Health Care Is Not a Privilege … Nor Is It a Right
What do authorities consider to be appropriate treatment? The White House Council of Economic Advisers aims to reduce spending by eliminating “high cost, low-value treatments.” Since government pays the cost, “value” means value to the political class. Consider Oregon’s Prioritized List of Health Services under Medicaid, where the highest priority treatments correlate well with politically powerful interest groups. Or better yet, listen to the president’s health advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel. He suggests that “services that promote the continuation of the polity … are to be socially guaranteed as basic.” So your health is merely a means of supporting the political power structure, and hence insurance means having politically connected friends.
Talk about privilege.
But surely trying to guarantee health care as “a right” provides rich and poor equal access? Not so fast. The Guardian reports that in England, “the poorer you are, and the more socially deprived your area, the worse your care and access to it is likely to be.” The same goes for Canada. The National Bureau of Economic Research concludes that “Canada has no more abolished the tendency for health status to improve with income than have other countries. Indeed, the health-income gradient is slightly steeper in Canada than it is in the U.S.”
One might object that insurance companies also make medical care a privilege by denying care. Yet we can blame political controls for granting insurance companies such power. For example, tax law punishes us for buying a policy directly from an insurer if we don’t like the one or two insurance plans most employers offer. If you want to purchase insurance directly, you are forbidden from buying a more affordable policy available in another state.
Tax law also favors insurers by punishing those who save to pay directly for medical expenses while favoring comprehensive health plans that pay for routine and predictable expenses. Not only does this discourage price competition and prudent consumption of treatment, it further empowers insurance companies over your medical choices.
In a free market for insurance, we could buy the insurance product that best fits our needs and risk preferences. Absent policies that shield insurers from competition and accountability, insurance companies would scramble to make products to attract customers. Not only would they compete on price and the size of their network, but also on reputation and transparency. For example, consumers might prefer policies that spell out as explicitly as possible what procedures and medications are covered and are not covered, and objective criteria by which they cover newly developed medications and treatments.
Health care is neither a privilege nor a right. Yet individuals have the right to purchase medical treatment and products that insure against medical expenses. Politicians should focus on respecting this right.
Finaly! I can’t count how many times I have said this very thing to people. Never saw it in print untill today.
The entitlement mindset is going to be hard to break.
I agree, it is not a right or a privilege, but it is also not a requirement…and that is where Government really steps in.
What Obama is doing is creating a situation where heath insurance — not health care — becomes mandatory. In that, he’s imposing a tax which will be directed to the medical industry. He doesn’t care about poor people he cares about kowtowing to the powerful forces that put him in office — forces that are no longer able to extract money in fair trade and so have been raiding the taxpayers money in the Treasury. First Wall Street, then GM, and now health care are all taking their turn at safecracking and running away with as much as they can grab.
The key to Oscamma is to set up a bunch of violins and get everyone tearing up at his health care plan, and only then can he start funnelling the cash to his cronies.
Healthcare is neither a right or a privilege. It is a commodity. Whereever the Federal Government steps, it tramples.
Mr. Schwartz is correct. Health care is not a right. It is not in the bill of rights. But neiter was paved roads or lots of other things in 1780. And, of course, it would be nice to return to the “good old days” of the l9th/20th century but we cannot do that, and we are not going to do that. Our national concepts have developed and moved forward, not backward(s). Even doctors take the oath and as far back as biblical days, health care was addressed. People that are sick need help and the help they need is not affordable. Health care reform must be addressed, the smart folks know there is no option, so swallow hard, cuz its coming. I just hope they do it right this time.
The more the government interferes, the less available health care choices are. Government already controls a large segment of the health system through Medicare and Medicaid. Talk about unsustainable! These programs have hundreds of billions of unfunded liabilities that will be due in the coming years. Based on these programs, no sane person would believe more government involvement would improve the situation. The only real solution would be to disentangle the system from government control, by allowing more insurance options, more flexible health savings accounts, deductible individual insurance and overall more patient control over their own health care spending.
Health care, or education, are not “rights” if the term is defined as an obligation by government to supply the citizen. I agree, as to do so implicitly requires the State to violate the rights of others to fulfill its mission. However, there is another way to define “right”: the duty of the State to refrain from undue interference in the citizen’s pursuit of happiness. In this (classical) liberal definition, health care, education, etc., are indeed rights. And, as such, the State has no moral authority to obstruct unduly the citizen in his access to health care or education for his children.
As Madison rightly said in Federalist 51: “Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society.” The moral philosophy able to secure justice to its standard will always prevail in the end. In rejecting health care as a right, modern day conservatives and libertarians unwittingly cede to the socialist the moral claim to justice. For without rights there cannot be justice, and without justice, there can be no moral high ground. As long as opponents to socialism continue to abandon their moral roots to argue for a utilitarian critique, the social democrat is left alone to define the terms of justice. Until the conservatives and libertarians claim such notions of justice as their own, they will be forever condemned to fail before the social democrat challenge.
Agree, pursuing happines is a absolute right for everyone. And keeping our own health is also include on those happines it self.
Once again, with blithe, childish “hopey-changey” denseness, the Wall Street Journal article linked to by Mr. Schwarts ends with this silliness of “let’s hope that Mr. obama learns something and doesn’t go Canada’s route…” (or words to that affect).
Can we please lay aside the silly notion that obama is capable of “learning” anything that might interfere with his goals? It would sure cut out a lot of pointless and breathless futile anticipation for something better from this knothead.
The MSM just can’t stop acting like the boy POTUS is actually a work in progress. Believe it, folks. He is completely immune to OJT. His training was set in cement about 12 years ago.
great piece, and great comment from 8. Meryl
“There’s no right to health care, just as there’s no right to happiness.”
Congratulations, Brian — you’ve won the Wackiest Analogy of the Week Award!
“Yet when politicians seek to guarantee health care as a right, they decide what qualifies as appropriate medical treatment. Whether you get the treatment you want depends on the discretion of authorities.”
Yes, we should leave those decisions to qualified personnel: insurance company bureaucrats.
#8. Meryl: “…the boy POTUS….”
As in, “Hey, boy!” Ah, Meryl, thanks for bringing us back to the good ol’ days.
Obama’s healthcare guru, ‘Zeke’ Emmanuel recently wrote that the Hypocratic Oath should be dumped and medical students taught that there goal is what is best for ‘society’ rather than their patients. That is very scary. In an instant such an attitude would desstroy the bond of trust between physician and patient irrevocally.
The centerpiece of any reform is cost control. That requires limiting access to care. No matter what the politicians tell you, it will require limiting access. The political decision is who gets denied or restricted care. If you do no believe that, just look at what has happened in Canada and (not so) Great Britain.
Some cost savings can be effected with tort reform, although that will never happen. Electronic medical records are vastly overated and add another layer of costs, rather than savings.
Whose benefits should be cut? Zeke proposes a sliding scale based in part on age, and potential benefit to society. Potential benefit is quite different from proven record of contribution. Zeke has got it backwards. The most deserving citizens are those who have contributed most to society by obeying the laws, paying their taxes, and raising a family The retired senior who has played by the rules and contributed the most should be at the front of the line. Youthful deadbeats, druggies, and felons should be at the rear. Illegal immigrants should be on a separate queue, in their country of origin.
Some have suggested coercing compliance with those habits, dietary preferences and lifestyle choices that might have an impact on health. The weapon of choice, of course, would be taxation. Tax tobacco, alchohol (although in moderation alcohol has a very positive effect on health), carbonated beverages, junk food, etc. Well and good. But mysteriously missing from this list is one lifestyle habit that has been responsible for the most devastating plague visited upon manking since the 14th century. And I am not talking about swine flu.
Health care may not be a constitutional right, but it’s a human right.
We have the right to breath, right to live, right to get cured.
If entrepreneurs don’t provide a service, people have the right to ask the government for help. Government are created to solve human problems when a community demands it. Look at the Fire Departments, Police, Army (right to be safe).
This conversation started because the people-haters are making noise to oppose something they don’t understand or want.
@poor citizen. having paved roads is not a right and I have yet to see any individual denied access to their use
I agree, health care is not a right or priviledge. It is a service or rather a set of services provided by people. If you mandate that health care is a right, then you mandate that the people who provide health care have no claim on compensation. That’s slavery.
Last October was the 150th anniversary of the Lincoln-Douglas debate. Lincoln made the point that “It is the eternal struggle between two principles, right and wrong, throughout the world. It is the same spirit that says ‘you toil and work and earn bread, and I’ll eat it.’ No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation, and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.” [Lincoln-Douglas debates, 15 October 1858]
Bravo! & thanks Meryl (8)
11. bibio44:
“#8. Meryl: “…the boy POTUS….”
“As in, “Hey, boy!” Ah, Meryl, thanks for bringing us back to the good ol’ days.”
Thanks for proving you have no argument other than typical liberal name calling by jumping to definition number eight rather than understanding the first seven definitions for the word, “boy”. You have to be a racist to think that way, it’s your thing, what you do, part of the liberal worldview, just focus race. You always focus on a line of crap rather than the topic or anything in any way related to reality. People are wise to your lack of anything to say other than what you’ve been told will deflect the debate onto some other topic.
Obama is a boy, he never grew up. He’s living in a fantasy world just like all narcissists do.
have a nice day
A naive, pernicious and dangerous sentiment prevails among the Left, as revealed in some of the comments above. They think we get our rights from the government. This may be a consequence of the fact that the Left is predominantly atheist. With no supreme being to provide us with anything, all power belongs either to the majority, or to the individual who is brutal enough to seize it. In either case, those in power are the only available source of “rights.” Ah, but these are the observations and warnings of dead white males, and long ago stopped being taught in our “progressive” educational systems.
Poor Citizen (4):
Carefull here. The Bill of Rights is not a comprehensive list of our rights. Indeed, you must remember that the Constitution is a document that defines what rights the Federal Government has. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (10th Ammendment to the Constitution
The Bill of Rights is simply a list of those most important rights that the Founders thought were most likely to be tampered with by future governments and should thus be specifically enumerated.
As stated in the article, access to health care is a right upon which the government may not infringe. Whether you can afford it or not is up to you.
bibio44 (10):
You miss the point. Insurance company bureaucrats do not and cannot infringe upon your ability to seek health care. You always have the option to pay for it yourself. You – like most progressives – confuse health insurance, which is designed to pay for low-probability, high-risk events, with the payment for routine medical care. An insurance company is liable for those things stated in your insurance contract. No more, no less. TAANSTAFL. Routine care is and should be solely your own responsibility.
If you pay for an HMO, PPO, or other plans that covers routine care then you must realize that this is essentially a cost-leveling device and will not, and cannot, cover everything. In my experience, when you run into the “evil insurance bureaucrats” you are getting into areas that aren’t explictly covered by your policy. Of course you’re going to have to argue with them.
Government, on the other hand, can stop us from paying for health care ourselves, as stated in the article.
VIVO:
If health care is a human right, I suggest you apply for coverage at the United Nations. I believe that not suffering fools like you is also a human right. Fat chance. I know, I know, you are a people lover. As long as somebody else does the work and foots the bill.
I’ve gone through hard times with a house full of kids (4), and been unemployed several times during their childhood; Healthcare was always a concern, but never did we have to go without; Under any circumstances.
Each job brought different healthcare coverage, and choices.
If the federal government was to quit treating small business as it’s only source of income, then small business might have better choices for their employees.
The U.S. government, itself, gives it’s employees, some of the greatest choices of healthcare coverage available to any worker. If these programs were to be opened for the public, no-one would have to be without some kind of coverage. And at reasonable cost.
But, this administration (cartel), wants the power to confiscate more money from everyone; That’s the bottom line.
vivo (13):
You have the right to access to health care. I cannot and should not stop you from visiting a physician. On the other hand remember that for every right there is a corresponding responsibility. You are not in my family nor under my care, so I do not have the responsibility to pay for your health care.
Nope. Governments exist to keep order. First of all, entrepeneurs do address the problem. Where do you think that doctors, hospitals, nurses, medical companies, hospitals, urgent care centers, and medical labs come from?
