called going to the doctor anytime they want to and parents with group health insurance have a "right" fill up the waiting rooms of pediatrician offices with Johnny and Suzie that have nothing wrong with them other than the common cold.
> As long as someone ELSE is paying for it they are for making health care a "right".



yes, to  liberals health care is a right to make other people pay for their health care. So then why not more important things like food clothing and shelter?


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jul 17, 2014)

what other rights do we have 

that someone else expected to pay for


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 17, 2014)

jon_berzerk said:


> what other rights do we have
> 
> that someone else expected to pay for



how about the right to food clothing and shelter? education?


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 17, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > what other rights do we have
> ...



Only children have a right to K-12 education.  Otherwise there is no right to food, clothing or education.


----------



## regent (Jul 17, 2014)

Do the American people have the right to make health care a right?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 17, 2014)

regent said:


> Do the American people have the right to make health care a right?



no in a free country you don't have the right to make others pay for your food clothing and shelter.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 17, 2014)

Most Republicans are wannahbe conservatives.

Most of them are just like the liberals on the health care issue.
They expect and DEMAND someone else other than themselves provide and pay for their health care be it from employer paid for group health insurance or their support of the train wreck blank check Medicare train wreck fraud.


----------



## boedicca (Jul 17, 2014)

Heath care is neither a right nor a privilege; it's a need.

Rational and responsible people take care of their own needs.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 17, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Most Republicans are wannahbe conservatives.



but a lot of them are like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul and all of them will be if the voters will vote libertarian.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 17, 2014)

boedicca said:


> Heath care is neither a right nor a privilege; it's a need.
> 
> Rationale and responsible people take care of their own needs.



yes I agree but it is hard with health care because the liberal govt monopoly has made it so expensive.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 17, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Most Republicans are wannahbe conservatives.
> ...



I lean very much libertarian. Strong fiscal conservative and could give a shit if 2 guys want to buy a wedding cake and get married.
Everyone else can go fuck themselves. Sick and tired of Republicans and Democrats. 
Most of these idiots I grew up down here believe being conservative is putting In God We Trust on money and saying one nation under God in Pledge of Allegiance.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 17, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



Where is there a right to education anywhere in Constitution from K-12?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 17, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



there is no right in Constitution to food clothing shelter health care or education


----------



## regent (Jul 17, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Do the American people have the right to make health care a right?
> ...



If the American people want health care we will have health care.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 17, 2014)

regent said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...




food, clothing, and shelter too as long as, as liberals,  you can steal it?


----------



## regent (Jul 17, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



The American people do not need to steal health care. If they decide they want health care, it will be voted in by the people's representatives as happened with Social Security, Medicare, and the other programs and it will be paid for by the people.


----------



## Vermonter (Jul 18, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Where is there a right to education anywhere in Constitution from K-12?



The tenth Amendment.


----------



## Vermonter (Jul 18, 2014)

regent said:


> The American people do not need to steal health care. If they decide they want health care, it will be voted in by the people's representatives as happened with Social Security, Medicare, and the other programs and it will be paid for by the people.


We already have the best health care in the world.

What a lot of people want is _free health care_ with a single payer system. You know, like the VA.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jul 18, 2014)

Vermonter said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Where is there a right to education anywhere in Constitution from K-12?
> ...



nice try


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 18, 2014)

Vermonter said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > The American people do not need to steal health care. If they decide they want health care, it will be voted in by the people's representatives as happened with Social Security, Medicare, and the other programs and it will be paid for by the people.
> ...



Best health care in the world?
LOL, no sir, we are not even in the top 10.
We DO have the very best DISEASE care.
As we should. We spend 55%, and growing each year, of ALL health care dollars in the United States on DISEASE CARE.
To treat 4% of the population.
And 7 of the top 8 diseases treated here in America are PREVENTABLE DISEASES
Because Americans are fat, lazy and expect someone else to pay for their health care be it primarily group health insurance or government, BOTH of which have ruined American "health" care.
Health care we have here is sub standard at best. We are one of the unhealthiest nations on earth. Fat, lazy and lethargic.


----------



## emilynghiem (Jul 18, 2014)

regent said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



Hi  [MENTION=35264]regent[/MENTION]
I am a liberal progressive prochoice Democrat
and supporter of sustainable inclusive solutions that the Greens offer.

NONE of this requires overriding the Constitutional principles, beliefs,
and voices of my fellow Americans I believe are equally included and protected by law.
for the "people" to be represented in govt policy and taxes to pay programs
there should be a clear CONSENSUS.

51% of the nation is NOT CONSENSUS.

Your math should tell you this isn't the voice of "all the people"
but only HALF. It is not only presumptious but dangerous to assume
that just because you agree with a policy then it passes as "the voice of the people"
and the "law of the land"; which requires excluding discounting and dismissing half
the nation that is clearly dissenting. (That level of denial requires imposing unequal
treatment of people, considered bigotry when applied by race; here, when it is
masked as political agenda "made law" it is considered legal, which makes it
more dangerous, when these laws are made mandatory and carry a penalty!
If you do not recognize how dangerous this is, I believe it borders on either
negligence or deliberate abuse in "conspiring to violate civil rights" to impose federal fines
that punish people on the basis of their beliefs and creed.)

So no, half the nation believing in how something should be done,
while the other half does not consent but is screaming in objection, is not the best way to do it.

There are better ways that could yield 80-90% agreement on policy,
but my standard is 98% if we can't get a full consensus which is considered impossible.

If Democrats set up a system through their own party,
that could get 90-95% consensus within that group of supporters.

Why don't we join forces and set this up, to show how it works
with maximum support, when everyone participating in it is trying to make it work.

let's make it work first, before trying to sell any idea to the rest of the nation.

People have natural rights and freedom to follow the principles to achieve the
same goals but in ways they agree do not violate their principles, beliefs or rights.

the Constitution is supposed to protect these equal rights,
not be abused by majority rule to override others.

I totally disagree with your assumption that "we the people"
are represented by the current policy and approach to health care!

Totally, this could not be more false,
but is like saying all America is Christian because the majority is
and everyone needs that anyway.

that's not what this nation is about.

If you want to go into the bullring and argue
whether ACA represents "we the people"
I will challenge you.  I think this needs to be a public
discussion and start recognizing that half the nation is left out of this whole approach.

There is NO REASON to  penalize or exclude other choices.
This is especially dangerous to have the prochoice Democrats
pushing this which violates our own principles on the concept of choice.

This constitutes political abuse, discrimination and fraud,
and I want to see this problem corrected.

Do you agree that half the nation is "not represented"
by the ACA policies with mandates and govt intervention in health
care to this degree?

If you REALLY BELIEVE this is the voice of "the people"
I challenge you on that!

The Constitutional principles either come first,
or they should be equal, but in no way should
this ACA and its mandates be enforced to trump Constitutional inclusion of other choices.

I am happy to challenge you and Dante and others.

I will bring in anyone else it takes to explain to you
half the nation is censored and discriminated against by creed.

Yours truly,
Emily


----------



## regent (Jul 18, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



As I say, if and when the American people decide they want health care, Congress will vote it in, the president will sign it, and the Court will say it's Constitutional. It may not happen overnite but it will happen--if and when the people decide they want it.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 18, 2014)

regent said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



This is called the tyranny of the majority and it is very anti-American. If the majority votes to steal, with force of arms, from the minority it is theft not democracy.


----------



## regent (Jul 18, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Call it what you like, but that's the way the country has worked. Check the history of America's social programs, there is a pattern; might start with Social Security. 
I'm not sure tyranny works as well as socialism and communism, but it's still a good scare word.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 18, 2014)

regent said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



You are anti-American. Our democracy was not designed to be theft!!


"When the people find that they can vote themselves money,( stolen by force of arms)  that will herald the end of the republic."
-Benjamin Franklin


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 18, 2014)

merrill said:


> Health Care Is A Right Not a Privilege!


Incorrect.  Heath care  = goods and services that you can purchase.

You have a right to as much health care as you can buy, the extent of that right defined solely by the terms of that purchase.


----------



## regent (Jul 18, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Even calling someone anti-American may not work if the American people decide they want 
a program. All this was done in 1936, with the Social Security program. SS was anti-American, communistic, socialistic and not what our founding fathers wanted...but we have it. 
Actually establishing a democracy scared the founders for the very reason Franklin says, but the big question is: as we became more democratic why haven't the people voted themselves scads of money. In fact, the people seem very content to let corporations and others use their money to prevent that from happening.


----------



## anotherlife (Jul 18, 2014)

The US healthcare sector is a purely paper industry that is 14 % of the US economy.   Because of its size, the hedge fund managers, using the free cash of 401k/IRA contributions, keep pumping it bigger and bigger forever.  

The US healthcare sector is only one example of the larger US economy, that is generally moving away from a supply-demand based buyer-provider pricing, to a 3rd party pricing in all industries.  

When a 3rd party defines cash flow, such as by insurance policies or by lending, the prices become unknown until invoices are generated.  Then, the 3rd party defers most of that payment down to the buyer who had no influence in the pricing. 

So, the US healthcare sector will continue to drive companies out of business and individuals into bankruptcy, in ever larger numbers and without any limit.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 18, 2014)

regent said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...


Hm..  have you seen how much the federal government spends on entitlements?
Close to 10% of the GDP, isn't it?


----------



## regent (Jul 18, 2014)

M14 Shooter said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



For many Americans that is not scary. What is scary for some, is to be sick and watch the hospitals and doctors use up their life savings. Then too there might also be a little resentment on watching their country go to war that accomplishes nothing but creates scads of tears and debts for the next 80 years.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 18, 2014)

M14 Shooter said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



on all levels govt spends about 40% of GDP so welfare programs and entitlements are probably 25% of GDP.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 18, 2014)

regent said:


> As I say, if and when the American people decide they want health care, Congress will vote it in, the president will sign it, and the Court will say it's Constitutional. It may not happen overnite but it will happen--if and when the people decide they want it.



you mean if and when a tyrannical majority decides to subvert our democracy and  steal it with guns, don't you?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 18, 2014)

regent said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...


Who cares?  You asked about the proplr voting themselves scads of money.   Clearly they have.



> What is scary for some, is to be sick and watch the hospitals and doctors use up their life savings.


You have the right to whatever health care you can buy.
Why?
Because people should not have to prove goods and services w/o compenation, and no one is responsible for you other than you.


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 18, 2014)

regent said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



I don't understand that.  If I get a service, and the service is good, I don't have a problem paying for it.   It's called being ethical.   You know, where people who do something good, get compensated for it.

Why do you think you deserve good things, and shouldn't have to pay for it?

But beyond that, the alternative is far worse.   The alternative is you don't pay for it, and you don't get it.  Have you missed the whole deal with the VA?   That's is exactly the kind of "Free care" government run health care gives you.

Why is it surprising that the VA has the same problems that every single government run health care system in the world does?

People in Canada waiting THREE YEARS to get simple surgery so they can walk.

Never happens in the US, because you pay for it, you get it.   In Canada you wait until the end of time, and hopefully you don't die before you make it to the top of the list.

That's better in your world?

See my view is, I can work, and earn back money.   I can work and earn back my life.     Saving a buck, and ending up dead, to me, is not a good trade.

It's amazing really, because you people on the left are always the ones talking about how life isn't made up of money.  Living the good life, doesn't come with a price tag.     Right?

Yet here you are saying that risking death, and decades on a waiting list, is less important than saving a buck!

AND ON TOP OF THAT...... isn't it the left that says we need the death tax to confiscate everyone's inheritance??!

Are not the left always complaining that everyone that has money, inherits it, so we need a 40% tax on all inheritance, the very inheritance you people on the left claim we need government health care to protect?

Are you "protecting" it just so you can steal it from the dead later?

Hypocritical scum.  That's all these people are.  Just plain and simple greedy hypocrites.


----------



## regent (Jul 18, 2014)

That you pay for services is great, keep up the good work, and we're proud of you. Just don't don't get an illness that uses up all your savings and leaves you unable to work. The evidence from the VA indicates that more vets want to be admitted to the VA health care programs, too many for their budget. But none of that is my argument, I'm saying that if the American people want a health care program, America will have health care program--maybe during your lifetime.


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 19, 2014)

regent said:


> That you pay for services is great, keep up the good work, and we're proud of you. Just don't don't get an illness that uses up all your savings and leaves you unable to work. The evidence from the VA indicates that more vets want to be admitted to the VA health care programs, too many for their budget. But none of that is my argument, I'm saying that if the American people want a health care program, America will have health care program--maybe during your lifetime.



The fact that more people want free health care, doesn't mean anything.

If you are so stupid, that you offer me a free car for as long as I live, I'll take a free car from you until you go bankrupt.

I will even think that you are dumb as rock, all during the time I'm taking a free car from you.

Yeah more people want free care.  More people want free food, free homes, free water, free phones, free everything.

That doesn't change the natural outcome of the system, which is that you are denied care.    Government doesn't have unlimited funds.    Thus, the VA, like all government run health care systems in the world, has massive waiting lists.   That's how that works.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 19, 2014)

Government now pays for almost 80% OF ALL prescription DOPE in the US.

Where is the cry from all the wannahbe "conservatives" against that?
They are too busy fighting the moral crusade.
They love their DOPE.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 19, 2014)

regent said:


> That you pay for services is great, keep up the good work, and we're proud of you. Just don't don't get an illness that uses up all your savings and leaves you unable to work.


Why do you believe that you have thw right to have other people provide you with goods and services that you do not then have ti pay for?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 19, 2014)

anotherlife said:


> The US healthcare sector is a purely paper industry that is 14 % of the US economy.   Because of its size, the hedge fund managers, using the free cash of 401k/IRA contributions, keep pumping it bigger and bigger forever.
> 
> The US healthcare sector is only one example of the larger US economy, that is generally moving away from a supply-demand based buyer-provider pricing, to a 3rd party pricing in all industries.
> 
> ...



Health care is 17% of the economy and growing at an unsustainable rate.
Government and group health care employer paid for is the problem.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 19, 2014)

Androw said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



What the hell do people HAVE a life savings for, if not to be able to cover exactly those sorts of emergency situations?  They used to call it "saving for a rainy day", and when you develop a catastrophic illness, that would be pretty damned rainy.

But nowadays, people are so frigging spoiled, they think it's all about them retiring early to move to Aruba, and if bad times come, someone else should foot the bill so that they don't have to give up their luxury plans.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 19, 2014)

regent said:


> That you pay for services is great, keep up the good work, and we're proud of you. Just don't don't get an illness that uses up all your savings and leaves you unable to work. The evidence from the VA indicates that more vets want to be admitted to the VA health care programs, too many for their budget. But none of that is my argument, I'm saying that if the American people want a health care program, America will have health care program--maybe during your lifetime.



Unable to work?  Bullshit.  Unless you're paralyzed from the neck down or institutionalized in a wraparound jacket, I don't buy that "unable to work" garbage.  Oh, you may not be able to do the job you WANT to do, but there are still ALWAYS jobs out there that can be done.


----------



## Vermonter (Jul 19, 2014)

jon_berzerk said:


> Vermonter said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


It's the facts. Nowhere in the US Constitution is the word "education" found. But it is in a number of State Constitutions. So the US Constitution defers to the states in this matter.


----------



## regent (Jul 19, 2014)

M14 Shooter said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > That you pay for services is great, keep up the good work, and we're proud of you. Just don't don't get an illness that uses up all your savings and leaves you unable to work.
> ...



I don't have the right, but the people of the United States have the right. They have the right to demand the government provide certain services, highways, dams, national defense, care for the elderly and so on. And who pays for those services the people demand, the people. 
As for the personal thing, I have ample medical care thank you, probably more than I need at the present, but if we the people want health care I accept that, and we the people will pay for it.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 19, 2014)

regent said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



Like most of the wannabe dictators on the left, you confuse having the POWER to take from others against their will - aka "steal" - with having a RIGHT to do so.  The people of the United States used to be moral and decent, and understand that just because they COULD do something didn't mean they SHOULD, or that it was right and moral to do so.  Nowadays, too many people in this country are like you:  amoral, spoiled, ignorant children who think the vast power of the government exists to pamper and coddle them and remove all difficulty from their lives.

Google "Billy Mumy" and "Twilight Zone".  That's what you and your ilk in a voting booth remind me of.


----------



## froggy (Jul 19, 2014)

If we keep letting the government make choices for us we deserve what we get. say no to obamacare. get up a petition and have it repealed


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 19, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Government now pays for almost 80% OF ALL prescription DOPE in the US.
> 
> Where is the cry from all the wannahbe "conservatives" against that?
> They are too busy fighting the moral crusade.
> They love their DOPE.



I have no idea what you are talking about.  Me and many conservatives like me, opposed that for the last decade.

What do you mean we're too busy?  We've been here opposing it the entire time.


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 19, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > That you pay for services is great, keep up the good work, and we're proud of you. Just don't don't get an illness that uses up all your savings and leaves you unable to work. The evidence from the VA indicates that more vets want to be admitted to the VA health care programs, too many for their budget. But none of that is my argument, I'm saying that if the American people want a health care program, America will have health care program--maybe during your lifetime.
> ...



It really is a matter of the spoiled brat syndrome manifesting itself in elder years.

In generations past, that was never the case.  If you worked as a farmer, you were working the farm, cleaning stalls, pitching hay, and tilling the ground up until your 70s.   That was normal.   That was how life was.

