Is healthcare a right? why or why not?

[Gagafritz]

It is a moral obligation as a fellow human being.

Not everyone defines their moral obligations to other humans in the same way, or even defines "help" in the same way. You should perhaps take a step back and consider that your particular view of the world and humanity is not THE view.

I find it interesting that you would find the simple statement i made above somehow controversial. I did not cloak it in religion or anything else. Just a basic observation of being on the planet or existing. Even animals help one another in times of distress. I watched an episode of whale watchers where there was a humpack whale with its baby being attacked by those killer whale dolphins. It was a gang banging group who repeatedly rammed and rammed the whales. The mother wahle wnet through Herculian and stenous efforts and attempt to block and protect and would literaly block the attacks, then swim under her baby and propel it to the surface to breathe. It was a very moving example of nature. If you don't think there is some kind of univeral principle whereby creatures aid and assist others in distress, i really dont' know what to say to that. And, nowhere did i see that was an excuse to leech off of others or whatever.

 

[logical4u]

You have to understand the diffrence between government jobs and private sector jobs.

The private sector is what creates income, soldiers are paid by the income in the private sector. Government workers are mainly a cost, not all but soldiers are because they don’t create anything. Government workers like soldiers are a cost more than people on food stamps and welfare becuase they produce nothing.

When I did my one year of mandatory military service, I was paid far less money than people on welfare and people on unemployment beneftis. Unemployed people and people on welfare gets about 2000$ a month. When I was a soldier I got 500$ a month in salary, I worked as a MP protecting an airforce base. I think that was fair, because their are other people that needed that money more than me. Sick,elderly,kids at school, or free HC. Those soldiers are young ,healthy etc. so they don’t need so much.They can take care of themselves. Elderly,sick etc. can’t. So if I get sick or when I’m old I can get better services.

I agree that soldiers in wars like afghanistan should get paid and they do get paid about 50.000$ a year, but that war was a wrong decision and a unescecary war just like Iraq. But you are not risking your life when you protect a base in a country where their is peace. E.g. those soldiers in Germany,Japan,Korea and USA don’t risk anything. They are mainly their only for presence. It hasn’t been a war in those countries for the last 50-60 years.

By keeping the salaries on military down, you can keep the military budget low and provide the same services. It is very inefficient to spend so much money as US does on military. The government should spend its money in a way that benefits its people investing in businesses,infrastructure,schools,HC. You have to get something back from your taxes.

If you could decide how you would spend your tax money, would you have spent it 60.000 soldiers in Germany, 80.000 in Japan/korea, when 46 million americans are on food stamps?
I wouldn’t, I would have taken back those troops, fired them and put the money into e.g. infrastructure,HC, job creation,education etc.
By doing that I would have cut government spending and created more private sector jobs.

Gov't workers "cost more" than those on welfare?????? Don't they do jobs? What do the people on welfare "give back" to society????????? According to your logic, "eliminating" those on welfare would be a great way to balance the budget.

Soldiers overseas dosen’t keep the purchasing power on the home-market up. US has 300.000 soldiers overseas. Germany,Korea,Japan their is no war their.
I especially talk about soldiers,you could need more government workers in for instance infrastructure, R&D. But they suffer because of all the overseas spending.

But soldiers overseas is a total waste, and the its better to spend the money on the home market when the goverment pays the salaries.

So, you think that leaving us without overseas bases will be a good thing? How do you propose we take care of shipping lanes (set up a tanker and oil refinery to travel with the fleet, along with a floating "dry dock")? Are you suggesting we void our treaties with our allies? Do you think that if we "evacuate" our troops from overseas, the enemies of liberty and freedom are going to say "I will not take advantage of those defenseless people"?

So we go back to having piracy on the seas world-wide (not just in select areas), anything that is "imported" will be more expensive (each vessel will need its own security force), and our enemies will have a clear path to invade any country on the face of the planet? Just so that I understand what you are saying, do I have that right?

 

[beagle9]

Gov't workers "cost more" than those on welfare?????? Don't they do jobs? What do the people on welfare "give back" to society????????? According to your logic, "eliminating" those on welfare would be a great way to balance the budget.

Soldiers overseas dosen’t keep the purchasing power on the home-market up. US has 300.000 soldiers overseas. Germany,Korea,Japan their is no war their.
I especially talk about soldiers,you could need more government workers in for instance infrastructure, R&D. But they suffer because of all the overseas spending.

But soldiers overseas is a total waste, and the its better to spend the money on the home market when the goverment pays the salaries.

So, you think that leaving us without overseas bases will be a good thing? How do you propose we take care of shipping lanes (set up a tanker and oil refinery to travel with the fleet, along with a floating "dry dock")? Are you suggesting we void our treaties with our allies? Do you think that if we "evacuate" our troops from overseas, the enemies of liberty and freedom are going to say "I will not take advantage of those defenseless people"?

So we go back to having piracy on the seas world-wide (not just in select areas), anything that is "imported" will be more expensive (each vessel will need its own security force), and our enemies will have a clear path to invade any country on the face of the planet? Just so that I understand what you are saying, do I have that right?

Exactly me thoughts as well, and you elayed them perfectly so I don't have to... Thanks

 

[Euro]

Gov't workers "cost more" than those on welfare?????? Don't they do jobs? What do the people on welfare "give back" to society????????? According to your logic, "eliminating" those on welfare would be a great way to balance the budget.

Soldiers overseas dosen’t keep the purchasing power on the home-market up. US has 300.000 soldiers overseas. Germany,Korea,Japan their is no war their.
I especially talk about soldiers,you could need more government workers in for instance infrastructure, R&D. But they suffer because of all the overseas spending.

But soldiers overseas is a total waste, and the its better to spend the money on the home market when the goverment pays the salaries.

So, you think that leaving us without overseas bases will be a good thing? How do you propose we take care of shipping lanes (set up a tanker and oil refinery to travel with the fleet, along with a floating "dry dock")? Are you suggesting we void our treaties with our allies? Do you think that if we "evacuate" our troops from overseas, the enemies of liberty and freedom are going to say "I will not take advantage of those defenseless people"?

So we go back to having piracy on the seas world-wide (not just in select areas), anything that is "imported" will be more expensive (each vessel will need its own security force), and our enemies will have a clear path to invade any country on the face of the planet? Just so that I understand what you are saying, do I have that right?

60.000 Soldiers in Germany, 60.000 soldiers in Japan. Both Japan and Germany have spent about 1% of its GDP on military the last 60 years.

NAVY ships and airforce is good to have, but I don’t think a 100.000+ landbased soldiers in countries where their is peace does any good, its waste. Then its better to by some NAVY ships or planes that can secure ships. A landbased army cant secure civilian ships, then its better to spend the money on NAVY and airforce.

 

[beagle9]

Soldiers overseas dosen’t keep the purchasing power on the home-market up. US has 300.000 soldiers overseas. Germany,Korea,Japan their is no war their.
I especially talk about soldiers,you could need more government workers in for instance infrastructure, R&D. But they suffer because of all the overseas spending.