You simply want somebody else to pay for it. Paying for your health care is your responsibility.
Police, Fire Departments, and the Army exist as government-provided entities (and note that the first two are local functions, not functions of the federal government) because it has been demonstrated over time that private supply of these resources doesn’t work. In Chicago, in the 1800′s, private fire departments would fight over who got to respond to a fire, and would not respond to a fire if it wasn’t one of their customers. Police departments are public because you don’t want them giving preferential treatment to their customers. Mercenary armies have their own issues.
Also, all three entities need the authority of a government in order to fulfill their obligations. the Fire department must be able to do what is necessary to fight a fire and keep it from spreading to the neighbors. The police must be able to do things such as surveillance and wiretaps that should and must be forbidden to private entities. And, of course, the military and national intelligence agencies must have access to technologies and capabilities that cannot be let into private hands.
Similarly, public health management, i.e. the actions of the National Institutes of Health, is properly the function of government. These include, for instance, the setting of proper standards of care and licensing of physicians; the taking of steps necessary to avoid epidemics, such as immunization and enforcement of sanitary policies; and long term, high-risk research into wide-spread health concerns such as cancer and heart disease.
The fire department isn’t concerned with keeping your house safe so much as it is with keeping the fire from spreading to the rest of the community. They will happily educate you and your children, and make recommendations regarding things like fire extinguishers and smoke detectors. However they cannot park a fire truck in front of every house 24/7. It is your responsibility to ensure that you have smoke detectors, extinguishers, and an escape plan in place and practice fire-safety in your life.
Similarly for the police – they are concerned primarily with catching the bad guys after the fact. They cannot provide you with a body-guard 24/7 or stop a mugging in progress (except by chance). It is up to you to be able to protect yourself and your household, at least long enough for the police to arrive.
Your health is your responsibility, and you don’t really want the government to take that responsibility.
Vivo: You write, “Health care may not be a constitutional right, but it’s a human right.”
Really, since when? Again, I’ll ask, as I have in past threads: From where does your presumed right derive? Constitutional law, ecclesiastical law, natural law? If any of these, then it would be news to those who make a study of these things.
Believing that such a right should exist, does not make it so. What you’ve stated is a personal opinion; one inconsistent with any reasonable reading of human history. And to attribute, as you have repeatedly done, ill will to those who make this point doesn’t even qualify as a debater’s trick: It’s simply adolescent on your part. Grow up.
You continue: “We have the right to breath, right to live, right to get cured.” Well, two out of three ain’t bad.
BIBIO 44:
No, ‘boy’ as in untrained, untested, unproven, amateur and adolescent. You know, boy was boy before boy. You follow me? Or is your entire world seen through a race-baiting prism? Being a minority does not grant you immunity from criticism. Only cowards like yourself reach for the racism label at the drop of a hat. you dig, bro?
Expanding the menu of rights has long been a primary Leftist strategy. If there’s a “right,” not only does the government need to get involved so as to “guarantee” that right but those who oppose the government’s intervention can then be demonized as violators of human rights–as criminals, essentially. The exact same thing is going on with gay marriage–the “right” to gay marriage translates quickly into criticism of gay marriage being deemed “hate speech,” and no doubt not too far down the road, a basis for termination of employment and prosecution. Furthermore, if the right depends upon services granted by others (unlike the rights listed in the Bill of Rights), then they are endlessly flexible–what satisfies the right now will not in 10 years, so further government expansions will be necessary.
It has been a very effective strategy, in part because the most prominent conservatives have been too timid to combat it on these philosophical grounds. For good reasons, too–the philosophical argument will lead to scrutiny of all entitlements, of the entire welfare state, including very popular programs. Most people would like to stick with the compromise worked out following the New Deal. But, sooner or later, we are going to have to have this battle–the only question is whether we will have it before or after the system crashes.
One of the problems in desigating a right or privledge is the ability of one to care for themselves. I am a physician and as such have come to feel that our government has created an artifical barrier to health care. Suppose that you did not want to see a physician yet needed a prescription drug. You are in trouble in the US. In some countries, you are not. Say you needed a percocet for back pain. You know you have the pain. You don’t want anything invasive done so why do you have to make an appointment for an office visit that will be 2 weeks away and wait in the office 1/2 day then beg the doctor for the pill. It does not make sense. What we need to do is allow people full access to drugs. If they want to know how to use them, go to the doctor.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/07/15/obama-jonathan-morris-health-care-father/
=========================
Everyone has access to healthcare right now. However, Fr. Jonathan provides a good analysis about its being a right.
Good analysis! Too much of the health care debate presumes a “right” to health care and that the only question is how should the government best guarantee that right. Thank you for pointing out the underlying problem with that premise and the consequences that result.
13. vivo: “We have the right to breath, right to live, right to get cured.’
As the author of the article so aptly said ISMW: One has the right to seek healthcare, as rights refer to one’s own actions. One does not have the right to infringe upon the basic human rights of others. Demanding that someone else provide care to you regardless of making arrangements for their compensation is a sterling example of such and infringement, vivo. Come out of the fog of liberal talking points and think these things through.
…..such an infringement…
So poor little kids who don’t get to choose their parents don’t have a right to health care? You people need to grow up!
If any politician or citizen believes health care is a “right”, then s/he should first work to dissolve the odd proxy monopoly of comprehensive health insurance companies that control the price of health care, access to health care and virtually all money transactions for private health care.
A truly free market is the best guarantee of access to affordable routine health care. Right now the health care market is anything but free, thanks to government meddling that began with federal requirements for HMOs, which kicked off skyrocketing health care costs. Now that for-profit PPOs are more widespread and group sizes have grown, those costs are beginning to increase at exponential-looking rates.
“32. Seriously:
So poor little kids who don’t get to choose their parents don’t have a right to health care? You people need to grow up!”
You’re absolutely right! From this day on, I declare a right to choose your own parents! And anyone who disagrees is pro-Spartan-style infanticide!
“Rights” have been so casually tossed around by liberals as to have practically no meaning in the real world. The health care debate is not about rights – it’s about government encroachment and control into our private lives.
I have a right to keep my own money and not have it taken away from me by the government to be given to someone else so their “right” to health care is covered. Whose “right” trumps whose?
A human baby has a right to live and not have that choice taken away before it’s born by a woman who has chosen her “right” to kill the child. Whose “right trumps whose?
Every time we allow the government to determine what our rights are, we lose a little more of our liberty, and therefore, our true rights, as determined by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The rights we enjoy in this great country are exactly as the framer’s described: inalienable and from our Creator – not from the government.
Hopefully, America’s experiment with socialism and the communist ideas of Barack Obama is OVER.
Headline: Democrats brace for midterm losses.
At: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/08/democrats-talk-openly-about-midterm-losses/?feat=home_headlines
Attn progessives: Your rights end where my freedom begins. Write that down. Staple it to your forehead.
11. bibio44. Is Boy George racist?
On this specific discussion, I beg to differ from both sides.
The subversives who want to give the control of health-care to the government (directly or indirectly) are simply using a TROJAN HORSE to promote their commie agenda.
Whoever doubts about that has been brainwashed.
But the answer to the subversives must be MUCH more finely tuned than saying the contrary of what they say:
there are too many case in which the situation of the families or of the individuals creates a dire emergency that no family or individual could reasonably provide for in advance.
We must use this occasion of debate to promote a deep and rich development of our FREE economy and we must find a lot of good and new ideas to promote the greater good for everybody in the SOLE way known in history, that is through capitalism.
A rich level of life, as even the poor have today in America, is probably not a “right” but CAPITALISM has created such a wonderful society that in a certain way we can say that a decent level of life, IN CAPITALISM, has become a “right”.
The same must happen with health-care.
Tort reform, deregulation of the limits to the action of insurances are two basic measures that will extend the “right” to health-care to many, by decreasing prices.
We need a lot more ideas like these two.
And we must become the PATRONS of this new CAPITALISTIC revolution.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
@36. AdrianS: – Headline: Democrats brace for midterm losses.
Unfortunately, even when that happens, the radical, far-left Democrat leadership will be replaced by the spendthrift, center-left Republicans who made Congress such an easy target in 2006. They’re not about to let go of all the loot Obama has secured for them. If history is any indication, they’ll simply reallocate the Spendulus for their own benefit.
21. minnie:
24. Odysseus:
30. bobbcat:
23. Paul of Alexandria:
“You have the right to access to health care.”
Maybe that’s what I meant.
“You simply want somebody else to pay for it. Paying for your health care is your responsibility.”
I’ve been paying Medicare taxes for ages.
I copay private insurance.
I pay deductibles.
I have out of pocket expenses.
“Police, Fire Departments, and the Army exist as government-provided entities (and note that the first two are local functions, not functions of the federal government)”
Government is government.
“Your health is your responsibility, and you don’t really want the government to take that responsibility.”
Duhhh.
24. Odysseus:
“What you’ve stated is a personal opinion;”
Of course, I’m entitled to my opinion, you can agree or disagree.
#39: Yes, of course we should speak in terms of how to make things better, and to continue to extend the magnificent wealth made possible by our civilization more and more available to more and more people. But speaking in terms of “rights” runs counter to such a discussion, since it produces a much more rigid discussion involving some people (an increasing number as time goes on) simply making demands on the state, demands that must be paid for by the shrinking few who don’t make them. Instead of “rights,” we can speak of reasonable “expectations,” and what kinds of conditions might help us to meet them. “Rights” is a very charged term that distorts the debate.
Not to mention the gold-plated insurance that congress gets. I would think that liberals would agree that as a gesture of good faith, congress would put themselves and all government employees on the basic standard-issue public plan. No?
I’m sure we can get a bipartisan consensus that the government workers, including congress, should also benefit from this wonderfulness. Let’s join hands with Acorn and all the other community organizers in demanding the entire government restrict themselves to the insurance that the poorest get. Right?
Coy? Who? Moi?
Health care is a service, from the great panoply of goods and services available in a free market economy. You have a responsibility in life, to prepare and plan and prioritize so that you end up with what you will need when the time comes.
It isn’t hard. Use higher deductibles to avoid higher premiums, stop smoking or drinking to save money for health premiums, make the best use of whatever your employer offers, like HSAs and so forth.
“preexisting condition”? Insurance is a financial instrument to share risk. If you have a condition that is in full bloom and already costing money to treat, the word “RISK” does not apply!! It’s a CERTAINTY!!
Insurance is a risk moderator. If you’re dealing with a certainty, the insurance industry simply is not in that business. NObody is. a guaranteed net loss over time is NOT an attractive business model!
Life lesson– BUY INSURANCE WHILE YOU”RE HEALTHY, prioritize it highly, deny yourself other things so you can have THIS thing.. it’s about managing your life!
Next, they’ll say ‘because car insurance is mandatory, we demand free car insurance from taxpayers!”
Minnie (#21) wins the award for the most succinct comeback to a bleeding heart liberal…
“If health care is a human right, I suggest you apply for coverage at the United Nations.”
Awesome!
Vivo:
“Health care may not be a constitutional right, but it’s a human right.
We have the right to breath, right to live, right to get cured.”
Behold the sick illogic of the liberal, whose “philosophy” is theft and coercion!
Yes, Vivo, we are endowed by our creator with a right to breathe and to live. We are vorn that way. It does not lie in the ‘gift’ of government to grant either, merely within its power, if exercised unjustly, to take it away.
But your “right” to get cured is nothing of the sort. You are asserting as a “right” nothing more than a demand to coerce others’ labor for your own benefit, to impose obligations out of your dictatorial wants.
20. Paul of Alexandria: “Insurance company bureaucrats do not and cannot infringe upon your ability to seek health care. You always have the option to pay for it yourself.”
Are you serious? Do you have any idea how much it cost to pay for treatment of semi-serious, let alone serious, ailments?
‘In my experience, when you run into the “evil insurance bureaucrats” you are getting into areas that aren’t explictly covered by your policy. Of course you’re going to have to argue with them.’
