Sanders: Universal Healthcare and Free College Aren’t Radical Ideas, They Are ‘Human Rights’

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, Japan. And now that they control healthcare, they can also control you:

Japan, Seeking Trim Waists, Measures Millions
By NORIMITSU ONISHI
Published: June 13, 2008

AMAGASAKI, Japan — Japan, a country not known for its overweight people, has undertaken one of the most ambitious campaigns ever by a nation to slim down its citizenry.

Summoned by the city of Amagasaki one recent morning, Minoru Nogiri, 45, a flower shop owner, found himself lining up to have his waistline measured. With no visible paunch, he seemed to run little risk of being classified as overweight, or metabo, the preferred word in Japan these days.

But because the new state-prescribed limit for male waistlines is a strict 33.5 inches, he had anxiously measured himself at home a couple of days earlier. “I’m on the border,” he said.

Under a national law that came into effect two months ago, companies and local governments must now measure the waistlines of Japanese people between the ages of 40 and 74 as part of their annual checkups. That represents more than 56 million waistlines, or about 44 percent of the entire population.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/world/asia/13fat.html?_r=0

I don't know if I'd be that thrilled with Mrs. Obama coming out to measure my waist line.

So , the NSA can access you e-mail , credit record , phone calls , web content , contact list ... ahh but they don't mess with my waistline. No sir !!!

It's just one example.

After all, what do we do in life that doesn't involve our health?

What we eat, how much television we watch, what kind of exercise we do, what kind of exercise we are not doing, what we drink, what we smoke if we do smoke, what kind of risky activities we involve ourselves in, how many hours we work and so on and so on.

Once government takes over healthcare, they will be able to dictate to us how we live our lives. Hell, they only partially took over healthcare and Moochelle is running around schools trying to dictate what kids eat. See all those calorie listings next to each item of food at your restaurant? Yep, government forced those places to post calorie counts.

I don't want government telling me what to eat or measuring my waistline. I want government as far out of my life as possible.

Just curious if you would have been against warning labels on cigarettes that started appearing on packs of cigarettes about 1959 or 1960? I was just a middle schooler around that time and I remember the tobacco companies screaming bloody murder about government infringing on their right to provide lung cancer and emphysema to millions.

Let me ask: do you think anybody back then started to smoke and say "this is okay for me?"

If you light something up and breathe it in, then cough like you're dying, chances are you know it's not good for you.

Do you need government to tell you everything in life?

Not everything, but some things. The warning label helped convince me to be a non smoker although I smoked on and off during my teen years. When the first labels came out I remember them saying that smoking may be harmful. That was a battle the tobacco companies won, may be harmful instead of is harmful. I think if government can warn us about the harmful effects of certain products, and we become a more healthy society, than goverment has done it's job in promoting the general welfare, which is in the preamble of the constitution.

Well then I guess it's good that I was born into a good family. I didn't need government telling me anything, that's what I had parents for.

I remember back in the 60's as a bored child with nothing to do. My grandfather would call me over to his table and have me roll cigarettes with him. He smoked Bugler.

While rolling cigarettes, he told me never to start. Cigarettes are bad for you. When I asked why he smoked, he explained addiction to me.

Now I have to worry because government (Obama) forced restaurants to spend all kinds of money so they can put calorie count on each item in their menu. Gee, I didn't know McDonald's food was not healthy for me without government!!!!!

 

[Teddy Pollins]

Universal Healthcare and Free College Aren’t Radical Ideas, They Are impossible in the US with the White House team

 

[dblack]

Anyone who thinks FREE COLLEGE is a 'human right' is mentally disturbed or insane.

That seems a bit extreme. More likely they just don't have a clear understanding of what rights are. People claiming things like health care or education as "rights" are defining rights broadly as "something good government ought to provide". It's sloppy, and can be deliberate obfuscation, but it's not insane.

Insanity and stupidity often resemble each other.

Maybe. But it's good to recognize the difference. When we demonize our opponents, or write them off as insane, there's no chance for productive debate. If, instead, we give them the benefit of the doubt and try to understand what they really mean, we can have a meaningful discussion.

This is where I think liberals really shoot themselves in the foot. If, instead of claiming that "Health care and education are human rights!", they simply said "Health care and education are important for society so we should try to make sure that everyone has the basics.", they'd make a lot more headway with moderates and conservatives. But they know that protecting our rights is an accepted function of government, so they try to trojan other things in by calling them "rights" even if they aren't.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Anyone who thinks FREE COLLEGE is a 'human right' is mentally disturbed or insane.

That seems a bit extreme. More likely they just don't have a clear understanding of what rights are. People claiming things like health care or education as "rights" are defining rights broadly as "something good government ought to provide". It's sloppy, and can be deliberate obfuscation, but it's not insane.