But soldiers overseas is a total waste, and the its better to spend the money on the home market when the goverment pays the salaries.

So, you think that leaving us without overseas bases will be a good thing? How do you propose we take care of shipping lanes (set up a tanker and oil refinery to travel with the fleet, along with a floating "dry dock")? Are you suggesting we void our treaties with our allies? Do you think that if we "evacuate" our troops from overseas, the enemies of liberty and freedom are going to say "I will not take advantage of those defenseless people"?

So we go back to having piracy on the seas world-wide (not just in select areas), anything that is "imported" will be more expensive (each vessel will need its own security force), and our enemies will have a clear path to invade any country on the face of the planet? Just so that I understand what you are saying, do I have that right?

60.000 Soldiers in Germany, 60.000 soldiers in Japan. Both Japan and Germany have spent about 1% of its GDP on military the last 60 years.

NAVY ships and airforce is good to have, but I don’t think a 100.000+ landbased soldiers in countries where their is peace does any good, its waste. Then its better to by some NAVY ships or planes that can secure ships. A landbased army cant secure civilian ships, then its better to spend the money on NAVY and airforce.

If these soldiers are a part of those societies in everyway expected of them to be, and they are a contributor to those societies economies just as well in some form or another, and those societies are a contributor back to them just as well in some form or another, then this is just merely setting up a straw man, as to be found in these arguments such as this for political purposes only, because the electorate would never understand the complexities of these set up's or situations talked about here. I bet Japan is glad our people were still in there after that Sunami...wow

As for the one who is running or setting up this straw man argument to be used on the people for political reasons, it is most revealing to say the least upon how these set up's get going, and are being used in this election.

 

[Euro]

So, you think that leaving us without overseas bases will be a good thing? How do you propose we take care of shipping lanes (set up a tanker and oil refinery to travel with the fleet, along with a floating "dry dock")? Are you suggesting we void our treaties with our allies? Do you think that if we "evacuate" our troops from overseas, the enemies of liberty and freedom are going to say "I will not take advantage of those defenseless people"?

So we go back to having piracy on the seas world-wide (not just in select areas), anything that is "imported" will be more expensive (each vessel will need its own security force), and our enemies will have a clear path to invade any country on the face of the planet? Just so that I understand what you are saying, do I have that right?

60.000 Soldiers in Germany, 60.000 soldiers in Japan. Both Japan and Germany have spent about 1% of its GDP on military the last 60 years.

NAVY ships and airforce is good to have, but I don’t think a 100.000+ landbased soldiers in countries where their is peace does any good, its waste. Then its better to by some NAVY ships or planes that can secure ships. A landbased army cant secure civilian ships, then its better to spend the money on NAVY and airforce.

If these soldiers are a part of those societies in everyway expected of them to be, and they are a contributor to those societies economies just as well in some form or another, and those societies are a contributor back to them just as well in some form or another, then this is just merely setting up a straw man, as to be found in these arguments such as this for political purposes only, because the electorate would never understand the complexities of these set up's or situations talked about here. I bet Japan is glad our people were still in there after that Sunami...wow

As for the one who is running or setting up this straw man argument to be used on the people for political reasons, it is most revealing to say the least upon how these set up's get going, and are being used in this election.

Thats the problem they contribute to the economies in those countries by spending money their. I’m sure it is nice for Germany and Japan to not spend money on defence, and at the same time their businesess are stimulated while they buy products their and create manufacturing jobs their to supply the US army.

It was nescesccarry after ww2 when the region was unstable and they needed help, but they are self-managed now. And they have money to build their own defence now. Let them do that.

Back in US their are 40 million unemployed americans, cutting those soldiers will save billions and the government can create other jobs fot those back in US. That way they can stimulate the american economy and not the japanese,german or korean.

If those soldiers spends money in US, they will create american jobs instead of german or japanese jobs. But I’m sure Japan and Germany are happy to not have to spend money on military. But with 40 million americans on food stamps, they need those soldiers in US to stimulate the US economy. Many of those soldiers can probobaly create new private sector jobs in US to.

 

[logical4u]

60.000 Soldiers in Germany, 60.000 soldiers in Japan. Both Japan and Germany have spent about 1% of its GDP on military the last 60 years.

NAVY ships and airforce is good to have, but I don’t think a 100.000+ landbased soldiers in countries where their is peace does any good, its waste. Then its better to by some NAVY ships or planes that can secure ships. A landbased army cant secure civilian ships, then its better to spend the money on NAVY and airforce.

If these soldiers are a part of those societies in everyway expected of them to be, and they are a contributor to those societies economies just as well in some form or another, and those societies are a contributor back to them just as well in some form or another, then this is just merely setting up a straw man, as to be found in these arguments such as this for political purposes only, because the electorate would never understand the complexities of these set up's or situations talked about here. I bet Japan is glad our people were still in there after that Sunami...wow

As for the one who is running or setting up this straw man argument to be used on the people for political reasons, it is most revealing to say the least upon how these set up's get going, and are being used in this election.

Thats the problem they contribute to the economies in those countries by spending money their. I’m sure it is nice for Germany and Japan to not spend money on defence, and at the same time their businesess are stimulated while they buy products their and create manufacturing jobs their to supply the US army.

It was nescesccarry after ww2 when the region was unstable and they needed help, but they are self-managed now. And they have money to build their own defence now. Let them do that.

Back in US their are 40 million unemployed americans, cutting those soldiers will save billions and the government can create other jobs fot those back in US. That way they can stimulate the american economy and not the japanese,german or korean.

If those soldiers spends money in US, they will create american jobs instead of german or japanese jobs. But I’m sure Japan and Germany are happy to not have to spend money on military. But with 40 million americans on food stamps, they need those soldiers in US to stimulate the US economy. Many of those soldiers can probobaly create new private sector jobs in US to.

Yes, those countries that are home to our overseas military bases are happy to have our soldiers spend "their" money there.

Just a brief history lesson: WWI Germany was beaten and broken. The first wack job that knew how to "sell" was welcomed with open arms, and not only threw the rest of the world (I believe only a small number of countries were NOT involved, one way or another) into a war were millions died, but also executed millions to take what was theirs. Japan was also know for re-grouping, and aggressively attacking its neighbors. Our military stationed there was and is a standing warning to any wannabe dictator that intends to sway his country's people into war, already has a "standing army" that he will have to battle BEFORE he can march on his neighbors. Until the USA became a "world power" in WWII, Europe, Asia, and Africa had major wars, frequently. Since the USA became a "world power", there has been fewer major wars, and less resources (though our tax dollars are an enormous amount), used for a military the ready in every country that had borders to defend.

It amuses me that the same people that want our military cut to the bone, would be the first ones crying and pissing their pants when the invasion would come. The same ones that think the entire world will behave on its own will not even ask those on "assistance" to provide for themselves. What little hypocrits they are.

 

[beagle9]

60.000 Soldiers in Germany, 60.000 soldiers in Japan. Both Japan and Germany have spent about 1% of its GDP on military the last 60 years.