Nightmare stories about arguing with insurance companies could fill volumes. When my cousin became seriously ill, his wife had to take time off from her job to take another full-time job: dealing with the insurance companies. More than once, she had to threaten to sue, when some bureaucrat rejected coverage of a procedure that both his oncologist and surgeon said was vital and by no means experimental. (He had, btw, supposedly “comprehensive” coverage for cancer treatment.)
‘Health care is not a right. Rights are freedoms of action, not entitlements to what others produce. A “right” to health care violates the rights of those who produce it.’
By that logic, police and fire protection are not rights for people too poor to pay taxes. After all it would violate the rights of those police and firefighters who produce it.
Re #48 bibio44: So to follow YOUR logic, taxes should be raised (due tell bibio, would it be personal property taxes or income taxes or just a “you’re breathing so cough up the dough” tax?) to pay for health care for all. Hmmm… I guess that negates that silly “Obama isn’t going to take away your choice, he’s just making healthcare more accessible and competitive argument that Nancy Pelosi has been pumping up our asses lately right?
So bibio, what is it? Are you for government takeover or for free enterprise? Should the government also pay everyone’s heating and water bills since shitting in a toilet is also a “right”? How about the government pay for everyone’s gas to get to those taxable-income jobs? That also seems like a “right”? Why not have the government provide free housing? That sure seems like a “right”.
Liberals make about as much a sense as raising taxes during a recession. Hey, they thought of that now didn’t they? Idiots.
Seriously #32,children do not have a god given right to health insurance.However they do have the right to life as stated in the D.O.I.Do you seriously think the mothers right to be a slut trumps a babies right to life?
“…the liberal, whose “philosophy” is theft and coercion!”
Well said.
“…the Constitution is a document that defines what rights the Federal Government has.”
No, it doesn’t. Governments have NO rights. Nada. Zippo. Not even the right to exist.
People have rights. Governments have only the powers delegated to them with the consent of the governed.
So says the founding document of this nation.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”
I’m interested in getting the leftie response to this: If health care is a right, why isn’t subsidized food, clothing, shelter, and energy? If for profit health care is morally wrong, why isn’t for profit food, clothing, shelter and energy wrong? I would argue that the right to health care is meaningless if you don’t have a steady source of food, clothing and shelter. Please help me understand the argument for subsidized health care.
“48. bibio44:
‘Health care is not a right. Rights are freedoms of action, not entitlements to what others produce. A “right” to health care violates the rights of those who produce it.’
By that logic, police and fire protection are not rights for people too poor to pay taxes. After all it would violate the rights of those police and firefighters who produce it.
Sep 8, 2009 – 2:47 pm”
No–the police protect us from others who would violate our rights–those who would use violence against us so as to interfere with our free use of our bodies, homes and other property. Police are hired to do this–no one forces them–unlike, say, telling doctors which procedures they can perform or how much they can charge. Paying more taxes doesn’t get you more protection because the police protect the most basic, universal, right of all.
We don’t have a right to firefighters, and one could easily imagine that service being privatized (not that I recommend it)–but if the firefighers are paid, even if not by the specific people whose home they protect, I don’t see the violation of their rights.
Anyone claiming health care is a right is an ignorant fool not fit for public office.
Nothing can be a right if it creates an obligation for someone else to fulfill that right. A health care “right” causes one person to be forced into involuntary servitude to another person to pay for that “right”. I am no mans wage slave and will not pay for anyone’s “right” to anything.
“In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” – Thomas Jefferson
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence (OBAMACARE – mine), the money of their constituents.” – James Madison
48. bibio44 writes: “By that logic, police and fire protection are not rights for people too poor to pay taxes. After all it would violate the rights of those police and firefighters who produce it.”
Actually, the three main functions of the police are order maintenance, law enforcement, and service. Also, several court cases and statutes assert that the police have no obligation to protect an individual citizen. I’ve written a blog post with details on this. See here:
http://www.patientpowernow.org/2008/06/12/health-care-police-protection/
As for fire protection, people too poor to pay taxes are unlikely to own homes. If they rent, surely the owner of the property has homeowners insurance. I don’t think anyone would sell you a mortgage w/o proof of insurance. And I suspect the mortgage holder wants to make sure someone puts out the fire.
Also, the fire department – health care analogy doesn’t quite fit. Fire departments put out fires. They do not repair the damage, or pay for it. That’s why people buy homeowners insurance or renters insurance. Maybe the fire department analogy matches with emergency care and getting someone to stable condition. But not all medical expenses. For more, see here:
http://www.patientpowernow.org/2008/06/17/health-care-fire-department/
—
To those who like the article: Thanks for the positive comments and support!
So, the only valid rights are the ones we gave ourselves. OK, I guess that makes it open season! Yahoo. I say it’s our right to discuss Glenn Beck’s drug addiction – just for fun.
46. Bohemond:
“But your “right” to get cured is nothing of the sort. You are asserting as a “right” nothing more than a demand to coerce others’ labor for your own benefit, to impose obligations out of your dictatorial wants.”
I’m so glad you are rejecting your Medicare benefits. Less mouths, more cookies.
So, all these pajamers will buy their own insurance, reject all kinds of public plans for themselves, and not whine about whatever else is happening. Looks like they live in Dreamland.
BTW, that students speech today was sooo indoctrinating . . . lots of red face embarrassment for the red-staters.
Given the interest in all citizens having their “rights” taken care of from public funding, I think my specified and enumerated rights should be taken care of before we even discuss the newly discovered “right” to health care. As specified in the Bill of Rights and recently reaffirmed as an individual right by the Supreme Court, my right to keep and bear arms trumps your right to health care. Therefore, I’d like my choice of firearms paid for by the federal government and shipped to me at once. I agree to stick to firearms that have been accepted by the US military as being the only ones suitable for citizens since those are the ones we already purchase with taxpayer money.
I prefer the M25 (a refined version of the M14) including the appropriate telescopic sight, but if we’re all supposed to accept only the M16, that will be fine as well. Since it was ruled that people who don’t have free access to an attorney are in effect denied their legal rights after an arrest, it’s only reasonable that I also be regularly supplied with ammunition to ensure that I can stay in practice to exercise my right to a firearm by regularly target shooting. I’m not greedy, and I don’t want to sell some off from time to time or anything, so about 500 rounds a month should be fine. Naturally, there will need to be someone who decides who needs more than that quantity, but 500 rounds is about the right minimum provision of ammunition to ensure we can all exercise our rights. Additional magazines and so forth will naturally have to be provided with the firearm and routinely replaced on something like the schedule the military uses in replacing magazines in the field. We have hundreds of years of experience in the firearms usage field, so this should be at most a very minor burden to the taxpayers. In addition, think of the cost savings we’ll see as the cost of both ammunition and firearms fall due to the large production run orders.
Thanks to all the lefties who have opened my eyes to the fact that my Constitutional rights should be provided for me by my fellow taxpayers. I look forward to my fine weapon.
Regards
vivo – ‘Medicare benefits’ – that’s a joke, right?
Apparently I’m the ‘minority’ you speak of and apparently live in ‘Dreamland.’
We recently moved to the D.C. area for career, culture and vacation accessibility.
My family attempts to avoid government assistance in most facets of our lives.
We have private insurance. I’ll do everything possible in my senior years to shy away from medicare.
My folks are on fixed income, I and my siblings assist in covering my father’s health expenses rather than him being subjected to medicare. I’ve family in the medical profession and learn of the ills of medicare practices.
I also used Cobra insurance once while my wife was active duty years back. What a mess of a program. Thank you Teddy!
Social security will be bankrupt by 2017 by most estimates. Another ‘great’ government run program. My guess: it’ll crumble sooner. Considering the government is ‘running it’.
Our home is armed to protect our family’s lives and property. We also possess fire insurance. The old adage, ‘When seconds matter the police are but minutes away.’ As for the fire department response times, it’s SOP if a fire had occurred at a structure for 20 minutes the fire responders don’t gain access. Insurance for your home is more than likely cheaper than health insurance.
We live in an area we needn’t drive to work. We don’t possess a driver’s license and use our passports for i.d. I refuse to enter the DMV and registered to vote by other means. I walk or bicycle with a tow cart when going to the grocery store.
Were late 20, early 30 somethings who don’t buy into U2′s Bono, Ban Ki-Moon or other known personalities who encourage ‘Spread the Wealth’ is the answer. Considering it’s not their wealth their encouraging to cough up, we ignore such idiocy.
We don’t blow our money on fast food, restaurants (research, trial & error can allow you to cook anything on a restaurant menu. Not to mention it’s cheaper. I learned to make my own sushi rolls thanks to youtube. I’m making an attempt at home brewing), cable t.v., the latest ‘fashions’ and the like.
There is so much information available to encourage more self sustaining practices. Instead, people with your like minded group-think believe most people can’t improve their health, worth nor life. The government teet is the ‘only resolve.’ What a defeatist, counterproductive outlook.
I’m not speaking of individuals to go to extremes but consider more self reliance than their or your present.
3 generations removed from the ‘Greatest generation’ and your response to the ills of the world is more government intervention?
These same G men and women aren’t signing onto HR 615. are telling town hall meeting attendees not to record the meeting for this is ‘their meeting.’ yet, you and others want to give these folks more of a foothold, more victim-like mentality when ot comes to health decisions? Sad..
39. Sherab Zangpo:
You’re missing the point: The U.S. Government does NOT have the RIGHT to CONTROL as large a portion of the ECONOMY as they’re trying to assume.
In a small “community” of “indigent” citizens, this may be required, for the economic survival of the citizens.
Being a bookkeeper in a small town bank doesn’t give you expertise to qualify for a position at the Federal Reserve.
I repeat (for the umpteenth time)…
This isn’t about “healthcare”. It’s about power.
This measure, about which the POTUS will be speechifying tonight for approximately the 115th time (and he still hasn’t said anything you can sink your teeth into because substance and particulars of how the federal thing will work don’t interest him ) is another dimension of the federal government’s ongoing power grab.
Barack Obama is the Bernie Madoff of the current political scene, and YOU are the marks.
Wouldn’t it be a better idea to WAIT to consider a healthcare plan AFTER: We see
1. what will become of the economic stimulus plan. So far, the Obama branch of this porker give-away has done virtually nothing to stimulate the economy. The American economy, at the control of Obama, is failing.
2. what will become of the TARP loans. Will GM default on the aprox. 81 Billion dollars and how will this affect the U.S. budget and deficit.
3. what will become of Social Security, slated to come crashing down in a few short years. That’s when the greater bulk of baby-boomers will definitively retire and cause the boat to list.
4. will home and auto sales rebound, because right now there is nothing going on in either market. The “clucker” program did nothing to substantially aid the American car markers — although it did help our foreign auto maker friends. Let’s wait and make certain that these extremely crucial markets recover before leaping into massive healthcare overhauls.
5. what will happen with the current business downturn and unemployment. Obama assured that there would be no greater average unemployment than 8%, and we are at 10%. In some areas of the country inflation is double-digits, 14, 16, 20 percent.
6. what will need to be done to cure the rocketing high deficits.
7. what will happen when, since the timing is right, the Ron Pauls will get their way and audit the Federal Reserve. Recall what happened when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac coughed-up.
8. what will be the tax rate consequences due to the unrestrained spending spree of the past 24 months. Trillions of dollars will have to be paid in increased taxes. There’s talk about adding a value added tax; will this be in addition to the progressive tax? Will there be a tax revolution, all of which could mean that the funds for a national government controlled health plan could be severely limited. This would translate into exceedingly limited services in health care for people.
9. what will happen if $500 Billion are taken from Medicare. Take it now and wait to see what happens. Besides everything short of full anarchy by the elderly, this is adding much more stress to an already stressed system.
Don’t be surprised that Obama, on his 112th “new” pitch to sell his (snake oil) health plan, will offer nothing substantial; and, certainly nothing that could not wait until prudently we resolve each and every issue mentioned. American’s are saying they are fine with the insurance and health care arrangements they currently have. Perhaps leaving well enough alone is best. Certainly, over the summer we have seen what “it could be worse” looks like, and nobody cares for Socialism in the U.S.A.
