The liberal mythology of healthcare being a right

[dblack]

Only gov't prevents corporations from subjugating us (since the Greatest Generation moved on, and unions have been weakened by Reaganism), and only Dem gov't, obviously.

How are corporations "subjugating" you? Is someone forcing you to work for one?

Being thick as pig shit you obviously can't join the dots...

You don't think multi-million dollar companies like the oil and tobacco companies paying squillions to lobbyists to bend the ear of politicians who are supposed to representing YOU not big business is not a form of subjugation? You probably think it's foreplay.

The thing that cracks me up most about your neocon whackjobs is your whole mantra is all about "my freedom", yet you are more willing to act the sheeple for these lobbyists saying it is freedom of speech. As I have mentioned on another thread recently. Only in USA neocon whackjob land is lobbying called freedom of speech. In other countries it's called at best bribery, at worst corruption...

This highlights what I was saying earlier. Corporations exercise their power through government. They are entities created by government charter, enjoy special rights (limited liability) and taxation rules via government, and they impose their will on us via lobbying for regulation. The general idea that government acts in opposition to corporations, and that the way to 'reign in corporations' is to grant government more power is ridiculous in the extreme.

 

[Listening]

Of course, what the standard is for "works" is something that never gets addressed.

It's pretty simple. Innovations that "work" will make progress toward the triple aim of simultaneously improving the experience of care, improving the health of populations, and reducing per capita costs of health care.

No it isn't that simple.

How stupid is it to allow people to smoke and then pay loads of cash to deal with that issue ?

Want better health of populations ?

Tell them they can't smoke. (i.e. have the guts to make it illegal)

Tell them they can't drink. (i.e. have the gust to make it illegal)

Tell them they can't eat fast foods (i.e. have the guts to make it illegal).

Tell them they can't jump out of airplanes.

Take away cars (riding bikes is more healthy anyway).

Pleaes implement all of that and you will have better health.

Some states have already tried it.

And if I don't want to pay for these "innovations"...then what.

No....that isn't what works.

 

[Listening]

How are corporations "subjugating" you? Is someone forcing you to work for one?

Being thick as pig shit you obviously can't join the dots...

You don't think multi-million dollar companies like the oil and tobacco companies paying squillions to lobbyists to bend the ear of politicians who are supposed to representing YOU not big business is not a form of subjugation? You probably think it's foreplay.

The thing that cracks me up most about your neocon whackjobs is your whole mantra is all about "my freedom", yet you are more willing to act the sheeple for these lobbyists saying it is freedom of speech. As I have mentioned on another thread recently. Only in USA neocon whackjob land is lobbying called freedom of speech. In other countries it's called at best bribery, at worst corruption...

This highlights what I was saying earlier. Corporations exercise their power through government. They are entities created by government charter, enjoy special rights (limited liability) and taxation rules via government, and they impose their will on us via lobbying for regulation. The general idea that government acts in opposition to corporations, and that the way to 'reign in corporations' is to grant government more power is ridiculous in the extreme.

You nailed it....again.

 

[dblack]

With due respect I will repeat myself.

Our healthcare system has been an odd socialized mess since medical science became a real science.

If my poor neighbor has a heart attack and his wife dials 911 the ambulance shows up and attempts to save his life. Maybe he pays, maybe he doesn't. I know someone with no insurance who has had their gall bladder removed and paid $100 towards the total.

That's not socialism. That's community. That's doctors living up to their oath. It's the opposite of socialism because ultimately it's voluntary. Unlike government mandated good will, it's real responsibility to our community.

 

[bripat9643]

Only gov't prevents corporations from subjugating us (since the Greatest Generation moved on, and unions have been weakened by Reaganism), and only Dem gov't, obviously.

How are corporations "subjugating" you? Is someone forcing you to work for one?

Being thick as pig shit you obviously can't join the dots...

You don't think multi-million dollar companies like the oil and tobacco companies paying squillions to lobbyists to bend the ear of politicians who are supposed to representing YOU not big business is not a form of subjugation? You probably think it's foreplay.

The thing that cracks me up most about your neocon whackjobs is your whole mantra is all about "my freedom", yet you are more willing to act the sheeple for these lobbyists saying it is freedom of speech. As I have mentioned on another thread recently. Only in USA neocon whackjob land is lobbying called freedom of speech. In other countries it's called at best bribery, at worst corruption...

There are no "dots" to join, numskull. The reason corporations hire lobbyists is to protect themselves from Congress. If they don't funnel money to politicians, they will become the target of punitive regulations. Many of the bills Congress weasels put up for a vote are never intended to become law. They are created strictly for the purpose of shaking cash from corporations. If corporations don't pay, they get socked with expensive regulations or Congressional investigations. Microsoft learned that lesson the hard way. Congress is basically one vast extortion racket and corporations, along with the rest of the tax paying public, are the victims.

 

[midcan5]

There is no such thing as a right, you cannot point to them nor define them, so the question is irrelevant. But there are ways in which a society decides what is best for its well being. The question should be, how do we manage to provide a care that everyone at some point in their lives requires, then comes the hard part, at least for some.