NAVY ships and airforce is good to have, but I don’t think a 100.000+ landbased soldiers in countries where their is peace does any good, its waste. Then its better to by some NAVY ships or planes that can secure ships. A landbased army cant secure civilian ships, then its better to spend the money on NAVY and airforce.

If these soldiers are a part of those societies in everyway expected of them to be, and they are a contributor to those societies economies just as well in some form or another, and those societies are a contributor back to them just as well in some form or another, then this is just merely setting up a straw man, as to be found in these arguments such as this for political purposes only, because the electorate would never understand the complexities of these set up's or situations talked about here. I bet Japan is glad our people were still in there after that Sunami...wow

As for the one who is running or setting up this straw man argument to be used on the people for political reasons, it is most revealing to say the least upon how these set up's get going, and are being used in this election.

Thats the problem they contribute to the economies in those countries by spending money their. I’m sure it is nice for Germany and Japan to not spend money on defence, and at the same time their businesess are stimulated while they buy products their and create manufacturing jobs their to supply the US army.

It was nescesccarry after ww2 when the region was unstable and they needed help, but they are self-managed now. And they have money to build their own defence now. Let them do that.

Back in US their are 40 million unemployed americans, cutting those soldiers will save billions and the government can create other jobs fot those back in US. That way they can stimulate the american economy and not the japanese,german or korean.

If those soldiers spends money in US, they will create american jobs instead of german or japanese jobs. But I’m sure Japan and Germany are happy to not have to spend money on military. But with 40 million americans on food stamps, they need those soldiers in US to stimulate the US economy. Many of those soldiers can probobaly create new private sector jobs in US to.

It is my thoughts that the military and this nation has made out quite well in these nations over the years (i.e. being a huge positive in so many ways looking back and forward, instead of the huge negative in which it is being touted within an election period and/or cycle now). These areas have assisted us tremendously as far as our inteligence community goes etc. where as we must keep tabs on this world always through these open channels, that which were open with the blood of this nation.

Hey these things cost big time always, but they are a nessesary cost none the less. Now if we were talking about reforming or auditing the military, in order to see if we need to maybe tweak or make some nessesary changes in some of these areas, well ok then, but to talk of this blanket abandonment from the world in so many ways now, by saying that we are broke especially as a justification for it, when we are not broke by no means as a nation, is simply rediculousness at best in my opinion. This sounds just like something Obama would be suggesting or touting, but even he isn't that crazy I guess, where as he is simply staying well away from this kind of tactic or suggestion in an election situation, to even go anywhere near saying that we should be retreating from the entire world with our military and intel.

He (Barack) may apologize to much here and there, but he is keeping us strong in the world so far (i.e. not speaking of a total retreat from it). Correct me if I am wrong now....

 

[IndependntLogic]

Are you daft or just lying? Please show me where I said that ANY government program is nothing but positives! What? You can't? Of course you can't. So really, please just quit lying, okay? Thanks.

Actually it is you that would lying here. Please show me where I used the words 'any government program' or any other such phrasing that would indicate I was talking about anything other than healthcare. 'What? You can't? Of course you can't. So really, please just quit lying, okay? Thanks.' We're talking about healthcare. Grow a pair and address the reality that 'all other industrialized nations' with some for or other of UHC also run rather significant deficits in health care spending.

Well you wrote "To pretend there is nothing but positives with government run health care is simply naive". Apparently you don't understand that what I meant was that, not only did I never say there was "nothing but positives" about health care, I would never say that about ANY government run program. So I didn't lie, you just didn't understand - but you still lied. So even if I dumb it down for you, you're going to come up empty: Show me where I ever said there is nothing but positives to a government run health care program. What? You cant'? Yeah we know...

And what about when they get out? Then again, why not the lawyer who foregoes the huge Wall St. salary in order to provide free legal counsel to the vetereans who are in need? Is he less deserving? Why?

In my personal opinion vets should received medical benefits for life. Lawyers aren't vets. They didn't sacrafice themselves to defend the country. So yes I would say they are less deserving.



They federal government has only the obligations laid out for it in the constitution. Some of the things you listed indeed the fed doesn't have an obligation to provide even though they do. And not it has nothing to do with prioritization. You can not logically conclude that because I am not for governmetn UHC I must be for wars. In fact I don't think we should be or need to be spending what we spend on defense. That doesn't change my opinion that government should not provide healthcare. It will invariably require curbing people's freedom as I mentioned in another post and again your condition, whether it be your health or your financial one, isn't anyone elses responsibility or obligation to fix.

Well fine. Yes, what are called "Liberal" views in America would be considered very Conservative in most of the world. Also very stupid. We spend more than every other country in the world combined on defense but we can't help our citizens and our economy with health care? Our priorities are just plain stupid sometimes but the AMA, Insurance idustry etc... have done such a good job of selling this bs, there are people who buy it.

Again this not about substitutions. People use cliches like that all the time too which are 'also very stupid'. Cliche's like "we're the richest nation in the world so we ought to do this', or 'we spend so much on this, but not on that'. THEY ARE NOT RELATED. The reason we don't spend more tax dollars to provide health care is not because of how much we're spending on other stuff. The reason is because providing health care has not been deemed to be the government's responsibility.

As far as believing what you say, you're the one with the closed mind. What have you presented to believe? You've only put forth your opinions. When faced with facts - like that the money is there, this country just budgets & prioritizes extremely poorly, you revert to FOX soundbites and labels.
Google health care in Indonesia. Combination of Public & Private sector health are. Fantastic stuff and probably among the least abused systems out there. Or check Sweden or Austria's. Even Japan.
Contrary to what you've been told, offering public health insurance doesn't mean private sector insurance has to go away. This is the only industrialized country in the world where someone ever has to consider health as a factor to switiching jobs or starting their own business. That's bad for the economy.

I'm not disputing you're facts. I agree that we could divert money from some things and probably pay for a lot of people's health care. It isn't a question of whether we can it's a question of whether we should. The answer is short some very basic safety nets, no, we should not. I asked before to someone else and so I ask you; what is more important to you? Government ensuring your security or government ensuring our freedom.

Ah. Sounds like someone's been reading the Little Libertarian Book of Pat Answers. Okay got it. Guess what? I'm just fine and dandy with having LOTS of freedoms impinged upon. Freedom to own a nuclear weapon is guaranteed in the USC. I'm not disappointed that I don't have it. Freedom to sell heroin on street corners is guaranteed. Not missing that either. Now, what you should do is tell me why it applies only as you interpret it.

You can't have it both ways.
Actually, yes I can and so do you. It's called common sense.

When government does one it takes away from the other. If you want government to keep you more secure via paying for your health care, then invarably you will lose some of your freedom.
I'm fine with that. I'm also fine with getting a driver's license - even thought that's UnConstitutional. Oh wait. Anything we legally decide to change through the legislative process becomes Constitutionally legal - unless you say it isn't of course...
You will lose some financial freedom because everyone's taxes will have to go up.
But I will save much more than that on the cost of health care and the 60% of bankruptcies which are filed due to medical bills and subsequently passed along to the consumer of virtually every product and service. I (well not me) will also gain the freedom to switch jobs at will because unlike any other country in the world, I am no longer enslaved by insurance.