Health Care is a right!! Just because it’s not in the BILL OF RIGHT doesn’t displace my entitlement to health care. If I was go to the emergency room for care, I have to be treated. I cannot be turned away.
Now for you ignorant people who don’t have medical insurance and don’t want it; what sense that makes is beyond me, but you have families who have no health care and can’t afford it, this will give all a chance to recieve care for treatment they need; instead of populating a sickness and allowing it to manifest throughout society. Or watching a child or parent die because they don’t have adequate insurance.
I have the right to be happy just as I have the right to health care. You or nobody can stand in the way of my happiness and prevent me from being happy, just as you cannot prevent me from seeking medical attention for a ailment.
So you mean I have the right to bear arms, but not a right to get treatment for my health, sounds stupid….
Everything will not be listed on the bill of rights, think of when it was written and as time changes society changes…
How do you want to deal with the case of someone who does not buy insurance because he is young and healthy, and then comes down with some catastrophic disease, e.g. cancer, or is in
a accident with an uninsured injurer and has no one to collect compensation from?
Who should pay for his medical care?
Or say he comes down with adult onset diabetes. Who pays for his supplies? Can he get health insurance afterwards?
“Health care may not be a constitutional right, but it’s a human right.”
Evidence please! Are you referencing this?;
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
Article 25.
* (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
* (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Be carful, Vivo. If you apply article 25 to the USA, then I can apply any of the other articles. Such as;
Article 20.
* (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
* (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
There goes the Union card plan, right down the old tubes.
#2 of article 25 can be read to outlaw abortion. So be careful what you wish for. BTW, EVERY one of the Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is breach by one country or another.
IIRC, it was Blackstone who said; ‘The Law cannot reach where enforcement does not go’.
To be a member of the United Nations the UDoHR MUST be followed. Ha Ha Ho Ho He He!
64. Vasiline:
All you have to do is cross the border; You’ll be right at home and treated as if you are a good neighbor.
Why wait?
64. Vasiline:
Yea! You have the right to bear arms and shoot yourself; But you have to remove the bullet and apply the bandage yourself.
I can give you instructions!
I’m outa here! Too many “rights” activists to deal with.
Stupid is as stupid does.
“Health Care is a right!!”
Baloney. All that means is is that deadbeats like yourself have a “right” to use the government to steal my money to pay your medical bills.
Cybergeezer #68 and #69, you made a racial comment based on my name?? “CROSS THE BORDER”, if you are indicating I am hispanic, you are wrong as most bigots and racist are… That shows the limit of your outlet on life, you never seen or experienced anything, except perhaps participating in a lynching or two..
Dave Sirus #70 Are you indicating I’m a deadbeat because I feel healthcare is a right.. Well, I am fully insured, possibly more insured than you.. Though I’m speaking for the families whose income is not sufficient to afford health care it is a right!
So because you are poor, that means you are a deadbeat??? So are those homeless Vietnam Vets deadbeats??? You know nothing of what a person faced in his/her life to put them in a situation of no return and you say leave them they are dead beats! You sick inferltile animal. What makes you think your life and health is more valuable than the person sitting next to you, everyone has people who care and value them.. Your Sentence is Baloney! You are a heartless human being and I wish nothing but the best for you, because you are deprived. Use the government to steal your money??? What money? You have nothing more than me or anyone else, I probably gross more than you per year.. And it’s not stealing it’s called HELPING! You sick, twisted looser…
@63. AdrianS: – Wouldn’t it be a better idea to WAIT to consider a healthcare plan AFTER: We see … what will become of the economic stimulus plan.
No need to list anything else – we can stop right there.
The Spendulus was sold to a gullible public based on fuzzy math that claimed it would prevent the unemployment rate from rising above 8% – to an estimated 9% (max) if we didn’t immediate authorize spending $800B.
At present, the unemployment rate is over 20% higher than what was predicted with the Spendulus, and almost 10% higher than what they predicted without it. Based solely on that, and especially considering that the actual unemployment rate right now is over 16%, this administration clearly doesn’t have the slightest effing clue what they’re doing when it comes to the economy, jobs, etc.
.
@64. Vasio: – If I was go to the emergency room for care, I have to be treated. I cannot be turned away.
Treated? Wrong. Read the FAQ for the statute [emph. added]: “Any patient who ‘comes to the emergency department’ requesting ‘examination or treatment for a medical condition’ must be provided with ‘an appropriate medical screening examination‘ [note: not treatment] to determine if he is suffering from an ‘emergency medical condition’. If he is, then the hospital is obligated to either provide him with treatment until he is stable or to transfer him to another hospital in conformance with the statute’s directives. … If the patient does not have an ‘emergency medical condition’, the statute imposes no further obligation on the hospital.”
Bottom line: you can’t get routine health care for free simply by walking into an ER. Per the Bill of Rights, you have the right to purchase and carry a firearm; you don’t have the right to force someone else to provide you with health care. And to be clear, you don’t have the “right” to be treated in a hospital even if you have an emergency medical condition, rather, the hospital has a statutory obligation to treat that condition. It has nothing to do with “rights”.
“Are you indicating I’m a deadbeat because I feel healthcare is a right”
Pretty much.
Hm, I kind of have to agree that health care is not a right. That is also not really relevant, because in the end it is a matter of enlightened self-interest to make sure that everyone has access to a reasonable level of health care. Illnesses do not stop at the border of the poor section of town; plagues don’t respect economic levels or leave your family alone just because they go to the good schools or have good jobs.
And *that* being said, I have too much experience with civilian government involvement in healthcare to believe that involving the Government in healthcare is going to make anything better. A goood portion of the rising costs of healthcare are due to the insane levels of beauracratic paperwork required by Medicare — Even if the patient is not a Medicare patient! The military medical model is far more efficient (both in terms of cost and effect) but only because they are immune to lawsuits, so they can make common-sense decisions on treatment without concern for statistically improbable outcomes. Example: A soldier comes up to the sick call/clinic and says “I have a cold.” The medic who greets him asks a quick list of questions; if there are no major indicators for other problems, the medic hands the soldier a cold package (antihistimine, sucrets, etc) and says to come back if things get worse… total cost in meds, about three dollars, plus a few minutes time by a lowly E3 or E4.
Vasio, the name calling is unfortunately snertish, but he obviously meant our northern border, where the government provides healthcare of some kind of level to whoever walks in and has lots of time to spend waiting…
Great, the liberal chant of “the children” enters the stew once more and once more they are hoping that no one looks at their actual attitude to “the children”. If the liberal “right to privacy” extends to encompass the elimination of the rights of the unborn and therefore justifies 4000 or so abortions a day, why would anyone not know that the liberal “right to healthcare” would justify infanticide and euthanasia? Whenever liberals discover a new right it always ends up leading to the elimination of the rights of those they disagree with, up to and including taking life itself. After all, who should have the right to life when their living infringes the liberal right to additional Congressional jets or diverts funds from spending on endangered species of crickets?
Now, we have a libtard tossing “the homeless vet” into the discussion to justify nationalization of helathcare. I have news for you, Vets are already granted healthcare and unlike social security they don’t have to have an address. Anyone who shows up at the VA with a valid DD214 or other proof of service will be treated and cared for. Period. It’s called the Veterans Administration and it works fine except when liberals are cutting its budget to fund things like bike paths and homosexual arts festivals.
Have a day, but not too many or you’ll be a burden to us
One could replace the words health care with education and have yet another great article.
@ #76 Rashputin
I see what you are saying mingish #77, If we don’t have a right to health care, then we don’t have a right to education, we don’t have a right to happiness, but we have a right to pursuit happiness. Some pursuit if I can’t read and have a bad lung…lol. Really, the humantics of Americans if funny to me. We don’t have a right to shelter, we don’t have a right food,…. It’s not our/ Americans responsiblility to help other Americans. Basically, if it cost money to have you do not have a right to have or own it. So again it’s capitalistic problems and you are implicating democratic principles. When you say what we don’t have a right to do or have, you are implicating democratic priciples, based on rights and rules and regulations. Though your reasoning that people should acquire these things is due to it costing money or tax payers money– now that’s a capitalistic problem. Capitalism and Democracy cannot and do not go hand in hand. Therefore you cannot solve capitalistic problems with democratic principles. Once you begin to discuss monetary figures, democracy is not the practice. So democracy if for “THE PEOPLE” and “BY THE PEOPLE”, but what about the people who are broke, that’s what people like you imply and go on and on how it will cost you money, but that’s not democracy it’s a capitalistic remarks based on democratic principle and the key word here is “PRINCIPLE”.
Just to further enlighten you, long decades ago or a century ago welfare was put it place not for minorities, but for caucasians and as time went on and rights began to apply to minorities so did welfare. So once minorities began bitting the welface ‘cookie’, that’s when welfare was smitten with the dark cloud and looked upon as bad.
Think about it, there is nothing wrong with helping someone who needs it, because in the end favor will be found in you, for opening your heart. America is to be this great Christian nation, but the virtues are flawed and ideologies are every man/woman/and child for themselves.
You spoke of vets and you called me a libtard?? Look I can walk down Michigan Ave. In Chicago and down Georgia Ave in D.C. and Peachtree St, in Atlanta and various other places and see homeless vets everywhere. You tell me that these people have a right to care…?? Why? Because they served this country.. correct as did I, though why are they still out there? You should come have some coffee with me and we can talk, I can teach you something. I know exactly what the VA is and the people who work there have jobs because of VETS.
I guess the health care issue doesn’t matter until it hits home into someones personal life, where a loved one needs treatment and you cant’ afford it and you have a $40,000 medical bill and you have to take a equity loan out on your home, but the treatment isn’t done you need another $50,000 to complete treatment and now you can’t pay your mortgage, and your home is foreclosed and your love one dies…
Man I love America, don’t you??
“I guess the health care issue doesn’t matter until it hits home into someones personal life, where a loved one needs treatment and you cant’ afford it and you have a $40,000 medical bill and you have to take a equity loan out on your home …”
LOL, I’ve been there and done that nitwit to the tune of a quarter mil because my wife has long been uninsurable as have I. I didn’t run out and demand others pay for it, I sold property, took out an equity loan on my paid for home, and arranged a loan for what I couldn’t come up with. That’s the reason keeping a good credit record is especially important for those who are uninsured. It’s called proving you can be trusted instead of just telling people to trust you in spite of your not showing them any track record. My wife is my wife, not the wife of the entire nation and not the responsibliity of the entire nation.
I could have forgone some things in the years prior to her having to have a tumor removed from her brain and had more liquid assest when it happened, but I didn’t. As a consequence I had to be responsible for my decisions. I could have married someone else based on my knowing she couldn’t be insured, I could have let her go without the surgery and die, or I could have had a bit lower standard of living and saved more. How are any of those decisions something that I would even want the government involved in?
You advocate the government force everyone to a lower standard of living and even then the government would have the right to say, “sorry bub, but your wife is already 60 so no can do” and let someone die because it isn’t “cost effective” to keep her alive beyond her prime tax paying years. What you have to say about any of this is nothing other than BS you’ve read or seen and interpreted to suit your own fantasy rather than understanding things for what they are.
I didn’t see your response to why we should believe that the govrnment won’t be comfortable with killing 4000 or so citizens a day to ensure those it favors get their “right” to healthcare the same way that they’re comfortable with killing that many to ensure the privacy right they claim supercedes the right to life. Maybe you could address that point rather than playing the “narrative equals reality” BS you were brainwashed with.
“You sick inferltile animal.”
LOL.
Gee, I can hardly wait until warm, loving, altruistic liberals like yourself have control over my access to healthcare.
I’ll bet your top priority would be to make sure that I was treated to top of the line medical care.
Not.
Think I’ll continue to fight socialized medicine with every tool at my disposal, just to make sure I’m never in the power of kindhearted folks like yourself.
Rashputin #76, I am far from brainwashed. Okay so you have good credit!!! SUPER!! Okay you have a home!!! GREAT!!! and it’s paid for!!! WOOOHOO!! But there are others who don’t. This is the problem, people take there circumstances and compare it to others, people say if I can do it than you can do it attitude, but that is not true in all cases. So you been there and done that..