Insanity and stupidity often resemble each other.

Maybe. But it's good to recognize the difference. When we demonize our opponents, or write them off as insane, there's no chance for productive debate. If, instead, we give them the benefit of the doubt and try to understand what they really mean, we can have a meaningful discussion.

This is where I think liberals really shoot themselves in the foot. If, instead of claiming that "Health care and education are human rights!", they simply said "Health care and education are important for society so we should try to make sure that everyone has the basics.", they'd make a lot more headway with moderates and conservatives. But they know that protecting our rights is an accepted function of government, so they try to trojan other things in by calling them "rights" even if they aren't.

That's how they roll.

If you think Affirmative Action is reverse discrimination, you want to go back to the slave days.

If you think it's wrong for government to force insurance companies to provide free birth control, you have a war on women.

if you think unions have grown too powerful and are no longer useful in our modern society, then you want to go back to the days of slave labor in this country where 11 year olds have to work 12 hour days seven days a week.

If you support the Second Amendment, you want maniacs to have guns and conduct these mass killings.

How can anybody have a reasonable discussion with people like this?

 

[dblack]

Anyone who thinks FREE COLLEGE is a 'human right' is mentally disturbed or insane.

That seems a bit extreme. More likely they just don't have a clear understanding of what rights are. People claiming things like health care or education as "rights" are defining rights broadly as "something good government ought to provide". It's sloppy, and can be deliberate obfuscation, but it's not insane.

Insanity and stupidity often resemble each other.

Maybe. But it's good to recognize the difference. When we demonize our opponents, or write them off as insane, there's no chance for productive debate. If, instead, we give them the benefit of the doubt and try to understand what they really mean, we can have a meaningful discussion.

This is where I think liberals really shoot themselves in the foot. If, instead of claiming that "Health care and education are human rights!", they simply said "Health care and education are important for society so we should try to make sure that everyone has the basics.", they'd make a lot more headway with moderates and conservatives. But they know that protecting our rights is an accepted function of government, so they try to trojan other things in by calling them "rights" even if they aren't.

That's how they roll.

If you think Affirmative Action is reverse discrimination, you want to go back to the slave days.

If you think it's wrong for government to force insurance companies to provide free birth control, you have a war on women.

if you think unions have grown too powerful and are no longer useful in our modern society, then you want to go back to the days of slave labor in this country where 11 year olds have to work 12 hour days seven days a week.

If you support the Second Amendment, you want maniacs to have guns and conduct these mass killings.

How can anybody have a reasonable discussion with people like this?

By being reasonable regardless of whether others are or not. It might not always work, but if we start off with the hyperbole, there's little point.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Anyone who thinks FREE COLLEGE is a 'human right' is mentally disturbed or insane.

That seems a bit extreme. More likely they just don't have a clear understanding of what rights are. People claiming things like health care or education as "rights" are defining rights broadly as "something good government ought to provide". It's sloppy, and can be deliberate obfuscation, but it's not insane.

Insanity and stupidity often resemble each other.

Maybe. But it's good to recognize the difference. When we demonize our opponents, or write them off as insane, there's no chance for productive debate. If, instead, we give them the benefit of the doubt and try to understand what they really mean, we can have a meaningful discussion.

This is where I think liberals really shoot themselves in the foot. If, instead of claiming that "Health care and education are human rights!", they simply said "Health care and education are important for society so we should try to make sure that everyone has the basics.", they'd make a lot more headway with moderates and conservatives. But they know that protecting our rights is an accepted function of government, so they try to trojan other things in by calling them "rights" even if they aren't.

That's how they roll.

If you think Affirmative Action is reverse discrimination, you want to go back to the slave days.

If you think it's wrong for government to force insurance companies to provide free birth control, you have a war on women.

if you think unions have grown too powerful and are no longer useful in our modern society, then you want to go back to the days of slave labor in this country where 11 year olds have to work 12 hour days seven days a week.

If you support the Second Amendment, you want maniacs to have guns and conduct these mass killings.

How can anybody have a reasonable discussion with people like this?

By being reasonable regardless of whether others are or not. It might not always work, but if we start off with the hyperbole, there's little point.

With the left, it never works. That's the problem.

All you have to do is read some of these gun forums here. You can't reason with these people.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Now I have to worry because government (Obama) forced restaurants to spend all kinds of money so they can put calorie count on each item in their menu. Gee, I didn't know McDonald's food was not healthy for me without government!!!!!

Free market work better with information .
How is that different from getting the specs of a computer or a refrigerator you are buying ? Huh?

 

[easyt65]

...as long as people get 'free' PCs & refrigerators they don't care how much they cost...but they better be 'good' quality or they will complain about the 'FREE' stuff...