You will also lose some freedom of choice since I am now paying for healthcare I most certainly have a say in making sure you aren't behaving in a way that may result in encurring some unneccessary health care expenses. Deal?

No deal. You also make the assumption that providing public health care means the elimination of private health care. Wrong. Why would it go away? If "The Market" operates as some claim, then the ONLY people who will use public health care, will be those who can't afford the superior quality, better doctors, prettier nurses or whatever provided by the private sector. Can't have it both ways! Either the market operates or it doesn't.

 

[Bern80]

Well you wrote "To pretend there is nothing but positives with government run health care is simply naive". Apparently you don't understand that what I meant was that, not only did I never say there was "nothing but positives" about health care, I would never say that about ANY government run program. So I didn't lie, you just didn't understand - but you still lied. So even if I dumb it down for you, you're going to come up empty: Show me where I ever said there is nothing but positives to a government run health care program. What? You cant'? Yeah we know...

You can't even admit a mistake when it's stuck right in front of your face. Your failure to acknowledge that there are very real problem that cuntries using such system are seeing now, today, suggests you are ignoring the negatives and lending credence only to the positives (though I can't find many of those either). That is why I called you naive on UHC.

Ah. Sounds like someone's been reading the Little Libertarian Book of Pat Answers. Okay got it. Guess what? I'm just fine and dandy with having LOTS of freedoms impinged upon. Freedom to own a nuclear weapon is guaranteed in the USC. I'm not disappointed that I don't have it. Freedom to sell heroin on street corners is guaranteed. Not missing that either. Now, what you should do is tell me why it applies only as you interpret it.

Tell you what only applies as I interpret it? The constitution. Not that I will convince you of this, but I don't believe the constution was ever meant to be 'interpreted'. The document says what it says. I believe the authors meant for people to be able to understand very simply what their rights were and what their government's obliations are. They did not intend for people to have to defer to supposed 'constitutional scholars' to tell them what their rights were or what government can or can't do.

Actually, yes I can and so do you. It's called common sense.

No I'm afraid you can't. You can't insist that government provide UHC and insist that you get to keep the same freedoms you had before it went into effect.

I'm fine with that. I'm also fine with getting a driver's license - even thought that's UnConstitutional. Oh wait. Anything we legally decide to change through the legislative process becomes Constitutionally legal - unless you say it isn't of course...

Also not true. Passage of a law does not mean all laws passed are constitutional. Congressman take an oath also to uphold the constitution. If a president can violate his oath of office and thus be subject to impeachment, so to can congressman be impeached for violating theirs and passing legislation that is unconstitutional.

But I will save much more than that on the cost of health care and the 60% of bankruptcies which are filed due to medical bills and subsequently passed along to the consumer of virtually every product and service. I (well not me) will also gain the freedom to switch jobs at will because unlike any other country in the world, I am no longer enslaved by insurance.

Enslaved by your employer? Get real. People switch jobs all the time. Including myself. Unless you're A complete idiot with no marketable skills whatsover, most any job is going to offer health insurance as a benefit. And why exactly do you deserve to save money on the backs of others?

No deal. You also make the assumption that providing public health care means the elimination of private health care. Wrong. Why would it go away? If "The Market" operates as some claim, then the ONLY people who will use public health care, will be those who can't afford the superior quality, better doctors, prettier nurses or whatever provided by the private sector. Can't have it both ways! Either the market operates or it doesn't.

Maybe not. But by then what's the point? Or better yet what is your point? Is it that you believe it is the role of government to provide health care for all or do we just need a safety net for that really need it? If it is the latter I would simply suggest expanding medicare. Whether the tax payer should get to dictate to you how you live your life is dependent on what you want the government to pay for. I would be willing to compromise in extending medicare to those who need it as long as it doesn't pay for health care needed as a result of something you did to yourself.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Well you wrote "To pretend there is nothing but positives with government run health care is simply naive". Apparently you don't understand that what I meant was that, not only did I never say there was "nothing but positives" about health care, I would never say that about ANY government run program. So I didn't lie, you just didn't understand - but you still lied. So even if I dumb it down for you, you're going to come up empty: Show me where I ever said there is nothing but positives to a government run health care program. What? You cant'? Yeah we know...

You can't even admit a mistake when it's stuck right in front of your face. Your failure to acknowledge that there are very real problem that cuntries using such system are seeing now, today, suggests you are ignoring the negatives and lending credence only to the positives (though I can't find many of those either). That is why I called you naive on UHC.

It's not my failure to acknowledge that, it's your failure to comprehend I never even hinted at anything so foolish. Seriously, how much do I need to dumb this down? Okay lemme try again:
You are the only person who has written anything about any government program having "nothing but positives". I acknowledged and emphsize again, ALL government programs have problems. The military, FEMA, Medicare whatever. I have never said otherwise.

Ah. Sounds like someone's been reading the Little Libertarian Book of Pat Answers. Okay got it. Guess what? I'm just fine and dandy with having LOTS of freedoms impinged upon. Freedom to own a nuclear weapon is guaranteed in the USC. I'm not disappointed that I don't have it. Freedom to sell heroin on street corners is guaranteed. Not missing that either. Now, what you should do is tell me why it applies only as you interpret it.

Tell you what only applies as I interpret it? The constitution. Not that I will convince you of this, but I don't believe the constution was ever meant to be 'interpreted'. The document says what it says. I believe the authors meant for people to be able to understand very simply what their rights were and what their government's obliations are. They did not intend for people to have to defer to supposed 'constitutional scholars' to tell them what their rights were or what government can or can't do.

You believe. Your belief is no more valid than anyone else's though. I believe the FF's created three branches of government! And one of those branches has the specific duty of interpreting laws and then comparing them to how they interpretthe USC, in order to see if the two are congruent. Seems my belief has more evidence to support it as that's what we've done for a couple hundred years now.

No I'm afraid you can't. You can't insist that government provide UHC and insist that you get to keep the same freedoms you had before it went into effect.

Never said I could insist the government provide UHC. But I can prove that the same freedoms can indeed exist if it did exist.

Also not true. Passage of a law does not mean all laws passed are constitutional. Congressman take an oath also to uphold the constitution. If a president can violate his oath of office and thus be subject to impeachment, so to can congressman be impeached for violating theirs and passing legislation that is unconstitutional.

I didn't say all laws are Constitutional. I said that laws are passed according to the Constitution and if they are passed they are legal. Of course they can later be interpreted to be UnConstitutional - as will hopefully be the case with ObamaCare, for example.

But I will save much more than that on the cost of health care and the 60% of bankruptcies which are filed due to medical bills and subsequently passed along to the consumer of virtually every product and service. I (well not me) will also gain the freedom to switch jobs at will because unlike any other country in the world, I am no longer enslaved by insurance.