“My wife is My wife, Not the entire nations, sound insecure and futile. Sounds like you should be living in a FEUDAL system, You know with, gestures, knights, kings and queens, and fiefs..
So you had property to sell and a home, many people do not, but that doesn’t mean they have bad credit. So I congragulate you and great that your wife is doing well, but I don’t think the government would care who you marry and if you decide not to marry someone because they can’t be insured; I don’t even care, letting her go without surgery that is your decision, but I don’t think your wife wanted to die; and the government wouldn’t make those decisions for you, but something can be put in place to save lives.
The government cannot force a lower standard of living you can spend your money how and when you want;
Rashputin-You said, You advocate the government force everyone to a lower standard of living and even then the government would have the right to say, “sorry bub, but your wife is already 60 so no can do” and let someone die because it isn’t “cost effective”
You just stated that you could have not paid for surgery and let your wife die, that seems it would have been cost effective for you.
Why would I believe the gov’t would kill 4000 citizens a day? When you just said you could have let your WIFE DIE. The gov’t has killed more for reasons beyond Health.
I think you are just old and time as past you by fast. SICK = HELP = TREATMENT = CARING = HUMANITY.
I would gladly put 10% of my yearly earning into a healthcare plan that will help or save a life.
You’re really desperate to change the subject now, it shows in your choice of slanders and jabs and it’s funny as hell to watch you squirm.
At least you admit that you think it’s fine to kill others based on what you think is their value to society. Now that you’ve made it clear that rather than being a decision made by loved ones, whether to care for someone or not should be your decision and the decision of those you find acceptable.
We’ve finally gotten to the bottom of your claim to be a caring individual and it amounts to, “Just kill anyone that’s a bother” the same as your abortion position. Good, we have your admission to supporting state sponsored murder for multiple reasons. Are there more than just these two? How about people with a lethal disease that’s expensive to treat? Should they all be killed in order to keep health costs down or do you only support the killing of the young and old when they’re a hassle for you?
You plan to keep individuals from making tough choices by telling them what to do and making it illegal to do otherwise. How thoughtful of you, how caring, how like the elitist eugenics loving liberal you are.
Tell us some more stories, now, maybe about how Michelle and Hussein went for a night out and left a trail of thousand dollar bills between DC and NYC so they could find their way home. They had to hurry home and tell evil corporate executives that they were paid too much. Only caring people like you and they care enough to create a health gestapo that not only refuse people treatment but make it illegal to try and pay for treatment out of your own pocket. You’re so good at avoiding saying things you could just spin off fairy tales for a living I bet. O please, another fairy tale. Tell us the one about how you beat little Red Riding Hood to grandmas so that you could whack grandma before she got there, you loving wolf, you do look nice in that grandma costume.
What you would gladly do doesn’t mean that all would or that you have any right to claim that all others should.be forced to do the same.
I like your last little desperate whimper there, to way you still didn’t answer the question doesn’t say a thing about time passing me by but it speaks volumes about your willingness tell one lie after another the same way Hussein does. People are no longer ignoring you omissions and missing the fact that you’re never answering question.
#82, I never said the things you are stating. I simply state the health care is a right. I don’t feel that people should be killed if they have a bad illness that’s expensive to treat. You are talking about fairy tales “Riding Hood” and Obama dropping 1000 dollar bills.
You are sad. America is entangled in the CONFLICT THEORY. It’s as simple as that. No matter what anyone says or proof be shown you will have your beliefs as others will have theirs.. You are set in your ways.
Same reason prejudices, and racial tensions are still alive. Poor Poor America; Glad I’m Italian….
Paul of Alexandria (23): A very sound analysis. It should address the concerns of honest Liberals and quash the outrages of the vitrolic and merely partisan.
Correction to my (84): strike “vitrolic,” insert “vitriolic.”
Poor, poor, vasio, he sided with those who started a huge conflict and now he doesn’t like the same approach used against his fictional world view. Poor widdle vasio, he can claim others are criminals but can’t quite figure out what dropping thousands for an eveing means.
No matter what anyone says or proof be shown you won’t admit that you’re advocating cold blooded murder in the name of your eugenics socialist goals. Benito would be proud of your sticking with his facism and supporting state ownership and control of not only business and industry, but the individual as well.
Oh, and you did recommend that it would have been cost effective for me to have let my wife die. That proves it’s the way you look at the lives of others, just as your support for abortion proves it.
poor vasio, all dressed up and can’t stand his own tactics
86. Rashputin:
You said you had the option of not paying for your wife surgery and I said that would have been cost effective for you! Due to the fact you had to sell property and take a loan out on your home… I never wished your wife or anyone to die.. Stop saying I said things I didn’t.
Though that option is never a option or a thought, but you wrote it so you thought it.. I would do what ever it takes for my family…or anyone who can’t do for themselves…
I said nothing of Abortion so what are you talking about???
Nevertheless this arguement will go nowhere due to the theory of conflict.. or Conflict Theory..
Go and change your depends, drink your ovaltine and go to bed!
Where is the empathy? Where is the basic human feeling? Unless you make billions of dollars because you own an insurance company, you are the SAME as every other American. Why if someone can not afford $800 a month (which is what I pay) for healthcare, are they a deadbeat? Why can you only think that if “you” are ok, then everything must be ok.
No one will force you to change anything. You can still fool yourself into thinking that you are better than you are because you are adding to an already huge salery of someone at an insurance company that doesn’t give a crap about you or me or anything other than their bottom line.
God forbid you get sick and have to deal with atrocities and inhuman treatment that millions of Americans, just like you and I, must deal with. It is not their choice, nor their privlige or their right to get dumped from an inhuman insurance company, or hit a lifetime max on coverage in the middle of a life saving treatment. Or worse of all, have the money to pay for insurance, and not be able to get it because your were sick sometime before in your lifetime.
None of these horribe things have ever happened to me, but that does not keep me from having empathy. Where do you people come from?
Is protection against being victimized by a fire a privilege or a right?
Is protection against being victimized by various crimes a privilege or a right?
Is protection against being victimized by cancer a privilege or a right?
Actually, Bill, a political unit (ie a small town) can decide not to pay for firefighters, and therefore the individual will have to deal with it themselves or depend on volunteers. This is rarely done, but it does happen.
Control of crimes is done because you are going against the rules of the State; that is why the State is involved. I suspect the “protection against being vicimized by various crimes” is a little too broad a statement, anyways…
Protection from being victimized by cancer is a meaningless phrase. Unless there is a person or corporate entity inflicting the cancer on you, you aren’t “victimized” by it, it is just something that happens to you.
@88. HUMAN: – Where is the empathy? Where… blah, blah, blah…
That’s a lot of question. Apparently not directed toward anyone in particular (“you people”?? how xenophobic of you).
I have a question, and it’s directed to you – why is your entire post based on a laundry list of straw man fallacies?
.
89. Bill Menge: – Is protection against being victimized …
Where do you find a guarantee of protection in any of these cases? Do you honestly think any society or social mechanism can guarantee you won’t be victimized by a fire? By a mugger? By cancer? Really?
#89 Bill Menge,
The rich will be protected
Xenophobia? I’m don’t possess fear against groups or people that I don’t identify with. My true fear is that insurance companies value profits over human life. In this country, we have more than enough resources to provide each and every individual with adquate healthcare, but the corporate pharmeceutical and insurance companies prevent this from occuring.
It’s scary that less than .5% of the population own and run the corporations that ultimately prevent everyone else from attaining basic human needs for the sake of financial gain. Is that a fallacy? No, that’s a stone cold fact. It’s hegemony. Look it up. Open your eyes. We are all being controlled, brainwashed, and manipulated by the corporate elite. They don’t care about you, me, or anyone else in this country.
They care about the bottom line. Their hunger for wealth is why the electric car isn’t being produced, why people can’t go to the doctor when they’re sick, and why we are in this recession.
The question this debate boils down to is this: what’s more important, the survival of human life or the survival of capitalism? hmm
@93. HUMAN: – Xenophobia? I’m don’t possess fear against groups or people that I don’t identify with.
Your “you people” calumny notwithstanding. Sure.
- My true fear is that insurance companies value profits over human life.
Well then maybe you should grow a clue about business in a capitalist economy. Businesses exist because of profit. They cease to exist without profit. To expect insurance companies to act altruistically is the expectation and behavior of a child. Unfortunately we have the equivalent of children – moral adolescents – controlling most of our government and social institutions today.
- In this country, we have more than enough resources to provide each and every individual with adquate healthcare, but the corporate pharmeceutical and insurance companies prevent this from occuring.
100% WRONG. First off, the resources of this country are not yours, or some socialists’, or the federal government’s property to do with as they wish – and that includes “spreading the wealth around” to (pretend to) provide “free” health care to everyone – a program that doesn’t exist in any country in the world.
What prevents people from being able to afford routine health care is the insane and utterly irrational way we pay for it – using an insurance policy. Insurance is a tool for mitigating risk. It’s not designed as a medium of exchange for routine costs of living. When misused in that manner – as we happily and willingly do with health care because it feels like we’re getting a “good deal” – insurance drives up the cost, because the resulting economic model removes ALL downward pressure on price. Read a book. Economics 101 will explain this to you.
- It’s scary that less than .5% of the population own and run the corporations that ultimately prevent everyone else from attaining basic human needs for the sake of financial gain.
Wrong again. What’s truly scary is that you and the rest of society have allowed yourselves to be trained – starting with the HMOs that were required by the federal government – to think we should pay for health care, a routine cost of living, with a group comprehensive insurance policy. Health care is the ONLY market in which we make this mistake. Conventiently, it’s the ONLY market where costs have skyrocketed in excess of 400% of inflation. Look at the history of skyrocketing health care costs. It’s no mystery why they started to increase faster than inflation starting in about 1975. It was due to yet another round of federal meddling in an area where government has no Constitutional authority to legislate. You want to blame someone? Blame the government who, after kicking off this “crisis” 40 years ago, now wants to seize control of the health care sector as the “solution”. Read a book. Look up Cloward-Piven for starters.
- Open your eyes. We are all being controlled, brainwashed, and manipulated by the corporate elite.
Open YOUR eyes. They will continue to control YOU, brainwash YOU and manipulate YOU for AS LONG AS YOU KEEP LETTING THEM.
You want to fix the problem with health care? Look for ways to bring the cost of routine health care down. RESTORE the free market which no longer exists for health care (note: not health care INSURANCE) and you will see routine health care costs come back into equilibrium with other routine costs of living. High-deductible/low premium health plans can handle the REAL risk posed by catastrophic illness or injury. Implement tort reform – which the current Hope’n'Change administration – funded by the legal lobby – has refused to do. Lower costs overall will make it MUCH easier to fund health care for the VERY TINY MINORITY of people who actually can’t afford it at that point – the minority that government is exploiting as an excuse to seize control over more of our money and our liberty.
- The question this debate boils down to is this: what’s more important, the survival of human life or the survival of capitalism? hmm
Capitalism – working within the framework of the Republican form of Government guaranteed by our Constitution – is what raised the quality of life in America to the highest level in history for a population its size in such a short time. You’re not paying very close attention if you think capitalism is the problem here. Since the 1930s, the U.S. has grown slowly more socialist with each passing decade. As that has happened, we’ve also grown deeper in debt, more distrusted and disliked abroad, more conflicted within, fatter, lazier, more apathetic, more emotionally disturbed, more medicated and more ignorant. Capitalism was not the cause of all that. Creeping socialism has achieved this, just as it did in the doomed Soviet Union and everywhere else it’s been tried, and is now doing in most of Europe, which is demographically dying thanks to the apathy-enhancing effects of collectivist policies, and being transformed into Eurabia.
Since the 1930s, the U.S. has grown slowly more socialist with each passing decade. As that has happened, we’ve also grown deeper in debt, more distrusted and disliked abroad, more conflicted within, fatter, lazier, more apathetic, more emotionally disturbed, more medicated and more ignorant. Capitalism was not the cause of all that. I would seriously reconsider the validity of this statement.
