I delight to inform you that you do not have a right to healthcare

In response to our future doctor here (God, our care system is in trouble), you are already a leech, your dumbass goddess Ayn Rand was a leech and just about everyone in this good old country, especially our self-rightous "hard-working" right-wing friends, is a convincing leech.

Please, I hope you are not really going to be a doctor, we are all in trouble if this is true; this implies that thought and intelligence are no longer required for such "advanced degrees".

Remember, you never earn anything all by yourself, the "hard" work you have put into the system is not even a terd on a dung-pile.

Are you so ignorant to think that we do not already pay for peoples health care if they can not afford it? Of course we do - so let's be "up front" about it and try to bring the cost down. You are so gullible!!!

Just to clarify - you say compassion and altruism are incompatible and I am the one who is "dumb"?

flaster wrote:

Are you so ignorant to think that we do not already pay for peoples health care if they can not afford it? Of course we do - so let's be "up front" about it and try to bring the cost down. You are so gullible!!![quote]the sayer of so wrote:

Yes we do. And we need to stop.

But do I have the right to vote for someone who promises to offer universal health insurance? And if a majority of people join me in voting for that candidate, do they have a right to enact that law?

Seems to me the answer to both questions is yes (it's called "democracy"), and that's far more important than debating a straw man about some sort of "natural right" to health care.

I don't mind stealing bread

From the mouths of decadence

But I can't feed on the powerless

When my cup's already overfilled

wilfredo wrote:

I don't mind stealing bread

From the mouths of decadence

But I can't feed on the powerless

When my cup's already overfilled

I live in Seattle. Shut the f*ck up. That is a horrible song, made by horrible musicians.

While I don't agree with everything "sayer" has said, he has a valid point. First off, most government provided services are performed by people who do not have a high level of education and are thus replaceable. It is easy to nationalize "road-paving" and policing, because if one guy says "this sucks, I want to get paid more, he is simply replaced by someone else". Healthcare is the exact opposite. Physician's, PT's, physician's assistants, and high level nurses all go through a lot of training, and thus their services are much more in demand. If we attempt to nationalize healthcare, private groups of the more elite physicians will just bud off and sell their services to the wealthy. It would be impossible to prevent this from happening, and it would essentially create a more fd up system than exists now, where the really good doctors are treating the wealthy, and the bad ones are treating the poor. The reason America has shitty health is because we don't sleep enough, don't exercise, get fat, and eat like shit. We still have respectable stats in spite of all this, because America has the best medical training in the world. A lot of the top foreign medical students try and get residencies in America because of this.

bootsie wrote:

wilfredo wrote:

I don't mind stealing bread

From the mouths of decadence

But I can't feed on the powerless

When my cup's already overfilled

I live in Seattle. Shut the f*ck up. That is a horrible song, made by horrible musicians.

You're a better judge of collective responsibility because you live in Seattle and don't like Chris Cornell? A line of argumentation I hadn't considered, and a good one at that. Thread over.

"I delight to inform you.."

I am "delighted" to inform you...

:clap: :clap: :clap: for the ruhtard

Your whole argument assumes that all of the "top" doctors will buy ino the profit motive and want to be slaves to he rich. Maybe, just maybe the pofit driven doctos are not the best doctors, just beter salesmen, and maybe there could be a significant portion of brilliance that feels the need to contribute to the society that has given him everything he/she has. Did you decide to become a docto for the money? If so I'm sorry to inform you that financially you would have been much better off dropping out of high school and starting your own business.

Haven't been to a doctor in 20 years. Have no health care.

I just run and eat apples and if I get cancer or get in an automobile accident I guess I will die.

lets break it down a bit:

-the US health system is very expensive and very complex

-americans have the most unhealthy lifestyles of any developed nation.

-expanding coverage to 40 million new people WILL increase cost. increase the demand (patients) by 40 million and keep th supply (doctors) fixed prices must increase.

-american is the world's largest and most complex economy (made up of thousands of smaller economies). to limit the health decisions to a few hundred politicians in DC, decisions that will effect many different types of economies, may not be the best idea.

-the us government's record on administration (SS, Medicare, Military, Debt Management, Post Office) is not strong. why will healthcare be different?

-can the US gov't afford this?

-Obama has proposed price controls on premiums. everyone should admit price controls are a poor solution.

ideas:

-provide incentives to live healthier lifestyles (lower demand, lower price).

-eliminate (or reduce) the corporate tax. this will lower the cost of capital, thereby lower consumer prices.

-leave the universal coverage decision to the states. 50 states, 300 million people, like i said many different types of economies. those who feel universal coverage is best can flock to those states.

just a few ideas. lets keep the dialogue open, but leave the emotion, hate, and petty insults to a minimum.

hold the phone wrote:

But do I have the right to vote for someone who promises to offer universal health insurance? And if a majority of people join me in voting for that candidate, do they have a right to enact that law?

Seems to me the answer to both questions is yes (it's called "democracy"), and that's far more important than debating a straw man about some sort of "natural right" to health care.

No, you do not have the right to enact laws that violate the rights of individuals, even if a majority votes in favor of such. The concept of majority rule with no restraints on government function is disgustingly immoral and deadly dangerous. The correct form of government is not a democracy, but a strict constitutional republic with a clear, unambiguous constitution that explicitly forbids any initiation of force by government against citizens.

was listening to multitasking while typing...hence the bad grammar. who even has time to hit the 'shift' key?

McGurk wrote:

Your whole argument assumes that all of the "top" doctors will buy ino the profit motive and want to be slaves to he rich. Maybe, just maybe the pofit driven doctos are not the best doctors, just beter salesmen, and maybe there could be a significant portion of brilliance that feels the need to contribute to the society that has given him everything he/she has. Did you decide to become a docto for the money? If so I'm sorry to inform you that financially you would have been much better off dropping out of high school and starting your own business.

You're profoundly naive if you think that most doctors go into medicine to contribute to society. The great doctors are the ones who go into medicine neither for the money nor the people, but who see medical practice as an end in itself, with money as a pleasant corollary. The doctors who support universal healthcare are the ones who want to capitualite intellectually to established authorities - ones who want to be told how to practice by public health authorities in government and academia. These doctors are dangerous. As a litmus test for how much your doctor really knows about his profession, ask him whether he supports universal healthcare - if he answers in the affirmative, he has a bad orientation with reality and is unfit to practice.

If a child who is born to parents who do not have health care gets cancer, should the state intervene or not? Should that child die?

Can you justify your position here?

What decadent filth. Insurance is a contractual agreement into which one enters VOLUNTARILY, trading value for value with the insurance company and the other enrollees - it is not redistribution. That you would have to resort to such a grotesque distortion of context is clear proof of the weakness of your position.

The problem with unisured people showing up at ERs is an argument for the abolition of laws which require hospitals to treat the uninsured. Let them turn people away at their discretion.

llllll wrote:

If a child who is born to parents who do not have health care gets cancer, should the state intervene or not? Should that child die?

Can you justify your position here?

No, the state should not intervene in this situation.

It's not that the child "deserves" to die, it's that he's shit out of luck. Society is not killing him, nature is.

The only alternative is to sacrifice the principle of individual rights, which occurs at an infinitely greater expense to everyone else than the cost of treating the child. It is an infinitely greater evil to confiscate a rich person's money than to allow a poor child to die.