Enslaved by your employer? Get real. People switch jobs all the time. Including myself. Unless you're A complete idiot with no marketable skills whatsover, most any job is going to offer health insurance as a benefit. And why exactly do you deserve to save money on the backs of others?

Our neighbor worked for Enron his whole life. Wanted to switch jobs a couple times but his wife had some kind of bad disease (I think it may have been Parkinson's) and they wouldn't be able to get her covered (pre-ObamaCare) or if they did, it would cost them a mint. They were ENSLAVED to Enron. Until it went under of course. Then they lost everything. Good solid Conservatives, those two. Ironic eh?

No deal. You also make the assumption that providing public health care means the elimination of private health care. Wrong. Why would it go away? If "The Market" operates as some claim, then the ONLY people who will use public health care, will be those who can't afford the superior quality, better doctors, prettier nurses or whatever provided by the private sector. Can't have it both ways! Either the market operates or it doesn't.

Maybe not. But by then what's the point? Or better yet what is your point? Is it that you believe it is the role of government to provide health care for all or do we just need a safety net for that really need it? If it is the latter I would simply suggest expanding medicare. Whether the tax payer should get to dictate to you how you live your life is dependent on what you want the government to pay for. I would be willing to compromise in extending meidcare to those who need it as long as it doesn't pay for health care needed as a result of something you did to yourself.

So hmmm. Remember when I first said it's simply a matter of priorities? That's what you just stated above. It's not whether government will waste money. It always will. Government will always have problems with it's programs - look at NASA's $1200 toilet etc...
So if government is going to take our money and use it on something, I would prefer it do so on health care, rather than say giving $20B to the corrupt politicians of the country that helped hide bin Laden on us. Or on about two dozen government agencies I would eliminate altogether. Or on tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas. Or whatever. Of all the things our government blows money on, this is one that the whole world realizes is pretty basic.
Believe it not, as great as this country is, there are SOME things that other countries do better. I believe this is one.
I would offer a Single Payer Insurance System that was graduated based on income and required acclerating co-payments to help curb abuse. This is what Indonesia does. No one in that country has ever filed bankruptcy because of medical bills. Got any idea how many BILLIONS we pay as taxpayers, due to that aspect of our system alone?
Google the Indonesian system (hopefully with a tad more open mind) and you'll see what I'm referring to.
Hell, even the Ukrainian's have a system better than ours. It's basically private unless you're at a lower-middle class income level or until you hit a certain cost factor. Then you have the public option.

 

[Bern80]

You believe. Your belief is no more valid than anyone else's though. I believe the FF's created three branches of government! And one of those branches has the specific duty of interpreting laws and then comparing them to how they interpretthe USC, in order to see if the two are congruent. Seems my belief has more evidence to support it as that's what we've done for a couple hundred years now.

Which would be true if we could safely assume that all judges interpret the constitution the same way and that they were always correct in that interpretation. But please for a second get real. We KNOW that's not the case. We wouldn't have the battles over judicial appointments we have if we could take on faith that judges would always interpret the constitution correctly.

Never said I could insist the government provide UHC. But I can prove that the same freedoms can indeed exist if it did exist.

You really like to get stuck on I said/you said don't you? Do you understand the word 'if' is a qualifier? Hence why I used it. The reality is no you can't. What your missing is money is freedom. It is what allows people to exercise their right to do what they want to do. If you don't have money you have few choices. Soooo the fact remains, at the end of the day, even if government passed a health care plan where everyone paid into government and government handled all the costs of one's healthcare regardless of whether their health issues were a fault or no fault of their own, you would STILL be less free. Because a government plan that doesn't hold people accountable financially for their health is going to cost more for EVERYONE than a plan that does hold people accountable financially for their own health.

I didn't say all laws are Constitutional. I said that laws are passed according to the Constitution and if they are passed they are legal. Of course they can later be interpreted to be UnConstitutional - as will hopefully be the case with ObamaCare, for example.

That's a distinction without a difference bud. And most of it isnt' even true. Again, GET REAL. You really think today's congressmen are consulting the costitution to make sure the legislation they are trying to pass comports with it? Another naive belief we know not to be true. FDR would not have had to threaten to pack the supreme court if "all laws are passed according to the constitution' and the courts, as you say, have the final say on what is constitutional.

Our neighbor worked for Enron his whole life. Wanted to switch jobs a couple times but his wife had some kind of bad disease (I think it may have been Parkinson's) and they wouldn't be able to get her covered (pre-ObamaCare) or if they did, it would cost them a mint. They were ENSLAVED to Enron. Until it went under of course. Then they lost everything. Good solid Conservatives, those two. Ironic eh?

The pre-existing condition issue is another moral dilemma. I'm not sure what the answer is, but some out of the box thinking is required. I would suggest some type lending option that gets people the money they need for expenses that can be paid off over time. What I do know is it is morally wrong to buy a home owners insurance policy AFTER your house catches fire and expect the insurance company to pay for it.

So hmmm. Remember when I first said it's simply a matter of priorities? That's what you just stated above. It's not whether government will waste money. It always will. Government will always have problems with it's programs - look at NASA's $1200 toilet etc...
So if government is going to take our money and use it on something, I would prefer it do so on health care, rather than say giving $20B to the corrupt politicians of the country that helped hide bin Laden on us. Or on about two dozen government agencies I would eliminate altogether. Or on tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas. Or whatever. Of all the things our government blows money on, this is one that the whole world realizes is pretty basic.

And I'm trying to get you to see when it comes to government spending it is NOT always about priorities. It is not a question of spending on this vs. that. Like I said, I would probably agree with you on a lot of things we shouldn't be spending money. But even if we had the money to spare that doesn't mean it is a good idea or that government SHOULD spend money on it.

Believe it not, as great as this country is, there are SOME things that other countries do better. I believe this is one.
I would offer a Single Payer Insurance System that was graduated based on income and required acclerating co-payments to help curb abuse. This is what Indonesia does. No one in that country has ever filed bankruptcy because of medical bills. Got any idea how many BILLIONS we pay as taxpayers, due to that aspect of our system alone?
Google the Indonesian system (hopefully with a tad more open mind) and you'll see what I'm referring to.
Hell, even the Ukrainian's have a system better than ours. It's basically private unless you're at a lower-middle class income level or until you hit a certain cost factor. Then you have the public option.

Define 'better'. What is your metric for what makes another country's system 'better'? Because it appears to me, like most that advocate for UHC, you only have one metric that defines what makes an entire health care system good or bad and that is how much it costs the individual. Does Indonesia have the quality of physicians and medical resources we have? I doubt it. So what good is cheap if the actual quality of care is poor? That's kind of interesting because it reminds me of something you said before. 'Either the free market works or it doesn't', you said. Have you considered the free market IS working in our country (albeit not as well as it coud where health care is concerned)? A free market determines the price of something by variables such as it's scarcity and demand for it. The more demand and more scarce something is the more it will cost. In that sense it makes perfect sense that health care is going to be expensive. You want me to keep an open mind, then I ask you do the same and engage in some real objective introspection about your own beliefs. Think bigger picture. Is your beef really that you just don't believe that people should be financially burdened with the cost of just plain surviving? Is health care something that you believe shouldn't be subjected to the free market? How do you know a free market won't accomplish the same goals if you really let them work? Or how about thinking REALLY big picture. Like humanities impact on our planet and whether or not we should be trying so hard, even demanding that others pay to do so, to save so many?

 

[IndependntLogic]

Define 'better'. What is your metric for what makes another country's system 'better'?
Well one component would be "At all". Millions of people in this country don't get care AT ALL. So if you're hungry, you don't care whether or not other people get steak, even a peanut sandwich looks good. That would be one component. Another is cost to those who HAVE insurance. Two thirds of the bankruptcies in this country are caused solely or partly by medical bills - including the medical bills of those who HAVE insurace. You don't see a problem with this? I have personal experience in this regard. My brother got cancer and had insurance through the painting contractor he worked for. Long story but the result was that it ended up costing me $6 - $10K a month for quite a while. Of course, I could have gone the Ron Paul route and cheered "Let him die!" because he wasn't an expert in inrsurance loopholes etc...

Because it appears to me, like most that advocate for UHC, you only have one metric that defines what makes an entire health care system good or bad and that is how much it costs the individual. Does Indonesia have the quality of physicians and medical resources we have?
Why do you doubt it? Oh yeah. The Conservative Media has told you so. So of course you trust whatever that media tells you. I've had health care in several countries and honestly, with the exception of the Ukraine, most were just as good and as quick as here in America. Contrary to what you've been told to believe, that includes Canada, btw.

I doubt it. So what good is cheap if the actual quality of care is poor? That's kind of interesting because it reminds me of something you said before. 'Either the free market works or it doesn't', you said. Have you considered the free market IS working in our country (albeit not as well as it coud where health care is concerned)? A free market determines the price of something by variables such as it's scarcity and demand for it. The more demand and more scarce something is the more it will cost.

Dude, I am AT LEAST as much of a capitalist as you are. I own a business, create jobs, that sort of thing. But to think there is no price-fixing, no unfair denials and that health care is an either / or situation shows very limited thinking. Why not have BOTH public and private? You seem to dodge that rather quickly.

In that sense it makes perfect sense that health care is going to be expensive. You want me to keep an open mind, then I ask you do the same and engage in some real objective introspection about your own beliefs. Think bigger picture. Is your beef really that you just don't believe that people should be financially burdened with the cost of just plain surviving? Is health care something that you believe shouldn't be subjected to the free market?
Again, your limited experience and thinking is showing. Do you think it's impossible to have both? You're wrong. We have it now. We just do a really crappy job of it.

How do you know a free market won't accomplish the same goals if you really let them work?
I guess the last fifty years would be evidence to that effect.

Or how about thinking REALLY big picture. Like humanities impact on our planet and whether or not we should be trying so hard, even demanding that others pay to do so, to save so many?

"let em die!" Yeah. heard that when Ron Paul spoke. Maybe some day when you crawl out of the Libertarian box, you'll realize there are other possibilities that are worth exploring. In the mean time I get it. You believe there is absolutely no possibility that anything could be better than letting those benevolent insurance companies handle everything.
BTW, knwo how many of the 25 largest health insurers have been ound guilty of wrongfully denying benefits and even wrongful death? 25.
Know how many of the "The Magical Market" has put out of business because hey! That's what happens if we let The Market handle things right? Bad companies just disappear? Wrong. The answer is zero. Every insurer who has been found guilty of repeatedly denying benefits is still out there! Same with drug manufacturers, auto makers etc... The Magical Market does not get rid of all those bad companies. That's a Libertarian myth. it does in many cases but it certainly doesn't in most. Look at the Fortune 500. Look at Moody's (you know, the fine folks who graded mortgage backed securities so highly), the examples go on ad infinitum.
So while I am a capitalist, I am also a realist. Oh well.
Look I know you will not believe anything could possibly be better than what we have. Screw evidence, it's philosophy that's important. Seen it before.

 

[Bern80]

Well one component would be "At all". Millions of people in this country don't get care AT ALL. So if you're hungry, you don't care whether or not other people get steak, even a peanut sandwich looks good. That would be one component. Another is cost to those who HAVE insurance. Two thirds of the bankruptcies in this country are caused solely or partly by medical bills - including the medical bills of those who HAVE insurace. You don't see a problem with this? I have personal experience in this regard. My brother got cancer and had insurance through the painting contractor he worked for. Long story but the result was that it ended up costing me $6 - $10K a month for quite a while. Of course, I could have gone the Ron Paul route and cheered "Let him die!" because he wasn't an expert in inrsurance loopholes etc...

You don't need to preach to me about brother's with cancer. I AM the brother with cancer. I had cancer when I was four. It was a huge financial drain on my parents even being upper middle class. As an adult it continues to be a drain on my finances as well. You may not like the philosophy or the hyper ideological stance I have, but at the end of the day I have the integrity to say despite the unlucky, raw deal I was dealt through no fault of anybody at all, I STILL do not have the right the hold someone else fiscally accountable for my problems.

Your above paragraph proves exactly what I said. Cost is the main factor that determines for you what constitutes a good health care system.

Why do you doubt it? Oh yeah. The Conservative Media has told you so. So of course you trust whatever that media tells you. I've had health care in several countries and honestly, with the exception of the Ukraine, most were just as good and as quick as here in America. Contrary to what you've been told to believe, that includes Canada, btw.

Stop responding about what you think are the alterior motives behind my question and just answer the question. You don't know enough about me to be able to assume you know where I get my news. Nobody tells me what to believe. Something is either true or it isn't. In this case you may want to have a look at the WHO report the proponents of UHC are so fond of citing our 37th position on. If you dig a little deepr into that report those final country rankings came from ranking the countries in about 8 other metrics. Things like cost per indiviudal (the primary factor that leads to the U.S. low ranking), responsiveness, access to needed treatment etc. In the catagories that would constitute actualy quality of care, irrelevent of the cost, the U.S. is in the top 10 in almost all of those categories. In other words, the WHO study would disagree with that you would receive the same quality of care in other countries as you would the U.S.

Dude, I am AT LEAST as much of a capitalist as you are. I own a business, create jobs, that sort of thing. But to think there is no price-fixing, no unfair denials and that health care is an either / or situation shows very limited thinking. Why not have BOTH public and private? You seem to dodge that rather quickly.

I'm not dodging it at all. Scroll back a few posts you would see that one of my suggestions is that if your goal is some type of minimal level of government paid for coverage, why not just expand medicare to those people.

Again, your limited experience and thinking is showing. Do you think it's impossible to have both? You're wrong. We have it now. We just do a really crappy job of it.

As noted above my experience with health care is far from limited. the only thing starting to show in this thread is your foolishness in assuming what you can't possibly verify about me as being true.

I guess the last fifty years would be evidence to that effect.

That presumes the last fifty years has actually been a free market. That would be a rather foolish presumption when you consider health care is the single most heavily regulated industry in the country.