-New Media Monopoly By Ben H. Bagdikian
-Fast Food Nation By Eric Schlosser
-The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power By Joel Bakan
-Wall Street Versus America: The Rampant Greed and Dishonesty That Imperil Your Investments By Gary Weiss
-The History of HMO’S article http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2819
-ABC News 20/20 Secrets of the Super Rich
-A Failure of Capitalism: The Crisis of ’08 and the Descent into Depression By Richard A. Posner
-The New American Economy: The Failure of Reaganomics and a New Way Forward By Bruce Bartlett
@95. HUMAN: – I would seriously reconsider the validity of this statement.
Why, because you rattled off a list of class-baiting, anti-capitalist propaganda that ironically included a link to information that actually supports what I posted? Or because you didn’t even bother to refute what I wrote?
I’ll say this: like BC, you already show a knack for illustrating my point. S/he did the same thing a couple weeks ago. Like BC, you should try actually reading stuff like this FIRST before you try to use it to support your empty position.
The reference at your cited link includes the following:
1. “The individual was first discouraged from buying insurance in 1942 when employee health premiums were made tax deductible to employers–not to individuals.” That is, government, not private enterprise, has been pushing the consumer for decades to engage in the resource-pooling, price-ratcheting behavior of paying for a routine cost of living with a collectivist group insurance policy. Nothing to do with capitalism – everything to do with socialism.
2. “Congress created Medicare in 1965, making individual insurance for those over 65 obsolete. Subsidized, unrestricted health care for seniors lead to an unprecedented frenzy of spending by patients and doctors. … Costs went up, introducing an economic obstacle to individual health insurance. As costs rose, those on the New Left, including then freshman Sen. Ted Kennedy, argued that government ought to pay for everyone’s health care…”. That is, the result of government meddling – in an area they have no authority to legislate – led to a problem that government claimed it could solve by… more meddling. In fact, Kennedy’s proposal was not that “government” ought to pay, the reality was that THE TAXPAYER would pay for everyone’s health care. Nothing to do with capitalism – everything to do with socialism.
3. “Combined with Medicare, the HMO Act eventually eliminated the market for affordable individual health insurance.” That is, not only was the free market for health care itself destroyed, but the HMO Act actually destroyed the free market for individual health care insurance, as well. Nothing to do with capitalism – everything to do with socialism.
4. “Covered by an employer and herded into managed care, the individual patient is powerless. Under [federally mandated] managed care, if the patient gets sick, he or she may wander the maze of managed bureaucracy, be treated, or, languish in pain awaiting treatment. The patient may also be refused treatment and die.” There you have the definition of ‘death panels’, which have been with us since government began meddling in the health care market. And gee, isn’t this EXACTLY what people have been complaining about with respect to BHO’s government-controlled socialized medicine scam. Nothing to do with capitalism – everything to do with socialism.
5. “Unrestricted free choice in medicine–health insurance chosen, provided and paid for by the individual–has practically vanished. … The distinct lack of a free market in individual health insurance, not a lack of regulations, lead to the domination of managed care.” This is exactly what I’ve been saying for years, and is exactly what I wrote up above. Nothing to do with capitalism – everything to do with socialism.
QED.
Government created the health care problem by meddling in a market it did not understand. Or perhaps it did understand, and wished to corrupt the market to further its own greed for power – which we see today in BHO’s push to place everyone’s health care market under government control. This “crisis” is due to Congress legislating for decades in an area where it has no Constitutional authority. Every attempt by the government to “solve” the problem has made the problem worse. Nothing to do with capitalism – everything to do with socialism.
Thanks.
@96. goy:
1. When it comes to health insurance, collectivism is the nature of the beast. There is no insurance without it. Calling an incentive a disincentive is also rather perverse. Without tax breaks for employer provided health care, millions more would do without coverage. That’s no solution. What do you have against socialism, anyway?
2. Medicare represents a vast improvement in living standards for most elderly persons. A broader public plan would likewise represent a vast improvement in living standards for most currently uninsured persons. The benefit of socialized medicine for cost control, access to care, and patient outcomes is well supported by the state of health care in Europe.
3. The chimera of “affordable individual health insurance” is not an argument.
4. The problems you have identified with private for-profit insurance are related to the perverse incentives of profit in this sector. Health insurance should be a non-profit enterprise, as should police and fire protection. People die in the current system so that others can make more money. This is a perversity that would not exist without the profit motive. Don’t try to blame socialism for the collateral damage inherent in a capitalist system. That’s just sad.
5. The bottom line is that the market is not the best answer to every problem, despite your protests to the contrary. “Socialism” in the form of pooling our resources is sometimes the best solution, and government is sometimes a very good mechanism for this. There is a reason that we have a government, and it is to do what the market cannot. Effective and affordable health care for all Americans will not happen without further government action. It is perverse for a government that has publicly funded fire and police systems designed to protect the property of all citizens to be restrained from providing the corollary services to protect the very lives of the people.
Neither pure socialism nor pure capitalism is desirable. In the case of health care, socialist solutions are the best solutions.
Peace.
DS
@97. David Schor: – When it comes to health insurance, collectivism is the nature of the beast.
Zippy, as usual, you argue from a position of abject ignorance and false choice fallacy. The core of your “argument” is that the market can’t provide routine health care in the same way it has provided for every OTHER routine cost of living. This is utter, demonstrable nonsense. There IS no free market in health care and there IS no free market in health care insurance. Both have been distorted – by socialist, government meddling – beyond anything remotely resembling “free”.
As already demonstrated – go look up the statutes – collectivism has been forced on Americans by its government when it comes to paying for health care, first with Medicare, then Medicaid, then HMOs. The fact is that it’s all you’ve ever known in your short, unproductive, sheltered life. You’ve actively avoided resisting the indoctrination of your college experience and actively avoided learning the history that would shatter your assumptions, which leaves your thinking (so-called) trapped inside a tiny box on this subject.
- Without tax breaks for employer provided health care, millions more would do without coverage.
Your statement is not only wrong, it’s stupid. First, employers don’t provide health care – clear evidence that you don’t understand the difference between health CARE and health care INSURANCE. Second, are millions going without auto insurance because employers don’t get a tax break for providing it? No.
Removing the cost-ratcheting tax incentive to collectivize insurance will allow for more real competition between insurers, and it will also make individual, high-deductible / low premium policies more attractive – which utilizes insurance to do what it is designed to do instead of allowing it to ratchet costs of health care up continuously.
- Medicare represents a vast improvement in living standards for most elderly persons.
Improvement over what? Your false choice of “no health care at all”? Try a different straw man, Zippy. You’ve obviously never USED Medicare or had to care for an elderly parent (let alone more than one) who was forced to live based on the whims of the Medicare system. I have. It’s a nightmare. One or more expensive supplemental policies are required to even come close to the comprehensive level of coverage provided by most private industry plans, and dealing with the bureaucracy of the Medicare system is a full-time job for someone who uses it at all. And it’s impossible to simply opt out of the scam and put one’s own money toward paying for routine health care directly. The government won’t let you.
ALL Medicare recipients are forced – through outright government extortion – to use Medicare. If the government were interested in fiscal responsibility and promoting competition, as they claim to be, they would not force retirees to forfeit their Social Security benefits when they opt not to pay Medicare premiums and use a different, better plan.
Claiming that Medicare is a “vast improvement” over the alternatives – when the alternative is to use one’s own money to choose how to provide for one’s own health – reflects a fundamental inability to think – the hallmark of moral adolescence.
- The chimera of “affordable individual health insurance” is not an argument.
Who said it was an “argument”? Oh – that would be you. And we can apply your criticism to “affordable mortgages” just as easily. Try reading what I wrote again – this time for comprehension. I haven’t used it as an “argument”. I observe that the government has destroyed the market’s ability to provide it in ANY form.
- The problems you have identified with private for-profit insurance are related to the perverse incentives of profit in this sector.
Wrong. Every business in a capitalist economy operates on profit. Take an economics course. All prices rise to the level the market will bear. When the market is corrupted – as in when collectivist schemes are used to pay for routine cost-of-living expenses – the downward pressure on price is removed. the result is exactly what we’ve seen over the past 40-odd years: skyrocketing health care costs. Read a book.
- Health insurance should be a non-profit enterprise, …
Your opinion. That approach was tried with the HMOs. It failed miserably.
- Don’t try to blame socialism for the collateral damage inherent in a capitalist system.
The damage isn’t inherent in capitalism. The damage is inherent in a capitalist system that has been corrupted by creeping socialism, as I’ve already explained.
- The bottom line is that the market is not the best answer to every problem, …
The bottom line – as you’ve been instructed ad nauseam – is that right now there IS no free market in health care and there IS no free market in health care insurance. There hasn’t been for decades, which is why health care costs have been skyrocketing and are now completely out of control. In fact, the problems with health care costs STARTED when government began meddling in areas of social engineering where it has no express Constitutional authority to do so.
- It is perverse for a government that has publicly funded fire and police systems designed to protect the property of all citizens to be restrained from providing the corollary services to protect the very lives of the people.
That’s solely your opinion and that of other moral adolescents who think with the broken moral framework you rely on. Get a Constitutional Amendment passed giving Congress the express authority to provide every citizen in the nation with “free” health care. Then we’ll talk.
- In the case of health care, socialist solutions are the best solutions.
Absolutely wrong. And Medicare has already proved this. It’s utterly insolvent and is sustained only through outright theft of Taxpayers’ dollars from the general fund and outright extortion that prevents retirees from having ANY choice in their health care. By 2012 Medicare will be sustainable only through deficit spending, which is the very definition of the failure of socialism.
By promoting socialized medicine in the form of Medicare, you’re promoting extortion and theft, which makes you an accessory to the crimes the government is committing on a daily basis.
Go back to school and take something practical this time, Zippy. Maybe you’ll grow a clue as to what works – and what works best. Socialism isn’t on either the list.
Goy…
It is unfortunate for you and your cause that everyone can speak with some civility, except you. As you try to make your point, your inhumanity shows as you personally attack anyone who opposes you. You embody everything that is wrong with a “pure capitalist” society. Greed is the real reason that “pure capitalism” doesn’t work. Greed at the expense of humanity. What you call “straw man fallacies” are in fact not fallacies at all. Pure Capitalism is the fallacy. What capitalism needs is oversight by real people who’s number one concern is not making money, but the greater good of humanity.
-you say…Since the 1930s, the U.S. has grown slowly more socialist with each passing decade. As that has happened, we’ve also grown deeper in debt, more distrusted and disliked abroad, more conflicted within, fatter, lazier, more apathetic, more emotionally disturbed, more medicated and more ignorant. Capitalism was not the cause of all that.
In fact the absolute opposite is true. This country’s massive corporate takeover began in the early 1900s, and in fact capitalism is the absolute cause of every problem you have listed.
99. Human: – It is unfortunate for you and your cause that everyone can speak with some civility, except you.
You obviously haven’t met your fellow leftist asshat Moho. And your ad hominem detour fails to dispute anything I wrote.
- Greed is the real reason that “pure capitalism” doesn’t work.
Wrong. Capitalism – when left to its own closed-loop function – is the ONLY economic system that leverages “greed” to improve the quality of life for everyone. Every form of socialism – from fascism to communism – has produced, or is in the process of producing, utter disaster for any nation with a population of any considerable size. And there’s never been any such thing as “pure capitalism”. Right now – especially in America – we have anything but.
- Greed at the expense of humanity.
Greed is not the problem. Greed allowed to flourish in an open-loop social structure like socialism – where the greediest in society are allowed to govern – is the problem.
- What you call “straw man fallacies” are in fact not fallacies at all.
You missed a step. Assertions like that need something to back them up. Yes, a little more than a list of books and web pages you’ve obviously never read.
- Pure Capitalism is the fallacy.
Exactly. There’s never been any such thing.
- What capitalism needs is oversight by real people who’s number one concern is not making money, but the greater good of humanity.