Harland Sanders didn't even start Kentucky Fried Chicken, until age 62, and he worked his butt off for years until 1972 when he sold it for $2 Million dollars.

But no no, we're 60 years old and that entitles us to sit on our ass, and have everyone else pay for everything we have.


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 19, 2014)

regent said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



No, actually they don't.

Do you know what the "general welfare" clause is?    The General Welfare clause, says that laws and legislation, are constitutionally required to be for the "General Welfare".

In other words, if the government was to actually follow the Constitution as it is written, they would not be allowed to make laws or policies that benefit one group of citizens, at the expense of other citizens.

Providing for the defense of the nation, benefits absolutely everyone equally.   Enforcing justice, and punishing criminals, benefits everyone equally.

Providing money stolen from *ME* the working class, to pay for the luxury and easy living of the retired class, is illegal, and unconstitutional for the Federal government to do.

Now of course the states are allowed to do that, because all rights are reserved for the state.    But we all know that if the Federal government didn't enforce such systems country wide, there would be a flood of working people moving from states with those laws, to states without them.

Which is why liberals have to push unconstitutional tyranny on the entire country from the Federal level.

No, the citizens do not have the right to confiscate wages from labor, to give out to those who don't work.  It's wrong.  It's immoral, and someday like Greece, it will fail.    All the labor and employers left Greece, and their retired people are still demanding more give outs from the government.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 19, 2014)

regent said:


> And who pays for those services the people demand, the people.



of course its treasonous and subversive to use democracy as theft. THe top 1% pay 40% of income tax while the people (botton 45%) pay 0% taxes or nothing!


"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-Benjamin Franklin


----------



## regent (Jul 19, 2014)

Androw said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



I had the feeling that America has always had poor and disabled  and that was the reason for the County poor farms and such. But my argument that if the American people decide they want health care, we will have health care still stands and it doesn't matter that Harland Sanders made chicken.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 19, 2014)

regent said:


> if the American people decide they want health care, we will have health care still stands and it doesn't matter that Harland Sanders made chicken.



why be a liar?? Be honest and say if they can steal health care from others they will because they are liberals and that what liberals do!

Do you want to use democracy to steal food clothing and shelter too?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 19, 2014)

We need to end the "I earned my health care for free" mentality in this country.
All that does is further fuel the blank check waste of available resources that we do have.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 19, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> We need to end the "I earned my health care for free" mentality in this country.
> All that does is further fuel the blank check waste of available resources that we do have.



yes liberals pretend what they are stealing is a natural resource, not the hard work of others!


----------



## regent (Jul 19, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > We need to end the "I earned my health care for free" mentality in this country.
> ...



Do people steal their Social Security checks?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 19, 2014)

regent said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



of course since the current recipients are being paid by current taxpayers since the money they contributed was stolen and wasted by liberal govt. Ask them is they would pay it if it was not stolen at gun point.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 19, 2014)

regent said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



Why do you believe that ANYONE has thw right to have other people provide them with goods and services that they do not then have ti pay for?


----------



## dblack (Jul 19, 2014)

The whole concept of a "right" for _*someone*_ to get _*something*_ is contradictory.


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 19, 2014)

regent said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Your argument is for tyranny.   I'm against tyranny.

And your argument is for a system that simply doesn't work.   Cuban people can't even get Aspirin for their 'free' health care.   Canadians routinely come to the US for care, instead of waiting years, even decades for care.    British move to the US, because care they want isn't even offered there.

Your argument will result in the American version of Greece.   The Soviet Union failed because socialism doesn't work.  You advocate something with a proven track record of failure.

If you push this, you'll end up with exactly what you don't want.


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 19, 2014)

dblack said:


> The whole concept of a "right" for _*someone*_ to get _*something*_ is contradictory.



Are you people on the left reading this?   This statement is exactly right.    You don't have the 'right' to demand something from someone else.   That's why we on the right consistently fight to reduce or eliminate you stealing our money.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 19, 2014)

Androw said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > The whole concept of a "right" for _*someone*_ to get _*something*_ is contradictory.
> ...



it is stealing; that's why they need men with guns, in the end, to take what is yours. Liberalism is essentially about violence. Lets hear a liberal deny it!.


----------



## regent (Jul 19, 2014)

Androw said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Androw said:
> ...




If a democratic nation does not want a program, the people should be able to rid their nation of said program. So Britain, Canada and the others unhappy with their medical program can vote for the party that will remove it. 
I'm sure some believe that America would like to rid this country of Social Security as Bush intimated, but it's still here and Republicans seem to have dropped their attempt to privatize it. Maybe Americans do not want to rid the nation of Social Security? 
America, as most nations, has a mixed economic system, the mixture: socialism and capitalism.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 19, 2014)

regent said:


> has a mixed economic system, the mixture: socialism and capitalism.



and as America mixes in more socialism the decline worsens and as China mixes in more capitalism the incline increases.

socialism is merely about working less and stealing more. It is the perfect formula for decline! Ever heard of East Germany/West Germany


----------



## TruthSeeker56 (Jul 19, 2014)

merrill said:


> Health Care Is A Right Not a Privilege!
> 
> Let's be clear. Our health care system is disintegrating. Today, 46 million people have no health insurance and even more are underinsured with high deductibles and co-payments. At a time when 60 million people, including many with insurance, do not have access to a medical home, more than 18,000 Americans die every year from preventable illnesses because they do not get to the doctor when they should. This is six times the number who died at the tragedy of 9/11 - but this occurs every year.
> 
> ...



I'll need to take a shower after agreeing with Bernie Sanders and other liberals in this forum, but I have always believed that ALL U.S. CITIZENS should NEVER go without top-quality affordable health care, REGARDLESS of ability to pay.

The U.S. government has wasted and squandered TRILLIONS of dollars in revenue on wars and foreign aid and an endless number of legislative boondoggles and "wars" on drugs and poverty and God knows what else.

ALL of these trillions of dollars that have been wasted SHOULD have been used on taking care of the health care needs of ALL U.S. citizens.

PERIOD. Enough is enough. 

As it is RIGHT NOW, in today's "United Socialist States Of America", ALL hospitals and ALL OTHER health care entities should be NON-PROFIT organizations.


----------



## anotherlife (Jul 19, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> > The US healthcare sector is a purely paper industry that is 14 % of the US economy.   Because of its size, the hedge fund managers, using the free cash of 401k/IRA contributions, keep pumping it bigger and bigger forever.
> ...



I agree that group health care paid by employers is a big ptoblem and the root cause for this bubble.  

But why government healthcare?  Government healthcare is the way every other country keeps its healthcare costs under control, and makes labor 50 % cheaper than the USA after discounting currency manipulations. 

I think government healthcare is an absolute must, because any incident, such as geriatric conditions, can never fit any insurance model after happening 100 % of the time with 100 % fatality. 

Of course, we could just accept that we were never meant to live forever, but ... no one will accept that as long as someone else pays for his care.  HEHE


----------



## emilynghiem (Jul 20, 2014)

anotherlife said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > anotherlife said:
> ...



Dear    [MENTION=41171]anotherlife[/MENTION],    [MENTION=31238]TruthSeeker56[/MENTION]   [MENTION=34634]merrill[/MENTION]

Charity Navigator Rating - Doctors Without Borders, USA

I hear you saying on one hand, that govt health care keeps costs uniform/under control,
and on the other hand complain about the billions if not trillions wasted on govt mismanagement.
Because politics gets in the way, and health care requires personal localized and individual choices,
creating a national bureaucratic system limits the choices that can be managed, people don't agree, so this causes backlog and waste that is harder to fix.

This is why it is better to keep the control in the hands of private groups: nonprofits,
businesses, schools, charities, etc. with a vested interest in running efficiently and sustainably.
The minute a group changes policy where it no longer represents what you want to pay for or be under,
you have the freedom to change choices right away and go join or invest elsewhere, you have direct check.
under this system of taking people's and states rights and forcing it under one system federally, people LOSE
their individual free choice that is needed in health care and financial decisions, by trying to force a "one size fits all" policy which doesn't fit.
Half the nation has been screaming in opposition to ACA precluding any other choices of providing health care, and been left out while the
law that only represents the BELIEFS of the other half is considered law. How dare you assume that just because it hasn't changed yet, that people consent to govt policy?
Are you saying that if a rape victim is tied up and screams are ignored, it's not considered rape until it is proven in court the victim didn't consent?  WTF???

groups have been arguing since before it passed and still haven't agreed how to change it -- you are even saying
this "proves" people agree if they haven't changed the system BULLS**T -- we can't change it because of all the politics.
So we are stuck with a wasteful system. It would be faster to change if states and people retain direct say in the choices that affect them or their state.
NOT trying to globalize one policy for all states, when people within the states don't even agree. So you've multiplied a conflicting policy (diving people 50/50) by 50 states and think people agree
just because the dissenting groups making up half the nation haven't been able to change the policies we reject as unconstitutional.

Look at the performance record of Doctors Without Borders, linked above. You can also look up AmeriCares, another reputable nonprofit. USAA insurance which testified before Congress as proof that no legislatoin was needed for insurance companies to perform at highest quality ratings.

What makes you think that the "only way" to manage health care is by forcing people to buy insurance or pay fines into govt?

Why would you punish people for wanting the choice to invest directly into medical programs, education and outreach, such as through services more cost-effective?

I have friends who practice the same methods of spiritual healing that have cured people of cancer, diabetes, liver disease, schizophrenia, drug abuse and addiction to save lives, health and costs of otherwise more expensive procedures and treatments.

Why should those FREE practices be penalized and prohibited as choices under ACA so that money is forced to be paid to govt groups that CAN'T cure these conditions but spiritual healing can that is FREE. Why?

Are you that fearful and ignorant of better means of providing health care
that you have to abuse govt and IRS to FORCE your way on everyone else
because of your beliefs? When Christians push their beleifs through govt
that is considered unconstitutional abuse. When prolife people push bans on
abortion as "the only way" to stop abortion that is struck down as antichoice.

so what do you call these ACA mandates that push insurance as the "only way"
how is that prochoice? how is that not anti-choice
and forcing YOUR beliefs on everyone else, when there are tons of other charities
who do much better work than the govt. why can't we fund those? why 
this insistence on forcing mandates on people except to control things politically?


----------



## emilynghiem (Jul 20, 2014)

regent said:


> If a democratic nation does not want a program, the people should be able to rid their nation of said program. So Britain, Canada and the others unhappy with their medical program can vote for the party that will remove it.
> I'm sure some believe that America would like to rid this country of Social Security as Bush intimated, but it's still here and Republicans seem to have dropped their attempt to privatize it. Maybe Americans do not want to rid the nation of Social Security?
> America, as most nations, has a mixed economic system, the mixture: socialism and capitalism.


 [MENTION=35264]regent[/MENTION] By your reasoning,
slaves who could not free themselves because the courts and systems were against them
did not really want to get rid of slavery? All the time they were stuck with it as law?

people who protest unfair labor practices, but fail to end the oppression,
must not have really wanted to get rid of those abuses?

the rape and torture victims who stayed in that house in Ohio and could have broken out sooner, must have wanted to stay there?

Both Ben Carson and Obama support microlending.

could it be that if microlending is the solution to replacing welfare handouts
than the one thing stopping this from being implemented is the division between parties?

similar BTW to the division between  slaves, the field slaves kept divided from the house slaves, like how the Democrats pit the poor against the rich and the Republicans pit the rich against the poor. this division keeps the "slaves" divided so they cannot liberate themselves when they are dependent on the masters while they fight for what they are given.

so that may explain why neither party can get reforms passed.
it doesn't mean they want the system as is

I know the liberals Democrats and Greens really want singlepayer
and the Republicans and libertarians Tea Party etc. want free market health care

neither party can get what they want while they are both stuck under
ACA mandates like handcuffs and can't agree what to change it to

if they both agreed to change it to different things, they could both get what they want.
each party coudl set up their own system for their own members and not have to fight.

but because this insane notion that there can only be one system for all people,
then they are stuck fighting over a system nobody wants to pay for.

The ONLY people I have found supporting ACA all depend on OTHER PEOPLE to pay for it.
if they have to pay , they don't want it.

So that tells me NOBODY really wants it because NOBODY agrees to pay for it!
They only agree if "someone else" is footing the bill. similar to arguments that we would send people to fewer wars if that were our own sons and daughters. but as long as it is other people being sent to fight and die, then people are all for war. very similar.

it's not that we want it, just because we haven't organized better choices
and we're stuck with it for now.


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 20, 2014)

regent said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



You still don't get it do you.     I want your house.    If I gather up a majority of people, can I just take your house?

There have been countries under "democracy" that have done that.    The majority in Rwanda believed it was ok to kill neighbors and take their stuff.   So they did!     According to your idiotic position, that was Democracy in action.  And I could list dozens of other similar examples.

The whole point of having a constitution, is to limit the scope and authority of the public.    We can't just 'vote' ourselves anything we want.   There are good, and required limits on what we can do.

Just because "everyone wants it!" doesn't mean it is legal or right.

Yes, we have social security.   Yes, stupid people don't understand that Social Security is ruining the nation, keeping people impoverished, and is ultimately going broke.

Stupid people also support Castro taking over Cuba, and dooming the country to 50 years of decline, ruination, and thousands of people making rafts to try and swim to Florida to escape their terrible system.

"But Democracy!  They wanted that!"   They did... and they got it... and now they regret it.

Greece had the most generous retirement system in all of Europe.   Now look at where they are.    That's where we'll be following your plan.


----------



## LiberalMedia (Jul 20, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Actually, we want to ban guns, and all other weapons as well.



> Liberalism is essentially about violence.



Nope.



> Lets hear a liberal deny it!.



Just did. Deal with it.


----------



## LiberalMedia (Jul 20, 2014)

Androw said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Androw said:
> ...



If it's for the greater good, then sure. I live in too big of a house anyway.



> There have been countries under "democracy" that have done that.    The majority in Rwanda believed it was ok to kill neighbors and take their stuff.   So they did!     According to your idiotic position, that was Democracy in action.  And I could list dozens of other similar examples.



First, prove that the majority of Rwandans committed genocide, as opposed to a few members of a majority group committing a few isolated acts of senseless violence brought on by the confusion and oppression caused by generations of white Euroscum rule. Second, prove that the "majority" in Rwanda voted for said genocide and theft. Democracy entails voting, which requires an election and/or referendum, which requires poll judges, an elections system, ballot counting, results being announced, etc. If you can't prove that these things were in place, then the Rwandan Genocide didn't happen as a direct result of democracy.



> The whole point of having a constitution, is to limit the scope and authority of the public.    We can't just 'vote' ourselves anything we want.   There are good, and required limits on what we can do.
> 
> Just because "everyone wants it!" doesn't mean it is legal or right.



I don't think you understand the concept of democracy. Majority wants something -> majority votes to change the laws preventing that something from becoming a reality -> laws changed -> what the majority wants is now completely legal. Making something that the majority wants legal in a democracy is merely a matter of following proper procedure to avoid a "Simon didn't say".

You conservatard Christ-stains will still object based on your bigoted concept of morality, though. "W-W-WELL, IT'S LEGAL, BUT IT'S STILL NOT RIGHT!" Who gets to define what is "right," Christ-stain? You? Your non-existent omniscient being? When you arrogant Bible-thumpers whip out the "it's just not right" excuse for opposing a completely good and legal action by we enlightened lybyryls, you're saying that you recognize what we're doing is legal but you absolutely refuse to support it because of your deep-rooted bigotry that you simply cannot overcome. That makes you a defective humyn being.



> Yes, we have social security.   Yes, stupid people don't understand that Social Security is ruining the nation, keeping people impoverished, and is ultimately going broke.



"Don't give money to the poor! Then they'll be poor!" This is what conservatards ACTUALLY believe. Ridiculous.



> Stupid people also support Castro taking over Cuba, and dooming the country to 50 years of decline, ruination, and thousands of people making rafts to try and swim to Florida to escape their terrible system.
> 
> "But Democracy!  They wanted that!"   They did... and they got it... and now they regret it.



Prove that all Cubans regret Castro's revolution. Protip, they don't, and having a few bourgeois scum floating over to the U.S. on their gold-plated yachts doesn't prove anything about the sentiment of the truly patriotic Cubans still living in Cuba.



> Greece had the most generous retirement system in all of Europe.   Now look at where they are.    That's where we'll be following your plan.



Correlation does not equal causation. Try harder.


----------



## regent (Jul 20, 2014)

Androw said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Androw said:
> ...



I don't have a plan. 
Democracies give people an opportunity to be involved in their never ending attempt to make their life better, or if you like, pursue happiness. With America having a two party system in constant battle, the parties create programs that must, to some extent, satisfy both parties, and therefore are not the best programs we could create. But if the people seem to like the program, it is i altered, changed, and hopefully improved over time. Just in my lifetime Social Security has gone through many changes. 
Will America eventually have a health care program, of course, will it be a lousy program, of course, will it gradually be improved, of course, and a thousand years from now both political parties will insist they created it.


----------



## dblack (Jul 20, 2014)

regent said:


> Democracies give people an opportunity to be involved in their never ending attempt to make their life better, or if you like, pursue happiness.



No, they don't. That opportunity is always with us, always has been. Democracies force conformity to the consensus of the majority. That's all they really offer. Sometimes that kind of conformity is necessary. Usually, it's not. And when it's not necessary, diversity is better.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 20, 2014)

regent said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...


Why do you believe that ANYONE has thw right to have other people provide them with goods and services that they do not then have ti pay for? 
Still waiting for an answer.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 20, 2014)

LiberalMedia said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Androw said:
> ...



Jesus God, who left the door open and let more litter blow in?


----------



## Listening (Jul 20, 2014)

LiberalMedia said:


> If it's for the greater good, then sure. I live in too big of a house anyway.



"The Greater Good"....codeword for a variety of excuses for taking from those who have and giving to others who have (but are self righteous and arrogant enough to think they deserve) and those who have not.

When I hear this term...the crap detectors start going off all over the place.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 20, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Actually, we want to ban guns, and all other weapons as well.



of course if the liberal govt does not have guns it cant steal money for you. Sorry to rock your world


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 20, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, we want to ban guns, and all other weapons as well.
> ...



I could wish you had quoted her directly, instead of quoting me quoting her, so that it kinda looks like I said it.  Otherwise, you are correct.


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 21, 2014)

TruthSeeker56 said:


> merrill said:
> 
> 
> > Health Care Is A Right Not a Privilege!
> ...



I couldn't tell if that was a joke, or sarcasm, or not.    But assuming you meant that honestly, then you missed the main point...

When Venezuela pushed for low cost food (because no one should go hungry, regardless of their ability to pay), the result was mass shortages of food.

When Venezuela pushed business to stop hiding their stores of rice, the businesses shipped the rice to Columbia.

When Venezuela, sent in troops to confiscate rice from companies and farms, the farmers and the companies, packed up and left the country.

Socialism does not work.   Socializing health care will not work.   In order to get care, you have to pay money.

You are either going to pay a negotiated rate with an insurance company, or you are going to pay a massive tax to the government, to get minimal care.

The tax rate in the UK, is *almost* double the tax rate here in the US, and they have crappy health care.

They pay far more in taxes, than we do insurance premiums, and they get far worse care.

This is not a solution.  This is a nightmare.

And by the way, most insurance companies, and hospitals are already non-profit.      You know what the difference is between non-profit, and for-profit?   Pretty much nothing.    Everyone has to make a profit.

A hospital of any type, that does not make a profit, is shortly no longer a hospital.   Profit is what makes the world go around.   Without profit, there would not be any health care, any food, any energy, any homes, anything at all.  It is not a negative.  It is a positive.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 21, 2014)

Androw said:


> Profit is what makes the world go around.   Without profit, there would not be any health care, any food, any energy, any homes, anything at all.  It is not a negative.  It is a positive.



yes exactly!! Without profit who is going to invest in anything? And, without profit how will you know who has a a good invention or hospital or car. Lastly, when you make a profit you attract competition to prevent you from making too much profit and to make you constantly improve your invention hospital or car.

A liberal will lack the IQ to understand how capitalism works.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 21, 2014)

Yeah, I saw a lot of "conservatives" Jumping up and opposing Bush's Granny and Gramps all you can eat DOPE buffet when it was passed being the largest social entitlement program in 70 years.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 21, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Yeah, I saw a lot of "conservatives" Jumping up and opposing Bush's Granny and Gramps all you can eat DOPE buffet when it was passed being the largest social entitlement program in 70 years.



if they were supporting entitlements they were not being conservative


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 21, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, I saw a lot of "conservatives" Jumping up and opposing Bush's Granny and Gramps all you can eat DOPE buffet when it was passed being the largest social entitlement program in 70 years.
> ...



Most Democrats voted no in the Senate on the bill
Republicans Sununu, Nickles, McCain, Lott, Hagel, Gregg, Graham, Ensign, Chafee voted NO

ALL other Republicans voted YEA on the bill.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 21, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



and so they were not being conservative!


----------



## anotherlife (Jul 21, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



But privatization never works either.  Privatized entities are not interested in efficiency or sustainability.  They are interested in emptying a previously government controlled industry into their own pockets, then inflate that industry and move that money into other industries, in private accounts.  More or less every privatized national service is an example of this.  

It appears, that every industry starts with new technological opportunities, with a phase of free market competition.  This quickly turns into consolidation.  Then nationalization follows.  And finally privatization.  The only time when the buyers' interests are a factor is the 1st phase, i.e. the free market competition phase.  

The worst phase is the last phase, the privatization.  That is when all feedback and accountability disappear.  You can't un-elect e.g. the fund managers and central bankers who use the free chash from your 401k/IRA to redefine credit terms and insurance legislations, even when you can't pay for that insurance any more.


----------



## Manonthestreet (Jul 21, 2014)




----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 21, 2014)

Manonthestreet said:


>



As an employer I can tell you I have little to no control over any of the healthcare employees get.
Insurance companies, rarely if ever employers, control health care in this country.
As bad or worse as government doing it in a for profit system. 
Insurance companies do not care much about the waste and fraud in every system where a 3rd party, and not the consumer, is paying the bill.
They just raise the premiums, sit back and not to worry. Take a look. 
Germany has far better HEALTH care than we do. 
Single payer and if you do not like it you can buy your own private policy.
If we are interested in HEALTH care instead of maintaining bragging rights to the #1 and best DISEASE care in the world treating 4% of the nation with 55% of all health care dollars funneled through insurance companies and government to a select few specialists and MDs,we will END this train wreck of blank check and insurance "health" care.


----------



## Manonthestreet (Jul 21, 2014)

So the Hobby Lobby......  If you want to end this you need to break up the monopolies.......course then even though prices will be much cheaper people will still have to pay for their care and thats intolerable to libs cause its a right they say....... ....


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 22, 2014)

Manonthestreet said:


> So the Hobby Lobby......  If you want to end this you need to break up the monopolies.......course then even though prices will be much cheaper people will still have to pay for their care and thats intolerable to libs cause its a right they say....... ....



Monopolies?  What the hell are you talking about?


----------



## hinlik (Jul 22, 2014)

Of course, I also agree with you. Health is great gift of God. We should also take care of our health. Everyone wants to have a good health. That does not make its a right. It is only legal modification can make it so..


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 22, 2014)

hinlik said:


> Of course, I also agree with you. Health is great gift of God. We should also take care of our health. Everyone wants to have a good health. That does not make its a right. It is only legal modification can make it so..



Tell that to my neighbor who is hard core right wing religious conservative Republican. Best neighbors and folks you could ever find.
He is 350 lbs. + and his wife even bigger it appears.
They oppose free health care for everyone else but believe it is THEIR RIGHT to be fat, do nothing and draw social security disability because "that is my right to eat what I want to and be fat".

3rd party payee as in insurance company or government IS the problem.
Go back to where you, I and everyone is responsible FOR THEIR OWN health care and watch prices go down 50% immediately.
Something is bad wrong when the going rate for a blood test the doctor takes over and pays $6.50 for at the lab is billed at $76.80 to the patient>
3rd parties paying the tab instead of the consumer be it insurance or government HAS TO END.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 22, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Go back to where you, I and everyone is responsible FOR THEIR OWN health care and watch prices go down 50% immediately.



Yes great point. If people were shopping carefully with their own money and suppliers were forced to compete on basis of price and quality my estimate is price would be 20% of what it now and average life expectancy would be up by 20 years.


----------



## Listening (Jul 22, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Go back to where you, I and everyone is responsible FOR THEIR OWN health care and watch prices go down 50% immediately.
> ...



If you also made it a little more painful for granny to go visit her doctor because she's lonely (which happens an awful lot) and had an honest discussion about end of life care (30% of all care a person consumes is in the last year of life)....you might find things to be less costly.


----------



## saveliberty (Jul 22, 2014)

If it is a right, it doesn't look like Obamacare is the answer.  The appelate court just rejected government subsidies to help pay for it.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 22, 2014)

Listening said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



if we had a free market she might talk about end of life care with a nurse or nurses assistent or degreed sociologist  for $15 an hour ratrher than a socialist doctor for $300/hour.


----------



## regent (Jul 22, 2014)

It's all these new fangled tests and procedures that are using up the medical dollars.  I say go back to the days of Jefferson, maybe a little bleeding and advice to stay off your feet for a day or two and bingo, problem solved.


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 22, 2014)

regent said:


> It's all these new fangled tests and procedures that are using up the medical dollars.  I say go back to the days of Jefferson, maybe a little bleeding and advice to stay off your feet for a day or two and bingo, problem solved.



Well, that is a part of the problem.   Humor or not, part of the issue is that we have new better treatments than ever before, but of course new technology, and new treatments, cost more.

This is part of the reason why newer treatments, newer medications, and newer technologies are simply not available in a socialized systems.   That's part of how they keep costs down.

For example, so of the procedures and medications, very common in the US, are not available at all in France.

But it's cheaper!  Well yeah, because they wait until something is 5 to 10 years old, and then negotiate a lower price.      They are not negotiating a lower price for a new drug, or new treatment.   They are negotiating a lower price on something old.

It would be like Government saying they were going to buy everyone a new car, and you show up at the dealer lot, and find it filled with cars from 2004. 

The difference is, we know about it.  Over in France, the doctors are not allowed by law, to tell patients about treatments the government doesn't cover.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 22, 2014)

Androw said:


> Over in France, the doctors are not allowed by law, to tell patients about treatments the government doesn't cover.



do you have proof of what you say above? Id love to see it.


A shock study has revealed more than half of cancer patients in France, Spain, Germany and Italy are treated with drugs invented since 1985.

But in the UK, only 40 per cent of patients receive them.


----------



## anotherlife (Jul 22, 2014)

Listening said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Yes, if the buyer of healthcare services was put back into the picture, prices would normalize.  Too bad, the semi-communist mass base of the ruling democrat party will never allow that to happen, neither will the insurance cartell backed republican congressional minority.  HEHEHE  

My American friends, you are just beginning the dance, how well you all have been punked out of your own cash and with you all cheering along to get screwed some more.  WHEHEHEHEHE


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 22, 2014)

Androw said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > It's all these new fangled tests and procedures that are using up the medical dollars.  I say go back to the days of Jefferson, maybe a little bleeding and advice to stay off your feet for a day or two and bingo, problem solved.
> ...


I notice you left no link to that BS about France.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 22, 2014)

Political Junky said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



yes but in general he's right. Europe has worse care because:

1) they are poorer and can afford less. France has the income of Arkansas, for example. THey buy less and they buy older drugs and treatments which are cheaper and less effective. 

2) being more socialist they invent far less. USA hold 80% of all recent health care patents for example

3) in Europe most of those who can afford to buy care elect to do so because competitive free market care is naturally superior to monopolistic inefficient socialist care.


----------



## Bush92 (Jul 22, 2014)

merrill said:


> Health Care Is A Right Not a Privilege!
> 
> Let's be clear. Our health care system is disintegrating. Today, 46 million people have no health insurance and even more are underinsured with high deductibles and co-payments. At a time when 60 million people, including many with insurance, do not have access to a medical home, more than 18,000 Americans die every year from preventable illnesses because they do not get to the doctor when they should. This is six times the number who died at the tragedy of 9/11 - but this occurs every year.
> 
> ...



Where does it say this on your birth certificate?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 22, 2014)

Bush92 said:


> merrill said:
> 
> 
> > Health Care Is A Right Not a Privilege!
> ...



of course if we switched to capitalism the cost would be 20% of what it is  now and life expectancy would be increased by 20 years.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 22, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Androw said:
> ...


No links from you either.
The French have access the most advanced drugs, but the manufacturers charge them less than they charge Americans. That should really piss you off.
You should really do some traveling. Europe has changed a lot since the days immediately following WW2.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 23, 2014)

Health care in France - the French health service


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 23, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > Over in France, the doctors are not allowed by law, to tell patients about treatments the government doesn't cover.
> ...



If you are still using drugs from 1985, in 2014, that would tend to support my point.

Quality of care evaluation in France



> In September 2004, the main regional care trust (a regional council of the national public health insurance system) in France, l'Union régionale des caisses d'assurance maladie (URCAM) Ile-de-France, which operates in Paris and its suburbs, published an audit concerning the treatment of colon cancer that used clinical practice guidelines issued in March 1998.2 Another regional care trust, URCAM Limousin, recently published an audit concerning the surgical treatment of thyroid masses that was performed in 2003 and that also used obsolete guidelines from December 1995.3
> 
> Care trusts have a major conflict of interest; outdated guidelines have already been used to *deny coverage for new treatment strategies*.



So let's review.   French regional care trusts, were using outdated treatment guildlines, to deny coverage for new treatments.

Of course the purpose of this is to cut costs, which is far more important than good treatment in a socialized system with limited funds.

Not sure if the patients would agree, but as long as they don't know, they won't complain.

I have not been able to find the law that prohibits doctors from telling patients yet...  but I will find it.


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 23, 2014)

anotherlife said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Actually, there is a growing number of Hospitals and care providers, now openly posting prices.    There is even a growing number of clinics that refuse insurance, and require direct payment for care.


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 23, 2014)

Political Junky said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



I have been to Europe, and specifically France.  It's not the same, nor superior.   French hospitals are ridiculous compared to US hospitals.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 23, 2014)

Androw said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



yes France has the per capita income of Arkansas, about our poorest state so of course many things there will be substandard by American standards.


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 23, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



There's a number of reasons for that though, and it's tied to health care.   As taxes go up, of course incomes will decline.   Additionally, as taxes go up, the wealthy leave.   France has driven out millions of their highest income people, which drastically drives down per capita incomes.

France's Reckoning: Rich, Young Flee Welfare State - World - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com



> According to one poll in Le Point, half of all young adults in France would leave the country if they could because the future looks so bleak.



It's worse, much worse than we know.



> It's pretty tough to be successful in a nation where the president says he doesn't like rich people and where the taxes keep going higher and higher. Consequently, the wealthy have hit the exits, and an increasing number of business people say they've had enough.



6th largest French population.... now outside France.



> As a result, France today is trapped by a welfare state that it is both addicted to and can no longer afford, a welfare state where high taxes and stifling regulation are killing economic opportunity.
> 
> The most recent statistics available show 26,000 French families left in 2010, and 35,000 in 2011. London is now called the "sixth largest French city."
> 
> "The entrepreneurial young people, they're going to London," Paris economist Jacob Arfwedson said. "They're going to Asia; they're going to the United States because they want to achieve something that is not automatically taken away by a state that says, 'You have, therefore I take it.'"



Now think about that... in a country with high unemployment, the entrepreneurial people are leaving.   The very people who create jobs and economic growth, are leaving the country.

Why why?   Because taxes are so high.   Why?  Because of health care, and other socialized programs that need money.

So when people say "well of course their health care isn't quite as funded, because they have lower per capita income", I would say the reverse "It's because of their expensive government funded health care, that they have a lower per capita income".


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 23, 2014)

OK so since everyone is opposed to free government paid for health care when do we end Medicare and the all you can eat DOPE buffet?


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 23, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> OK so since everyone is opposed to free government paid for health care when do we end Medicare and the all you can eat DOPE buffet?



I would phase it out.   I would say everyone 60 and over, are the last.  Everyone 59 and younger, must purchase private health insurance, and just let the program die on the vine.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 23, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> OK so since everyone is opposed to free government paid for health care when do we end Medicare and the all you can eat DOPE buffet?



its not free its stolen from other people. The more people habituated to living off stolen entitlements the weaker our nation and citizens become. Our nation was founded and grew great due to people who were proud and strong enough to support themselves.  

Do you understand?


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 23, 2014)

Androw said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


You were hospitalized in France?


----------



## Listening (Jul 23, 2014)

Androw said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > OK so since everyone is opposed to free government paid for health care when do we end Medicare and the all you can eat DOPE buffet?
> ...



It should take longer than that.  We've all been paying for a while with a promise it would be there.  

I don't mind paying more and getting less (for what I pay for) as long as it goes in the right direction.  

Otherwise, people who have paid a long time will be screwed.


----------



## anotherlife (Jul 24, 2014)

Androw said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



That would be a road back to civilization.  Somehow I feel that these hospitals/providers are sitting ducks for buyouts, because after not boosing their profit margins with deferring income from insurer limit/deductible to customer, they will not be able to maintain their revenues at competitive levels. 



EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



Not up to US standards?  Do you mean like not enough HFC and not enough GM chemicals in French wine and cheese?


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 24, 2014)

Political Junky said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



I personally was not, but a member of our group was, and we've had subsequent people there who were Hospitalized.   One in fact, was directly told by the people at the hospital, that he had to return to the US because he would get better care back here.

Only one of the three, was told this, I'll grant you that much.    But I've been there, I've seen the difference first hand... it's not the same.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 24, 2014)

Androw said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Androw said:
> ...



not so surprising since France is a poor county and socialist too!


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 24, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...


I'm pretty sure you couldn't afford to live in Paris in the style you do in the US. What is it with the Right thinking that Europeans are all poor?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 24, 2014)

Political Junky said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Androw said:
> ...



its a simple fact. France has the per capita income of Arkansas about our poorest state. Productive French people move to London. THe idiot socialist president said he did not like the rich!


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 24, 2014)

anotherlife said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > anotherlife said:
> ...



First off, a buyout only happens when the owner can't make a profit at all.

It's very rare, in fact nearly unheard of, that a perfectly profitable growing business, is bought out because the owner was just making too much money and got bored.

The main reason an owner considers selling the business, is because he is looking at the numbers, and he'll end up bankrupt if he doesn't sell.

As long as the owner is making enough of a profit to fund the reinvestment into the business, and fund his own salary, he'll keep the business.    Hospitals can easily make enough profit without padding the books with fees.