"let em die!" Yeah. heard that when Ron Paul spoke. Maybe some day when you crawl out of the Libertarian box, you'll realize there are other possibilities that are worth exploring. In the mean time I get it. You believe there is absolutely no possibility that anything could be better than letting those benevolent insurance companies handle everything.

Again you can not presume that because I am against something I must specifically be for something else.

BTW, knwo how many of the 25 largest health insurers have been ound guilty of wrongfully denying benefits and even wrongful death? 25.
Know how many of the "The Magical Market" has put out of business because hey! That's what happens if we let The Market handle things right? Bad companies just disappear? Wrong. The answer is zero. Every insurer who has been found guilty of repeatedly denying benefits is still out there! Same with drug manufacturers, auto makers etc... The Magical Market does not get rid of all those bad companies. That's a Libertarian myth. it does in many cases but it certainly doesn't in most. Look at the Fortune 500. Look at Moody's (you know, the fine folks who graded mortgage backed securities so highly), the examples go on ad infinitum.

No that is not the free market working. The libertarian idea is that when the consumer views a company in an unfavorable light due to some 'evil doings' by said company, the consumer will choose some alternative. Well to do that the customer first has to know about said 'evil doings'. How many people do you suppose know the above. I admit I didn't. And I'm pretty sure I'm not in the minority.

 

[logical4u]

Are you daft or just lying? Please show me where I said that ANY government program is nothing but positives! What? You can't? Of course you can't. So really, please just quit lying, okay? Thanks.

Actually it is you that would lying here. Please show me where I used the words 'any government program' or any other such phrasing that would indicate I was talking about anything other than healthcare. 'What? You can't? Of course you can't. So really, please just quit lying, okay? Thanks.' We're talking about healthcare. Grow a pair and address the reality that 'all other industrialized nations' with some for or other of UHC also run rather significant deficits in health care spending.

Well you wrote "To pretend there is nothing but positives with government run health care is simply naive". Apparently you don't understand that what I meant was that, not only did I never say there was "nothing but positives" about health care, I would never say that about ANY government run program. So I didn't lie, you just didn't understand - but you still lied. So even if I dumb it down for you, you're going to come up empty: Show me where I ever said there is nothing but positives to a government run health care program. What? You cant'? Yeah we know...



In my personal opinion vets should received medical benefits for life. Lawyers aren't vets. They didn't sacrafice themselves to defend the country. So yes I would say they are less deserving.



They federal government has only the obligations laid out for it in the constitution. Some of the things you listed indeed the fed doesn't have an obligation to provide even though they do. And not it has nothing to do with prioritization. You can not logically conclude that because I am not for governmetn UHC I must be for wars. In fact I don't think we should be or need to be spending what we spend on defense. That doesn't change my opinion that government should not provide healthcare. It will invariably require curbing people's freedom as I mentioned in another post and again your condition, whether it be your health or your financial one, isn't anyone elses responsibility or obligation to fix.




Again this not about substitutions. People use cliches like that all the time too which are 'also very stupid'. Cliche's like "we're the richest nation in the world so we ought to do this', or 'we spend so much on this, but not on that'. THEY ARE NOT RELATED. The reason we don't spend more tax dollars to provide health care is not because of how much we're spending on other stuff. The reason is because providing health care has not been deemed to be the government's responsibility.

As far as believing what you say, you're the one with the closed mind. What have you presented to believe? You've only put forth your opinions. When faced with facts - like that the money is there, this country just budgets & prioritizes extremely poorly, you revert to FOX soundbites and labels.
Google health care in Indonesia. Combination of Public & Private sector health are. Fantastic stuff and probably among the least abused systems out there. Or check Sweden or Austria's. Even Japan.
Contrary to what you've been told, offering public health insurance doesn't mean private sector insurance has to go away. This is the only industrialized country in the world where someone ever has to consider health as a factor to switiching jobs or starting their own business. That's bad for the economy.

I'm not disputing you're facts. I agree that we could divert money from some things and probably pay for a lot of people's health care. It isn't a question of whether we can it's a question of whether we should. The answer is short some very basic safety nets, no, we should not. I asked before to someone else and so I ask you; what is more important to you? Government ensuring your security or government ensuring our freedom.

Ah. Sounds like someone's been reading the Little Libertarian Book of Pat Answers. Okay got it. Guess what? I'm just fine and dandy with having LOTS of freedoms impinged upon. Freedom to own a nuclear weapon is guaranteed in the USC. I'm not disappointed that I don't have it. Freedom to sell heroin on street corners is guaranteed. Not missing that either. Now, what you should do is tell me why it applies only as you interpret it.

You can't have it both ways.
Actually, yes I can and so do you. It's called common sense.

When government does one it takes away from the other. If you want government to keep you more secure via paying for your health care, then invarably you will lose some of your freedom.
I'm fine with that. I'm also fine with getting a driver's license - even thought that's UnConstitutional. Oh wait. Anything we legally decide to change through the legislative process becomes Constitutionally legal - unless you say it isn't of course...
You will lose some financial freedom because everyone's taxes will have to go up.
But I will save much more than that on the cost of health care and the 60% of bankruptcies which are filed due to medical bills and subsequently passed along to the consumer of virtually every product and service. I (well not me) will also gain the freedom to switch jobs at will because unlike any other country in the world, I am no longer enslaved by insurance.


You will also lose some freedom of choice since I am now paying for healthcare I most certainly have a say in making sure you aren't behaving in a way that may result in encurring some unneccessary health care expenses. Deal?

No deal. You also make the assumption that providing public health care means the elimination of private health care. Wrong. Why would it go away? If "The Market" operates as some claim, then the ONLY people who will use public health care, will be those who can't afford the superior quality, better doctors, prettier nurses or whatever provided by the private sector. Can't have it both ways! Either the market operates or it doesn't.

"Eliminating" private healthcare is the plan (how else do you CONTROL your "subjects"). If the "gov't" or "gov't run schools" control the degrees given to doctors, don't you think they have way too much control over the medical economy? If the gov't controls medical licensing, don't they get to say who gets degrees, how many degrees are handed out, and what those degrees cost? They control that now (and people want to blame the insurance companies, a way for employers to give their employees more "wealth" without having to pay taxes on it). If the gov't takes over the 17% (the touted amount of "healthcare"), of the economy in addition to what it already controls, aren't you concerned that a system is in place for a dictator to walk into the office of President (no matter what party), and take over? If the gov't has your and your family's healthcare, they control you; they own you! I simply do not understand why so many people are willing to sell themselves and their families into slavery for "healthcare", that they "believe" will be paid for by others (in truth, they will end up paying, one way or another). It is truly similar to Pinoccio's "fun island" where kids go for a "free good time" and end up being asses shipped off to work in the mines.

 

[Bird]

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

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

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

When and where I was born, doctors were old people that basically survived long enough to fix the broken body. You were born to live or you died as an infant... tragic, but that was life. When you got old, you got sick and died- rather quickly too. Smallpox, mumps, and other creepy things were pretty horrible to contend with if your body was weak, but you could survive most if you had a strong body. Diseases killed the rich, wealthy, and powerful equally, no discrimination there!
Nobody got healthcare for free.. unless you were a child and/or your family could compensate the Doc in some way. Being a Doc was looked on as being a person of "good" morals standing and integrity.
A Doc didn't cure you for money, but because he wanted and expected you to become a valuable member of the community by doing a fair share to propel the society forward. You couldn't "sue" the Doc for anything... you either trusted him or faired on your own.
To a large degree Docs and dentists of our society should still have to graduate "up" to that level... no just go to school for a given amount of time. IMO, med school doesn't make you a good Doc.
In large part, I have no problem with those old ways.

 

[ClaimTechnologi]

As a basic framework for defining the sector, the United Nations International Standard Industrial Classification categorizes health care as generally consisting of hospital activities, medical and dental practice activities, and "other human health activities.

 

[dblack]

Actually it is you that would lying here. Please show me where I used the words 'any government program' or any other such phrasing that would indicate I was talking about anything other than healthcare. 'What? You can't? Of course you can't. So really, please just quit lying, okay? Thanks.' We're talking about healthcare. Grow a pair and address the reality that 'all other industrialized nations' with some for or other of UHC also run rather significant deficits in health care spending.

Well you wrote "To pretend there is nothing but positives with government run health care is simply naive". Apparently you don't understand that what I meant was that, not only did I never say there was "nothing but positives" about health care, I would never say that about ANY government run program. So I didn't lie, you just didn't understand - but you still lied. So even if I dumb it down for you, you're going to come up empty: Show me where I ever said there is nothing but positives to a government run health care program. What? You cant'? Yeah we know...



In my personal opinion vets should received medical benefits for life. Lawyers aren't vets. They didn't sacrafice themselves to defend the country. So yes I would say they are less deserving.



They federal government has only the obligations laid out for it in the constitution. Some of the things you listed indeed the fed doesn't have an obligation to provide even though they do. And not it has nothing to do with prioritization. You can not logically conclude that because I am not for governmetn UHC I must be for wars. In fact I don't think we should be or need to be spending what we spend on defense. That doesn't change my opinion that government should not provide healthcare. It will invariably require curbing people's freedom as I mentioned in another post and again your condition, whether it be your health or your financial one, isn't anyone elses responsibility or obligation to fix.




Again this not about substitutions. People use cliches like that all the time too which are 'also very stupid'. Cliche's like "we're the richest nation in the world so we ought to do this', or 'we spend so much on this, but not on that'. THEY ARE NOT RELATED. The reason we don't spend more tax dollars to provide health care is not because of how much we're spending on other stuff. The reason is because providing health care has not been deemed to be the government's responsibility.




I'm not disputing you're facts. I agree that we could divert money from some things and probably pay for a lot of people's health care. It isn't a question of whether we can it's a question of whether we should. The answer is short some very basic safety nets, no, we should not. I asked before to someone else and so I ask you; what is more important to you? Government ensuring your security or government ensuring our freedom.

Ah. Sounds like someone's been reading the Little Libertarian Book of Pat Answers. Okay got it. Guess what? I'm just fine and dandy with having LOTS of freedoms impinged upon. Freedom to own a nuclear weapon is guaranteed in the USC. I'm not disappointed that I don't have it. Freedom to sell heroin on street corners is guaranteed. Not missing that either. Now, what you should do is tell me why it applies only as you interpret it.

You can't have it both ways.
Actually, yes I can and so do you. It's called common sense.

When government does one it takes away from the other. If you want government to keep you more secure via paying for your health care, then invarably you will lose some of your freedom.
I'm fine with that. I'm also fine with getting a driver's license - even thought that's UnConstitutional. Oh wait. Anything we legally decide to change through the legislative process becomes Constitutionally legal - unless you say it isn't of course...
You will lose some financial freedom because everyone's taxes will have to go up.
But I will save much more than that on the cost of health care and the 60% of bankruptcies which are filed due to medical bills and subsequently passed along to the consumer of virtually every product and service. I (well not me) will also gain the freedom to switch jobs at will because unlike any other country in the world, I am no longer enslaved by insurance.


You will also lose some freedom of choice since I am now paying for healthcare I most certainly have a say in making sure you aren't behaving in a way that may result in encurring some unneccessary health care expenses. Deal?

No deal. You also make the assumption that providing public health care means the elimination of private health care. Wrong. Why would it go away? If "The Market" operates as some claim, then the ONLY people who will use public health care, will be those who can't afford the superior quality, better doctors, prettier nurses or whatever provided by the private sector. Can't have it both ways! Either the market operates or it doesn't.

"Eliminating" private healthcare is the plan (how else do you CONTROL your "subjects"). If the "gov't" or "gov't run schools" control the degrees given to doctors, don't you think they have way too much control over the medical economy? If the gov't controls medical licensing, don't they get to say who gets degrees, how many degrees are handed out, and what those degrees cost? They control that now (and people want to blame the insurance companies, a way for employers to give their employees more "wealth" without having to pay taxes on it). If the gov't takes over the 17% (the touted amount of "healthcare"), of the economy in addition to what it already controls, aren't you concerned that a system is in place for a dictator to walk into the office of President (no matter what party), and take over? If the gov't has your and your family's healthcare, they control you; they own you! I simply do not understand why so many people are willing to sell themselves and their families into slavery for "healthcare", that they "believe" will be paid for by others (in truth, they will end up paying, one way or another). It is truly similar to Pinoccio's "fun island" where kids go for a "free good time" and end up being asses shipped off to work in the mines.

Re: another thread floating around - wait till that push for this same kind of control will food.

 

[Marshall]

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

Do you have a right to the fruits of your own labor? Apparently not if others have a right to take YOUR fruits from you for their ever expanding rights without the requisite labor on their part.

Charity is what you GIVE freely from your own resources. It is usually given to meet the NEEDS of others. It affirms both the giver and the receiver.

Theft is what others TAKE from you. It Affirms neither the thief or the victim.

Governments which extract more than you are willing to GIVE become the agents of thieves who meet the DESIRES, not NEEDS of others (for a minimal 90% cut).

 

[Marshall]

Affordable healthcare should be a right. We should not be a society where - regarding basic healthcare needs - people are less healthy simply because they're poor. That is uncivilized.

So you prefer the politically connected to get the best health care others can buy rather than those who can actually afford it. A small group will always have the best care. How you divide the spoils is the only question.

Now if you give free care to all, we'll all have nothing because doctors don't work for free and we're losing hundreds of doctors a day because reimbursement rates for Medicare and Medicaid are about 15% and falling.

This is what is wrong with Liberals in general. They completely ignore the fact that people react to the acts of congress. Taxes up means fewer tax payers. We have a DYNAMIC economy. Liberals act as though it's STATIC and people would work, even as their incentive is replaced by disincentive. The most destructive thing is over regulation which is a tremendous disincentive and gains almost nothing for anyone not in the business of bribery.

I have a right ot obtain all the health care I can get, not all I can make someone else pay for.