Health Care Is A Right Not a Privilege!

[LiberalMedia]

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.

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.

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?

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

it is stealing; that's why they need men with guns, in the end, to take what is yours.

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.

Jesus God, who left the door open and let more litter blow in?

 

[Listening]

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]

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]

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

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]

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

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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

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.

and so they were not being conservative!

 

[anotherlife]

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

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

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?

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]

 

[Gadawg73]

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]

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]

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]

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..