Another clueless right winger exposing his side as vapid, unable to understand the difference between the basic necessity of healthvare and an extra nice car. Just clueless.
Another clueless right winger exposing his side as vapid, unable to understand the difference between the basic necessity of healthvare and an extra nice car. Just clueless.
That brings up an interesting scenario. Depriving death-row inmates of health care constitutes as cruel and unusual punishment. Depriving death-row inmates 3 square meals a day also constitutes as cruel and unusual punishment.
Thus not only is health care a right to every human, 3 daily meals are also a right and should be provided free of charge by the US Government. It should probably throw in a gym membership too since death-row inmates probably get to work out as well.
- Oct 9, 1999
- 46,894
- 10,714
- 147
I'm not interested in playing the semantic game of whether health care is a "right" or not, but it certainly is a utilitarian good. A healthy populace benefits us all, and costs less in the long run, too.
A healthy populace is like an educated poplulace is like a well informed populace . . . everybody benefits.
A healthy populace is like an educated poplulace is like a well informed populace . . . everybody benefits.
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
Is health care a "right"? NO. You cannot have a "right" that requires that someone else be enslaved (losing his rights) in order to provide it to you.
Rather, health care is a great value.
Here is the problem there is a large segment of the population who don't give a shit about their health. Those people will suck dry the tax payers with high medical costs thanks to not giving a shit. UHC is great in theory but just can't work for this country at this time. Maybe when things change we can look at the issue again.
One more time. If:
"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."
And if that statement were true by treaty, as I suggested, could somebody seriously argue that health care isn't a right?
"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."
And if that statement were true by treaty, as I suggested, could somebody seriously argue that health care isn't a right?
the problem is when you start paying doctors the same wages as one would a fast food chain manager then you start getting less talented doctors...plus one would have to assume the cost of medical school goes down as well, as I would be damned if I were to swollow hundreds of thousands in school loans to make 55K.
Mass has state mandated healthcare, and I have yet to meet someone who is happy about it in a lower income job. They are all pissed that the plans are still more money than they want to spend and the coverage sucks
If the govt cannot even deal with Social Security or the whole Mortgage meltdown in a decisive manner I really shudder to think about what they will do to healthcare
That's a lot of rambling and lying all wrapped up in one post.
It's pretty obvious you are torn as you should be.
You are promoting as most rich Republicans do that poor people should just die.
I bolded your conflict and lies.
People are dying even those that have paid for insurance while going bankruot.
The reason is because your precious heros never get enough.
You do realize that even with paid insurance they stop health care right?
Of course you do and you have been called on the carpet because enough people are negatively affected by this as I said it would happen.
That's not the gov't's responsibility. Heck, if it were, the gov't could and should prohibit all sorts of behavior, such as smoking, which results in needless deaths. The gov't should ensure only that we do not die unlawfully.
If a government has a duty to protect its citizens from unlawful death, why doesn't it have a duty to protect its citizens from disease or injury? Where in the Constitution does it spell out that difference?
-Robert
If someone's actions are deliberately resulting in your disease or injury, then government (a term which is a misnomer - there is no seperate entity called "government" - government is merely us) should step in to stop that person, but if you just get sick due to natural causes, how is anyone else responsible for, or even able to stop, that? What do you expect me to do, exactly?
What I would like (I expect nothing.) you to do is give the source of your reasoning. Standing alone, your reasoning is not supported by our Constitution. Why should government protect you from lawbreakers and not germs or viruses? Should government require efficacious medicines only be sold? Should government require that water be purified for drinking? That roads be constructed with safety in mind? That cars be built with safeguards to protect the passengers and others?
What you've done is erected an artificial barrier to nationalized medicine. This is an artificial cultural barrier your brain has accepted, but it's irrational. You accept pure water, safe roads, your fire department, police, school teachers, etc., but you won't accept a doctor employed by the government? I trust you aren't a veteran, like me!
Your position seems weak and untenable in the absence of a supporting framework. You've simply bought the extant orthodoxy of the right wing in America. Republicans opposed Medicare, and are still trying to kill it. LOL. McCain has opposed almost every single bill for veterans because he's opposed to the federal government's involvement in providing care for soldiers. It's an irrational fear and silliness, IMHO. Yet, McCain is perfectly willing to provide a bailout for homeowners if it means he will get elected, and he will ship $700 billion to Wall Street to socialize Wall Street.