LOL!!! Do you have any idea how pathetically adolescent and naive that sounds? And you think YOU’RE that type of person? You think ANYONE in government is that type of person? Excuse me while I laugh. Out loud.
- In fact the absolute opposite is true.
Keep reciting your socialist indoctrination. It doesn’t change history. Again, you’ve provided exactly no evidence to back this up. Since the 30s, social services, welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, federally mandated HMOs, State mandated entitlements for health care insurance, Social Security Disability Insurance and a laundry list of entitlement programs for everyone from former drug addicts to people “too depressed” to work have turned America into one of the most socialist nations on the planet. Approximately 1/3 of the nation pays ALL of the income tax that goes into funding all those programs for all 300 Million+ citizens (plus millions of illegals) PLUS all of the functions the federal government actually has the authority to perform – like the military, etc. If you ever get your head screwed on straight, open your eyes, get a job and learn what it’s like to actually contribute, you’ll find that out.
@98. goy:
Not only are you rude, you have a habit of reverting to your talking points rather than addressing the arguments you post in reply to.
You claim that the market is proven, but take the case of public fire departments. Market solutions and incentives are a proven failure in this realm because profit perverts the mission. Moreover, no market is truly free – your solution is a straw man.
”…collectivism has been forced on Americans by its government when it comes to paying for health care, first with Medicare, then Medicaid, then HMOs.”
it’s called representative government. You have an interesting concept of ‘force’ if you think this is an example. You accuse me of narrow mindedness, but your market fantasy is pure nonsense.
“…are millions going without auto insurance because employers don’t get a tax break for providing it? No.”
Car insurance is mandatory. Do you support a mandate for health insurance, or is this another fantasy of yours?
- Medicare represents a vast improvement in living standards for most elderly persons.
“Improvement over what? Your false choice of “no health care at all”?”
This is not a false choice. No access to health care is daily reality for millions.
“If the government were interested in fiscal responsibility and promoting competition, as they claim to be, they would not force retirees to forfeit their Social Security benefits when they opt not to pay Medicare premiums and use a different, better plan.”
Sounds like an elementary version of means testing to me. Paying out of pocket is not possible for most.
“Every business in a capitalist economy operates on profit.”
Yes. This is the problem. Ever wonder why police & fire protection are public? Profit is a bad motivator for some ‘businesses’.
“All prices rise to the level the market will bear.”
Yet another problem, as millions can’t afford the market rate, with or without distortion.
- Health insurance should be a non-profit enterprise, …
“Your opinion. That approach was tried with the HMOs. It failed miserably.”
That’s why I support single payer, which is a proven solution. Care to give me your reasons that I should prefer a market solution?
- Don’t try to blame socialism for the collateral damage inherent in a capitalist system.
“The damage isn’t inherent in capitalism. The damage is inherent in a capitalist system that has been corrupted by creeping socialism, as I’ve already explained.”
Yes, the damage is part of how a market works. The market does not strive for improved care – merely improved profitability.
- The bottom line is that the market is not the best answer to every problem, …
“The bottom line – as you’ve been instructed ad nauseam – is that right now there IS no free market in health care and there IS no free market in health care insurance.”
There never was and never will be, either, thankfully.
- It is perverse for a government that has publicly funded fire and police systems designed to protect the property of all citizens to be restrained from providing the corollary services to protect the very lives of the people.
“That’s solely your opinion and that of other moral adolescents who think with the broken moral framework you rely on.”
Yeah, showing concern for my fellows clearly indicates a ‘broken moral framework’. Do you believe the BS you keep repeating?
- In the case of health care, socialist solutions are the best solutions.
“Absolutely wrong.”
Your unsupportable opinion.
“By promoting socialized medicine in the form of Medicare, you’re promoting extortion and theft, which makes you an accessory to the crimes the government is committing on a daily basis.”
You show how ignorant you are so clearly, it is stunning. Medicare is not a criminal institution, and if caring is criminal, I plead guilty.
“Go back to school and take something practical this time, Zippy. Maybe you’ll grow a clue as to what works – and what works best. Socialism isn’t on either the list.”
Sounds like your education missed a few points. Try again?
Your local fire department will put out your fires for free, but if you are injured, your care is billed. This makes no sense. Health care is not a commodity.
Peace.
DS
@101. David S: – You claim that the market is proven, …
Wrong. Learn to READ. Try harder not to LIE.
I’ve never made such a claim, Zippy. What I observe – based on the documented facts – is that we DO NOT HAVE a functional, free market for health care OR health care insurance right now.
Functional markets keep all other routine, costs of living relatively affordable. But routine health care costs are skyrocketing at rates multiple times that of inflation because of the insane manner in which we pay for those goods and services – which are no more or less critical than food, water, shelter or clothing. A functional, free market for health care has not existed since 1965, when the federal government saw fit to engage in social engineering that is not within its area of authority.
- it’s called representative government.
No. It’s called overweening government.
- Car insurance is mandatory.
For no justifiable reason. And you’ve deliberately evaded the point. Again.
- No access to health care is daily reality for millions.
This contention is not supported with any real evidence. There isn’t a single person in this country who has “no access to health care”. Access to health care is available everywhere. What we do is we effectively hand control of that access over to an insurance company with the insane way we pay for it – and then we let THEM decide whether they’ll pay for it or not. And of course that has absolutely nothing to do with your claim that Medicare is an “improvement”, which you have as yet utterly failed to demonstrate.
- Sounds like an elementary version of means testing to me.
That’s because you’re a woefully ignorant, willfully blind, gullible partisan shill Zippy. Ignore it or deconstruct it all you like, but extortion is extortion. Pretending it’s “means testing” – elementary or otherwise – is the height of intellectual dishonesty – hallmark of the socialist left.
- Ever wonder why police & fire protection are public?
No, I’ve never wondered at that at all, since the reason has always been crystal clear. Unlike you, I learned along time ago not to confuse fire and police departments with businesses. They’re public services, funded by my taxes and intended to provide for general law and order and limit extensive property damage in case of a fire inasmuch as is possible.
Routine health care – especially that care provided to prevent serious health problems – is an individual service that must be provided by someone else for a fee. No police department provides individual protection against criminal threats – they will only investigate after a crime has been committed. If you want individual protection you have to contract for that service, for a fee. Likewise, no fire department provides individual protection from fire. If you want individual protection against fire, you have to figure out how to contract for that service, for a fee.
In fact, if your home (or, in your case, your tenement) must be allowed to burn to the ground in order to save the rest of a neighborhood, you’ll find out very quickly just how much individual “protection” you get from the fire department when they tell you to call your insurance company to cover the loss.
- Yet another problem, as millions can’t afford the market rate, with or without distortion.
Wrong again.
First, as you’ve been instructed over and over, the “market” rate is not a market rate at all – it’s a distorted rate based on skyrocketing prices caused by federal meddling in the health care market. Keep ignoring that – the facts won’t change just because you WANT them to.
Second, you’ve failed to show that “millions” can’t afford routine health care. The truth is that the entire nation has been trained to believe that it’s someone else’s responsibility to pay for it.
Third, you’ve failed to show that routine health care would be so expensive without the market distortion imposed by socialist federal policies. The fact is that BEFORE those policies were enacted, routine health care costs were in line with all OTHER routine costs of living. Again, try to ignore that fact, but it’s not going away. Your assertion is absurd on its face.
- That’s why I support single payer, which is a proven solution.
Proven infeasible – by the insolvency of Medicare, and the fact that it is only sustained through criminal government actions amounting to outright extortion and theft.
- …the damage is part of how a market works. The market does not strive for improved care – merely improved profitability.
Which would be why we’ve never seen any medical/technological innovation responsible for extending life, developing new antibiotics, new vaccines, improving quality of life, reducing hospital stays, curing diseases, and all the rest… OH, WAIT!!! No, as it turns out we have seen ALL those improvements in care, and the actual truth is that you don’t have the slightest frelling clue what you’re talking about.
- showing concern for my fellows clearly indicates a ‘broken moral framework’.
You’re not showing concern for anyone, Zippy. You’re on a tribal, partisan bandwagon intent on extorting the elderly and committing theft against working people who actually pay income tax – all in keeping with your religious devotion to socialist dogma. That you don’t realize this is due to your own morally adolescent delusions.
- Medicare is not a criminal institution, …
All evidence to the contrary. It extorts money from the elderly on pain of losing Social Security benefits. It steals Taxpayers’ dollars from the general fund to stay operational. You can pretend you don’t understand this all you like, it doesn’t change anything.
- Your local fire department will put out your fires for free, …
See, this is one of the inconvenient truths you socialist trolls keep ignoring: IT’S NOT FREE, D!PSH!T. It’s only “free” – to you – if you don’t pay anything in income tax or other taxes to support it. But it’s not “free” – someone has to pay for it.
I pay exorbitant property taxes and State income taxes so the city can maintain police, fire and public works departments. To date I have exactly NOTHING to show for the tens of thousands of dollars I’ve forked over. In the few cases where my property has been stolen or vandalized, or dead fish in the nearby lake has posed a public health hazard, the police department has done exactly nothing to prevent, recover or compensate for the loss or damage and the city maintenance has declined to clean up the mess because it’s on “private property” – property owned by an influential friend of the mayor, which means that the hazard remains because no one will enforce the local health regulations. And as for the fire department, there’s no guarantee whatsoever that they’d show up in time to prevent a total loss if a fire ever DOES occur.
You’re suffering from some very, very serious delusional fantasies, Zippy. So serious that you’ve invented lie upon lie to “validate” your distorted view of the world. And it doesn’t look like you’re ever going to recover.
@102. goy:
What I observe – based on the documented facts – is that we DO NOT HAVE a functional, free market for health care OR health care insurance right now.
Agreed. What you fail to observe is that a perfect free market is impossible, and a functional free market never has existed for health care or health insurance. It is a chimera. It is not a solution.
Functional markets keep all other routine, costs of living relatively affordable.
A functional market is not the same thing as a free market – they are mutually exclusive.
Most of us buy our water from a public source, guaranteed to meet mandated standards. Most of us buy a house that has been inspected and deemed safe by public authorities, and pay taxes thereon to provide public fire, police and other services. Food stamps are not “free market”, but they do function to keep food on the tables of people who would otherwise go hungry.
Public solutions make sense sometimes.
There isn’t a single person in this country who has “no access to health care”. Access to health care is available everywhere.
That’s funny. Last time I went to the ER, I had to fill out insurance paperwork first . No treatment for my broken teeth until the payment was assured. Access to health care means nothing if you have no money and no insurance. It is a lie.
Medicare is an improvement because it eliminates the problem of uninsured or uninsurable persons, and removes the economic hardship that would otherwise attend care for elders. Expanding the system to cover the less-expensive health care of younger citizens will help in the long run to make it a solvent system. That’s what this reform will ultimately accomplish. Medicare is an improvement according to those who receive care – they rate it higher than the customers of private insurance rate their care.
Ignore it or deconstruct it all you like, but extortion is extortion.
The government has the power to tax. You can call that extortion, but it is also perfectly legal. Deal with it.
- Ever wonder why police & fire protection are public?
No, I’ve never wondered at that at all, since the reason has always been crystal clear. Unlike you, I learned along time ago not to confuse fire and police departments with businesses. They’re public services, funded by my taxes and intended to provide for general law and order and limit extensive property damage in case of a fire inasmuch as is possible.
That’s right – public services intended to provide for the general welfare – just like health care.
Routine health care – especially that care provided to prevent serious health problems – is an individual service that must be provided by someone else for a fee.
Why? Why should it not be a universal service provided for by a single-payer health care system like all other civilized countries have? I don’t have a problem with your private fire protection contract, but I still think the public fire department is a superior solution. Just as I don’t mind if you want to buy private coverage, but I still think the public option is a superior solution.
…you’ve failed to show that “millions” can’t afford routine health care. The truth is that the entire nation has been trained to believe that it’s someone else’s responsibility to pay for it.
I’ve linked to the statistics before, and I know that you can operate a web browser. Millions can’t even afford to feed themselves – health care is a fantasy for the working poor in this country. Health care was inexpensive before the technological innovation of this century, and the massive efforts poured into extending life. It is still relatively inexpensive in all the countries that have universal systems. You are being willfully duplicitous to blame Medicare for the failures of the private insurance market in the USA to contain costs. The problem is profit.
- That’s why I support single payer, which is a proven solution.
Proven infeasible – by the insolvency of Medicare, and the fact that it is only sustained through criminal government actions amounting to outright extortion and theft.
Medicare is not single payer. Are you even reading what you write?
See, this is one of the inconvenient truths you socialist trolls keep ignoring: IT’S NOT FREE, D!PSH!T. It’s only “free” – to you – if you don’t pay anything in income tax or other taxes to support it. But it’s not “free” – someone has to pay for it.
Health care, like fire and police, should not be funded at the point of service. It would be like a police officer asking for payment prior to investigating a theft. Can you not see the corrupting influence of money in this scenario? There should be no cost to call on the services of firemen, police and paramedics.
I pay exorbitant property taxes and State income taxes so the city can maintain police, fire and public works departments. To date I have exactly NOTHING to show for the tens of thousands of dollars I’ve forked over.
You are now complaining because you have not had the pleasure of a serious crime or fire on your property? This is like complaining about not getting sick enough to use your catastrophic health insurance.
Your devotion to the imaginary “free market” aside, the best solution for health care remains a single payer system. Administrative expenses and profit are the source of immense waste in our current private system, which has proven to be no more effective than public systems elsewhere, while costing twice as much, and failing to cover millions of working and unemployed citizens.
Single payer saves money, saves lives, and will also save Medicare. That’s why health reform will pass.
Peace.
DS
@103. David S: – Agreed. What you fail to observe is that a perfect free market is impossible, …
Wrong again and / or lying again. You pick.
There’s no such thing as a “perfect” free market. And arguing based on a premise of unreal perfection is just a dodge – another hallmark of the socialist left.
The health care market and health care insurance market prior to the government’s socialist policies were functional, free markets. The key factor being that prices were set by agreement between provider and consumer – not by some monopolistic or quasi-monopolistic broker, or (as with Medicare) by the government.
Right now, there is nothing even close to a free market in health care. All prices are set by a collection of insurance companies, or by the government’s Medicare reimbursement schedule.
There are plenty of markets for other routine costs of living and commodities that keep goods and services for water, food, clothes, cars, gas, consumer electronics, appliances, personal hygiene items, housing, sporting goods, guns, books, ammunition, chiropractic services, magazines, newspapers, window treatments, carpeting, internet access, hairdressing services, auto maintenance, shoe repair, telephone, house painting, take-out pizza, etc., all relatively affordable. Claim free markets don’t work all you like – these markets prove otherwise. NONE of the these commodity markets are experiencing the out-of-control price increases seen in health care, because health care is the ONLY routine cost of living we pay for with other peoples’ money, using a completely bogus medium of exchange: group insurance.
- Most of us buy our water from a public source, guaranteed to meet mandated standards.
Nice fantasy.
Around here we pay a separate, non-tax “fee” for water and sewer use. That’s over and above property taxes. That publicly supplied water is virtually undrinkable. It turns the faucets green, the toilets, tubs and showers brown and it isn’t fit for a pet. It’s not “guaranteed” to be anything, contrary to what you may have fantasized in your naive and gullible little dreamland.
Hereabouts you either need a carbon-activated, whole-house water filter, in which case you incur installation and monthly filter replacement costs (all purchased at affordable market rates) OR you purchase bottled water from a local distributor for a going rate that is determined by mutual, market agreement between consumers and providers. The fee demanded by the city, on the other hand, is non-negotiable. You pay it or they turn off your water. You complain that the water quality is crap, they ignore you.
- Most of us buy a house that has been inspected …
You don’t buy the house from the inspector, Zippy. Try to stay focused.
- Food stamps are not “free market”, …
No. They’re welfare. Funded by the taxpayer. Food stamps are a way of making people dependent on the State. They are an artificial increase in income that results in a corresponding artificial increase in the price of food. Once again, federal social engineering corrupts the natural function of the market.
- That’s funny. Last time I went to the ER, I had to fill out insurance paperwork first .
You’re whining about paperwork when the topic is access to health care. You and everyone else in this country has access to health care. Just as you have access to food, clothes, water, shelter, transportation and all the other routine necessities of life. The only stipulation is that YOU have to PAY for that service. No one is required to give it to you free. And no one is required to pay for it on your behalf. Again, I know that you brainwashed socialist trolls have a hard time with this concept, but you really should try.
- Medicare is an improvement because it eliminates the problem of uninsured or uninsurable persons, …
Again, this silly statement demonstrates that you have obviously NEVER had any direct experience with Medicare. It does no such thing.
Medicare has a limited reimbursement schedule just like any other plan. The difference is that Medicare’s reimbursement rates are much lower than private plans’, which means that the quality of care suffers or is not available at all because doctors don’t want the hassle. Supplemental plans – which are quite expensive – are required to fully insure an individual who’s forced into Medicare slavery by the State. Those plans are NOT part of Medicare, and must be paid for separately.
- The government has the power to tax.
Right. And irrelevant. What the government does NOT have the power to do is to take away an entitlement you’ve paid for for fifty years simply because you don’t want to use their sh!tty Medicare plan. That’s extortion, and the DHHS is being called on it:
- That’s right – public services intended to provide for the general welfare – just like health care.
No. Health care is not a “public” service, it’s an individual service. You’ve provided nothing that equates health care with public services. We already have public health departments and they already do what government has the mandate to do – which does NOT include providing individual, routine health care services for everyone at taxpayers’ expense.
- Why? Why should it not be a universal service provided for by a single-payer health care system…
The question is moot. The fact is that the government doesn’t have the authority to implement this. Get an amendment passed and we’ll talk. If you’re so cocksure this is the “right” thing to do, and that it’s obvious that it’s the best “solution” to a crisis no one was worried about until the feds threatened to seize control of the health care system, then you should have no problem whatsoever getting that amendment passed. Right? So do it. Or stop whining about it.
The fact is you CAN’T get such an amendment passed, and you know it. That’s because Medicare has already proved that a government-run system is not a feasible solution, because the only way Medicare stays operational is through criminal extortion and theft. A so-called “universal” system will just be more of the same, only several orders of magnitude worse. And that doesn’t even begin to address all the liberties at risk of being legislated once the government can claim they adversely affect the cost of health care. You’re a naive fool if you don’t recognize this.
- I’ve linked to the statistics before, …
If you’re going to make an idiotic assertion, back it up yourself. Don’t expect others to do it for you.
- Medicare is not single payer.
Clearly you don’t even understand the meaning of the term. SINGLE. PAYER. As in: all claims for medical services are paid through a single government program – in this case, Medicare.
The blindingly obvious flaw in your position here is that, with Medicare, other supplemental plans are required to maintain truly comprehensive coverage equivalent to a private plan. Those supplemental plans must be purchased from private insurers and they kick in to cover the sizable portion of many services that Medicare doesn’t. Don’t try to kid me on this, Zippy. I’ve dealt with this issue directly for three different elderly individuals over the course of 30 years in the aggregate. The notion that anyone would choose Medicare if they had an option is patently absurd. The fact is: they don’t have a choice. See above.
- Health care, like fire and police, should not be funded at the point of service.
That’s your idiotic, unsupportable opinion, driven by your mindless devotion to socialist dogma. Before government screwed up the health care market, this model worked just fine – just as it does for all other routine goods and services. And again – the fire department does not put out fires “for free”. Try to get that through your thick skull and past your obtuse aversion to reality.
- It would be like a police officer asking for payment prior to investigating a theft.
They ARE paid prior to investigating thefts, Zippy!! They get paid weekly, bi-weekly or monthly – whether they investigate any thefts or not! That’s the difference between municipal services provided for the general welfare and privately contracted services provided for the individual. Geez, are you THAT completely ignorant of what’s going on around you?
- You are now complaining because you have not had the pleasure of a serious crime or fire on your property? This is like complaining about not getting sick enough to use your catastrophic health insurance.
Clearly, your tuition was a complete waste of money, Zippy.
Look – if I decide to purchase catastrophic health insurance, I do so of my own free will. It’s MY CHOICE, and it’s MY DECISION to manage my own financial risk in that way. Taxes, on the other hand, are universally collected at the point of a gun or by threat of imprisonment, or both. There is no choice involved. The fact that you don’t see this, let alone understand it, demonstrates why your position on all this is so delusional. Likely you’ve never paid property tax on anything in your life, so you really have no experience with how this works. You’re relying solely on the socialist indoctrination you underwent in college to come up with solutions you don’t understand for problems you don’t comprehend.
- Single payer saves money, …
No, it doesn’t. And Medicare has already proved this. Other than that one system, there is no “single payer” system in America right now that can be used as a benchmark, so your claim that “single payer saves money” is completely bogus AND based on nothing. The very fact that you believe government is capable of “saving money” in any endeavor – compared to private enterprise – demonstrates once again how completely naive and ignorant you are about real life.
I am beginning to feel like people who do not want the social benefits of living in a country that cares about it’s people, should not have access to public services.
When your house is on fire, please feel free to call around and get pricing for putting it out. And when you house is being robbed, hire a private firm to come take care of you.
And when you get sick with cancer or injured in an accident that is not your fault, please feel free to pay whatever some corporate bigwig who is just trying to line his pockets with your hard earned money, to drop you from your insurance just because it is what is cost effective.
The rest of us can choose to not live this way.
Perspective is the key to life.
Get some please.
@105. HUMAN: – I am beginning to feel like people who do not want the social benefits of living in a country that cares about it’s people, should not have access to public services.
Well I’m beginning to feel like people who aren’t willing to carry their end of the log and contribute income tax to PAY for the enormous piles of social benefits we already have should not have access to public services or any OTHER benefit provided by the federal government. We clear?
- Perspective is the key to life. Get some please.
Best take your own advice. Clearly you haven’t a clue what it means to carry individual responsibility for your own needs and those you choose to bring into this world.
@ 106. goy:
Well I’m beginning to feel like people who aren’t willing to carry their end of the log and contribute income tax to PAY for the enormous piles of social benefits we already have should not have access to public services or any OTHER benefit provided by the federal government. We clear?
You are spouting nonsense. Poor folks are not big tax dodgers. We all are subject to the same tax code, and we each have one vote in electing representatives to decide how it gets written. Unless you are simply advocating denial of services for tax dodgers (which already exists), you’ve gone overboard.
Clearly you haven’t a clue what it means to carry individual responsibility for your own needs and those you choose to bring into this world.
Clearly you haven’t a clue what it means to carry individual responsibility for your citizenship in a Republic.
Peace.
DS
Zippy, you lied, you got caught, you got pwned.
Your commentary is irrelevant.
@108. goy:
Your commentary is irrelevant.
You can make that claim on your own blog, and you can refuse to post my comments there because you can’t handle criticism.
Here on PJM, your opinion is just not that important. You can keep on claiming that I lied – but the truth is I just keep on pointing out the shortcomings in your argument, and you keep pretending you have an answer. This will probably go on for some time.
Peace.
DS
You lied. You got caught. You got pwned.
You’ve rendered your own commentary irrelevant, Zippy.
1) What were the reasons behind declining coverage for the hip surgery? Certain
Surgeries are declined by doctors because they are unneeded or will cause more
Harm than good on an older person.
2) Insurance companies deny people treatment all the time, we have our own american
Version of death panels already.
3) Socialized coverage works in other countries, Canada is a poor example, check out the Swiss or the Japanese! Plus, we already pay for the unisured, when someone ends up in the emergency room and can’t pay their bills. That’s over 40 million people who are uninsured!
4) Our current health care system lags behind other developed nations at something like
22nd? Don’t believe me? Look it up!
You actually make it appear so easy along with your presentation however I in finding this topic to be actually something which I believe I’d never understand. It seems too complicated and very huge for me. I’m looking ahead for your next submit, I will attempt to get the dangle of it!