++++

His point was, that if one doesn't believe in any God, than "Rights" are created and defined by human beings. It's not statist, it's reality for those who don't believe in a creator.

I know damned well what he means...The "rights" are all held by the ruling class, to be dealt out to the proles in the way they best see fit...This is a state where gubmint (i.e. "society") is God.

He's a closeted communist....Simple as that.

That's an irrational emotionalistic response, not one that addressed the post.

If God isn't real, than the "certain unalienable rights" were not endowed upon us by "our creator," but by the authors who put the words to paper. That's just reality for an atheist, not an appeal to any authority <--you read that into the phrase on your own because you cannot accept that some people simply don't believe in God.

Belief in God is not a prerequisit to believing in Freedom & Liberty. That's irrational/illogical.

His point was, that if one doesn't believe in any God, than "Rights" are created and defined by human beings. It's not statist, it's reality for those who don't believe in a creator.

That's also wrong. Rights are part of your nature as a human being. Just as there are natural principles involved in growing a bacteria culture, there are also principles for developing a healthy society. Those principles are called "rights."

I'm an atheist, but I'm also a believer in natural rights. How does your theory explain that. "Your creator" can be translated to mean "nature." Rights are something you are born with. Government doesn't create them.

I didn't mention Gawd - FYI I use that spelling as a sign of respect for some who feel the subject should be private. But some recent reading brought an interesting idea forward to my too full head - do not recall where I read it? But here's, shall we call it, the paradox.

If rights are grounded in the belief in gawd then rights are presumed to be good things and gawd's ideas are good. So then if we follow gawd we are good but are we really free because we know what is good only because of our belief. Can we imagine bad rights from gawd? So then are things inherently good or only good because gawd says so? I think some rights are good because they are good. And did gawd address healthcare? Personally I think gawd did if we are Judeo Christian, as that is the religious system I grew up in.

So then rights enter this fuzzy area in which they are from gawd or they are made aka secular. If secular, can we or should we just except gawd's rights, or make up our own rights? As I wrote originally there are no natural rights only gawd's if religious, or made up if secular. Take your pick, we make our world even as we pretend we know different.

Clear as mud?

Bacteria???

 

[bripat9643]

I didn't mention Gawd - FYI I use that spelling as a sign of respect for some who feel the subject should be private. But some recent reading brought an interesting idea forward to my too full head - do not recall where I read it? But here's, shall we call it, the paradox.

If rights are grounded in the belief in gawd then rights are presumed to be good things and gawd's ideas are good. So then if we follow gawd we are good but are we really free because we know what is good only because of our belief. Can we imagine bad rights from gawd? So then are things inherently good or only good because gawd says so? I think some rights are good because they are good. And did gawd address healthcare? Personally I think gawd did if we are Judeo Christian, as that is the religious system I grew up in.

So then rights enter this fuzzy area in which they are from gawd or they are made aka secular. If secular, can we or should we just except gawd's rights, or make up our own rights? As I wrote originally there are no natural rights only gawd's if religious, or made up if secular. Take your pick, we make our world even as we pretend we know different.

Clear as mud?

Bacteria???

Your question belongs in the religion forum. Not here.

 

[Bfgrn]

It is necessary because people need healthcare. It is a good idea because privatised health care doesn't work. Your system has shown that.

It works fine.

You are obvioulsy not really an M.D.

Of course, what the standard is for "works" is something that never gets addressed.

The standard? How about our economy?

Healthcare costs destroyed the Bush economy

David Frum: A former economic speechwriter for President George W. Bush

Posted: September 15, 2009, 4:30 PM by NP Editor

Ron Brownstein ably sums up the Census Bureau’s final report on the Bush economy.

Bottom line: not good.

On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush’s two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked.

What went wrong?

In a word: healthcare.

Over the years from 2000 to 2007, the price that employers paid for labor rose by an average of 25% per hour. But the wages received by workers were worth less in 2007 than seven years before. All that extra money paid by employers disappeared into the healthcare system: between 2000 and 2007, the cost of the average insurance policy for a family of four doubled.

Exploding health costs vacuumed up worker incomes. Frustrated workers began telling pollsters the country was on the “wrong track” as early as 2004 – the year that George W. Bush won re-election by the narrowest margin of any re-elected president in U.S. history.

Slowing the growth of health costs is essential to raising wages – and by the way restoring Americans’ faith in the fairness of a free-market economy.

Explaining the impact of health costs on wages is essential to protecting the economic reputation of the last Republican administration and Congress.

If Republicans stick to the line that the US healthcare system works well as is – that it has no important problems that cannot be solved by tort reform – then George W. Bush and the Congresses of 2001-2007 will join Jimmy Carter and Herbert Hoover in the American memory’s hall of economic failures. Recovery from that stigma will demand more than a tea party.