 

[CultureCitizen]

And so you simply assume it's because what? People arbitrarily decided to jack up the prices for the fun of it? Gotta love simplistic "logic". I guess it saves time over the messy, complicated reality.

Forbes magazine, for example, provides a number of reasons why medical prices in the US are high. Heading the list is government healthcare: Medicare and Medicaid, which sets its compensation rates higher than other countries, which in turn raises the prices charged to private insurers, since doctors certainly can't charge patients differently for the same procedure based on payment method.

At no point of my arguments I implied "people arbitrarily decided to jack up the prices for the fun of it"... that's all on you, as well as your conclusion.

Indeed, government healthcare also pushes prices up ... though I don't really agree with your reasoning. I would rather say they increase health care demand and pour more money into the sector creating inflation.

 

[easyt65]

Govt health care doesn't push prices up...Obama said so. He promised the ACA would LOWER the cost of health care...

 

[CultureCitizen]

Govt health care doesn't push prices up...Obama said so. He promised the ACA would LOWER the cost of health care...

¿?
I don't care what Obama said.
There are certainly other forms of public healthcare in the world which are more efficient.

 

[The Rabbi]

Now I have to worry because government (Obama) forced restaurants to spend all kinds of money so they can put calorie count on each item in their menu. Gee, I didn't know McDonald's food was not healthy for me without government!!!!!

Free market work better with information .
How is that different from getting the specs of a computer or a refrigerator you are buying ? Huh?

How is it remotely the same? People do not make buying decisions at McDonald's based on calorie count. They make it based on taste. The compariable would be having to disclose what kind of plastic was in the computer--useless information.

 

[The Rabbi]

Govt health care doesn't push prices up...Obama said so. He promised the ACA would LOWER the cost of health care...

¿?
I don't care what Obama said.
There are certainly other forms of public healthcare in the world which are more efficient.

Name 3. and then tell us why they are more efficient.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Now I have to worry because government (Obama) forced restaurants to spend all kinds of money so they can put calorie count on each item in their menu. Gee, I didn't know McDonald's food was not healthy for me without government!!!!!

Free market work better with information .
How is that different from getting the specs of a computer or a refrigerator you are buying ? Huh?

Because I already did my homework when buying a refrigerator or computer on the internet, just as I could do the same about where I eat. The difference is that I don't care what's in my McDonald's food because I know it's not good for you, but I want it anyway.

"Folks, liberals measure success by intent while conservatives measure success by results.
Rush Limbaugh

 

[Andylusion]

The US has the most expensive healthcare system in the world. It is 2 times more expensive on a per capita basis than that of Sweeden or U.K developed country.So yea, Bernie is actually right.

We have the best health care system in the world. That's why it's the most expensive.

We spend more money on preventative care. Which is why it's the most expensive.

We have the most availability of care. Which is why it's the most expensive.

If all you care about is cutting cost, we can do the same as all those other countries. Cut preventative care. Cut availability. Cut quality. The cost will go down.

Problem solved. Of course more people will die. But.... it'll be cheaper.

World Health Organization's Ranking of the World's Health Systems

Tell me, have you read how the ranking system was done? Do you know what methods they used?

Answer: No you do not. If you did, you would be wise enough not to cite it, because it's crap.

Interesting link ,

Even the OECD admits, that when you take into account trama deaths, such as auto fatalities and murder, we have the highest life expectancy in the world.

Our health care has the highest survival rates in the world.

Interesting chart, but, I will have to inform you that your charts are kind of dated ( 1980 to 1999).
Assuming they made an average with the dates that would make them 25 years old ( that' like trying to compare today's healthcare costs with those from 25 years ago ).

There is a similar metric : life expectancy after 65 and healthy life expectancy after 65

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docser...est&checksum=15B18CD3E48C926DBD94C123991D53F6
This data is only 4 years old.
United states ( 20.7 women, 17.8 men) that is still below the OCED average and far from the front runners :
France ( 23.8 women, 19.3 women ) and Japan ( 23.7 , 18.7)

It is a pity the document only covers the healthy years for European countries. Norway is at the top of the list.
I find amazing that people ther live on average to the age of 80 and still healthy.

The age of the data, wasn't the point, and is hardly relevant. The point of that particular graph, was that if you adjust out fatal injuries, the ranking changes dramatically. Homicides in japan, are a tiny fraction of what they are in the US. When you remove those, the numbers change. Auto fatalities in Japan, are a tiny faction of what they are in the US, because they simply don't drive as much. When you remove those, the numbers change.

Now most rational people, can understand that those two factors alone, have not changed much. And when you compare the US to other countries, the same factors exist.

For example.... You mentioned Norway. According to the WHO, figures from 2012, Norway had 2.9 Auto Fatalities per 100K people.
The US had 11.6.

The US had 4.7 Homicides, while Norway had 2.2.