The only exception to that, would be hospitals run by Unions.   The Cooks unions, and the cleaner Unions are way over paid.    I'm sorry to those of you who make a great living doing that work, but pouring canned soup into a vat, and turning the heat on, and stirring every 10 minutes, is not a $20/hour job.

Those Hospitals locked into long term, high pay, Union contracts are going to start having problems if we allow a free-market, because someone is going to open a hospital without Union contracts, and their daily costs to room patients, is going to be a fraction of what the Union hospital cost, and your customers are going to dwindle.

Additionally, and most importantly, adopting a free-market will automatically result in investment into cost-reduction.    The moment you have an open free-market capitalist system involved, having a market price, will encourage hospitals into driving investment to reduce costs.

Under the current system, in many ways, a hospital is more likely to be penalized for cutting costs.     If they find a way to reduce the cost of a CAT scan, this doesn't bring them a single new customer, because the customers pay a deductible, and insurance covers the rest anyway.   Or worse, Medicare and Medicaid cover it, and the customer never pays anything.

But if government finds out that the hospital reduced cost, they might reduce medicare and medicaid payments.   So little up side, possible down side.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 24, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


You avoided my point, that you can't afford to live in Paris in the style that you do in the US.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 24, 2014)

Political Junky said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



thats because your point is 100% idiotic. Some parts of Paris have a  world class style that many from all over the world love so prices can be very very steep thanks to supply and demand. Take the subway 10 minutes out of town  and you have miles and miles of muslim ghettos. On average a Frenchman will have the income of someone from Arkansas.
10 years ago you could get a very nice room in Chaminox for $30, for example.


----------



## Toro (Jul 24, 2014)

Healthcare is neither a right nor a privilege.

It's a product that is consumed.

How the distribution of the product is organized is a political question.


----------



## Doubletap (Jul 24, 2014)

RE: Rights...
*If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.*

A &#8220;right&#8221; is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man&#8217;s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man&#8217;s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action&#8212;which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

The concept of a &#8220;right&#8221; pertains only to action *(not services or products)*&#8212;specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.
Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive&#8212;of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.

The right to life is the source of all rights&#8212;and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values. 

There is no such thing as &#8220;a right to a job&#8221;&#8212;there is only the right of free trade, that is: a man&#8217;s right to take a job if another man chooses to hire him. There is no &#8220;right to a home,&#8221; only the right of free trade: the right to build a home or to buy it. There are no &#8220;rights to a &#8216;fair&#8217; wage or a &#8216;fair&#8217; price&#8221; if no one chooses to pay it, to hire a man or to buy his product. There are no &#8220;rights of consumers&#8221; to milk, shoes, movies or champagne if no producers choose to manufacture such items (there is only the right to manufacture them oneself). There are no &#8220;rights&#8221; of special groups, there are no &#8220;rights of farmers, of workers, of businessmen, of employees, of employers, of the old, of the young, of the unborn.&#8221; There are only the Rights of Man&#8212;rights possessed by every individual man and by all men as individuals" ---Ayn Rand


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 24, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


No, not idiotic, you still can't live in Paris in the style you enjoy in the US.
I assume you referred to Chamonix.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 24, 2014)

Political Junky said:


> you still can't live in Paris in the style you enjoy in the US.



and if this was true what would it demonstrate???? the same is true of Caracas but what does it mean? Nothing actually. Sorry to rock your world!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 25, 2014)

Political Junky said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Androw said:
> ...



Virtually NO ONE in Paris lives in the style that we do in the US, which is rather the point.  Why are we supposed to believe in the superiority of a nation which, despite being technically a first-tier country, has a lower standard of living than we take for granted at home?

We think Europeans are poor in large part BECAUSE it takes so much more money to live so much worse.  That's not rich; that's fucking stupid.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 25, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Yes France has the per capita income of Arkansas about our poorest state.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 26, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...


How many times did you repeat that in this thread alone?


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 26, 2014)

Political Junky said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Androw said:
> ...



That's our point.  You are making OUR point.     Yeah, we couldn't afford to live in Paris, and enjoy the lifestyle we have here. 

Yeah, that's the point.

Does that mean they are "poor"?   Poor is a relative term.   Compared to the average life style of the US, Europeans are 'poorer'.    But they are not "poor".

Europeans have less land, smaller homes, less services, fewer appliances, smaller cars, and fewer toys.

That doesn't mean they are 'poor'.   But they most certainly are 'poorer'.

Again, I've been there.  I've seen Europe.  I've lived in their homes.    I know what they have and don't have.   I've seen the cars with 4 seats, that can only fit 2 people.    I've seen the 3 people riding, a motorized bike, that's smaller than an American Moped.   I've seen the clothes lines hanging inside the house, because no one can afford a clothes drier.

No again... they are not all 'impoverished'.    No one (or few) in western Europe is 'impoverished'.

But they simply can't afford the life style, that the poorest in America routinely enjoy.

Why?  Because of socialism.  They pay tons on tons of taxes.   As a result, they have less money, as a result they can't afford what we can.

But they have mandatory vacation! Which lowers their wages.   But they have free health care!   Which taxes the wages they do have.

Socialism drives down the standard of living, which for many leftists, is a plus.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 26, 2014)

Political Junky said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



do you know why the percapita income of France is so low? Do you know why our liberals love France?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jul 26, 2014)

dear, you really should visit France. 

They live quite well - both cities and rural areas.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 26, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> dear, you really should visit France.
> 
> They live quite well - both cities and rural areas.



If you don't mind rioting in the streets and chants of "Gas the Jews".

Come to think of it, you probably don't mind that, as long as they don't bother you.


----------



## Listening (Jul 27, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> dear, you really should visit France.
> 
> They live quite well - both cities and rural areas.



Based on what measures ?

It would be nice if you twits on the left...just once in a while....would define your metrics.

Ignoring all that...when do you move ?


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 27, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> dear, you really should visit France.
> 
> They live quite well - both cities and rural areas.



Been there, done that.   Have friends there now.  Thanks for asking.

By the way, if you the opportunity to go there... and preferably stay.. You have our blessing.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 27, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> dear, you really should visit France.
> 
> They live quite well - both cities and rural areas.




as long as you want to live on a level comparable to that of Arkansas you can say the French live well. But, just to take one example, they depend on the USA for medical innovations because France doesn't do innovations well, as a socialist country! We literally breath life into them. We freed them during WW2 and they took credit for the liberation. They imagine they live well now and take credit for it when in reality they live poorly and again must give credit to the USA for what they do have.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 27, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> dear, you really should visit France.
> 
> They live quite well - both cities and rural areas.



So do the people in Arkansas, yet you hold them in utter contempt because they are poor.


----------



## OmegaAMason (Jul 28, 2014)

I think that we should really let some of these people go out on their ass and find out that they cant buy anything for the next few decades because they didnt have insurance. While I disagree with the Affordable Care Act, I think that we definitely need a much better system than what we have nowadays.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 28, 2014)

OmegaAMason said:


> I think that we should really let some of these people go out on their ass and find out that they cant buy anything for the next few decades because they didnt have insurance. While I disagree with the Affordable Care Act, I think that we definitely need a much better system than what we have nowadays.



yes a capitalist system in which people are carefully shopping with their own money and providers are competing on the basis of price and quality. It would lower prices to 20% of what they are now and add 15-20 years to our lives.


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 29, 2014)

OmegaAMason said:


> I think that we should really let some of these people go out on their ass and find out that they cant buy anything for the next few decades because they didnt have insurance. While I disagree with the Affordable Care Act, I think that we definitely need a much better system than what we have nowadays.



On that, we agree.   I wager the difference is what method we should adopt to reach that "better system than what we have".

I would say we need to adopt a more free-market system.   We need to eliminate the tax deduction for business.

We need health insurance separated from employment.

We need to eliminate nearly all regulation on health care.

We need to phase out Medicare and Medicaid.

First we need to separate insurance from business.  I have never lost my auto insurance, because I got laid off.    All insurance should be the same.   Now if you can't pay your premiums because you lost your job, I feel that under personal responsibility.  I keep no less than $1,000 in the bank, untouched, unused, at all times, just in case of an emergency.   $1,000 is a ton for me, a single guy with few bills, and zero debt.   Others with families should be keeping about $10,000 in the bank at all times, untouched, unused, for emergencies.

That way you can keep your insurance, and pay for food, water and shelter, until you find another job.

Next we need to phase out Medicare and Medicaid.   These programs are part of the reason health care is so expensive.   They drive up the cost on private premium payers, by not paying the cost of treatment.   Hospitals specifically, lose money on every Medicaid / Medicare person they treat.   In order to make up that loss, they have to charge private payers more, and at the same time, we have to pay the taxes to fund those programs.  

Lastly, we need to drastically cut down on the regulation of health care.  The most obvious example is "certificate of need".   Nearly every state has C.O.N. systems in place.   Basically, before you are allowed to open a new clinic, or new hospital, or treatment center, you have to have CON issued by the government, usually the state.

So I'm a doctor in Columbus Ohio, and me and three other doctors, decide we want to open a new clinic.  So we have to go to the state, and apply for a certificate of need.   The state then determines if there is a 'need' for a new clinic there.   Now who do you think the state goes to, in order to find out if there is a need?

Who would know whether there was a need or not?  Of course they go to the existing hospitals and clinics, and they give their report on the 'need' for another hospital or clinic.

It's like asking Walgreens and CVS, if they think there is a 'need' for another drug store chain.

Well of course, the existing hospitals and clinics say there is no need.  Until of course they themselves decide to expand to a new location, and then suddenly there is a 'need'.

These and many other price hiking regulations need completely removed.  Allow the free-market to work, and prices will drop.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 29, 2014)

OmegaAMason said:


> I think that we should really let some of these people go out on their ass and find out that they cant buy anything for the next few decades because they didnt have insurance. While I disagree with the Affordable Care Act, I think that we definitely need a much better system than what we have nowadays.



Such as?


----------



## dblack (Jul 29, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> OmegaAMason said:
> 
> 
> > I think that we should really let some of these people go out on their ass and find out that they can&#8217;t buy anything for the next few decades because they didn&#8217;t have insurance. While I disagree with the Affordable Care Act, I think that we definitely need a much better system than what we have nowadays.
> ...



I can't emphasize enough how I think this kind of argument is a mistake, if your goal is to encourage limited government and a free market. It's a mistake because it implicitly grants the core claim of the statist - that things like the price and quality of services available, and how our health and lifespans, are legitimate concerns of government.

To illustrate my point, if it could be shown that a locked-down police state would lower health care prices by 30% and add 20-30 years to our lives, would you be in favor of it? I'm not saying that's the case, but I trust that *even if it were*, you'd still be opposed to such a policy. Because maximizing our efficiency as a society should not be the goal of government. The goal of government should be protecting our freedom to voluntarily create the kind of society we want - not to decide what that society should be and force consensus.


----------



## emilynghiem (Jul 29, 2014)

Political Junky said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Androw said:
> ...



I hate to break it to all you folks trying to compare people by country.

There are always the richest of the rich living alongside the poorest of the poor.

Happens everywhere.

We don't teach a sustainable system of how to buy property and land and move up the scale, so the rich get richer by investing, and the poor get poorer by getting into more debt till they lose what they have.

I was trying to help community and Veteran leaders set up a campus to teach this in Houston, using a historic district next to very wealthy areas, where the Freed Slaves originally built their own houses, churches and business district by themselves, with support of other churches, but with NO govt help because they weren't citizens 100 years ago when Freedmen's Town was a thriving district.

Since the govt took over the land away from the people by eminent domain, it has gone DOWNHILL where public funds in the millions were abused to seize and destroy property for private interests and profit from encroaching development, even kicking out elderly residents and forcing churches to hand over land to the City for lack of funds to preserve it themselves.  The residents with business plans to make a SUSTAINABLE campus for teaching people to GET OUT of poverty, off welfare, and become independent landowners and business owners got CENSORED by govt where politicians REFUSED to fund those plans. Clearly the City and Developers who decide who stays in office wanted to take advantage of the poor, take the land for the rich, and even use tax money to benefit themselves at the expense of the public and national history sacrificed for their gain.

So it is an issue of POLITICAL slavery and poverty. All over control of land for taxation purposes. Get real, people! This can't be that hard to figure out. Even my coworkers who don't know the difference between state and federal govt know they can't win the rat race when the city and county controlling taxes can take away people's property.

If you don't address the politics of ownership and power, no amount of wealth can buy independence. Lesson is the people need to own the land to be equal. As long as the city, state or govt can tax people into losing their property, you aren't equal.

So folks, you can fight day and night over who has more money or wealth or political influence; but look who owns the land and which govts control and impose taxes on people.

Until you address that, we aren't equal, and we stay distracted and stuck fighting with each other over crumbs falling from the Master's table instead of looking at what's going on in the kitchen and who's really running the place! Wake up!!!


----------



## Listening (Jul 29, 2014)

dblack said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > OmegaAMason said:
> ...



Amen...rep on the way.

They are to protect the playing field so the game can go on.  They are not the referees.

I am talking federal and state governments.

The same isn't so true for city and county governments (IMHO).


----------



## dblack (Jul 29, 2014)

Listening said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Not to quibble, because I'm quite sure you get what I'm saying, but the ARE the referees. They're just not the coaches.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 29, 2014)

dblack said:


> that things like the price and quality of services available, and how our health and lifespans, are legitimate concerns of government.



of course they are concerns of govt since the govt represents us. And it is a concern to us the people since most of the planet is certain that govt can better the lives of people!


----------



## dblack (Jul 29, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > that things like the price and quality of services available, and how our health and lifespans, are legitimate concerns of government.
> ...



Against our will even!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 29, 2014)

dblack said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



govt is for or against our will and for or against truth, but govt is there and most of the planet wants it that way. So then the issue is to explain that govt at best harms efficiency and at worst is genocidal.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jul 29, 2014)

Haven't read the thread but --

Watch/read Money-Driven Medicine

At end of WII, most other countries made the very conscious decision to invest in their own countries. The US decided to invest in their military. 

The result is what we see today - the US 27th in health but first in bloated military and policeman of the world. 

So, we're sick and not well taken care of but damn, we can kill any other country several times over.

Dumb and self destructive.


----------



## dblack (Jul 29, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Haven't read the thread but --



Poop.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jul 29, 2014)

dblack said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Haven't read the thread but --
> ...



Yours is post #421. 

I'm in a hotel, beyond pooped and ready to 

Oh, never mind.


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 30, 2014)

dblack said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > OmegaAMason said:
> ...



I find this post to be confusing.

Promoting a Capitalist based system... A system of private individuals engaging in the private market, to purchase private health insurance, or health care....

Is a mistake because it implicitly grants the core claim of the statist?

Would not the prior post be completely against statism?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 7, 2014)

Androw said:


> Is a mistake because it implicitly grants the core claim of the statist?
> 
> Would not the prior post be completely against statism?



no we need a powerful state to impose and maintain freedom and capitalism!


----------



## dblack (Aug 7, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > Is a mistake because it implicitly grants the core claim of the statist?
> ...


???


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 7, 2014)

dblack said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Androw said:
> ...



 we need a powerful conservative/libertarian state to impose and maintain freedom and capitalism


----------



## dblack (Aug 7, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



OK... I've always suspected. But now I know. You're insane.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 7, 2014)

dblack said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



please say why insane or admit you can't defend what you say.


----------



## dblack (Aug 7, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



No.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 7, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Haven't read the thread but --
> 
> Watch/read Money-Driven Medicine
> 
> ...



Medical research is very expensive, care to guess which country does the most?  How many memory challenged Chinese are in nursing homes?


----------



## Andylusion (Aug 8, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Haven't read the thread but --
> 
> Watch/read Money-Driven Medicine
> 
> ...



Being healthy, and having good quality care, are two different things.

If I choose to smoke, and choose to drink, and choose to shovel chocolate cake in my face every day, and shoot up drugs.... I'm going to be unhealthy.

Doesn't matter what the health care system is like.

When you say we are not taking care of people, is that a statistical fact, or is that a 'correlation equals causation' fallacy, based on how health we are compared to other countries?

Because if you look at any survival rates of fatal illnesses, we do better than nearly any other country in the world.






Notice who has the highest survival rates in the world?   The US.

The truth is, our health care system takes better care of our people, than any other system in the world.    If you get sick, your absolute best possible chance to survive it, is here in the US.


----------



## regent (Aug 8, 2014)

Androw said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Haven't read the thread but --
> ...



Do those statistics include all people that were alive in those years or just those that had a medical diagnosis of cancer?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 8, 2014)

saveliberty said:


> Medical research is very expensive, care to guess which country does the most?



once I asked a medical researcher from Italy who was at Yale how she knew her research was not being done somewhere else on earth. She said she didn't even bother to check because it was all being done here.

Liberals don't realize that America invented the health care the world enjoys!!


----------



## Andylusion (Aug 8, 2014)

regent said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



It includes every single person with a diagnosis of cancer.   Are they alive in 5 years?    That's the survival rate.

Again, why would it include everyone alive?   If I'm hit by a car, and die, why would they include that as a strike against the hospital?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 8, 2014)

dblack said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



are you at least embarrassed that you cant defend what you say?


----------



## dblack (Aug 8, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



You have no idea. I hang my head in shame.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 8, 2014)

dblack said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



good for you! Calling names like a child
 with no justification is shameful. Ask your mother if you doubt it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 8, 2014)

regent said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



Oh gee, how can an intelligent person figure that out?

Well, it says five year survival rate for cancer, I guess that means cancer, and not anything else.

I used to have a professor that kept a record of all the stupid questions people asked in his class during the semester, and then hand out an award for the dumbest. Your question would probably have won the award hands down.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 8, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



He did not call you names, he said you are insane. I happen to agree with him, maybe you should consider seeing a professional.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 8, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



another idiot who calls names like a small child. Obviously you would present your reasons if you had them. Are you fooling yourself at least?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 8, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Once again, stating a belief that you are insane is not calling you names.  You really should learn the difference.

The reason I have for thinking you are insane is self evident in this post.



EdwardBaiamonte said:


> we need a powerful  conservative/libertarian state to impose and maintain freedom and  capitalism


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 8, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



its self-evident meaning you lack the IQ to explain it??


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 8, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



No, self evident as in not needing to be explained.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 8, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



oh good so you're ignorance is self-evident too!! After all, you're the utter fool who cant explain why my supposed insanity is self-evident.


Government Rules Make Markets and Capitalism Possible
Markets, like governments, are very much social constructs. The market is a set of behaviors that is structured by rules, and many of the most important rules have been developed and enforced by government. Without these rules, our prized free-market economy would be a stunted and feeble version of what we see today. To see how this is the case, lets looks at these essential &#8220;rules&#8221; &#8211; the vast infrastructure of laws and policies that make a modern capitalist economy possible.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 8, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



I can explain it, you just won't get it because you are bat shit crazy.

By the way, if calling people names is a sign of not being able to debate, why do you do so much of it?



EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Government Rules Make Markets and Capitalism Possible
> Markets, like governments, are very much social constructs. The market is a set of behaviors that is structured by rules, and many of the most important rules have been developed and enforced by government. Without these rules, our prized free-market economy would be a stunted and feeble version of what we see today. To see how this is the case, lets looks at these essential rules  the vast infrastructure of laws and policies that make a modern capitalist economy possible.



Explain black/gray markets using that argument.

See what I mean about being self evident yet?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 9, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Explain black/gray markets using that argument.



dear, you forgot to say what argument you are talking about. Slow?


----------



## Andylusion (Aug 9, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Government Rules Make Markets and Capitalism Possible
> Markets, like governments, are very much social constructs. The market is a set of behaviors that is structured by rules, and many of the most important rules have been developed and enforced by government. Without these rules, our prized free-market economy would be a stunted and feeble version of what we see today. To see how this is the case, lets looks at these essential rules  the vast infrastructure of laws and policies that make a modern capitalist economy possible.



That is not entirely true.

There were free-markets that worked, long before we had bridges and roads.  They were all perfectly functional and growing, without any of the infrastructure you claim is so required.

Now there are cases where infrastructure can increase economic growth, but at what cost?

I would argue most of the interstate system, was largely a net loss to the country, not a net gain.

I can show you towns here in Ohio, that are all abandoned and vacant, because there were perfectly good, perfectly fine roads being used, that these towns grew up around, that were all replaced by Federal interstates.      The interstate didn't add anything, it merely cost a lot of money, and killed off existing towns and infrastructure.

*A great example of free-markets not needing infrastructure, would be Gujarat.* 

Gujarat was already widely known as the absolute poorest of all provinces in India.  Few if any had roads, water, electricity, or anything.   It was a no mans land of nothing.

In 2001, they were hit by a massive earthquake that completely leveled the very little they had.

The government stepped in, and create tax-free zones, and regulation free-zones.  Companies could invest, and grow their businesses, with zero taxes, and almost no regulations.

Now keep in mind, they don't have roads, don't have electricity, don't have water.     The companies stepped in, built train tracks, built the roads, built electrical power plants.  Built water supplies.   They even built an entire seaport, all funded with private dollars.

Gujarat today, is now the manufacturing capital of India.   The free market worked, without a single penny of government infrastructure.

So why does that not happen here?  Pretty much, companies know that the socialists in government are more than willing to spend millions of tax payer money, to fund a project for companies.

If we didn't do that, and only offered 10-year tax free investment, companies would build all the roads, tracks, bridges they needed without a penny from the tax payers.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 9, 2014)

Androw said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Government Rules Make Markets and Capitalism Possible
> ...



well I generally agree  but you need govt police, courts, coordination/planning/zoning for airports  bridges  etc.,etc.


----------



## Andylusion (Aug 9, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



That statement to me, is confusing two completely different issues.

On the one hand you have regulations.  That would be like zoning laws.

On the other you have justice.   That would be police and courts and so on.

Those are two completely different things in my book.

Justice is punishment of doing wrong.   Like fraud.  I can't sell you a car for $10,000, and claim it only has 200 miles on it, and a bran new engine, have you buy and drive it around the block, only to have the engine fall out, and find the odometer was rolled back 200K miles.

Nor can I just flat out kill you, and take your stuff, or break into your house collect your valuables, rape your daughter and leave.

This is law enforcement, and the institution of justice.

Regulation is not like justice at all.  Regulation is, you are doing something completely legal and fine, that harms no one and violates no ones rights.   But I have deemed that I don't like the way you are doing your legal thing, and so I'm going to enforce my personal preference on how you do this legal thing you do.

Back in the late 80s, my father built me a tree house.   It was nothing special, but it was 10 feet up in the air.

Did it harm anyone?  No.  Did it violate anyone's rights?  Nope.   Was there anything 'unjust' or morally wrong about it?   Nope.

Nevertheless, our city we lived in had a rule that you can't have a tree house that was more than a few feet off the ground.   I think it was 5 or 8.    The city sent us a notice we had to lower or remove the tree house. 

That's regulation.   It's the arbitrary controls on people's lives, without any real cause.   Sure they have their millions of excuses and rationalizations.  But in the end, it's nothing more than government controlling our lives.

*In fact, if you look up the Arab Spring, the source of the revolt was.... regulation. *

It was not a lack of justice.  It was government controlling and dictating every aspect of people's lives, and it finally caused a revolution.

Mohamed Bouazizi, in Tunisia set himself on fire, sparking the Arab Spring, in 2010.

Why?   Bouazizi was a street vendor.   He borrowed $200, and a wheel borrow, to sell vegetables on the street.    The police discovered him, and when he didn't have a permit to sell, they confiscated the wheel borrow and all his produce.

Faced with no possible way to make a living, he went to the police station to plead for his stuff back, and when he didn't get it, set himself on fire.

He wasn't harming anyone.  He was selling them food.  He didn't violate anyone's rights.   He was a legal citizen, doing a legal job, without a permit.   The permit, is regulation.

*When we on the right, the conservatives, talk about less government, less controlling our lives, this right here is what we're talking about.*

I have not seen a conservative yet, stand up and say "I want less government.  Lets cut the police and courts".

Never seen that.   If anything, we support more police, more law enforcement, stronger penalties for breaking the law.

And equally, when we want to cut the budget, we're not talking about those things.

At the Federal level, justice, courts, law enforcement, is a mere fraction of the budget.   Barely even significant.   According to the 2013 budget, Dept. of Justice, was $16 Billion, and Dept of Homeland Security, was $39 Billion, and a good chunk of that includes international, rather than domestic law enforcement.  So $55 Billion dollars, and the Federal Budget was $3,770 Billion.

Let's shave off that $3 Trillion, double law enforcement, and we'll still have Trillions of dollars left over in surplus money to pay off debt.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 9, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Explain black/gray markets using that argument.
> ...



The one I quoted in my post, oh he who has problems understanding context.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 10, 2014)

While health care is a right (paid for by taxes) in many other countries, its not a right in the US. 

Even though we pay very high taxes, it goes to our incredibly bloated and outdated military. That's the same bloated and outdated military the right wants to spend more of our taxes on.


----------



## dblack (Aug 10, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> While health care is a right (paid for by taxes) in many other countries, its not a right in the US.
> 
> Even though we pay very high taxes, it goes to our incredibly bloated and outdated military. That's the same bloated and outdated military the right wants to spend more of our taxes on.



Ok... that's an interesting insight. Is that what "right" means to you? Paid for by taxes?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 10, 2014)

dblack said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > While health care is a right (paid for by taxes) in many other countries, its not a right in the US.
> ...



As a leftist, he thinks it means "the government promises to give it to me", yes.


----------



## Andylusion (Aug 10, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> While health care is a right (paid for by taxes) in many other countries, its not a right in the US.
> 
> Even though we pay very high taxes, it goes to our incredibly bloated and outdated military. That's the same bloated and outdated military the right wants to spend more of our taxes on.



You are nutz.   We don't pay a fraction of the taxes that Europe does.   That's why were doing far better than most of Europe, and have a better standard of living than Europe.

If we had the same health care system Europe does, we have to drastically lower our survival rates (let far more patients die), and nearly double our tax rates.


----------



## emilynghiem (Aug 10, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


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



Dear [MENTION=14617]Cecilie1200[/MENTION] and  [MENTION=30065]dblack[/MENTION]
From trying to understand where Luddly Neddite, Dante and other liberals are coming from, the belief seems to be that the govt is the "default" source of making sure the public is taken care of equally.  That is the starting point assumption.

What adds to this is the assumption that since hospitals/ER provide care unconditionally, and taxpayers already pay for this, then the regulations set up were attempts to hold people responsible for their own health care costs such as by requiring insurance.

unfortunately this doesn't solve the problems but makes them worse.
instead of holding the people responsible who are INCURRING costs to the public,
the liberal legislation took rights and liberties away from law-abiding citizens
without first proving by due process that any such people committed crimes or
had any intent of dumping more costs on the public than these citizens pay in.

since the arguments have been against whole groups,
these parties have not been communicating constructively to try to solve problems.

so now the conflicts have escalated to badmouthing and demonizing both sides,
instead of addressing the real issues of health care and how to pay for it responsibly.

one side does not want to pay for war and destroying infrastructure when govt funding could be used to pay for hospital development and health care.

one side does not want to pay for welfare and criminal prison populations while
law abiding citizens are robbed of rights, freedoms and taxes to pay for other
people's costs and consequences of irresponsible unlawful behavior.

why can't both parties pay for health care by redirecting taxes that they don't want to waste on problems that can be solved instead? why not let all parties pay for health care by reducing or preventing waste or abuses in areas they deem wasteful?

do we really expect to pay for things all the same way?
why not let each party take on problems of govt abuse and waste,
solve those problems, and redirect those funds to pay for health care, education etc.

why not let all approaches work together to solve the problems of waste
and let people pay their taxes into whatever programs they believe are cost effective

who says it all has to be done the same way?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 10, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> While health care is a right (paid for by taxes) in many other countries, its not a right in the US.
> 
> Even though we pay very high taxes, it goes to our incredibly bloated and outdated military. That's the same bloated and outdated military the right wants to spend more of our taxes on.



This is true, we obviously need a bigger military given the huge new terrorist threats we face from the middle east and now a reawakened Russia under Putin. America is bombing in Iraq to prevent genocide because only we have the capitalist wealth and moral standing to do it!.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 10, 2014)

dblack said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > While health care is a right (paid for by taxes) in many other countries, its not a right in the US.
> ...



more specificially they feel they have the right to tax other people or steal from other people  to pay for their health care.


----------



## dblack (Aug 10, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > While health care is a right (paid for by taxes) in many other countries, its not a right in the US.
> ...



[ame=http://youtu.be/Ksa4VjKE3RY]Paul Simon - Still Crazy After All These Years + lyrics - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 10, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > While health care is a right (paid for by taxes) in many other countries, its not a right in the US.
> ...



No, dear, we don't. 

America?s staggering defense budget, in charts - The Washington Post


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 10, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


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



I mean what I wrote. 

As I have said before, after WWII, other countries raised their taxes and then spent the money on their people.

The US raised taxes but spent it on the military which, in turn, made the rich richer. 

Here in the US, we pay but we don't get.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 10, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Here in the US, we pay but we don't get.




of course thats idiotic.

1) the USA is the worlds policemen so we get peace, as does much of the world

2) we have Republican capitalism so are rich compared to Europe which cant defend itself and which has the standard of living of Arkansas, about our poorest state.

Isn't learning fun?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 10, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Here in the US, we pay but we don't get.
> ...



1) Is that why the fourth consecutive president has sent our military to Iraq? If it were true that making war brings peace, there would be no wars anywhere on the planet.

2) You really need to travel because its obvious you've never been to Europe.


----------



## Andylusion (Aug 10, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> What adds to this is the assumption that since hospitals/ER provide care unconditionally, and taxpayers already pay for this, then the regulations set up were attempts to hold people responsible for their own health care costs such as by requiring insurance.
> 
> unfortunately this doesn't solve the problems but makes them worse.
> instead of holding the people responsible who are INCURRING costs to the public, the liberal legislation took rights and liberties away from law-abiding citizens without first proving by due process that any such people committed crimes or had any intent of dumping more costs on the public than these citizens pay in.



The first problem, is that the entire premise if false.  It is not automatic, that a person who gets treatment at a hospital, is costing the tax payers.   I went to the hospital without insurance, and got something called "a bill".  I then did something known as "paying the bill".

The BBC did a documentary on Obama care, and discovered numerous people who were paying their own health care bills, and now thanks to ObamaCare, are on government programs, costing tax payers money.

So the entire left-wing premise if false from the start.   ObamaCare has done more to increase the cost to tax payers, than reduce it.



> one side does not want to pay for war and destroying infrastructure when govt funding could be used to pay for hospital development and health care.



We have already tried that.  It's called the "VA system", and it sucks.  If I have to choose between my tax money going to the military, which is the fundamental duty of the Federal government, and bad socialized health care, I'll choose the military every single time.



> why can't both parties pay for health care by redirecting taxes that they don't want to waste on problems that can be solved instead? why not let all parties pay for health care by reducing or preventing waste or abuses in areas they deem wasteful?
> 
> do we really expect to pay for things all the same way?
> why not let each party take on problems of govt abuse and waste,
> ...



Because when you talk about "waste and govt abuse", all of those things, the other side thinks are great wonderful and a benefit.

For example, I believe that Wind Power is a complete waste.   The other side, thinks that the Holy Totems of Power are wonderful.

There is no reconciling these two views.  One side has to win, and the other has to lose.

Further, no matter how much we clean out the waste, there will always be waste.  Always.   Waste is inherent to government.   

The only way to eliminate waste from say, medicare... is to eliminate medicare.   You will never reach a point where Medicare is waste free.  Can't happen.   First, there is no "Purity Party", where we can vote for Heavenly Angels, who are perfect, and operate purely on the good of society, instead of partisanship and self interest.   Second, even if there was such a party, waste in inherent to very system of government.

Even if you elected *ME* as head of some government agency, it wouldn't make any real difference.   Even if my whole goal was to eliminate waste, you have to remember, every year I show money left over, congress is going to cut funding.    Now that sounds great, and to me that's wonderful because I'm trying to cut waste.....

But what about all of the people under me?  What about all my department heads?   What about all my employees?   Their entire goal is to prevent those cuts.  They want more money, and more raises, and more employees.   They have every incentive to make sure there is no money left over at the end of the year.   If they have an extra $1,000, they are going to find something to blow it on.   Hard to make the case to congress that you need more money, when you have leftover cash.

My entire agency is going to be working 100% against me cutting out the waste.

Do you get the problem?    It sounds really easy "just cut waste and use the money to fund health care".  That works great in the movies....  simply not true in reality.   "Dave" was a great movie, but it was a horrible portrayal of reality.  That's why it's not in the Documentary section, but rather the Fiction section.


----------



## Andylusion (Aug 10, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



No, I have been to Europe.  He is exactly right.  Obviously you are the one who has not been there, or you didn't learn much while there, OR you are a rich person, and hung out with rich people, that has a better standard of living than the average European.

For you to even remotely imply Europeans have the same standard of living as the average American, is ridiculous.  You simply don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 11, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> If it were true that making war brings peace, there would be no wars anywhere on the planet.



dear, we don't make war we defend people from liberal genocide: Hitler Stalin Mao Tojo Pol Pot Saddam, ISIS.

See why we are positive liberalism is based in pure ignorance. The liberal would encourage genocide with his total deadly ignorance.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 11, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > If it were true that making war brings peace, there would be no wars anywhere on the planet.
> ...



_Dear_, you're still full of shit but my question is, for a "published author", and that is what you wrote, why can't you use 6th grade punctuation or find your shift key?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 11, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



8th argumentum ad hominem from typical liberal without IQ for substance


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 11, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Let me advance a not-very-original, but extremely accurate, idea.

If you think what those other countries did and became after WWII was so much better and richer and more wonderful than this country, pick one and GO LIVE THERE.

But please try to understand that not everyone thinks your idea of "wonderful" is the right one, and we really, REALLY do not need or want your "wisdom" on the subject imposed on us so that we have to "enjoy" your "utopia" with you.  And no, we AREN'T going to realize how right and brilliant you were once you've managed to forcibly impose your dreams on us.  We're still going to think you're a dribbling ass clown whose ideas suck.

Deal with it, and _bon voyage_.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 11, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



That's like saying if washing dishes brought a clean kitchen, the kitchen would never be dirty.

YOU are the one who really needs to travel . . . on a one-way ticket.  Get this through your vacuum-stuffed, rock skull:  we don't WANT to be convinced of the wonders of Europe.  We don't WANT to be sold on how fantasmagorical it would be if we would all just submit to your fantasy of how much better the US would be if we emulated Europe.  WE  DON'T WANT TO LIVE IN EUROPE.  If that's what you want, go do it and stop trying to force everyone else to "enjoy" your fantasyland.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 12, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



Really?  You and your run-on sentence want to challenge someone else on grammar?  Good to know you're as delusional about your "stellar" English skills as you are about your non-existent intelligence.


----------



## dblack (Aug 12, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Apologies, because I know it wasn't the thrust of your post, but what I found most interesting was the conflation of 'right' with something 'paid for with taxes'. Is it fair to assume that most of the comments we see here stating that health is, or should be, a right are simply saying that health care is something we should pay for with taxes? 

That would make more sense, but it's sad to see the word 'right', which usually means something more specific in political discussions, misused in that way.


----------



## dblack (Aug 12, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Anyway, to address the actual point of your post, the US doesn't spend money on its people because, here, government doesn't own the people. It's the other way around. We pay taxes, not to "get" stuff but rather, to protect our rights.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 12, 2014)

dblack said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



as if the civilized world would exist without Republicans doing simple little things like winning world wars with our huge military?


----------



## dblack (Aug 12, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


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



What???


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 12, 2014)

dblack said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



luddy liberal said we wasted our money on the military for benefit of rich when in fact our military has been the source of civilization on earth for everyone person on earth.


----------



## dblack (Aug 12, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Oh. I see. Our military founded the Tigris and Euphrates. 

You're bonkers Ed.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 12, 2014)

dblack said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



if I said or implied that our military founded the Tigris and Euphrates I'll pay you $10,000. Bet?


----------



## dblack (Aug 12, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Will you wear a funny hat too?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 12, 2014)

dblack said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



if I said or implied that our military founded the Tigris and Euphrates I'll pay you $10,000. Bet


----------



## dblack (Aug 12, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



But what about the hat? No deal without the hat.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 12, 2014)

dblack said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



if I said or implied that our military founded the Tigris and Euphrates I'll pay you $10,000. Bet


----------



## dblack (Aug 12, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



No hat, no bet.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 12, 2014)

dblack said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



if I said or implied that our military founded the Tigris and Euphrates I'll pay you $10,000. Bet


----------



## dadsgm (Aug 25, 2014)

merrill said:


> Health Care Is A Right Not a Privilege!
> 
> Let's be clear. Our health care system is disintegrating. Today, 46 million people have no health insurance and even more are underinsured with high deductibles and co-payments. At a time when 60 million people, including many with insurance, do not have access to a medical home, more than 18,000 Americans die every year from preventable illnesses because they do not get to the doctor when they should. This is six times the number who died at the tragedy of 9/11 - but this occurs every year.
> 
> ...


I do not care what Sanders said. He did not grant nor can he grant anyone a 'right'.  Besides those rights mentioned in the Constitution you are guaranteed the 'right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'.  No where are you guaranteed something for nothing; you can get an education and with that and your drive you can pursue and accomplish what you are driven to.  Be a slacker and you have earned the right to be a slacker and receive the minimum that life has to offer and do not expect the rest of us to pay your way.


----------



## Political Junky (Aug 26, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> While health care is a right (paid for by taxes) in many other countries, its not a right in the US.
> 
> Even though we pay very high taxes, it goes to our incredibly bloated and outdated military. That's the same bloated and outdated military the right wants to spend more of our taxes on.


No other civilized nation lets its citizens die rather than provide medical care to them.


----------



## dblack (Aug 26, 2014)

Political Junky said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > While health care is a right (paid for by taxes) in many other countries, its not a right in the US.
> ...



How many people, would you say, you've let die this week?


----------



## Listening (Aug 26, 2014)

Political Junky said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > While health care is a right (paid for by taxes) in many other countries, its not a right in the US.
> ...



Bullshit.

The British are more than willing to let the elderly past a certain age die.  They provide palitive care say get your stuff together and move on.

Death Panel Update British Journal Article Recommends Dehydrating Dementia Patients to Death to Save Money The Gateway Pundit


----------



## dblack (Aug 26, 2014)

dblack said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



To clarify, I don't expect you to answer this question. But I'm hoping that, in trying to, you might recognize how your above comment is incoherent. What does it actually mean for you, or society, or a 'civilized nation', to "let" someone die?


----------



## Political Junky (Aug 26, 2014)

Listening said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...


Could you have found a more biased source to quote?


----------



## Listening (Aug 26, 2014)

Political Junky said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



A. You are not refuting it ?  Or can we expect more later....

B. All you need do is google the general idea of old people in England and you'll get a months worth of reading material....

Hospitals letting patients die to save money rsquo - Telegraph

Or you can go in the other direction where some Japs think old people should hurry up and die.

I wonder if Alan "The Jerkwad" Grayson will say anything about this ?

Japan should let old hurry up and die minister - Business Insider


----------



## Andylusion (Aug 27, 2014)

Political Junky said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



It's a well known fact to those of us who are not ignorant with an axe to grind.

Patients starve and die of thirst on hospital wards - Telegraph

Gastroparesis Mother-of-two with paralysed stomach fears she will starve to death after NHS Trust refuse op Mail Online

Premature baby left to die by doctors after mother gives birth just two days before 22-week care limit Mail Online

No treatment for smokers or the obese Doctors back measures to deny procedures for those with unhealthier lifestyles Mail Online

NHS care Hospitals treat elderly like slabs of meat Mail Online

I don't know why this is so hard for the left, and yet so obvious for me.

If you have limited resources, and you simply can't supply unlimited care to everyone, because you are constrained by the limited resources....   it is unavoidable unless you live in a mythical Leftard Utopia.....     That you are going to ration care.

You are going to look at two people who have the same needs, and say... hmmm...  one person is 90 and the other 20, which do you give the operation too?    The one who you could treat and cure, and could end up dead the next day of old age, or the guy who is only 20 with the rest of his life ahead of him?

See, in a socialist system, that's problem right there.   Limited fund.  Can't treat everyone.  Have to make choices.  

So two people walk in need critical care, and one is 400 lbs, and the other is 150 lbs, who do you treat?   The guy who is going to end up with all kinds of health problems anyway, or the guy who is eating responsibly?  Or one is smoking and the other is not?

There simply isn't enough money in the world, to give everyone unlimited care.    So naturally in a socialized system, one is screwed, and left to die, treated like a 'slab of meat' and the other is given all the care he needs.

In a Capitalist system, the amount of money is dynamic.   I can get the money and pay for the care.  I can buy insurance, and pay for the care.    Or I can get the care, and get billed, and pay the bill for the care.

In a Capitalist system almost everyone get's the care.

In the socialist system, the amount of money is static.  Thus you are either lucky and get the care, or you die.   But not everyone get's the care.  There simply isn't the money for that.


----------



## emilynghiem (Aug 28, 2014)

Dear @dblack and @EdwardBaiamonte or @EdwardBaiamonte
Sorry I cannot follow this new format too well.
If this msg is totally out of sync with where the thread was, or when I last posted, pls forgive
me for jumping in wherever I could find a spot and starting there.



dblack said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



In response to the quotes above where I'm rejumping in
(EB was emphasizing  how important it is to fix the health care economics that are burdened with
excess cost or waste, and DB was contesting that just because this is a concern for people/govt
does not mean to impose policies "against the will of the people")

What I find going on, in addition the actual issue at hand with the financial mismanagement
and waste of resources in health care/medical services,

is that
* people who assume the govt represents their view THINK they are helping and doing the right thing
by using govt to implement what they consider improvements and solutions
* people who see better ways to fix it and/or who believe the people is the PRIVATE sector
see this use of govt as unnecessary infringement and even burdening and taking
ability and resources AWAY from the people/private sector who can make the changes more effectively

So the clash to address first is the issue of trusting govt or trusting people to correct the problem,
instead of ASSUMING either way: either ASSUMING govt is the "ONLY WAY" to address it publicly,
or ASSUMING that everyone can trust people/businesses to fix things on their own without being
punished or regulated by govt.

Why not have BOTH and let people CHOOSE which way they want to go?

Why not let those who want to work with PRIVATE business, schools, nonprofits, etc. invest and deduct from taxes using THOSE means of fixing problems with health care access funding and efficiency

And why not let those who WANT to mainstream everything equally through govt fund their own
systems that are first developed and perfected by THOSE people, such as by party?

So why not QUIT fighting over how people want to approach this as "THE PEOPLE"

* let those who see People as Govt set up their own mandated system and MAKE IT WORK
where people CHOOSE to participate because they believe in this way

* let those who see People as Individuals in Private Business and Sectors and MAKE IT WORK
where we all work FREELY by FREE MARKET to set up a good working system
BEFORE implementing the parts into govt we agree are resolved and good to go.

Teh first step seems to be to QUIT this fight over Govt taking away the liberties
and choice of resources from people WILLING to fix the problems WITHOUT being forced
mandated or regulated by Govt AGAINST our will, especially when we have solutions that
either work better or CANNOT be implemented by Govt such as spiritual healing methods
that must remain a private choice. That isn't even accounted for by the liberal Democrat
politicians and party who do not recognize these methods and even seek to BAN some of them
such as reparative forms of healing therapy that have cured people of pedophile type addictions.

This isn't even recognized as valid by most Democrats I speak with, so why the *****
are Democrats making health care policies if they don't even have knowledge of how
healing works and involves spiritual elements as part of the cause and cure of sickness.

That part is beyond me. I wouldn't ask someone to make policies on complex math
if they didn't understand calculus. So that is ONE area that we definitely need to separate
belief systems by party where it is directly or indirectly affecting how we approach health care!
Both the belief or lack of understanding that spiritual decisions and methods of healing
have ANYTHING to do with the cause or cure of sickness; and the belief or nonbelief in
health care as a right through govt or health care as part of free will/free choice reserved to the people or states.

We need to address that, and not let it block the ability to address the actual health care and financial issues
underneath. The issues of beliefs are liek the huge Elephant or Donkey in the middle of the room
blocking the view, so we can't get anything done until we get that out of the way first!!!

Thank you very much
Sorry if this is thrown in wherever, but I am completely lost on this new format
so I just posted this to start somewhere, my apologies!


----------



## emilynghiem (Aug 28, 2014)

Dear @mskafka:
The solution I see is to reward people, groups and states for coming up with their own solutions.
Instead of competing to discredit or propagandize one solutions over another, let people choose their methods and networks of affiliation to organize their own resources and systems, such as through Party.

Let members participate and fund solutions they believe in voluntarily.
And let the best solutions speak for themselves, where people will naturally gravitate and adopt solutions that work better for different situations.

There is not one size fits all. There are different methods of addressing different situations.
So let the people choose and reward the solutions that work best by allowing tax deductions
for investing in that, and quit punishing people by taking away freedom and choices and imposing
ways they don't agree with just because it is assumed that nothing else will fix the problems.



mskafka said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > mskafka said:
> ...


----------



## Stephanie (Aug 28, 2014)

I'm 60 years old and I've never seen it written in our constitution...that I have to pay for my family's healthecare and your families healthcare on top of mine

Do you people really not care you're living off the BACKS of others?

are you that pathetic and hopeless as a human being you can't TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF?


----------



## emilynghiem (Aug 28, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> I'm 60 years old and I've never seen it written in our constitution...that I have to pay for my family's healthecare and your families healthcare on top of mine
> 
> Do you people really not care you're living off the BACKS of others?
> 
> are you that pathetic and hopeless as a human being you can't TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF?



Hi @Stephanie! Thanks for bringing up the root issue and conflict
that should be addressed first. If we can agree to separate by beliefs/views, then everyone
can work separately to solve health care issues their own ways without competing or infringing
on each other!

The FIRST step is to recognize the inherent difference in people's beliefs that many of them CANNOT change, but just accept we don't see things the same way, much like theists and atheists just see things differently and it can't be forced by govt:

A. the liberals/Democrats who do NOT assume or see that "natural rights" come from God apart from Govt, so they depend on Govt instead of relying on free will and free market choice

B. the conservatives who DO see that freedom and responsibility comes from God first, and govt is supposed to respect that. So this whole business of "health care rights inherently built into and managed by Govt" is as FOREIGN to conservative Constitutionalists as
atheism is to theists or theism is to atheists!

We are getting NOWHERE trying to impose A on B, or B on A.

we need to SEPARATE and respect each other's beliefs, especially because we do not agree and just can't make sense of each other's views!

If we can agree to do that, we have a chance to resolve all other issues by getting out of each other's way.  Let the liberals and Democrats set up their way of doing things through elected reps and policies for the group by party; let the conservatives and Constitutionalists set up free market ways that do not involve govt infringing on liberties and management of private groups and networks that can manage things more effectively by local jurisdictions; and let the Greens and Libertarians set up sustainable independent networks, and let citizens and members choose their affiliations to follow and fund, just like any other religious program.

Health care involves spiritual understanding and beliefs, so this cannot be legislated all "one way" by govt, any more than we could take a religion and nationalize it for all people.

People do not agree spiritually or religiously on
* the role of spiritual healing in health care including reparative therapy which the
Democrats push to ban while Republicans in TX offered to protect this as a free choice
(and the opposite with abortion where Democrats want to protect teh free choice
but prolife Republicans and Democrats want to regulate or ban it as not a choice)
* the role of govt or free market in whether health care is a right or a responsibility
* how to pay for health care, where some people would rather not make inmates work to  pay for their costs but have no problem charging law abiding taxpayers to pay for that; and I am the opposite where I would hold wrongdoers responsible for their own costs and not keep imposing burdens on the taxpayers who do follow the laws just because it is convenient for govt.

Since I do not agree religiously or spiritually with the policies of the Democrat Party
I do not see how this party can be forced by law on anyone when it is clearly political
beliefs; the same way religious beliefs should not be imposed by law or govt.

We need to make this point and reach an agreement, and everything else can be
worked out after we agree to respect and separate by beliefs and/or by party. period!


----------



## Stephanie (Aug 28, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > I'm 60 years old and I've never seen it written in our constitution...that I have to pay for my family's healthecare and your families healthcare on top of mine
> ...




well that's all nice and sweet but you already know that isn't going to happen. Obama and Democrats laid this new "Entitlement" which is all ObamaCare is. On our backs against our will and with NOT one Republican vote. so the time to come together as I see it IS OVER. now it's time to fight down and DIRTY politics just like the Democrat/progressive/commie party and their sheep followers do


----------



## Stephanie (Aug 28, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> While health care is a right (paid for by taxes) in many other countries, its not a right in the US.
> 
> Even though we pay very high taxes, it goes to our incredibly bloated and outdated military. That's the same bloated and outdated military the right wants to spend more of our taxes on.



And you claim you served?
OUR taxes should go the military as that is the one function that "government" SUPPOSE TO do, they took an oath to protect and serve the PEOPLE of the country,  not the ones where they go around telling others what they can eat and drink


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 28, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> agree to respect and separate by beliefs and/or by party. period!



yes, we should respect and separate as  much as possible but liberals are 100% opposed. They are naturally violent and want to use govt violence to impose their will and taxes on everybody else regardless of their beliefs.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 28, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> our incredibly bloated and outdated military.



can you present your best example of this or is it merely a lie?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 28, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> OUR taxes should go the military



Especially now that so much of the world falling apart and now that we are spending so little on the military as a percent of GDP.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 28, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> The US raised taxes but spent it on the military which, in turn, made the rich richer.



actually the US military saved the world in WW 1 & WW2, saved the world from communist slavery and en masse starvation, and is now saving us from ISIS which would cut our heads off if not prevented from doing so by our glorious military. Our military is the source if civilization on earth.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 28, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



Any country would spend the same amount if they were the world's policeman. And?


----------



## Andylusion (Aug 28, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Actually, even that isn't entirely true.  If someone else was the world's policeman, and we their supplier, they still wouldn't spend as much.

This is one thing I don't understand why people don't get.

I had a 1996 Mercury Grand Marquis.   It had 78K miles when I bought it, and was in perfect working order.  It was a luxury car.  Leather, power everything, all the bells and whistles.  Loaded.   It had one prior owner, who was a doctor.  This was the luxury model, of the biggest full size sedan Ford made other than the Lincoln Town Car, was bigger.

I got that car for only $3,000.   Yeah, it might have been top of the line, mint condition, luxury car... but it was obsolete.    It was old.   New stuff replaced it several times over by the time I got it.

What many people seem to not grasp, is that most of the rest of the world, doesn't develop their own military stuff.   They buy existing military supplies, from other countries.

For example, the M1A2 Abrams tanks we shipped to Saudi Arabia, were new in 1992.  That was 20 years ago.  

The M60A3 Patton tanks we sold Egypt, were designed in 1978.  That's 34 years ago.

In the mean time, we're building the latest and greatest weapons, and buying them right off the show room floor.   Premium prices all around.

Additionally, none of these countries are paying the cost of Research and design.   When we sell a tank for $10 million, and it cost us $6 million to build it... that seems like a huge profit, and the politicians are quick to talk about their brilliant move.  Of course none of them point out, that 100% of the R&D to make said tank, was already footed by the tax payer, in the billions of dollars.   And of course when we were buying the tank for our own military, it was not $6 mill a pop.   Likely over $10 Million a pop when they first came out.

The point is this.   When you look at Egypt, or Venezuela, and see T-72 Tanks, that's not costing them a fraction of what it cost Russia to develop them.

Nor when other countries have our hardware, did it cost them a fraction of what it cost us.

Now I get it, if you have old F-16As or F-16Bs, and you are replacing them with F-16Es, why not sell those aircraft for what you can get?  It might be pocket change, but that's better than zero, right?

But as long as we are doing the R&D, and as long as we're getting the bleeding edge weapons... our budget is going to be vastly larger than those who don't.

If we bought all our tanks, and planes, and ships, from France and Germany, or the UK, we could cut our defense budget by more than half.   But we wouldn't have the bleed edge, or the latest greatest stuff.

Just like I can't afford a new Grand Marquis luxury car.  But I sure can get a mint condition 10 year old one, for a few grand.


----------



## Stephanie (Aug 28, 2014)

Androw said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > What adds to this is the assumption that since hospitals/ER provide care unconditionally, and taxpayers already pay for this, then the regulations set up were attempts to hold people responsible for their own health care costs such as by requiring insurance.
> ...



when I hear them spew that stupid line, taxpayers are paying for it already.
that's the dishonesty they spread.... as if nobody ever pay a thing called, a bill
I would rather pay for those few who don't,  than pay for all of people in this country, MOST are abled bodied and able to work to take care of themselves, and their LIFES responsibilities , like paying for what you want in life and not expect other to do it FOR YOU


----------



## emilynghiem (Aug 29, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> when I hear them spew that stupid line, taxpayers are paying for it already.
> that's the dishonesty they spread.... as if nobody ever pay a thing called, a bill
> I would rather pay for those few who don't,  than pay for all of people in this country, MOST are abled bodied and able to work to take care of themselves, and their LIFES responsibilities , like paying for what you want in life and not expect other to do it FOR YOU



Hi @Stephanie I agree with what you are saying, and just urging everyone to watch how we say it where we can solve this problem!

If we don't agree who or how these "bills" are getting paid for, instead of arguing day and night over "who is lying"
let's just FIX the problem. We already KNOW taxpayers are paying around 50K a year for inmates in jails.
Let's start where we AGREE and work on WAYS to redirect the funds we ARE paying as taxpayers,
and hold the people responsible who ARE racking up these costs!

We don't need to argue who's lying. The numbers we agree on are enough to speak for themselves.

We know states are spending billions of dollars on prisons, and people LEFT and RIGHT are arguing this taxmoney is wasted on poor managed or corrupted/abused contracts. We all KNOW this is going on. 

The only thing missing is we are too busy and divided arguing whose fault it is, instead of fixing it.

If Taxpayers unite and demand this money be managed better and responsibly, where the people who actually incur the costs are held to pay taxpayers back, THAT'S the common issue!

So let's stick to that, and we don't need to accuse, prove or blame this person or that group for who is skirting or lying about what part of the problem. We know it's there, let's fix it instead of arguing who is to blame for it.

I agree with you, but this blame approach is not going to fix the problem. That's the part I'm trying to focus on fixing first, and the numbers and solutions will work themselves out if we quit dividing over political blame and points.


----------



## emilynghiem (Aug 29, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > agree to respect and separate by beliefs and/or by party. period!
> ...



Hi @EdwardBaiamonte
I count myself as among the progressive liberals. I may get verbally violent by threatening to go on hunger strikes if people and parties don't get their **** together, but that's the worst I will do.

Most liberals I know are defensive because they do not draw authority directly from the Natural Laws and Constitution as conservatives and Christians do as with the Bible. The liberal Democrats seem to depend on their Party and organizing majority-rule votes to have representation and defense for their views.

That is what is causing this defensiveness and division that obstructs due process and consent of the governed.
People who feel so powerless because they don't feel they have any other way to enforce their consent,
resort to political bullying by exclusion or coercion which I COMPLETELY agree is hypocritical and goes
against "free choice" and everything the Democrats and Liberals are supposed to stand for. I won't stand for that.

At this point, given there is NO Democrat leadership willing to stand up and call it out for what it is,
I am SERIOUSLY considering offering to play this role. And set up some way I can accept FULL responsibility for all the wrongs I see being done by the Democrat Party since NO ONE ELSE seems to be willing to step forward.

So if I am the ONLY liberal here willing to put the Constitution and equal interests/representation and protection of due process/redress of grievances above the selfish political interest of politicians, then just work with me and please let's no longer acknowledge any of these other hypocrites abusing power in ways that are in conflict with both the Constitutional principles and the Democrat Platform itself that is supposed to be equally inclusive.

I am thinking of writing up all the things I see going wrong, and ask the other parties to please petition ME for redress of grievances since everyone else with the party is in complete denial. And see if anyone joins me.

And just do a complete "control alt delete" on all this denial and projection of blame going on,
start with honest grievances and solutions that are  being censored by the party themselves
that is too busy funding fake campaigns to invest in sustainable solutions promoted by their own members!

Just quit and start over.

On behalf of all liberals and Democrats that have created this mess before me,
I do apologize and ask to accept responsibility, legally financially socially and media wise for
correcting all these errors and wrongs that nobody else seems to want responsibility for.

I do accept this, on behalf of the Constitution and Americans who should be united under it.

Thank you, EB
I will try to set up a website for this and just quit this whole mess going in circles
because of everyone pointing the finger at everyone else for political points to leverage more funding.

All sold out and nowhere to go!


----------



## Andylusion (Aug 29, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > when I hear them spew that stupid line, taxpayers are paying for it already.
> ...



Again, the problem is you simply can't stop waste.  It is simply not possible.   The only way to eliminate waste, is to eliminate the government.

You have to have a free-market system, in order to stop waste.   When you are going to be shut down and out of business, unless you stop wasting money, that incentive will cause the waste to be eliminated.    Government officials have no such incentive.  In fact, there is more danger in cutting waste which may accidentally causes a backlash, than to just allow the waste to continue.

And as I said before, people disagree on what waste is.  What I consider waste, others think is imperative, and vice versa.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 29, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> . I may get verbally violent by threatening to go on hunger strikes if people and parties don't get their **** together, but that's the worst I will do.



no dear, as a liberal you are violent by nature. You want a big powerful govt to impose its will on others at the point of a gun.

Also, please get organized and cut number of words in your posts by 97%


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 29, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



Interesting words, coming from a welfare queen. Its not a stupid line: taxpayers DO pay for those who do not pay their own way - like you.  

Its true that you pay PART of your Medicare premium but those who work for a living pay for most of what you get. Bottom line, hon, is that you are the person you say you hate. 

As for waste, of course we could cut it substantially. 

We, in the US believe we can waste and throw away damn near anything. We're stupid that way. Once its out of our sight, it simply ceases to exist. Spend a month recycling everything you can and you'll see what I mean. 

Obviously, medical waste has certain different requirements and needs but that doesn't mean we have to throw away without giving it any thought. 

If we stopped doing that, we would not have to pay $10 for a Tylenol.


----------



## Andylusion (Aug 29, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



I don't even know how you support your own position.

You say you are against coercion.
Yet you consider yourself a progressive liberal.

Um...   those are mutually exclusive.  It is not possible to have a progressive state, without coercion.

Now for the sake of fairness to you, I am open to your answer.   Tell me what progressive view you have, that does not require coercion.  I am interested in your explanation.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 29, 2014)

Androw said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



You need to cut your words by 97% cuz what you write is mostly ...


----------



## dblack (Aug 29, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> If we stopped doing that, we would not have to pay $10 for a Tylenol.



The reason we pay $10 for a Tylenol is the don't care, because we're not paying for it. Someone else is.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 29, 2014)

dblack said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > If we stopped doing that, we would not have to pay $10 for a Tylenol.
> ...


'yes, no capitalist competition and you get $10 Tylenol. With capitalism our health care costs would be about 20% of what they are now~


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 29, 2014)

Androw said:


> .  It is not possible to have a progressive state, without coercion.
> 
> .



very true! lib progressive commie  is merely a violence progression. Liberals are told they are morally superior when the reality is they are merely more violent!.


----------



## Andylusion (Aug 29, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Interesting words, coming from a welfare queen. Its not a stupid line: taxpayers DO pay for those who do not pay their own way - like you.
> 
> Its true that you pay PART of your Medicare premium but those who work for a living pay for most of what you get. Bottom line, hon, is that you are the person you say you hate.
> 
> ...



Huh?   Why is it, people like you always have to be a scummy jerks.   Didn't you have parents that taught you how to be decent?

Yes, Medicare is socialized system.  That's why it's going broke.  Medicare can't work, and at some point will in fact fail, or the quality of care will drastically be cut.   This is unavoidable, just as it has been throughout Europe.

And, no it has nothing to do with Tylenol costing $10.  That has to do with health care regulations, that require the Tylenol at hospitals be administered by a Registered Nurse, and that the Tylenol come individually wrapped, instead of in bulk containers.

Government regulations are what has driven up costs, not a lack of recycling or some such leftard nonsense.  Good grief.


----------



## Stephanie (Aug 29, 2014)

Political Junky said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > While health care is a right (paid for by taxes) in many other countries, its not a right in the US.
> ...



how frikken civilized is a nation that aborts 55million  babies
you people are a joke. everyone is treated at an emergency...the only ones left to die it seems is OUR VETS. And that's the health care you so generous people want to put on all our backs


----------



## Andylusion (Aug 29, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Coming from the dominate king of BS.  Grow up child.


----------



## Andylusion (Aug 29, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



You are quickly becoming my favorite poster.   No heart emote.  Oh well <3


----------



## Stephanie (Aug 29, 2014)

Androw said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



I just put things as they are, no bs, sugar or honey in between.
as for the rest of your judgement, whatever


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 29, 2014)

dblack said:


> The reason we pay $10 for a Tylenol is the don't care, because we're not paying for it. Someone else is.



Nope. We pay for it all right. Its just that its not right in front of us. 

If we had to actually look at the bill instead of losing it nickels and dimes at a time in our pay checks, we'd look at it differently.

We really are a throw-away society. Americans take pride in waste. We see it as a sign of wealth. 

I


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 29, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



Yeah. 

Abortion is brand new and no other "civilized nation" aborts unwanted pregnancies. 

Grow the fuck up and mind your own business.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 29, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



No Stephanie. The nasty bile you spew is just the opposite. 

You live on welfare and hate those who get govt assistance. You hate vets and have said you think they're lazy bums. 

You're welcome to your hypocrisy but really, you're one of the most unhappy and post bitter  posters here.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 29, 2014)

Androw said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting words, coming from a welfare queen. Its not a stupid line: taxpayers DO pay for those who do not pay their own way - like you.
> ...



How is Medicare "socialist"?

Before you answer, you might want to know that the recipients pay for it. Yes, even though she's too stupid to understand it, stupid steph pays for her own medicare. 

That's why its called an "entitlement". People are ENTITLED to it. Get it?

You don't have much knowledge about how things work. You and stupid stef make a great pair.


----------



## MeBelle (Aug 29, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> No Stephanie. *The nasty bile you spew is just the opposite. *
> 
> *You live on welfare* and *hate those who get govt assistance*. *You hate vets* and have said you think they're lazy bums.
> 
> You're welcome to your hypocrisy but really, *you're one of the most unhappy and post bitter  posters here.*


Oh the irony.  

 And judicial use of redex from someone who opted out of the rep system.


----------



## Andylusion (Aug 29, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



No, they don't.   You are ignorant... arrogant... a jerk... and honestly a waste human life.    Grow up you child.  I'm sorry you were not taught how to interact with maturity, but at this point our entire civilization would be better off, if you didn't exist.   You should think about that, and change from being the waste of oxygen that you are.


----------



## emilynghiem (Sep 2, 2014)

Androw said:


> I don't even know how you support your own position.
> 
> You say you are against coercion.
> Yet you consider yourself a progressive liberal.
> ...



Hi @Androw You bring up a very good point that NEEDS to be agreed upon and understood by all parties.
THANK YOU!

I believe by holding ourselves and others accountable for the costs and consequences of our own actions
and policies, we naturally compel ourselves and each other to act more accountable, effective and efficient.

I bring this up with Prolife activists who want to ban abortion.
None of the Prolife people I KNOW rely on abortion being against the law
in order to take all action at every level to prevent going down that path. They don't need force of law. They act by free choice, because they care about the consequences. We should all be that conscience-driven and then we don't rely on laws to make us do things.

Same with all these other policies, where some people want the freedom to choose and direct their own will and consent, while others "don't trust X group with that freedom."

We NEED to have an agreement how to handle this! So no freedom is abused, and no responsibility is shirked and dumped on someone else to shoulder that burden.

I believe if we look at the real numbers, the real costs of what is and isn't working,
and we empower people and groups to take on the parts they want to change and be responsible for,
JUST LET THEM FUND THOSE SOLUTIONS THEMSELVES.

Sorry to emphasize so strongly but I believe this is the key.
Once people are paying directly for their own solutions, OF COURSE, they compel themselves
because it's coming from their budgets!

So we need to start doing that, giving the power and responsible back to the people who BELIEVE
in the solutions they are touting and fund it and manage it themselves so there is motivation to make it work!
And to correct abuses failures or waste over problems that are expensive if they aren't fixed!

1. when people have to pay to clean up their own messes, they limit these and focus on fixing problems
2. when each person or group acts to compel THEMSELVES, then that puts social pressure by "example"
on others to follow by free will. This is how people are connected to each other. We naturally influence
each other by acting more responsible ourselves! So the more we act by self-policing, the more others do.

Look again at the prolife activists, or the pro-environmentalists even the animal activists who go out and save animals using their own resources and efforts.

When we all do that with things we care about, and encourage others to do the same,
the free will comes first, and the policies follow as a social contract and agreement based on what we
already consent to do as good policy. The laws should reflect the public consent, not dictate them.

We need to start rewarding and encouraging more groups that are 'doing it themselves' and
set the trend of government to reflect and represent the will and consent of the people.

By education and training, sharing experience so others can be empowered, we can do more this way.
All by informed consent and educated choices. And then let the mandatory policies follow from what
we all agree works better as a society.


----------



## emilynghiem (Sep 2, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > .  It is not possible to have a progressive state, without coercion.
> ...



Dear @EdwardBaiamonte and @Androw:
I am guessing where you get this perception of progressive meaning coercive is from
the sold out liberal Democrat politicians who have hijacked progressive movements from both
the Green and the real-left liberals who protest these Democrats, similar to the division on the Right.

We hardly hear about the REAL Greens and REAL liberals who are NONCoercive and believe these
tactics you talk about are VIOLENT.

The Greens have a party practice of forming decisions by consensus and moderating through all conflicts.
They are so "nonviolent" this has worked against them, by objectors "blocking" the consensus process by saying "NO" without offering a correction to t he conflict in order to get to a "YES"

So this nonviolent consensus-building has been silenced and is not visible in the media where we only see the VIOLENT protestors who make the news.

I am guessing this is where you are getting that perception.

I believe this can be remedied by requiring that in the consensus/conflict resolution process, anyone who objects is required to work with the others to RESOLVE the source of objection, and just can't veto with a NO and block the entire process.

If we offered better conflict resolution training and models, where decisions COULD be made by consensus and free choice, NOT coercion for political expedience,
maybe we would see more of the REAL progressive voices and solutions come forth through the media
that are currently censored by politicians who want simple YES or NO they can manipulate and control.

This idea of listening to the will of the people and working with diverse groups and voices,
as the Green activists do WITHOUT coercion, would democratize the movement and stop this monopoly
by power hungry politicians hijacking the liberal movement to push their own political agenda and benefit.

From your responses, I am guessing you have no knowledge, experience or interaction with any Greens
who use nonviolence and noncoersive means in their democratic process.

Maybe that's why you've never heard of this! They aren't VIOLENT enough to get any media exposure!
How ironic, isn't it?

Why all the true peacemakers are never seen or heard, but do all the work in the background
while the hypocrites who yell and scream, project blame back and forth, get all the publicity and credit.

Gee whiz, you wonder why the world is so messed up if we keep rewarding the wrong people
and ignoring those who are working on solutions in sustainable ways by free market choices as the Greens do!

What a mess!
No wonder!

Example of Green solutions that respect free market/free enterprise empowerment:
1. fair trade cooperatives that are self built and managed by the business owners themselves
2. independent currency in community networks managed by business owners and activists and laborers directly
3. consensus decision making by resolving conflicts, accounting for all input and objections, and forming
policy decisions that reflect the entire community represented
4. proportional voting and representation, so that representation is spread among the community
in proportion to the way the members represent by their own party and isn't one party dominating all the others

NOTE: I happen to believe in ISONOMY by using both #3 and #4: letting groups represent themselves by party, and then forming policies by AGREEMENT between these people and groups NOT bullying and imposing one party's policies over all the others by majority rule. I believe in either resolving the conflicts so a general policy is agreed upon by the public OR separating policies and funding them independently if people cannot agree and have inherent differences in political or religious beliefs that cannot be changed or imposed upon. So I would use a mix of both representation by party and consensus by conflict resolution, or separating beliefs from govt policy.

Where I agree with you, and with the Greens/Left who promote change by nonviolence only, is that any of this "bullying by exclusion or coercion" IS either a form of violence itself or causes political violence to erupt as a consequence of abuse of force.

So the REAL progressives would agree with you, and are helpless against the liberal politicians who abuse political force to silence even their own constituents who protest this hypocrisy.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Sep 2, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> The Greens have a party practice of forming decisions by consensus and moderating through all conflicts.



so you say the liberal left progressive commie Greens are not naturally violent like typical liberals? Greens tend to be the most violent of all because they need to save the planet from destruction, today. That requires violence today. There is no time to wait. So, exactly who are these peaceful Greens.

Please note that your posts are 99% too long. Learn to be efficient with worlds and other peoples' time. Thank you.


----------



## emilynghiem (Sep 2, 2014)

@EdwardBaiamonte
Can you list for me examples of Greens who are into coercive political violence?
I am happy to address these people and try to correct whatever abuses they are committing.
I assume I would have better luck with them, than trying to  teach fellow Democrats to respect "free choice"
which they seem to have lost any concept of.

Whenever I go to meetings, it always seems to be the progressive Greens who are trying to correct
the problems with the liberal Democrats running the party in the wrong direction.

Examples of nonviolent noncoercive Greens
1. Paul Glover, founder of Ithaca HOURS independent currency to build community by free market means
2. Dr. Krenie Stowe, founder of The Real School Houston that teaches NONCOERCIVE development
in the educational and the activism environment to promote positive change in healthy ways and relations
3. Dr. Timothy O'Brien (deceased) who helped worked with farmers to set up Fair Trade Coops in South America
and won national awards through Students Against Sweatshops and Students for Fair Trade for outreach and education
4. David Cobb who teaches the conflicts of interest with unchecked corporate influences
infiltrating BOTH major parties and govt, undermining the Constitutional due process checks and balances
between people in govt (subverted by allowing collective entities that use both collective and individual power)
5. Ralph Nader who initiated the Consumer Protection and Occupational Safety Acts,
and has called for the leaders of different parties to stand together and unite against corporate political corruption

@EdwardBaiamonte
Can you list for me examples of Greens who are into coercive political violence?

I have caught a couple of local Greens who "bully by exclusion" some of the SAME control tactics that Democrats use to stay in charge and censor anyone with solutions.

I blame this on "patriarchal politics," that both men and women are conditioned to expect men to take charge, and want others to follow them. But when women and other groups come up with REAL WORKABLE solutions collectively, these get ignored and overridden. People just push for things that their leaders can take charge of, mainly attacking other groups which doesn't solve anything but is used to mobilize people to "take action."

So maybe that is where this coercion and violence comes in.

If we keep ignoring or skirting the solutions that people could put together "voluntarily"
and only push for policies that call for forcing taxpayers to pay or support, so people are motivated to take action.



EdwardBaiamonte said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > The Greens have a party practice of forming decisions by consensus and moderating through all conflicts.
> ...



Sorry @EdwardBaiamonte
I am lucky to be able to be post at all and don't always have time to edit, sorry.

I work TWO JOBS to pay off over 60,000 in credit card debts from Democrat politics destroying my home district of Freedmen's Town plus one or two other districts, exploiting the "poor black communities."

If I found as many people who were investing their own time and labor into promoting solutions
to end destructive politics that are defrauding taxpayers and voters,
SURE

I would be HAPPY to have them post and edit msgs where I fail to take the time.

Sorry for this, and I gave up trying to explain. How hard it is even to STAY SANE
working two  jobs to fix problems that I still get blamed for, even though I am working
like a slave trying to fix them with my own labor, time and resources while politicians "pimp poverty."


----------



## dblack (Sep 2, 2014)

@emilynghiem  - sometimes I wonder if there isn't a vast left/right wing conspiracy to keep progressives and libertarians from realizing they're on the same side.


----------



## emilynghiem (Sep 2, 2014)

dblack said:


> @emilynghiem  - sometimes I wonder if there isn't a vast left/right wing conspiracy to keep progressives and libertarians from realizing they're on the same side.



Where on this board do I click to put a great big LIGHT BULB, AHA! Bingo! on your msg???
What switch do I flip to turn the light on? Thanks @dblack

All I know is to reach out and make sure my neighbors on here know I am NOT their enemy, I do NOT see them that way, and I AGREE on the points and WANT viable solutions. If I don't make others my enemy, I can control that much.

If we all reach out and ask to focus on where we AGREE and what  can we do to FIX the problems,
maybe we can break down these barriers and open up the doors to make those connections on a global scale.

What can we do to reach out and promote inclusion and mutual correction of the govt waste we all oppose???

I can't find the recent statement by Nader reaching out to unite Libertarians with other Third Partieshttp://Can Ralph Nader Get Progressives and Libertarians to Make Common Cause - Forbes , but I found this which is even OLDER, gee whiz:
Ron Paul Ralph Nader agree on 8216 progressive-libertarian alliance 8217


----------



## Andylusion (Sep 5, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > @emilynghiem  - sometimes I wonder if there isn't a vast left/right wing conspiracy to keep progressives and libertarians from realizing they're on the same side.
> ...



No, you don't understand.

Violence is not just "protesters smashing windows".

That's true as well, but that is not exactly what *I* mean, when I refer to violence.  It's part of it... but not the main thing.

You refer to the Green Parties claim to nonviolence, and yet what if I refuse to follow Consumer Protection and Occupational Safety Acts?    What happens?  People come from the government and take my stuff away.

What happens if I refuse to allow them to take my stuff away?   I get shot.

Ralph Nader supports a Single Payer, Government run Health care system.   I oppose that.

If you, and Nader, win... what happens if I refuse to pay my taxes because I don't support that socialized health care system?   Government people come and take my stuff away.  What happens if I try and stop them?   I get shot.

The bottom line is this....

You can wrap up your position in all the 'non-coercion non-violent' words you want, it is simply not true.

Your system and policies simply don't work without the force of the government, and anyone who really looks at the issues openly, knows this is true.

Nader supports solar power.   Everyone inside that industry, and everyone outside who is honest, knows that the moment the government does not forcibly take money from my pay check, and give it to big solar corporations, that entire industry will cease to exist.

When you post crap about Nader being against the corruption of big corporations, my answer is, start with big solar corporations.  But we all know Nader is ok, and supports, and subsidizes that corruption.


----------



## emilynghiem (Sep 5, 2014)

Hi Androw:
OK now I see where you are getting this.

1. For example, you are not just talking about the POLICY of sustainable economy/development
you are talking about the REALITY of authorizing govt to enforce regulations that cause these problems.

The reason I separate these and deal with them on both levels not combined,
this is similar to the problems of gun control vs. gun rights (where the freedom/choice is one thing
but the actual implementation is another) and also abortion rights (where the freedom of choice is
not violent, but the consequences of manipulating that and how it is either enforced or not is causing problems)

Androw can we start by addressing and SEPARATING the cause/motivation and the effect/consequence?

I am isolating just the first example you provided under #1
if we can pick that apart and find the BETTER way to achieve the goal WITHOUT
introducing these harmful consequences that I AGREE are problematic. If we do
not resolve these conflicts in better ways, yes it causes more problems that indeed relate to abuse and violence.

OK so I am separating these as #1, #2, etc.

1. 





			
				Androw said:
			
		

> No, you don't understand.
> 
> Violence is not just "protesters smashing windows".
> 
> ...



example #1 - how the issue of wanting to enforce consumer watchdog advocacy and safety/health
has unintended consequences of abuse/violence built in to the system used to implement such policies.

Request: to separate the motivation and purpose from the problems with legislating through govt.
How can the issue/interest be addressed where it does NOT cause these negative consequences in practice.

Next #2

2.


			
				Androw said:
			
		

> Ralph Nader supports a Single Payer, Government run Health care system.   I oppose that.
> 
> If you, and Nader, win... what happens if I refuse to pay my taxes because I don't support that socialized health care system?   Government people come and take my stuff away.  What happens if I try and stop them?   I get shot.
> 
> ...



2. Actually I am against forcing Singlepayer on people who don't believe in using Govt for that.
So I believe in pursuing other means of setting up the Equivalent of Singlepayer for those members, such as going throuandgh their own Party systems to register and manage their resources under a national network.
I believe in giving taxpayers and consumers a CHOICE in what networks/means to use for handling health care,
because of both Political Beliefs and Religious/Spiritual Beliefs about health care I don't see as under one policy.

So I am already answering part of my own Request: to SEPARATE the intent and purpose
from HOW this is to be implemented for public access. I gave an example of how I would propose to SEPARATE and that is to use the Party system to organize people by their self-proclaimed beliefs, so they choose not the govt. Given the millions if not billions of dollars contributed and collected through these parties, they have the means to organize representation and resources democratically managed and leave Govt out of it, so everyone can have their way and leave others to their own. I belive this would REWARD taxpayers citizens and leaders for initiating their own solutions. it would teach self-management, self-govt, and self-sustaining financial responsibility for social and health care services and is the direction this country should go in by educating and training citizens.

So this answers:
A. 





			
				Androw said:
			
		

> Your system and policies simply don't work without the force of the government, and anyone who really looks at the issues openly, knows this is true.



My system is not Singlepayer, it is ISONOMY under the Constitution. I believe in delegating as much responsibility to citizens and organizations to manage effectively and de-burden the programs we have dumped on govt which is not designed for that, and never was. We've been using it as a shortcut, but now it's time to reorganize and streamline the process back to the Constitutional standards of what can be checked and balanced through the three branches, and not convolute the system as it is now with too many subagencies and depts not answering directly to any authority or check.

OK, now we have #4



			
				Androw said:
			
		

> Nader supports solar power.   Everyone inside that industry, and everyone outside who is honest, knows that the moment the government does not forcibly take money from my pay check, and give it to big solar corporations, that entire industry will cease to exist.



4. Again, let's separate what is the GOAL and how can we achieve that WITHOUT causing the negative consequences by going about this the wrong way.

I agree this whole Green movement has been hijacked by corporate opportunists, as has the women's vote for health care and choice etc. etc, and the war/peace vote, and the Black/Immigration/Minority vote.

Even the Greens criticize the sellout politicians from Al Gore to Obama for making messes for profit
out of a sincere desire to stop pollution, waste and destruction. It's all been hijacked for political and financial profit.

B. on Corporate corruption in general (not just this one case)



			
				Androw said:
			
		

> When you post crap about Nader being against the corruption of big corporations, my answer is, start with big solar corporations.  But we all know Nader is ok, and supports, and subsidizes that corruption.



I know Republicans who turn the other way when it comes to corruption by corporations they are willing to forgive. I know Democrats who won't question their leaders on conflicts of interest because they tehmselves have a conflict of interest. 

This is a larger problem, the Solar case with Obama is a good one to use as an example
and maybe we can set up a system to address all others that are similar.

B. My solution is to work with legal teams around each and every complaint or grievance.
And work it through until the grievance is redressed in full.

So there shold be some settlement that the citizens agree is just for restitution and correction
and deterrence from abuses in the future.

Take each case like Solyndra or Maxxam or the company dumping chemicals into California water,
and also the BP spill case or Alaskan Valdez, and make sure all the consequences are paid for.

If the cost of damages exceeds what can be paid, then the people affected should have the right
to compensation such as credits or collateral against buying out the land if they are going to have
to pay to restore it themselves, they shold be able to claim ownership as compensation.

Some system of holding the wrongdoers accountable to the taxpayers for the full cost
of debts and damages stemming from their actions.

As for Nader, I would use his OSHA as a model for redressing grievances.
Have a simple checklist of the 10 bill of rights articles plus #14 on equal protections and nondiscrimination,
the 10 Code of Ethics articles, and any local policies by city/state that are regionally agreed upon.
and have complainants issue a citation for any violation.
then the agency has a process for answering the citation and either resolving it
or it goes into hearing, trials, mediation or arbitration until the grievance is resolved.

We can use the solar power corruption as a test case.
And see how to develop a grievance system that woudl hold govt and corporations
directly accountable to public checks and balances to deter and correct any abuses.


----------



## Andylusion (Sep 5, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> Androw can we start by addressing and SEPARATING the cause/motivation and the effect/consequence?
> 
> I am isolating just the first example you provided under #1
> if we can pick that apart and find the BETTER way to achieve the goal WITHOUT
> ...



The problem is, you are trying to separate things that are inseparable.    You can't separate the goal from the result.  You can't separate intentions from outcomes.

Before the mid-1990s, banks pretty much ignored the community reinvestment act.  Reagan, and his administration didn't enforce it, and the laws were not strong enough to have an impact.

The goal of giving out sub-prime loans to unqualified buyers, in order to increase home ownership didn't happen.

Any regulation, any goal, any policy, that doesn't have coercion, doesn't work.

When Clinton stepped in, he passed a law, that allowed bank mergers to be denied on the basis of not making CRA sub-prime loans.   The administration started suing banks to make sub-prime loans, and won in court.

That's when the sub-prime market began to fly.

You can't make people buy insurance if they don't want to, without coercion.   You can't make people build unprofitable, impractical solar power, without coercion.

It's like carbon credits.   People go, see the carbon credits is a free-market solution.   BULL....   My utility company would *NEVER* buy a carbon credit, and pass the cost onto me, except the government mandates that X% of their power is generated from bad solar power.

In a free market, they would produce power at the least expensive source, and sell it at the market rate.  The only reason they buy super expensive 'renewable' power, which they don't actually use, from Montanna, is because the government uses COERCION, to force them to buy that expensive credit, and pass that cost onto the poor power users, like me.

The two aspects are not separable.
*
So I believe in pursuing other means of setting up the Equivalent of Singlepayer for those members, such as going throuandgh their own Party systems to register and manage their resources under a national network.*

I don't want to operate through a party system.  Especially if you mean a political party system.  I hate the GOP, and the DNC equally.   I hate parties.

I don't want my resources registered or managed under a national network.

I want a *FREE-MARKET*.  No controls by you, by party, by government, by anything.

The 'singlepayer' of my bills thus far as been >ME<, and that's how it should remain.


----------



## emilynghiem (Sep 8, 2014)

Androw said:


> The problem is, you are trying to separate things that are inseparable.    You can't separate the goal from the result.  You can't separate intentions from outcomes.



Hi Androw this statement above tells me we are talking about two different things.
I AGREE that once a consequence is happening, you cannot "simply justify it" by explaining away the intentions.

That is NOT my point.

I am saying the opposite.
That in order NOT to fall into that defensive reaction,
the point is to separate and identify what IS the common goal and intention,
and then find a BETTER way to address it that does NOT produce that conflicting outcome.

Does this make sense?
Can we please start here.

Sorry I am truncating and just starting with this one point.
If we can agree to find a BETTER method and outcome to
achieve that SAME goal, do you agree that is better than just blaming both together as wrong or bad.

Isn't the better way to teach math 
to focus on the RIGHT answer one should get to solve a problem,
and not just throw out BOTH the wrong answer and the question that went with it.

what if that same question or problem has a RIGHT answer.
Shouldn't we separate the question from the answer
and come up with the right answer for that same question?

Thanks Androw!


----------



## Andylusion (Sep 10, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> the point is to separate and identify what IS the common goal and intention,
> and then find a BETTER way to address it that does NOT produce that conflicting outcome.
> 
> Does this make sense?
> Can we please start here.



You said that before.   And I'll respond the same way I did before.

There is no common goal.

What goals do you think we have in common?


----------



## dblack (Sep 10, 2014)

Androw said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > the point is to separate and identify what IS the common goal and intention,
> ...



If we focus on the broader problems we're trying to address, rather than specific policies, I think it's possible. I think, for example, that we can find solid consensus that health care prices are artificially inflated. It simply makes no sense that a routine service like basic health care is unaffordable for the average person.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 10, 2014)

dblack said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



Then you support tort reform and caps on malpractice awards.   Good.


----------



## dblack (Sep 10, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Androw said:
> ...



???


----------



## Andylusion (Sep 12, 2014)

dblack said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Right there is what I'm talking about.   When you say "the broader problems", different people go in radically different directions.   Some of the things you say are problems, others do not.  Others say this or that is a problem, which you do not.

There is no universal consensus of what 'broader problems" are.

You are talking about allowing health care to be cheaper, which I suppose.  That's a free-market capitalist approach.

The other side had no intention of making health care cheaper.  They want health care to be 'equal'.  Cheaper would still make it unequal.

These are two mutually exclusive goals.   There is no common ground between them.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 12, 2014)

Do doctors have an obligation to treat people for free?


----------



## Listening (Sep 12, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> Do doctors have an obligation to treat people for free?



Please keep in mind that the left does not like to pay for anything....but they still think they deserve it.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Sep 13, 2014)

merrill said:


> Health Care Is A Right Not a Privilege!
> 
> Let's be clear. Our health care system is disintegrating. Today, 46 million people have no health insurance and even more are underinsured with high deductibles and co-payments. At a time when 60 million people, including many with insurance, do not have access to a medical home, more than 18,000 Americans die every year from preventable illnesses because they do not get to the doctor when they should. This is six times the number who died at the tragedy of 9/11 - but this occurs every year.
> 
> ...



Disagree. Much as I support free healthcare (assuming the government pays for it since it's taxing us, and then it's like roads and other infrastructure) I don't agree it's a right. If you get sick or injured and want someone to fix it for you that costs something. You have no human right to demand another person treat you and incur whatever costs they may. That'd be infringing on their rights. Effectviely making them slaves.


----------



## Andylusion (Sep 13, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> I support free healthcare (assuming the government pays for it since it's taxing us, and then it's like roads and other infrastructure)



Really.

You do understand that the US tax rate would easily have to double, to accomplish this?   You really think an additional 25% of your income confiscated in taxes, is cheaper than the cost of health insurance?

And have we not seen the results of government run health care with the VA?  You really want that system imposed on everyone?


----------