Read more: David Frum: Healthcare costs destroyed the Bush economy - Full Comment

 

[Listening]

Still looking for the argument that healthcare is a right.

 

[dblack]

Still looking for the argument that healthcare is a right.

I'd like the 'health care is a right' people to answer the question "How much health care?"

The unfortunate fact is, all of us will face the the point where we can't afford enough health care to stay alive. What then?

 

[Listening]

Still looking for the argument that healthcare is a right.

I'd like the 'health care is a right' people to answer the question "How much health care?"

The unfortunate fact is, all of us will face the the point where we can't afford enough health care to stay alive. What then?

You make your choices.

You can sell you home for six more months of life or you can pass your wealth on to your kids. The six months will likely suck anyway.

 

[grampamurdoc]

What you are saying is that everyone should be denied the right of access to the AHA because you don't want to exercise yours? Who the fuck are you to decide that?

I just want the right not to have to pay for your health care. Who are you to expect me to pay for you?

 

[Bfgrn]

What you are saying is that everyone should be denied the right of access to the AHA because you don't want to exercise yours? Who the fuck are you to decide that?

I just want the right not to have to pay for your health care. Who are you to expect me to pay for you?

So you support the individual mandate.

 

[The T]

Still looking for the argument that healthcare is a right.

I'd like the 'health care is a right' people to answer the question "How much health care?"

The unfortunate fact is, all of us will face the the point where we can't afford enough health care to stay alive. What then?

IPAB, Obama, and Socialism

 

[Toronado3800]

Still looking for the argument that healthcare is a right.

Sir, I do not believe you will find a Constitutional passage indicating healthcare is a right.

Instead consider this.

If a homeless man stumbles into a hospital after being run over by a car and they push him back outside without treating him it would make the news. So for all practical purposes he has the right to healthcare on your dime and mine.

If my appendix is bursting and I am broke the hospital will fix it and get a tax deduction or charge the state after trying to bill me for a decade. Heck, I know a poor gal with a $100 cost to her gallblader removal.

Now I have been in the free and almost free clinics. Poor folks do not receive the same quality of healthcare I do. But on some 20 year old level they do receive healthcare on your tab and mine.

I know of rural fire districts where you can somehow opt out of paying and they will watch your house burn down. Are there any areas in America where if you dial 911 the Ambulance will not respond?

 

[Toronado3800]

What you are saying is that everyone should be denied the right of access to the AHA because you don't want to exercise yours? Who the fuck are you to decide that?

I just want the right not to have to pay for your health care. Who are you to expect me to pay for you?

Grampa, the situation we currently have does seem unfair. I have a little money, my neighbor drinks and buys huge tv's sohe does not. When the man needs liver treatment the hospital will likely be unable to collect so you and I eventually flip the bill. Great Eisenhower era system we now have isn't it?

I share your pain. Since the hospital can not refuse him treatment I wish on the front end ppl like him would just be charged/forced to pay for their own health insurance so I did not have that burden.

 

[Oddball]

Still looking for the argument that healthcare is a right.

There isn't one.

Thus, the socialists will distract by bitching about high costs (brought about by and large by their favored political policies), the "unfairness" of the difficulty-cum-impossibility of getting covered for a pre-existing condition (as though it's logical to be able to get automobile collision insurance after you've totalled your car), accuse anyone and everyone who doesn't want medical Marxism of wanting people who have acute medical problems broke, and hating old people and the chiiilllllldrrrreeeennnnnn.

 

[Toronado3800]

Still looking for the argument that healthcare is a right.

There isn't one.

Thus, the socialists will distract by bitching about high costs (brought about by and large by their favored political policies), the "unfairness" of the difficulty-cum-impossibility of getting covered for a pre-existing condition (as though it's logical to be able to get automobile collision insurance after you've totalled your car), accuse anyone and everyone who doesn't want medical Marxism of wanting people who have acute medical problems broke, and hating old people and the chiiilllllldrrrreeeennnnnn.

Oddball, do you agree that since the 1950s we have had an effective RIGHT to healthcare, good or bad for the country.

 

[Oddball]

No, you don't have the right to compel anyone to perform any service....Ever.

Any "law" (to use the term loosely) doing such a thing is entirely abhorrent to the concept of what rights are and are not.

 

[Bfgrn]

Still looking for the argument that healthcare is a right.

There isn't one.

Thus, the socialists will distract by bitching about high costs (brought about by and large by their favored political policies), the "unfairness" of the difficulty-cum-impossibility of getting covered for a pre-existing condition (as though it's logical to be able to get automobile collision insurance after you've totalled your car), accuse anyone and everyone who doesn't want medical Marxism of wanting people who have acute medical problems broke, and hating old people and the chiiilllllldrrrreeeennnnnn.

Irony, the 'Marxists' in this debate are on the right.

Social Darwinism

Darwinism and Communism

Georgy Valentinovich Plekhanov, one of the leaders of Russian Communism whom Lenin praised for his command of all international Marxist literature, summed it up succinctly when he said that Marxism is "Darwinism in its application to social sciences."