Now unless you believe that 65s and older are immune to both, then the information you referenced still has the same flawed data set.

So unless you want to claim that health care should have doctors flagging people on the road to slow down, and snatching guns out of criminal hands.... then your point is BS.

And by the way, that's why all comparisons of life expectancy, are all bogus. There are simply too many cultural and even genetic difference between people groups, to attempt to claim the reasons for life expectancy differences is due to health care.

For example: Breast Cancer incidence rate in the US is roughly 100 per 100K. In Japan, it's about 30 per 100K. I don't have the exact numbers off hand, but do you see the problem?

Logically, because the number of incidence is higher, the number of people who die from it, are higher.

But that's not a reflection of the health care system. It's a reflection of the fact American women are more likely genetically to get breast cancer, than Japanese women.

The fact is, if you get breast cancer, your survival rate is higher in the US, than in Japan. You have a greater chance of dying from breast cancer in Japan, than you have in the US.

And this is exactly why the left will generally focus on absolutely any possible statistic other than survival rates. Because every time you look at survival rates, which is a direct measurement of the health care system, that measurement shows the quality of the US system.

When you look at our survival rates for nearly anything, the US is top of the list consistently.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Now I have to worry because government (Obama) forced restaurants to spend all kinds of money so they can put calorie count on each item in their menu. Gee, I didn't know McDonald's food was not healthy for me without government!!!!!

Free market work better with information .
How is that different from getting the specs of a computer or a refrigerator you are buying ? Huh?

Because I already did my homework when buying a refrigerator or computer on the internet, just as I could do the same about where I eat. The difference is that I don't care what's in my McDonald's food because I know it's not good for you, but I want it anyway.

"Folks, liberals measure success by intent while conservatives measure success by results.
Rush Limbaugh

Well, it's not just about McDonald's it's about all restaurants. I think such measures can help you decide, even if your decision is to have a high calorie intake. I see no harm there.

 

[The Rabbi]

Now I have to worry because government (Obama) forced restaurants to spend all kinds of money so they can put calorie count on each item in their menu. Gee, I didn't know McDonald's food was not healthy for me without government!!!!!

Free market work better with information .
How is that different from getting the specs of a computer or a refrigerator you are buying ? Huh?

Because I already did my homework when buying a refrigerator or computer on the internet, just as I could do the same about where I eat. The difference is that I don't care what's in my McDonald's food because I know it's not good for you, but I want it anyway.

"Folks, liberals measure success by intent while conservatives measure success by results.
Rush Limbaugh

Well, it's not just about McDonald's it's about all restaurants. I think such measures can help you decide, even if your decision is to have a high calorie intake. I see no harm there.

You see no harm in imposing billions of dollars on companies in compliance costs that have to be paid by someone? This is why you're a lib!

 

[CultureCitizen]

The age of the data, wasn't the point, and is hardly relevant. The point of that particular graph, was that if you adjust out fatal injuries, the ranking changes dramatically. Homicides in japan, are a tiny fraction of what they are in the US. When you remove those, the numbers change. Auto fatalities in Japan, are a tiny faction of what they are in the US, because they simply don't drive as much. When you remove those, the numbers change.

Now most rational people, can understand that those two factors alone, have not changed much. And when you compare the US to other countries, the same factors exist.

The age of the data is VERY relevant, in 1990 the costs of US healthcare were similar to those of Europe and Japan.
25 years later things have changed dramatically.
If you consider the world hasn't changed in 25 years then I can't continue this discussion.

Fatal injures, yes, it is in part due to greater social inequality, and less gun controls. Violent deaths are more pervasive among young adults, hence my other chart : life expectancy after 65 years. Is that not good enough for you ?

 

[CultureCitizen]

Now I have to worry because government (Obama) forced restaurants to spend all kinds of money so they can put calorie count on each item in their menu. Gee, I didn't know McDonald's food was not healthy for me without government!!!!!

Free market work better with information .
How is that different from getting the specs of a computer or a refrigerator you are buying ? Huh?

Because I already did my homework when buying a refrigerator or computer on the internet, just as I could do the same about where I eat. The difference is that I don't care what's in my McDonald's food because I know it's not good for you, but I want it anyway.

"Folks, liberals measure success by intent while conservatives measure success by results.
Rush Limbaugh

Well, it's not just about McDonald's it's about all restaurants. I think such measures can help you decide, even if your decision is to have a high calorie intake. I see no harm there.

You see no harm in imposing billions of dollars on companies in compliance costs that have to be paid by someone? This is why you're a lib!

Billions ? For what putting the calorie count and nutritional information of their menu ? Give me a break .

 

[Conservative65]

You think that it's right that I made more money last year than you'll make in your entire life? And, I paid less percentage of my income in federal tax than you did too!

When you can prove your claim about income, let me know.