Consistency, thou art a jewel!
-Robert
When was the government's duty to ensure we don't die unlawfully established?
http://www.allsafedefense.com/news/CopsDontProtect.htm
Who cares. It's the government's duty to ensure we live up to treaties we sign. Your agrument against a right to healthcare would sound silly if we put "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." in a treaty and signed it.
Insurance is merely a vehicle to receive and fund healthcare. Healthcare insurance is a very modern concept, healthcare has been around since man has. Our founding fathers certainly didn't think healthcare was a right, so by extension neither do I.
The fundamental problem facing us and the world isn't healthcare. It's technology and it's impact on it.
Healthcare used to be constrained by the availabillity of a doctor, and the primitive tools and drugs available. Now those limitations have been removed, and most anything can be cured/treated/improved upon if we only throw more money at it. Until you get at the root problem of "unlimited" healthcare, we'll only continue to spiral downward.
The fundamental problem facing us and the world isn't healthcare. It's technology and it's impact on it.
Healthcare used to be constrained by the availabillity of a doctor, and the primitive tools and drugs available. Now those limitations have been removed, and most anything can be cured/treated/improved upon if we only throw more money at it. Until you get at the root problem of "unlimited" healthcare, we'll only continue to spiral downward.
1. It woudn't have.
2. You didn't actually read the article, since it mentions the precedent to the line of thinking dates back to 1856.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,402
- 8,574
- 126
health care would involve people actually quitting smoking, eating right, and exercising. people don't want that. they want a pill that cures all. and the doctors have done a damn fine job over the past century convincing people that they are the way to health. but all doctors can do is practice medicine.
anyway, medical care is scare because there are only so many doctors to go around, there are only so many nurses to go around, and there are only so many other resources that may be converted into medical care. medical care is scarce just like all other goods. economics 101. the resources available to man are finite and must be rationed.
even if gore had been elected you can't assume he'd have had the opportunity to appoint a new justice to the supreme court by the time that case was decided. between the appointment of breyer and the death of rehnquist later that year, the court was the same for 11 straight years.
sactoking
Diamond Member
- Sep 24, 2007
- 7,649
- 2,925
- 136
in·sur·ance /?n'???r?ns, -'??r-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-shoor-uhns, -shur-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
?noun
1. the act, system, or business of insuring property, life, one's person, etc., against loss or harm arising in specified contingencies, as fire, accident, death, disablement, or the like, in consideration of a payment proportionate to the risk involved.
2. coverage by contract in which one party agrees to indemnify or reimburse another for loss that occurs under the terms of the contract.
3. the contract itself, set forth in a written or printed agreement or policy.
4. the amount for which anything is insured.
5. an insurance premium.
6. any means of guaranteeing against loss or harm: Taking vitamin C is viewed as an insurance against catching colds.
Health insurance is NOT a 'right'.
1. If it were, the consideration would not be in proportion to the risk, as "UHC"-style plans are inevitably subsidized by other revenue sources. Additionally, on an individual basis, many people would be subsidizing few.
2. Contractual relationships are not a right.
3. Not a right
4. Not pertinent
5. Not pertinent
6. Maybe the closest way you can define 'insurance' as a 'right'. It still fails, though, as even other 'rights', like help from the police, often are not guaranteed.
?noun
1. the act, system, or business of insuring property, life, one's person, etc., against loss or harm arising in specified contingencies, as fire, accident, death, disablement, or the like, in consideration of a payment proportionate to the risk involved.
2. coverage by contract in which one party agrees to indemnify or reimburse another for loss that occurs under the terms of the contract.
3. the contract itself, set forth in a written or printed agreement or policy.
4. the amount for which anything is insured.
5. an insurance premium.
6. any means of guaranteeing against loss or harm: Taking vitamin C is viewed as an insurance against catching colds.
Health insurance is NOT a 'right'.
1. If it were, the consideration would not be in proportion to the risk, as "UHC"-style plans are inevitably subsidized by other revenue sources. Additionally, on an individual basis, many people would be subsidizing few.
2. Contractual relationships are not a right.
3. Not a right
4. Not pertinent
5. Not pertinent
6. Maybe the closest way you can define 'insurance' as a 'right'. It still fails, though, as even other 'rights', like help from the police, often are not guaranteed.
I'm convinced we could get it to pass. We just need to get it into treaty form, say with Canada, like I said, but I bet nations all over the world would sign on.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter