Universal Healthcare

[Taft]

Check out this story: http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/05/04/health_care/index.html

From it, two big conclusions can be drawn:

1) The US does not have the undisputed best healthcare in the world.
2) We still pay more for our healthcare than any other country. By a far margin.

So we don't have universal healthcare. That must mean the free market will automagically find us all the best prices right? Wrong!

And what does this say to the poor in this country? Since a poor person isn't gaurenteed healthcare here, they will end up paying far more for their healthcare here than in any other country. And what do they get for that extra cost? According to this study, not much.

Since the free market has provided us with neither the best price or in the highest quality in this case, maybe its time to try something else. Does anyone agree?

Taft

[blackfox]

Yes, I think universal healthcare would be wonderful, but in the current political environment, I am at a loss as to how it would happen...lobbying by various elements of our current mediacl system (which gain from the current system) like drug companies, hospitals etc would distort the costs/benefits as well as saying things like "it will stifle innovation..." etc. Also, although many have shown that Universal Healthcare can be acheived at little more than we currently spend, in reality it would probably result in a tax-increase, which is anathema to the public, even if the increase was less than their private insurance premiums...it is a perceptual battle...the rich already can afford top-notch medical, and the poor, may not have the political strength to change things...

[Dont Hurt Me]

I agree, Taft, eliminating the middle man(insurance companies) who make millions or rather billions off the sick and injured would go a long ways to help pay for this. There should be a basic package everyone gets with perhaps options for those who need or want more. Its time to move into the 21st century and not having basic healthcare while we throw billions away in bombs for Iraq just isnt right. Republicans will be screaming!

[skunk]

Check out this story: http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/05/04/health_care/index.html

From it, two big conclusions can be drawn:

1) The US does not have the undisputed best healthcare in the world.
2) We still pay more for our healthcare than any other country. By a far margin.
Taft
I haven't registered to read the article, but I notice the only comparisons are between the US and "four other English-speaking industrialized countries". Presumably that's Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK? Seems foolish and a bit lazy not to look at the French, German, Italian and Japanese.
And, for that matter, the Scandinavians.

[Taft]

I haven't registered to read the article, but I notice the only comparisons are between the US and "four other English-speaking industrialized countries". Presumably that's Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK? Seems foolish and a bit lazy not to look at the French, German, Italian and Japanese.
And, for that matter, the Scandinavians.

Sorry, I thought all the news articles on the site were available without registration. Here's the text:




Study: U.S. health care not always the best

- - - - - - - - - - - -

May 4, 2004 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- A new study challenges a widely held view in the United States that Americans have the best medical care in the world.

A review of health care in the United States and four other industrialized, English-speaking countries, published Tuesday in the journal Health Affairs, found that the United States leads in some areas and trails in others.

Breast cancer survival rates were higher in the United States than in Australia, Canada, England and New Zealand, the report says, citing health data through 2000. American women also were screened for cervical cancer at a higher rate than women in the other countries.

Yet the United States was the only country that registered a rise in deaths from asthma. The rate of infection from hepatitis B also was highest in the United States.

"No country scores consistently the best or worst overall, and each country has at least one area of care where it could learn from international experience,'' the study said.

Although health care experts are increasingly aware of gaps in the quality of care, the report notes that U.S. politicians frequently state, as President Bush did in his State of the Union address in January, ``Americans have the best medical care in the world.''

The authors _ U.S. academics and international health care officials _ say they want to spur debate about health care priorities rather than draw conclusions that explain the differences.

A related report in Health Affairs examines why the United States spends far more on health care than any other nation, and whether the country can afford it.

Authors Uwe Reinhardt of Princeton University and Peter Hussey and Gerard Anderson of Johns Hopkins University conclude that health insurance will become increasingly unaffordable to lower-income workers, forcing lawmakers to choose between some form of universal health care and a system in which there is a stark difference in the quality of care based on ability to pay.

[skunk]

Sorry, I thought all the news articles on the site were available without registration. Here's the text:
Thanks, Taft. It sounds remarkably inconclusive. I still think it would have been much more useful to have stepped outside the English-speaking world.

[Taft]

Thanks, Taft. It sounds remarkably inconclusive. I still think it would have been much more useful to have stepped outside the English-speaking world.

I agree. It does sound inconclusive, at least in terms of the CAUSE of the individual failing of each system.

But I think that the fact that a "socialized" healthcare system such as the UK's can compete with the US's in terms of quality at a much lower price to users of the system says something. For so long we've heard that privatizing EVERYTHING is the way to increase quality and decrease cost. I'm not so sure.

I will concede, however, that external factors such as excessive litigation probably play a part in the total cost figures. How much, and how these costs could be controlled, are still unknown.

Taft

[IJ Reilly]

This isn't really a "new study" -- I posted an LA Times article about it several months ago. In fact we've known for decades that we pay more for our health care and get less of it -- a lot more for significantly less. If that doesn't motivate our politicos to fix the problem, then nothing will.

[Frohickey]

...just so long as people have a choice as to participate or NOT in this health care system...

[skunk]

...just so long as people have a choice as to participate or NOT in this health care system...
In the UK, and elsewhere I believe, everyone contributes to the Health Service through National Insurance contributions, a weekly or monthly deduction. If you want to go private, with or without private insurance, you still can, of course, but you still pay the contributions to the NHS. The reasoning is that nobody in society benefits from those who can't afford medical attention being ill, a concept that does not seem to have much currency with you.

[SlyHunter]

In The reasoning is that nobody in society benefits from those who can't afford medical attention being ill, a concept that does not seem to have much currency with you.
So what doesn't give them the right to steal from those who produce and give to those who don't.

My mother came up to me one day complaining about our health care system. She couldn't afford to buy these new fangle pills where one keeps you from getting heartburn all day. They cost 1 dollar a pill too expensive for her budget shouldn't the government pay for them? I pointed out she can afford Tums and they do the trick. It is not up to the government to save her from pain or suffering. She can't afford a limo so she drives a 15 year old crappy car does she think the government should buy her a new one?

How about someday when we can do heart transplants, liver transplants, forced growth organs via cloned cells in tanks, or even brain transplants to a empty husk grown from stem cells to be a perfect human specimen. Do you really think the government should pay so it is provided for everyone? I think not.

[skunk]

So what doesn't give them the right to steal from those who produce and give to those who don't.
What makes you say it's stealing? We, the taxpayers, agree that it's worth it. Your poor mother probably would too. She wouldn't get a new car, but she would get an affordable public transport system.

How about someday when we can do heart transplants, liver transplants......Do you really think the government should pay so it is provided for everyone? I think not.
I think that is perfectly reasonable. Why not? Your system results in a lot more people in bad health. Cui bono?

[SlyHunter]

What makes you say it's stealing? We, the taxpayers, agree that it's worth it. Your poor mother probably would too. She wouldn't get a new car, but she would get an affordable public transport system.


I think that is perfectly reasonable. Why not? Your system results in a lot more people in bad health. Cui bono?
I am a tax payer do I have the right to say its not worth it to pay someone elses medical bills? Do I have a right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Life, liberty and Property aren't those my rights? Wasn't our country developed to protect the individual from the masses?

Freedom of speech was not written to protect the government from the press.
Freedom of religion was not written to protect the government from religion.
And the right to life, liberty, and property was not put in so I can pay your medical bills.

[skunk]

I am a tax payer do I have the right to say its not worth it to pay someone elses medical bills? Do I have a right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Life, liberty and Property aren't those my rights? Wasn't our country developed to protect the individual from the masses?
Property? That's a new one. Was it really to "protect the individual from the masses"? What on earth does that mean? I think I've must have read a different edition.

Freedom of speech was not written to protect the government from the press.
Freedom of religion was not written to protect the government from religion.
And the right to life, liberty, and property was not put in so I can pay your medical bills.
Nobody said they were. In an unfair world, it's just a fairer way of arranging things, as far as I'm concerned. You can let everybody rot if you want to, but I wouldn't like to live in such a selfish society.

[IJ Reilly]

Property? That's a new one.

Haven't you ever heard of, "life, liberty and the pursuit of property"? It's in the new, revised Declaration of Dependence.

[skunk]

Haven't you ever heard of, "life, liberty and the pursuit of property"? It's in the new, revised Declaration of Dependence.
I thought it must be: I was reading the King James version. Silly me! :rolleyes:

[IJ Reilly]

I thought it must be: I was reading the King James version. Silly me! :rolleyes:

To get the full meaning, you have to go back to the original text in ancient Urdu.

[skunk]

To get the full meaning, you have to go back to the original text in ancient Urdu.
Babelfish is SO unreliable these days... :D

[Frohickey]

Haven't you ever heard of, "life, liberty and the pursuit of property"? It's in the new, revised Declaration of Dependence.

That must be in the 'living breathing document' known as the US Constipation. :p

[Frohickey]

What makes you say it's stealing? We, the taxpayers, agree that it's worth it. Your poor mother probably would too. She wouldn't get a new car, but she would get an affordable public transport system.

What if we, the taxpayers, agree that we should enslave all the 'yardies' since they do not even approach the 51% required to make the "Yardie Enslavement Act" impossible? Ever heard of the term "Tyranny of the Masses"?

[skunk]

What if we, the taxpayers, agree that we should enslave all the 'yardies' since they do not even approach the 51% required to make the "Yardie Enslavement Act" impossible? Ever heard of the term "Tyranny of the Masses"?
It's "voters", not "taxpayers". You've effectively voted to do that, that's why so many are in prison. It's not "Tyranny of the Masses", it's called a "democratic majority".

[SlyHunter]

It's "voters", not "taxpayers". You've effectively voted to do that, that's why so many are in prison. It's not "Tyranny of the Masses", it's called a "democratic majority".
Wasn't it a "democratic majority" that burned the witches in Salem?

[Abstract]

Its almost as if SlyHunter is giving his "reasoning" as a joke, as to exaggerate the ridiculous. Think "Ali G" of Macrumours.

The US does not have the undisputed best healthcare in the world.

Haha, reeeeeally. :p

Canada rules!! Sweden is probably tied in terms of healthcare. Japan has the longest lifespan in the world today (from birth). The US is on the lower quartile on a huge list of Western countries.

[Thanatoast]

The phrase was originally "life, liberty and property" before it was put into the Declaration. They changed it at the last minute, I forget why. No, seriously.

As for universal healthcare, if it's cheaper, makes everyone healthier, and screws over the insurance companies, I'm all for it. The difficulty, I think, lies in determining what procedures are elective and which are necessary, and which the national system will cover.

[mactastic]

Wasn't it a "democratic majority" that burned the witches in Salem?

No, that was a patriarchal dictatorship.

[zimv20]

Canada rules!! Sweden is probably tied in terms of healthcare. Japan has the longest lifespan in the world today (from birth).
iirc, the analysis that numediamann found put france's healthcare as #1

[SlyHunter]

Movie on TV Liberalism in the future on scifi channel "A Brave New World." eek.

[Thanatoast]

Movie on TV Liberalism in the future on scifi channel "A Brave New World." eek.Now this I'm going to have to fundamentally disagree with. "A Brave New World" is in no way a support of liberal ideals. Think about it, a land that's rigidly class driven, where the lower classes are kept out of the loop and encouraged only to continue working, where the local diety is "Our Ford" for inventing the modern industrial process? Sounds like a conservative elitist's wet dream to me.

[Dippo]

Check out this story: http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/05/04/health_care/index.html

From it, two big conclusions can be drawn:

1) The US does not have the undisputed best healthcare in the world.
2) We still pay more for our healthcare than any other country. By a far margin.

So we don't have universal healthcare. That must mean the free market will automagically find us all the best prices right? Wrong!

And what does this say to the poor in this country? Since a poor person isn't gaurenteed healthcare here, they will end up paying far more for their healthcare here than in any other country. And what do they get for that extra cost? According to this study, not much.

Since the free market has provided us with neither the best price or in the highest quality in this case, maybe its time to try something else. Does anyone agree?

Taft

I wish there was an easy solution to the health care problems.

Those that are in charge rack in the cash while the doctors and patients are left out in the cold.

Some people are just too freakin' greedy...

[SlyHunter]

Now this I'm going to have to fundamentally disagree with. "A Brave New World" is in no way a support of liberal ideals. Think about it, a land that's rigidly class driven, where the lower classes are kept out of the loop and encouraged only to continue working, where the local diety is "Our Ford" for inventing the modern industrial process? Sounds like a conservative elitist's wet dream to me.
A world where war is made obsolete along with all forms of pain.
Where drug use is encouraged to make you feel joy.
Where everyone is completly equal or told they are by the Government and those who figure out they aren't are reeducated.
Where the rule of thumb is if you enjoy it do it if you don't pop a soma.
I see the Alphas as the government who knows better like the Democrat party. And the masses are the people they are suppose to protect and lead because they are too stupid to protect and lead themselves. You save them from dangerous bad feelings by not allowing anyone to express them. You save them from being parents by removing their need to be good parents. You save them from responsibility by taking that responsibilty unto the government itself providing the needs of the people for the people before they even know they need it. So no one needs anything for the government will provide. Only the Alphas need work hard for the people just like the democrats.

And those who wish to remain free to make their own decisions live their own lives live beyond the boundary and are call savages. ie Libertarians.

[skunk]

You save them from responsibility by taking that responsibilty unto the government itself providing the needs of the people for the people before they even know they need it. So no one needs anything for the government will provide. Only the Alphas need work hard for the people just like the democrats.

And those who wish to remain free to make their own decisions live their own lives live beyond the boundary and are call savages. ie Libertarians.
Give us a break, Sly ! :rolleyes:

[Taft]

A world where war is made obsolete along with all forms of pain.
Where drug use is encouraged to make you feel joy.
Where everyone is completly equal or told they are by the Government and those who figure out they aren't are reeducated.
Where the rule of thumb is if you enjoy it do it if you don't pop a soma.
I see the Alphas as the government who knows better like the Democrat party. And the masses are the people they are suppose to protect and lead because they are too stupid to protect and lead themselves. You save them from dangerous bad feelings by not allowing anyone to express them. You save them from being parents by removing their need to be good parents. You save them from responsibility by taking that responsibilty unto the government itself providing the needs of the people for the people before they even know they need it. So no one needs anything for the government will provide. Only the Alphas need work hard for the people just like the democrats.

And those who wish to remain free to make their own decisions live their own lives live beyond the boundary and are call savages. ie Libertarians.


<As I die a little more inside...>

Right, because the Republican party never thinks they know what's best (http://rpc.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1999/dr021199.htm) for the (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bal-te.obscenity06apr06,0,3004361.story?coll=bal-home-headlines) American (http://www.hillnews.com/news/030503/abortion.aspx) people (http://www.drugpeace.org/news/legislation2.html).

And since when did you become such a big Libertarian? If you were REALLY into the principles of the Libertarians, you'd be deriding the waste and moral crusading within the Republican party, too. Its there, buddy. Believe me. Next time the Republicans try to funnel more tax dollars to faith based programs, try to impose mandatory minimum sentences on judges, launch a costly crusade against drugs or obscenity in the name of "the children", etc., etc., why don't you call them on it? It would make you far more intellectually honest.

But, instead, you think the Republicans can do no wrong and the Democrats can do no right. Well, I hate to break it to you, but they all have the capacity for corruption, bad ideas, blindness toward common sense, cronyism, etc., etc. Rather than sit on one "side" versus the other, why not champion ideas?

Taft

[SlyHunter]

<As I die a little more inside...>


But, instead, you think the Republicans can do no wrong and the Democrats can do no right. Well, I hate to break it to you, but they all have the capacity for corruption, bad ideas, blindness toward common sense, cronyism, etc., etc. Rather than sit on one "side" versus the other, why not champion ideas?

Taft
people putting words in my mouth again.
Never said the Republicans were perfect just that they were truthful and honorable. Also I'm a realist. Libertarian party isn't going to win this election. So the choices are republican or Democrat and limited to those choices mean I must choose Republican right now for they are the ones who are willing to back the military which we need more now than we need protection for their moralistic attitudes. Later when it matters I'll be complaining about the Republicans trying to tell me how to live my life like they had the sole right to write what is morally right and wrong.

BTW I'm a bad libertarian I admit it. I cannot be 100% for any party but I'm closest aligned in my beliefs to the libertarians.


Democrats are wrong because they steal from those who produce to give to those who don't in the name of compassion. They don't respect private property rights. They don't actually stand up for what they believe in but instead pretend to be what they have to be in order to get elected thus they have no honor or integrity. They think everyone deserves things that they don't for only those who are willing to work for something has truly earned it. There are too many folks sitting on the side lines and expecting the world to provide them a living. These people need a kick in their rear and you won't do it by giving them wellfare supports.

Republicans are wrong because they expect that everyone to stick to their morality. This one woman one man concept is utterly ridiculous and isn't even backed by their own bible. If they had 100% control of congress they would enact laws like no alchohol, no porn, no prostitution, no fun. Republicans wish to control how I live my life and its none of their business if I don't bother anyone else doing it.

Libertarians are wrong because they are isolationists. They think we are an island and can ignore the rest of the world. They would have condemned the jews to extinction in WWII had Japan not attacked the US for "its not our problem" just like they wish to ignore the problems in Iraq, Israel and elsewhere. If they had their way completly we would have starvation in the streets or in hidden work camps where they were shovelled up and placed so we wouldn't have to look at them. True I don't like taking money from those who earn it and giving to those who havn't there are limits to how heartless one can be.

If anything I guess I'm a compassionate Libertarian.

[Taft]

people putting words in my mouth again.
...

I have to say that I'm surprised by this post. It indicates things which I've never seen in your posts before. Maybe we aren't so incredibly different as I thought...

Maybe.

Taft

[mactastic]

So how come all y'all who are against Universal Health Coverage aren't up in arms about mandatory automobile insurance? Are you allowed to 'opt out' of car insurance? Should you be?

[Frohickey]

So how come all y'all who are against Universal Health Coverage aren't up in arms about mandatory automobile insurance? Are you allowed to 'opt out' of car insurance? Should you be?

Actually, you can.

If you drive your vehicle in private property, and not in public roads, you are not even required to register the vehicle.
Plus, if you have sufficient financial resources that you can put into a bond to be held by the state, you can use that in lieu of auto insurance. The downside is that the money is held by the state where its probably better used by the person earning interest or revenue. The interest/revenue could then be used to pay for auto insurance premiums to a company.

[mactastic]

Actually, you can.

If you drive your vehicle in private property, and not in public roads, you are not even required to register the vehicle.
Plus, if you have sufficient financial resources that you can put into a bond to be held by the state, you can use that in lieu of auto insurance. The downside is that the money is held by the state where its probably better used by the person earning interest or revenue. The interest/revenue could then be used to pay for auto insurance premiums to a company.

Ok, so you can opt out of my Universal Health Coverage plan if you stay on private property and put up a bond to the state. K?

[Thanatoast]

Actually, you can.

If you drive your vehicle in private property, and not in public roads, you are not even required to register the vehicle.
Plus, if you have sufficient financial resources that you can put into a bond to be held by the state, you can use that in lieu of auto insurance. The downside is that the money is held by the state where its probably better used by the person earning interest or revenue. The interest/revenue could then be used to pay for auto insurance premiums to a company.How much is this bond supposed to be? If it's any reasonable amount I'd do it. I loathe auto insurance companies. Vultures is what they are, except vultures are cuddlier.

[Frohickey]

Ok, so you can opt out of my Universal Health Coverage plan if you stay on private property and put up a bond to the state. K?

I'll opt out of your UHC plan, since its *YOUR* plan. Its not *MY* plan.
You really need to resist the urge to get others to pay for *YOUR* way. I know, its good when you are young, and people bought you beer, snacks, etc, but you are an adult now. :p

[Frohickey]

How much is this bond supposed to be? If it's any reasonable amount I'd do it. I loathe auto insurance companies. Vultures is what they are, except vultures are cuddlier.

California Auto Insurance: A Guide (http://www.auto-insurance-online.us.com/california_auto_insurance.htm)
CA is a tort state. What this means is that by being a resident of the " Golden State " you by law are held financially responsible for any damage or injury that you may cause in a car accident. Residents who wish to drive therefore have to be able to produce some proof of financial accountability first. This is usually in the form of an insurance policy, or by a cash deposit (or a bond) equal to the amount of $35 000. It is wiser to take out a policy than to risk one's own personal assets.

$35K. Thats a price of a luxury car or SUV.

[mactastic]

I'll opt out of your UHC plan, since its *YOUR* plan. Its not *MY* plan.
You really need to resist the urge to get others to pay for *YOUR* way. I know, its good when you are young, and people bought you beer, snacks, etc, but you are an adult now. :p

I've always bought my own beer and snacks thanks.

As I asked before, why are you 'libertarians' so incensed about the concept of being forced to pay for health care, and not over being forced to pay for auto insurance?

BTW, you really need to resist the urge to tell me what to do... :eek:

[SlyHunter]

So how come all y'all who are against Universal Health Coverage aren't up in arms about mandatory automobile insurance? Are you allowed to 'opt out' of car insurance? Should you be?
Because I prefer to fight battles that are winable.
Because there are good and bad on both sides of the issue.
Because if you don't have auto insurance when you are injured in an accident then universal health coverage or no universal health coverage my taxes are going to pay for your emergency treatment. Thus mandatory automobile insurance insures everyone who drives "legally" will cover their own medical bills.

I heard you can opt out of this insurance, ie be self insured if you put like 200,000 in an untouchable savings account. But one who can afford to do that would be narrow minded and short sighted to do so cuzz odds are thats the person who'll be sued for millions of dollars to repair psychological damage from a car accident.

[SlyHunter]

Actually, you can.

If you drive your vehicle in private property, and not in public roads, you are not even required to register the vehicle.
Plus, if you have sufficient financial resources that you can put into a bond to be held by the state, you can use that in lieu of auto insurance. The downside is that the money is held by the state where its probably better used by the person earning interest or revenue. The interest/revenue could then be used to pay for auto insurance premiums to a company.
Titusville Florida requires all cars on private property or not to have a tag. State of Florida requires all cars to have at least liability insurance to get a tag which does not give you permission to drive on public roads.

[mactastic]

Because I prefer to fight battles that are winable.
Because there are good and bad on both sides of the issue.
Because if you don't have auto insurance when you are injured in an accident then universal health coverage or no universal health coverage my taxes are going to pay for your emergency treatment. Thus mandatory automobile insurance insures everyone who drives "legally" will cover their own medical bills.

And mandatory health coverage will guarantee that everyone who visits a hospital can pay their bills. What's the difference?

I heard you can opt out of this insurance, ie be self insured if you put like 200,000 in an untouchable savings account.

That's why I offered the option of opting out of health coverage if you:
a) Never leave private property, even to see a doctor or
b) Put up something on the order of $1 million to self-insure.

[SlyHunter]

I've always bought my own beer and snacks thanks.

As I asked before, why are you 'libertarians' so incensed about the concept of being forced to pay for health care, and not over being forced to pay for auto insurance?

BTW, you really need to resist the urge to tell me what to do... :eek:
If you don't drive you don't have to have auto insurance. You don't have a right to drive. And you don't have a right to medical care.

[SlyHunter]

And mandatory health coverage will guarantee that everyone who visits a hospital can pay their bills. What's the difference?



That's why I offered the option of opting out of health coverage if you:
a) Never leave private property, even to see a doctor or
b) Put up something on the order of $1 million to self-insure.
No requireing credit checks before allowing them near a hospital will guarantee that everyone who visits a hospital can pay their bills.

[mactastic]

And if you don't venture outside your house you don't need medical insurance. So what?

[mactastic]

No requireing credit checks before allowing them near a hospital will guarantee that everyone who visits a hospital can pay their bills.

So you're in the same camp as Frohickey, namely that if you can't afford health care you deserve to die?

[SlyHunter]

So you're in the same camp as Frohickey, namely that if you can't afford health care you deserve to die?
So once they invent cloned bodies and brain transplants you think everyone rich and poor alike should be able to get one and never die?

[mactastic]

So once they invent cloned bodies and brain transplants you think everyone rich and poor alike should be able to get one and never die?

Just answer the question. Does someone without health care deserve to die?

[SlyHunter]

Just answer the question. Does someone without health care deserve to die?
Deserve may be the wrong word to use as such its a loaded question.
But the consequences is that they do die yes.
But do they deserve the right to take from someone else by force thru taxes or whatever to save their life the answer is no.

Now answer mine.

Originally Posted by SlyHunter
So once they invent cloned bodies and brain transplants you think everyone rich and poor alike should be able to get one and never die irregardless to their ability to pay for it?

[mactastic]

Well at least we know where you stand on that issue.... :(

[mactastic]

Ask me again once they've invented cloned brains and bodies that never die.

[SlyHunter]

Ask me again once they've invented cloned brains and bodies that never die.
How about million dollar liver transplants, kidney transplants, sever special operations. How about those they exist today.

[mactastic]

Yes those should be available to rich or poor. Only cases I'd deny that in are where the recipient isn't likely to change a voluntary condition such as smoking or drinking.

Some costs must be borne by society as a whole. It benefits society to have roads, airports, public libraries etc. I don't care if you want to call it stealing, but if that's stealing than so is the federal highway system, Amtrack, Faith Based Inititives, and a whole host of other items that I don't hear you complaining about because you use them daily.

How many of those 80,000 miles could you travel each year if you had to pay for constructing roads? You don't seriously believe the gas tax covers road costs... do you?

[SlyHunter]

Yes those should be available to rich or poor. Only cases I'd deny that in are where the recipient isn't likely to change a voluntary condition such as smoking or drinking.

Some costs must be borne by society as a whole. It benefits society to have roads, airports, public libraries etc. I don't care if you want to call it stealing, but if that's stealing than so is the federal highway system, Amtrack, Faith Based Inititives, and a whole host of other items that I don't hear you complaining about because you use them daily.

How many of those 80,000 miles could you travel each year if you had to pay for constructing roads? You don't seriously believe the gas tax covers road costs... do you?
So someone who has to live decades on a dialisist machine (a machine that processes your wastes when you are out of kidneys) has the right to live for decades while sapping our countries strength by making us pay for it.

I have a better way of answering your question.

Nobody necessarily deserves to die.
disclaimer: criminals convicted to death, Self proclaimed Palestinian named Arafat and some others I won't name.

Also nobody has the right to force someone else to give them money. Even if the difference is life and death.

Someone who can't afford to pay their rent feed their family does not have the right to rob a bank. Because the consequences are grim does not give you the right to take what is not yours. Even if you do it via the government. Just because the government makes something legal doesn't make it right and also just because they make something illegal doesn't make it not right.

[mactastic]

Just because the government makes something legal doesn't make it right and also just because they make something illegal doesn't make it not right.

So basically the only guide to what is right and wrong is what you say it is?

[Neserk]

So someone who has to live decades on a dialisist machine (a machine that processes your wastes when you are out of kidneys) has the right to live for decades while sapping our countries strength by making us pay for it.


*Sigh* that is rather extreme don't you think? Living for ever on a dialysis machine is hardly *sapping our country's strength.*


Also nobody has the right to force someone else to give them money. Even if the difference is life and death.


So children don't have the right to have their parents pay for their food, clothing, and shelter?


Someone who can't afford to pay their rent feed their family does not have the right to rob a bank.


No, and we live in a country where it is not necessary... only the rich steal *that* much ;)


Because the consequences are grim does not give you the right to take what is not yours. Even if you do it via the government. .

No kidding. Now, could you tell Bush that. Because he is taking money from the middle class like crazy. And he wants even more money for this stupid war in Iraq. And as you stated regardless of how grim the consequesnces are of him not doing it, he does not have the right to do it.


Just because the government makes something legal doesn't make it right and also just because they make something illegal doesn't make it not right


very true, very true. Like this war in Iraq. Gov't said it was okay but it is definatley not right.

[SlyHunter]

[QUOTE=Neserk
No kidding. Now, could you tell Bush that. Because he is taking money from the middle class like crazy. And he wants even more money for this stupid war in Iraq. And as you stated regardless of how grim the consequesnces are of him not doing it, he does not have the right to do it.



very true, very true. Like this war in Iraq. Gov't said it was okay but it is definatley not right.[/QUOTE]
It is the Governments mandate to fight wars not take money fromt those who produce and give to those who don't.

[Frohickey]

I've always bought my own beer and snacks thanks.

As I asked before, why are you 'libertarians' so incensed about the concept of being forced to pay for health care, and not over being forced to pay for auto insurance?

BTW, you really need to resist the urge to tell me what to do... :eek:

The only urge I to tell you what to do is "Leave me and mine out of your plans".

In being forced to pay for health care, the cost is borne by *us* while the benefit goes to *you*. In auto insurance, the cost is borne by *us*, and the benefit goes to *us*.

Libertarians would have no complaints if you can opt out of health care.

[Frohickey]

That's why I offered the option of opting out of health coverage if you:
a) Never leave private property, even to see a doctor or
b) Put up something on the order of $1 million to self-insure.

Why doesn't your option of opting out of health coverage include:
c) Because I, a person of sound mind and body, don't want to join your group. We have freedom of association in these United States, don't we?

[Frohickey]

So you're in the same camp as Frohickey, namely that if you can't afford health care you deserve to die?

If *I* can't afford health care, *I* take responsibility for my health and well-being.
If *I* can afford health care, *I* take responsibility for my health and well-being.
If you can't afford health care, *you* take responsibility for *your* health and well-being. Don't come looking to me to burden me with *your* responsibility.

About the only time in this country where an adult had the responsibility for the health and well-being of another adult without any bloodties was during the Slavery era. We don't want to get back to that.


Deserve has got nothing to do with it. -William Munny

[skunk]

If *I* can't afford health care, *I* take responsibility for my health and well-being.
If *I* can afford health care, *I* take responsibility for my health and well-being.
If you can't afford health care, *you* take responsibility for *your* health and well-being. Don't come looking to me to burden me with *your* responsibility.

About the only time in this country where an adult had the responsibility for the health and well-being of another adult without any bloodties was during the Slavery era. We don't want to get back to that.

What a desperately sad world you inhabit....

[Neserk]

It is the Governments mandate to fight wars .

says who? I'm using your own logic, Sly.

If the government doesn't have the right to take money from someone for health care or to give to the poor they *definately* don't have the right to take money to go and murder over 10,000 people.

[Neserk]

If *I* can't afford health care, *I* take responsibility for my health and well-being.
If *I* can afford health care, *I* take responsibility for my health and well-being.
If you can't afford health care, *you* take responsibility for *your* health and well-being. Don't come looking to me to burden me with *your* responsibility.



How very Christian of you :rolleyes: I do believe that is the basis of many of your positions, no?

[Frohickey]

What a desperately sad world you inhabit....

What a desperate world you inhabit...desperate for support...

[Frohickey]

How very Christian of you :rolleyes: I do believe that is the basis of many of your positions, no?

If everyone were to take responsibility for their own actions and lot in life, this world would be a much better place.

[Frohickey]

says who? I'm using your own logic, Sly.

If the government doesn't have the right to take money from someone for health care or to give to the poor they *definately* don't have the right to take money to go and murder over 10,000 people.

There is no mention of government funded health care in the US Constitution.
There is no mention of government funded financial assistance to the poor in the US Constitution.

There *IS* mention of government power to declare war in the US Constitution, but it is not murder. US soldiers, when acting to carry out the legal orders given to them by their commanding officers, have never been indicted or had to appear in front of a jury, charged with murder. Its been that way for over 220 years.

There is killing, and there is murder. While all murders involve killing, not all killing involve murder. You, as a teacher, should know the difference. :eek:

[Ugg]

There is no mention of government funded health care in the US Constitution.
There is no mention of government funded financial assistance to the poor in the US Constitution.



THAT IS BECAUSE THERE WAS NO SUCH THING!!!!! My gawd, what is it with you . You go on and on about your SUV, your guns, your whatever, but when it comes to the US govt. and the Constitution, if it didn't exist in the 1770s then it has no place whatsoever in our government today. You are such a freaking luddite when it comes to such things yet so totally embrace your techie toys. You CANNOT have it both ways.

Either the government evolves along with the society it rules or we end up like Russia did before the communists took over. If you all continue beating your dead horse like you are it is going to happen pretty darned soon.

[Frohickey]

THAT IS BECAUSE THERE WAS NO SUCH THING!!!!! My gawd, what is it with you . You go on and on about your SUV, your guns, your whatever, but when it comes to the US govt. and the Constitution, if it didn't exist in the 1770s then it has no place whatsoever in our government today. You are such a freaking luddite when it comes to such things yet so totally embrace your techie toys. You CANNOT have it both ways.

Either the government evolves along with the society it rules or we end up like Russia did before the communists took over. If you all continue beating your dead horse like you are it is going to happen pretty darned soon.

There is already a provision for evolving of government. That is called the ratification of amendments to the United States Constitution. This mechanism for change has been successfully 18 times since the founding of this Republic. Its not so much to ask that any change or evolution of government go through the same ratification process that was done prior times.

[blackfox]

If everyone were to take responsibility for their own actions and lot in life, this world would be a much better place.
Oh, come on...this has got to be the most inane and obvious statement ever... sure I live in a gumdrop house on lollipop lane, and the sun is always shining...
I don't know if you were being serious here, but the fact is...that ever since humanity has been around, people have always NOT taken responsibility for their actions or lot in life...the first is manifested in so many ways, including lying, cheating, scapegoating, and basically most things that make the world less than gumdrops and lollipops...the second often involves those who have the means (like say the rich and powerful) who refuse to use this power bestowed upon them for the betterment of others, and only for their selfish ends...the fact that all people come into this world helpless, and most leave it that way...should allow people to comprehend that it is by cooperation that we move forward as a species...
In terms of Healthcare, I respect life and the right to live it in dignity, which includes the right to basic health-care, housing and food...and I am glad to support those less fortunate in that endeavor, because it is both the decent thing to do, and but for the grace of god, there go I. What happened to compassion? I am flabbergasted at the apparent selfishness and ego-centric views of some in this country (and others). There has always been inequity in any society, and the more enlightened ones seem to take steps to protect the weakest...I don't see how anyone could be against such an arrangement...the methods, perhaps...but not the concept...it is part of what makes us human. End Rant.

[Neserk]

If everyone were to take responsibility for their own actions and lot in life, this world would be a much better place.


No doubt. BUt that is irrelevant to the discussion. Health care isn't about taking responsiblity. Do you think I'm some how at fault for having endometriosis? Nope. Nothing I could have done to prevent it. It isn't the result of my actions either. It just happens.

[Neserk]

There is no mention of government funded health care in the US Constitution.
There is no mention of government funded financial assistance to the poor in the US Constitution.

There *IS* mention of government power to declare war in the US Constitution, but it is not murder. US soldiers, when acting to carry out the legal orders given to them by their commanding officers, have never been indicted or had to appear in front of a jury, charged with murder. Its been that way for over 220 years.


You are missing the point. Sly was talking about just because the gov't does it doesn't make it right ;) This isn't about what the constitution says and doesn't say. It is about what is right. You, as a Christian, should be more concerned about what God has to say on the matter.



There is killing, and there is murder. While all murders involve killing, not all killing involve murder. You, as a teacher, should know the difference. :eek:

In this case, it is murder. And I do know the difference. That makes one of us, apparently.

[Sayhey]

There is already a provision for evolving of government. That is called the ratification of amendments to the United States Constitution. This mechanism for change has been successfully 18 times since the founding of this Republic. Its not so much to ask that any change or evolution of government go through the same ratification process that was done prior times.

What you fail to understand, Frohickey, is that the mechanism for change is not limited to the amendment process, it also is a function of the branches of government set forth in the Constitution. Every time the Legislature passes a new law and the Executive signs it, a change takes place. Every time the Judiciary looks at law in the light of new circumstances, a change takes place. You would have us frozen in methods and understandings that existed 200+ years ago and have little relevance, other than broad outlines and direction, to the world of today. The amendment process is certainly vitally important for changing what the outlines and direction of our society will be, but it is hardly the be all and end all of how change occurs in our government or society.

[Taft]

There is no mention of government funded health care in the US Constitution.
There is no mention of government funded financial assistance to the poor in the US Constitution.

Your mode of argument is becoming increasingly frustrating.

There isn't any mention in the US Constitution about government funded road projects either. I don't own a car. I take the train to work every day and to run errands. Yet, my taxes go to fund road projects on the federal and state level. I am paying for something I don't use.

Why can't I opt out??!?!? Where is your righteous indignation over the government stealing from me? Taxes going to roads, after all, is not in the constitution. I guess it must be illegal, right? Right?

What you constantly miss is that there are benifits to everyone when the government invests in projects which benefit a wide cross-section of society. When the government invests in roads or public transportation, it eases congestion, allows for cheaper movement of goods and services, possibly saves lives, etc., etc. And these effects are seen across society, whether or not you use either the roads or public transportation. Similar effects could be gained from Universal Healthcare. Less sick poor people = less communicable disease. Etc.

There is something called social responsibility. While you shouldn't be required to pay so much to the government as to limit your freedom and persuit of riches, you do have a responsibility to the society that you are part of. And this is the heart of your problem with our system of government. You don't like being even partly responsible for the betterment of society. You feel you should be able to choose whether or not to contribute to society. I disagree.

You, on a daily basis, enjoy the freedoms, protections, infrastructure and all other benifits of living in the USA. Is it really that unreasonable to expect you to give back something to society so that everyone can take advantage of its benifits? And I'm not talking about communism here. I'm talking about a fraction of your salary. You are still free to make it rich. You are still free to innovate, amass wealth, start your own business. You just have to give a kick-back to the society that made that all possible.

I understand not wanting to feel obligated for some screw-up druggie's medical care. But that is an isolated incident that really isn't relevant in the larger discussion. We WILL end up paying for a few screw-ups. But maybe helping those screw-ups out will make society a better place, thereby earning you unexpected benifits.

Taft

[mactastic]

In being forced to pay for health care, the cost is borne by *us* while the benefit goes to *you*. In auto insurance, the cost is borne by *us*, and the benefit goes to *us*.

Bullflops. The benefits of auto insurance go to both the individual (via claims) and society (by not allowing an uninsured motorist to smash your car and not pay). The benefits of health insurance go to both the individual (via paying for your medical care) and (here's the part you're missing) society (by lowering the costs for everyone because we don't have to pick up the tab for the uninsured - much like not letting an uninsured driver hit you and leave you stuck with the bill.)

So you agree that mandatory auto insurance is ok, but you can't quite make the leap to health care. Your philosophy values inanimate objects over people. That's sick.

[SlyHunter]

He betters society by growing his wealth creating products people want to buy, giving folks jobs why should he also pay for everyones health care. Nothing wrong with them paying for their own health care.

[mactastic]

Ahh I love that rhetoric Sly. Yes, I'm planning on forcing you and Frohickey, at the point of a gun no less, to pay for everyone elses health care. By yourselves. You two will be soley responsible for the health care benefits of an entire nation. Oh and you won't get any of it yourself either. Yes that's exactly what I meant. :rolleyes:

Wern't you the one who was so hurt :( by people putting words into your mouth? And yet there you go, doing the exact same thing. Not good for you credibility, but if you care about your credibility the way Dubya cares for the credibility of the US, I can see why you do such things.

[SlyHunter]

Ahh I love that rhetoric Sly. Yes, I'm planning on forcing you and Frohickey, at the point of a gun no less, to pay for everyone elses health care. By yourselves. You two will be soley responsible for the health care benefits of an entire nation. Oh and you won't get any of it yourself either. Yes that's exactly what I meant. :rolleyes:

Wern't you the one who was so hurt :( by people putting words into your mouth? And yet there you go, doing the exact same thing. Not good for you credibility, but if you care about your credibility the way Dubya cares for the credibility of the US, I can see why you do such things.
Saying you'll pay for it vs taxes is = to saying your going to put a gun to the head of those who earn and give to those who don't.
The expression put a gun to the head of a person comes from what will happen to you if you refuse to pay your taxes in protest of what your taxes are being spent on.

[mactastic]

Isn't the highway tax being taken from you at gunpoint now? So are the monies going to the war effort, as well as the corporate welfare to the conservative elite fat cats. But do I hear you complain about those ever?

[Taft]

Isn't the highway tax being taken from you at gunpoint now? So are the monies going to the war effort, as well as the corporate welfare to the conservative elite fat cats. But do I hear you complain about those ever?

A point we have yet to hear Sly or Frohickey address...

Taft

[SlyHunter]

Isn't the highway tax being taken from you at gunpoint now? So are the monies going to the war effort, as well as the corporate welfare to the conservative elite fat cats. But do I hear you complain about those ever?
The constitution gives them the right to pay for our war effort.
I believe the highway construction bills are covered under military preparedness. They original came up with interstates to make it easier to move military ordinance around.
And corporate wellfare isn't a current issue although its not somethign I'm thrilled about.

Also a point if you continue to soak the "rich" to pay for the "poor" eventually they will get fed up and leave. Their rich they can afford it. Make universal health care part of the fed tax system and allot of rich folks will immigrate to other countries and then what will you pay for it with?

A little is ok, everything is wrong.

[mactastic]

Ok, so the highway system is an expansion of the constitutional ability to protect the country. Health care would just be an expansion of the 'general welfare' clause. Why do you care about one expansion of authority and not another?

[Frohickey]

In terms of Healthcare, I respect life and the right to live it in dignity, which includes the right to basic health-care, housing and food...and I am glad to support those less fortunate in that endeavor, because it is both the decent thing to do, and but for the grace of god, there go I. What happened to compassion? I am flabbergasted at the apparent selfishness and ego-centric views of some in this country (and others). There has always been inequity in any society, and the more enlightened ones seem to take steps to protect the weakest...I don't see how anyone could be against such an arrangement...the methods, perhaps...but not the concept...it is part of what makes us human. End Rant.

Compassion and charity are voluntary acts.

[Frohickey]

Bullflops. The benefits of auto insurance go to both the individual (via claims) and society (by not allowing an uninsured motorist to smash your car and not pay). The benefits of health insurance go to both the individual (via paying for your medical care) and (here's the part you're missing) society (by lowering the costs for everyone because we don't have to pick up the tab for the uninsured - much like not letting an uninsured driver hit you and leave you stuck with the bill.)

So you agree that mandatory auto insurance is ok, but you can't quite make the leap to health care. Your philosophy values inanimate objects over people. That's sick.

I take it you have not shopped around for auto insurance lately. There is uninsured motorist coverage, both in medical and property damage. This is an added premium to the existing policy that is supposed to cover you if you are hit by an uninsured motorist. So, your point is moot.

My philosophy values *MY* efforts, and prioritizes them to benefit *ME* first. If the secondary effect of a use of my effort benefits others, then thats just an extra benefit.

People here have tried to equate my philosophy as heartless or uncaring, but its actually the most equitable. Each person is responsible for their own well-being. No one should be forced to pay for someone elses expenses.

How is it that being forced to pay for someone elses expense not slavery?

(Absent, and intentionally so, in this discussion is voluntary giving, which I am very much for. Key here being the 'voluntary' aspect of the giving. Once its not voluntary, its a taking. Taking is how slaves are made.)

[Frohickey]

A point we have yet to hear Sly or Frohickey address...

Taft

I'm against welfare. Both on the personal level or corporate level. I have said so in the past.

[Frohickey]

Ok, so the highway system is an expansion of the constitutional ability to protect the country. Health care would just be an expansion of the 'general welfare' clause. Why do you care about one expansion of authority and not another?

Highway system is an offshoot of the establishment of post offices and post roads as well.

The 'general welfare' clause, if you research the meaning of it, was meant only for the specified, enumerated powers and duties given to government. It was not meant to be a clause that enables government to reach into all aspects of life.

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison

Money cannot be applied to the General Welfare, otherwise than by an application of it to some particular measure conducive to the General Welfare. Whenever, therefore, money has been raised by the General Authority, and is to be applied to a particular measure, a question arises whether the particular measure be within the enumerated authorities vested in Congress. If it be, the money requisite for it may be applied to it; if it be not, no such application can be made. - James Madison

Report on Resolutions, in 6 WRITINGS OF JAMES MADISON, quoted in Roger Pilon, Freedom, Responsibility, and the Constitution: On Recovering Our Founding Principles, 68 Notre Dame L. Rev. 507, 530.


[O]ur tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans, that Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. -Thomas Jefferson (First elected President of the new Democratic-Republican party, the party the modern day Democratic party claims to be descended from)

Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin (June 16, 1817), in 10 WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON at 90, 91 (Paul Leicester Ford ed., 1899) quoted in Roger Pilon, Freedom, Responsibility, and the Constitution: On Recovering Our Founding Principles, 68 Notre Dame L. Rev. 507, 530.



Am I the only one here that thinks its ironic that liberal democrats are in conflict with the meaning of the general welfare clause as explained by their first elected President, who also happened to have lived through the era of the founding of the country. Wow!

[mactastic]

I take it you have not shopped around for auto insurance lately. There is uninsured motorist coverage, both in medical and property damage. This is an added premium to the existing policy that is supposed to cover you if you are hit by an uninsured motorist. So, your point is moot.

That's not my point. I was asking why one form of mandatory insurance is OK by you, and another is not. It's very simple.

My philosophy values *MY* efforts, and prioritizes them to benefit *ME* first. If the secondary effect of a use of my effort benefits others, then thats just an extra benefit.

People here have tried to equate my philosophy as heartless or uncaring, but its actually the most equitable. Each person is responsible for their own well-being. No one should be forced to pay for someone elses expenses.

Me me me me me mine mine mine. Selfishness sure is ugly, isn't it?

How is it that being forced to pay for someone elses expense not slavery?

Because after you pay, you aren't kept in a cell, you aren't forcibly bred, you aren't physically abused, and you aren't sold like property. Your 'slavery' rhetoric is tiresome. You wouldn't make those kinds of crass comparisons if you had actually experienced slavery.

(Absent, and intentionally so, in this discussion is voluntary giving, which I am very much for. Key here being the 'voluntary' aspect of the giving. Once its not voluntary, its a taking. Taking is how slaves are made.)

Show me some proof that voluntary giving would approach the money provided by the various governments to assist the poor or stop making that tired argument. :mad:

:eek: :eek: :D :eek:

[mactastic]

Am I the only one here that thinks its ironic that liberal democrats are in conflict with the meaning of the general welfare clause as explained by their first elected President, who also happened to have lived through the era of the founding of the country. Wow!

Am I the only one here who finds it ironic that Frohickey is so narrow in his definition of 'general welfare', but so broad in his definition of the 2nd amendment? Wow.

BTW Frohickey, while I am a liberal, I'm not a Democrat.

[Frohickey]

Ahh I love that rhetoric Sly. Yes, I'm planning on forcing you and Frohickey, at the point of a gun no less, to pay for everyone elses health care.

mactastic, think about it. What would happen to Sly or me, if you manage to get your universal health care, and we absolutely refuse to contribute to it?

Lets see.
First, you are going to send IRS tax collectors against us. If we resist, garnish our wages.
Second, if we resist paying, slap Sly and I with a court summons.
Third, if we resist appearing before the court, arrest us using armed IRS agents or armed police officers.
Fourth, if we resist arrest, the government guns come out.

At the point of a gun, forced.

Make it voluntary, and you have peace and tranquility for everyone.
(Or, go the Constitutional amendment route.) :D :D :D

[mactastic]

mactastic, think about it. What would happen to Sly or me, if you manage to get your universal health care, and we absolutely refuse to contribute to it?

Lets see.
First, you are going to send IRS tax collectors against us. If we resist, garnish our wages.
Second, if we resist paying, slap Sly and I with a court summons.
Third, if we resist appearing before the court, arrest us using armed IRS agents or armed police officers.
Fourth, if we resist arrest, the government guns come out.

At the point of a gun, forced.

Make it voluntary, and you have peace and tranquility for everyone.
(Or, go the Constitutional amendment route.) :D :D :D

Yeah Frohickey, that's typically what happens when you repeatedly and consistently fail to obey a law. Do you complain because the police could shoot you if you don't get out of the car when they tell you to? Do you complain because you could be shot for refusing to go fight in a war?

BTW, would you have made Saddam's compliance voluntary? Or would you have 'enslaved' him at the point of a gun?

[Frohickey]

That's not my point. I was asking why one form of mandatory insurance is OK by you, and another is not. It's very simple.

Because after you pay, you aren't kept in a cell, you aren't forcibly bred, you aren't physically abused, and you aren't sold like property. Your 'slavery' rhetoric is tiresome. You wouldn't make those kinds of crass comparisons if you had actually experienced slavery.

Show me some proof that voluntary giving would approach the money provided by the various governments to assist the poor or stop making that tired argument. :mad:

Its not mandatory insurance. Its only required if I choose to participate in driving on public roads. Is your Universal Health Care boondoggle only required if I choose to participate in it? You cannot say that its only required if I choose to participate in *MY* life, that if I kill myself or I am dead, I don't have to participate in it. My life, my efforts, are mine, and mine alone. You, and others, have no rights to it. (Unless I have done something heinous to forfeit it.)

I don't have to show *YOU* any proof that voluntary giving would approach anything. It is NOT the function of government to redistribute wealth, at least, not a government that presupposes to value individual freedoms and liberties.

[Frohickey]

Yeah Frohickey, that's typically what happens when you repeatedly and consistently fail to obey a law. Do you complain because the police could shoot you if you don't get out of the car when they tell you to? Do you complain because you could be shot for refusing to go fight in a war?

BTW, would you have made Saddam's compliance voluntary? Or would you have 'enslaved' him at the point of a gun?

You said that Sly and I were not being made to pay for someone else's health care coverage *AT THE POINT OF A GUN*. I just illustrated to you that it is at the point of a gun. You need to remember that anything government does, ANYTHING, it does at the point of a gun. Why do you think the Founding Fathers were so adamant in putting a lot of checks and balances on government.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington


(Saddam is not a US citizen. Saddam was not under the jurisdiction of the United States Constitution. Saddam was captured and held as a prisoner of war, being that he was the sovereign of a nation we went to war with.)

[mactastic]

Its not mandatory insurance. Its only required if I choose to participate in driving on public roads. Is your Universal Health Care boondoggle only required if I choose to participate in it? You cannot say that its only required if I choose to participate in *MY* life, that if I kill myself or I am dead, I don't have to participate in it. My life, my efforts, are mine, and mine alone. You, and others, have no rights to it. (Unless I have done something heinous to forfeit it.)

So you'd be against a draft then?

I don't have to show *YOU* any proof that voluntary giving would approach anything. It is NOT the function of government to redistribute wealth, at least, not a government that presupposes to value individual freedoms and liberties.

But you advocate wealth redistribution all the time, just in the opposite direction from me. :eek:

No, I said it would be voluntary, you can opt out if you decide to never leave private property and wear something indicating you do not wish to have any health care under any circumstance whereby you can't pay for it. Also if you put up a significant bond with the state you can be exempted. Probably something on the order of $1 million.

[Frohickey]

Am I the only one here who finds it ironic that Frohickey is so narrow in his definition of 'general welfare', but so broad in his definition of the 2nd amendment? Wow.

BTW Frohickey, while I am a liberal, I'm not a Democrat.

Its not ironic. I'll tell you exactly why my definition of 'general welfare' is narrow, but my definition of 2nd Amendment is broad.

Simple. My definition is exactly the same definition that the Founding Fathers gave. US Constitution is *NOT* a living breathing document. Its a pact. Its a contract. Its an enduring agreement between the people and the government that derives its powers from. It should not be subject to change depending on what the meaning of the word 'IS' is. :D :eek: :D

[mactastic]

Its not ironic. I'll tell you exactly why my definition of 'general welfare' is narrow, but my definition of 2nd Amendment is broad.

Simple. My definition is exactly the same definition that the Founding Fathers gave. US Constitution is *NOT* a living breathing document. Its a pact. Its a contract. Its an enduring agreement between the people and the government that derives its powers from. It should not be subject to change depending on what the meaning of the word 'IS' is. :D :eek: :D

Ah that's right, you are the only one with a direct line to the founding fathers....

[davecuse]

How can you honestly think that providing healthcare universally is a bad thing? So what if you're taxes are a little higher, health care is one of the biggest costs hindering companies in the US, don't you think that if that was out of the equation companies could afford to hire more employees and pay you better? Not only that, it would allow for the little guy to start a small business affordably. Disease is something that should definitely be cured.

If you were down on your luck, just lost your job, and got hit by a bus... Wouldn't you expect your government that you've been paying into your entire life to help you out?

[Frohickey]

So you'd be against a draft then?

But you advocate wealth redistribution all the time, just in the opposite direction from me. :eek:

No, I said it would be voluntary, you can opt out if you decide to never leave private property and wear something indicating you do not wish to have any health care under any circumstance whereby you can't pay for it. Also if you put up a significant bond with the state you can be exempted. Probably something on the order of $1 million.

Nope. I have no plans for your wealth. I did ask if you wanted me to exorcise evil from your money, I'll do that, just for you, because I am a nice guy, and as a valuable service to the community. :p

Never leave private property, wear something, put up a bond. Listen to yourself. Didn't some goose-stepping foreigners tell a group of people to never leave a certain area, and that they have to wear something, and that they had to give up their businesses?

[mactastic]

Never leave private property, wear something, put up a bond. Listen to yourself. Didn't some goose-stepping foreigners tell a group of people to never leave a certain area, and that they have to wear something, and that they had to give up their businesses?

You calling me a Nazi again? You got warned for that last time....

I'm just reiterating the requirements to not carry auto insurance, which you seem to be fine with. Are those requirements Nazi-esque?

[Frohickey]

How can you honestly think that providing healthcare universally is a bad thing? So what if you're taxes are a little higher, health care is one of the biggest costs hindering companies in the US, don't you think that if that was out of the equation companies could afford to hire more employees and pay you better? Not only that, it would allow for the little guy to start a small business affordably. Disease is something that should definitely be cured.

If you were down on your luck, just lost your job, and got hit by a bus... Wouldn't you expect your government that you've been paying into your entire life to help you out?

Lets see... what is the benefit if my company pays me better, but I have to pay more taxes? ;) Tell me again how things improved.

If I were down on my luck, just lost my job, and got hit by a bus, but I haven't been paying into the government, I can help myself.

[mactastic]

You don't understand what 'down on your luck' means, do you?

[Frohickey]

You calling me a Nazi again? You got warned for that last time....

I'm just reiterating the requirements to not carry auto insurance, which you seem to be fine with. Are those requirements Nazi-esque?

I'm reminding you what has happened in the past.

There are no limitations to my existing liberty right now. Why should I subject myself to a limit in my liberty? Why would you even subject me to a decrease in my liberty? And you call yourself a *liberal*. You are not a liberal. Liberals, the classic definition of liberal, are for the expansion of liberties, for as wide a group as possible.

[mactastic]

There are no limitations to my existing liberty right now.

Oh really? Can you go shoot off your gun in the street right now? Can you go driving on the wrong side of the road?

Get off it. If you think you have no limitations to your liberty right now you aren't in the real world, you're in some fantasy world.

And you never answered... Would you have made Saddam's compliance voluntary? Or would you have used the barrel of a gun?

[mactastic]

And you call yourself a *liberal*. You are not a liberal. Liberals, the classic definition of liberal, are for the expansion of liberties, for as wide a group as possible.

Yeah I want health insurance for as wide a group as possible. :D :D :cool: :D

[Taft]

Highway system is an offshoot of the establishment of post offices and post roads as well.


Cop out. Big time.

Maybe, at one time in the past highway construction/addition/maintenance were a necessity for the post office and the military, but that time has long past.

About ten years ago (maybe twenty?), the voters of Illinois chose to pump money into the rehabilitation and expansion of several of the major expressways in the Chicago area. Thus, many of the local tollways were born.

Illinois taxes, along with some matching Federal funds, went into a construction project designed mainly to ease commuter conjestion. Again, the project was designed mainly to ease commuter conjestion. How is that for military preparedness or to support the postal service??

And, anyway, your argument is specious in that you placidly accept this particular expenditure while railing against another. What, in your mind, distinguishes the massive amount we spend on roads from the massive amount we'd spend on Universal Healthcare?

Because it's in the constitution? That's a pretty lame argument if you still disagree that the funds should have been spent in the first place. Do you think that the government should have funded road projects in the 50's? I'm asking you that irregardless of the fact that it is currently in the constitution. If you disagree with that spending, why should it matter to you if it is within the bounds of the constitution? You should be against arbitrary government spending either way.

Also, in your quotation of Jefferson and Madison, you seem to forget about the other authors and minds who devised our Constitution. The founding father's weren't all in complete aggreement, you know. Just like today, factions (ie. parties) existed which had differing opinions about the direction of our country.

I hate when people talk about what the founding fathers would have thought about a given issue. They speak as if the founding fathers have only one mind. That couldn't be farther from the truth. You have no flippin' clue what the founding father's collective opinion on a given issue would be. To pretend you do is an cheap tactic to try and garner support for your own opinions.

Taft

[davecuse]

The bottom line is that our country is in need of social help, we are driven by money and have zero compassion for our fellow human beings. Universal Health Care would be an enourmous step forward, putting this country in the direction of furthering society rather than worrying about petty differences.

The complaint that universal health care would raise taxes is very short sighted. You have to think about the big picture. We are nearing an age when nanobots may be able to alter our cellular structure in such a way that disease would no longer exist. It's a very exciting time, and I for one do not thing that this should be limited to the wealthiest of the wealthy, everyone should have free access to the marvels of modern medicine.

Our society is assbackwards, money is not everything! Maybe if Universal Health Care would allow for people to live longer we could become wiser and understand this. The fact is, people do not die of old age, we die because our cells break down and are less able to fight off disease. I could foresee people living to be 200+ years old, if only we put our resources in the right place. Imagine all of the research that could be funded with the hundreds of billions we are dumping in Iraq.

[SlyHunter]

Ok, so the highway system is an expansion of the constitutional ability to protect the country. Health care would just be an expansion of the 'general welfare' clause. Why do you care about one expansion of authority and not another?
Everyone in the military already have free medical its already covered. Its also why I know its a bad idea. Some people abuse the system and do things like go to sick call every time they had a headache. Do you know how much that cost our government and how much money they could've saved and spent on bullets? I don't. Gotta be careful with that free medical service.

Also we don't need more medical coverage than we already have. If you have a serious fall, injury, medical problem you can call an ambulance without proof of being able to pay. You can spend time in the emergency room and for stays as long as necessary to save your life without proof of ability to pay. A month or so later you will get a bill. In Florida we can throw it in the trash can and the worst penalty we get is a bad mark on our credit report. The government alreayd subsidizes medical care and they don't need to add more money too it.

[SlyHunter]

The bottom line is that our country is in need of social help, we are driven by money and have zero compassion for our fellow human beings. Universal Health Care would be an enourmous step forward, putting this country in the direction of furthering society rather than worrying about petty differences.

The complaint that universal health care would raise taxes is very short sighted. You have to think about the big picture. We are nearing an age when nanobots may be able to alter our cellular structure in such a way that disease would no longer exist. It's a very exciting time, and I for one do not thing that this should be limited to the wealthiest of the wealthy, everyone should have free access to the marvels of modern medicine.


Can you tell me the difference between a Liberal and a Socialist cuzz here lately I've been having trouble telling the two apart?

[davecuse]

SlyHunter, I do not understand your argument. From what I gather your ideal world would have no taxes and no infrastructure? I pay taxes, those should get me some roads to the hospital and some healthcare if I get hit by a bus. Am I off here?

[SlyHunter]

SlyHunter, I do not understand your argument. From what I gather your ideal world would have no taxes and no infrastructure? I pay taxes, those should get me some roads to the hospital and some healthcare if I get hit by a bus. Am I off here?
You already have that so why do we need Universal Health Care.

[mactastic]

Everyone in the military already have free medical its already covered. Its also why I know its a bad idea. Some people abuse the system and do things like go to sick call every time they had a headache. Do you know how much that cost our government and how much money they could've saved and spent on bullets? I don't. Gotta be careful with that free medical service.

Putting words in my mouth Sly. Did I ever say it would be FREE health care? No, I'm actually in favor of decent co-payments to discourage casual usage.

Also we don't need more medical coverage than we already have. If you have a serious fall, injury, medical problem you can call an ambulance without proof of being able to pay. You can spend time in the emergency room and for stays as long as necessary to save your life without proof of ability to pay. A month or so later you will get a bill. In Florida we can throw it in the trash can and the worst penalty we get is a bad mark on our credit report. The government alreayd subsidizes medical care and they don't need to add more money too it.

Which is precisely my point as to why we need a national health care system. We already have one, so lets just make it efficient. Lets get those who are going to the emergency room to go to a doctor instead. Let's keep them out of the hospital and do much cheaper preventative care.

[Frohickey]

About ten years ago (maybe twenty?), the voters of Illinois chose to pump money into the rehabilitation and expansion of several of the major expressways in the Chicago area. Thus, many of the local tollways were born.

Illinois taxes, along with some matching Federal funds, went into a construction project designed mainly to ease commuter conjestion. Again, the project was designed mainly to ease commuter conjestion. How is that for military preparedness or to support the postal service??

Also, in your quotation of Jefferson and Madison, you seem to forget about the other authors and minds who devised our Constitution. The founding father's weren't all in complete aggreement, you know. Just like today, factions (ie. parties) existed which had differing opinions about the direction of our country.


There was a lot of effort and discussion about the Constitution, remember the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers? Yes, Founding Fathers contributed to both, but in the end, it was ratified when the grievances of the anti-Federalists were addressed. Choosing to discount the fact that these sentiments were expressed by the Founding Fathers because it runs counter to your sentiment is disingenous.

Illinois may have had a different purpose for the expansion of roadways. The use of federal matching funds does not mean that the reason for federal involvement is now the reason for Illinois involvement. For good or ill, there is also the commerce clause that Congress have been using to get into every aspect of our lives. The roadways are here. It had appropriate beginnings as post roads and maybe for military/defense purposes. Maintenance/expansion of these roadways could be a valid use of that power.

There is no power vested in the federal government that says private monies is to be used to provide universal health care. Sentiments of the era has shown that the 'general welfare' clause is of use only in the explicit powers granted.

[SlyHunter]

Ah that's right, you are the only one with a direct line to the founding fathers....
Here let me give you their number http://www.foundingfathers.info/

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, November 1766

[mactastic]

Illinois may have had a different purpose for the expansion of roadways. The use of federal matching funds does not mean that the reason for federal involvement is now the reason for Illinois involvement. For good or ill, there is also the commerce clause that Congress have been using to get into every aspect of our lives. The roadways are here. It had appropriate beginnings as post roads and maybe for military/defense purposes. Maintenance/expansion of these roadways could be a valid use of that power.

There is no power vested in the federal government that says private monies is to be used to provide universal health care. Sentiments of the era has shown that the 'general welfare' clause is of use only in the explicit powers granted.

There you go again, saying that because they've been building roads for a while that they might as well keep doing it. Let's get NHC going for a few years, then that will be ok with you too...

[pseudobrit]

Frohickey picks and chooses where he uses a strict reading of the Constitution as the limits of government.

Meaning in reality he's no different than anyone else here when expressing their opinion. It only appears as though he's sticking to a well-defined ideology.

[Frohickey]

The bottom line is that our country is in need of social help, we are driven by money and have zero compassion for our fellow human beings. Universal Health Care would be an enourmous step forward, putting this country in the direction of furthering society rather than worrying about petty differences.

The complaint that universal health care would raise taxes is very short sighted. You have to think about the big picture. We are nearing an age when nanobots may be able to alter our cellular structure in such a way that disease would no longer exist. It's a very exciting time, and I for one do not thing that this should be limited to the wealthiest of the wealthy, everyone should have free access to the marvels of modern medicine.

Our society is assbackwards, money is not everything! Maybe if Universal Health Care would allow for people to live longer we could become wiser and understand this. The fact is, people do not die of old age, we die because our cells break down and are less able to fight off disease. I could foresee people living to be 200+ years old, if only we put our resources in the right place. Imagine all of the research that could be funded with the hundreds of billions we are dumping in Iraq.

You seek to give compassion for our fellow human beings by subjugating other human beings and forcing them to give that compassion at the point of a gun (by government). Is that your idea of compassion? I do not need you or anyone else telling me how to be compassionate. I can willfully give to charities on my own. So could you. Why don't you willfully give to charities that provide health care coverage to the needy? I might join you in your effort. I might not. Freedom is wonderful, isn't it.

You are right. Money is not everything. Each one of us has finite resources available to us. My blood, sweat, and tears are finite, and so is the rewards I could get for my finite efforts. Its already enough that I have voluntarilly given a portion of these rewards to causes that equally benefits all of society. If I do not voluntarilly give more for causes that only benefit others, isn't that my perogative?





You are right that people die because cells gradually deteriorate to the point that they are not able to repair the damage caused by the environment around us. Be it the effects of oxidation, cell damage via cosmic rays, etc. You are also right that we might be at the cusp of nanotechnology capable of repairing this damage. But, all of these new technologies require the finite effort of an individual, maybe the finite efforts of multiple individuals. While it would be admirable if these individuals voluntarilly contributed their efforts and forego the rewards for discovering these new wonderful technologies, you must not assume that everyone would. Also, to confiscate the result of these individuals' efforts, and not compensate them for it, because doing so would benefit more in society is a bane to society. Because this tells members of society that if you create something wonderful that is of value to society, society will take it away from you. Might as well not create anything wonderful in the first place. Might as well be part of society that receives wonderful new technologies, instead of the part of society that creates (and are rewarded for) wonderful new technologies.

History of the emergence of new technologies have shown that it first costs a lot, as the multiple individuals seek to benefit from their initial sacrifice and investment. But as times progress, costs decrease and its made available to more and more. Thats the way it was for computing devices (ENIAC-to PCs). Thats the way it was for automobiles. Thats the way it was for portable communication devices. Same with HDTV. It will be the same with medical nanotechnology. Don't expect a free lunch from government. Government has never created wealth. It gets it from people as taxes.

[mactastic]

You seek to give compassion for our fellow human beings by subjugating other human beings and forcing them to give that compassion at the point of a gun (by government). Is that your idea of compassion?

You say that, but you support bringing liberty to others at the point of a gun....

[Frohickey]

There you go again, saying that because they've been building roads for a while that they might as well keep doing it. Let's get NHC going for a few years, then that will be ok with you too...

You can pay for it then. Don't ask me to pay into it, ever.

[Frohickey]

Frohickey picks and chooses where he uses a strict reading of the Constitution as the limits of government.

Meaning in reality he's no different than anyone else here when expressing their opinion. It only appears as though he's sticking to a well-defined ideology.

No picking and choosing, I use a strict reading on all parts of it.

You are attributing to me what you do in your reading. I'm not the one that is reading a lot more into 'general welfare' than what is there. I'm not the one discounting 1/10th of the Bill of Rights, while giving wide berth on the other 9/10ths.

[mactastic]

No picking and choosing, I use a strict reading on all parts of it.

You are attributing to me what you do in your reading. I'm not the one that is reading a lot more into 'general welfare' than what is there. I'm not the one discounting 1/10th of the Bill of Rights, while giving wide berth on the other 9/10ths.

Hehehe, you probably also want to tell us that your views are the more mainstream as well. That *we're* the extremists. :eek: :eek: :eek:

[zimv20]

You can pay for it then. Don't ask me to pay into it, ever.
fine. i lobby for universal health coverage, and i'll support the system even if it excuses whoever the **** you are from paying into it. ever. nor shall you ever be asked. by anyone. anytime.

now can the rest of the country have it?

[busasa]

frohickey is obviously an advocate of the negative rights which lies on the rights such as freedom of speech or life or to make a living. While there's definately some "liberal" positives in it, it just does not cut it in the "current" condition. With the capitalistic social condition we have today, one can not totally blame the "poors" for their lack of work to earn money to get their own health care. I forgot the movie name, but it's a Denzel Washington movie where his son needs a heart transplant and he has no money for it. He works his ass off, but does he get the rewards he deserves? I guess not. For people who thinks everyone can success with hard working, they r probably living in their own "republican" world. One bore into a world without being able to choose which environment one can thrive in. I think more emphasis must place on positive rights which make some contributions on things such as health care, or other public goods. When you are exploitating the poors with ur daily "consumption", is it too hard to give a little away for the better of society. Sure, I know everyone must be able to make his or her own decision under the liberal's terminology, but then, one has to understand he lives in a SOCIETY not by himself. You interacts with other people, and live with them, you don't live in a cave by yourself. Would you call ambulance if you see someone being wounded? I hope you would. Every human being has the rights to survive, just like how tree are always try to entrech to places where there's sunshine, and how animals are always relocating to places that have food. This is a basic condition that in a "civilized" era we are in now that must be provided.

[davecuse]

You seek to give compassion for our fellow human beings by subjugating other human beings and forcing them to give that compassion at the point of a gun (by government). Is that your idea of compassion? I do not need you or anyone else telling me how to be compassionate. I can willfully give to charities on my own. So could you. Why don't you willfully give to charities that provide health care coverage to the needy? I might join you in your effort. I might not. Freedom is wonderful, isn't it.
I do give to some of these charities as well as others. However I would much rather have this money go toward my taxes in order to allow anyone to get a little help when they need it.

You are right. Money is not everything. Each one of us has finite resources available to us. My blood, sweat, and tears are finite, and so is the rewards I could get for my finite efforts. Its already enough that I have voluntarilly given a portion of these rewards to causes that equally benefits all of society. If I do not voluntarilly give more for causes that only benefit others, isn't that my perogative?
Do you you understand what UNIVERSAL health care means? You would also directly benefit from this. If you got hit by a bus, and had to undergo lengthy surgery and extended stay at a hospital, wouldn't you be relieved if you knew that the system you've worked everyday of your life to pay into is giving you something back when you need it most.

You are right that people die because cells gradually deteriorate to the point that they are not able to repair the damage caused by the environment around us. Be it the effects of oxidation, cell damage via cosmic rays, etc. You are also right that we might be at the cusp of nanotechnology capable of repairing this damage. But, all of these new technologies require the finite effort of an individual, maybe the finite efforts of multiple individuals. While it would be admirable if these individuals voluntarilly contributed their efforts and forego the rewards for discovering these new wonderful technologies, you must not assume that everyone would. Also, to confiscate the result of these individuals' efforts, and not compensate them for it, because doing so would benefit more in society is a bane to society. Because this tells members of society that if you create something wonderful that is of value to society, society will take it away from you. Might as well not create anything wonderful in the first place. Might as well be part of society that receives wonderful new technologies, instead of the part of society that creates (and are rewarded for) wonderful new technologies.

History of the emergence of new technologies have shown that it first costs a lot, as the multiple individuals seek to benefit from their initial sacrifice and investment. But as times progress, costs decrease and its made available to more and more. Thats the way it was for computing devices (ENIAC-to PCs). Thats the way it was for automobiles. Thats the way it was for portable communication devices. Same with HDTV. It will be the same with medical nanotechnology. Don't expect a free lunch from government. Government has never created wealth. It gets it from people as taxes.
The last time I check 100+ Billion dollars was a lot of money, if that had been put towards research don't you think that something good may have come out of it. It certainly would be a lot better than a pre-emptive strike on Iraq, that did a lot to help out the security of our country, I don't think we could have dreamed up a better recruiting video for terrorists. I mean look at what we are doing over there, I'd be pissed if someone came into America and tried to pull anything like this. The Government was created to build the infrastructure of our country through a portion of our communal wealth, don't you think that productivity would increase just a little if people could actually get help when they need it?

[Taft]

There was a lot of effort and discussion about the Constitution, remember the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers? Yes, Founding Fathers contributed to both, but in the end, it was ratified when the grievances of the anti-Federalists were addressed. Choosing to discount the fact that these sentiments were expressed by the Founding Fathers because it runs counter to your sentiment is disingenous.

You completely missed my point. My point was that you were picking and choosing specific quotes from the founding fathers to support your viewpoint. However, there were founding fathers who disagreed with the founding fathers that you quoted. In the end, they reached a comprimise, but they still had differing opinions about how the country should be run.

By picking two founding fathers (Jefferson and Madison), quoting them, then trying to extrapolate the opinions of ALL of the founding fathers from those quotes, you are trying to obscure the fact that there was disagreement between the founding fathers. Likely, not ALL of them felt the same way about the General Welfare clause (or any other clause for that matter).

Just because two sides reach a compromise, doesn't mean they are in complete agreement. Ever hear of congress passing a budget? That's a pretty good example of compromise amidst disagreement.

Taft

[Frohickey]

fine. i lobby for universal health coverage, and i'll support the system even if it excuses whoever the **** you are from paying into it. ever. nor shall you ever be asked. by anyone. anytime.

now can the rest of the country have it?

Yep. But, equal protection under the law states that you have to accord other people that share the same sentiment as I to opt out of the system. That would only be fair. :D

[Frohickey]

frohickey is obviously an advocate of the negative rights which lies on the rights such as freedom of speech or life or to make a living. While there's definately some "liberal" positives in it, it just does not cut it in the "current" condition. With the capitalistic social condition we have today, one can not totally blame the "poors" for their lack of work to earn money to get their own health care. I forgot the movie name, but it's a Denzel Washington movie where his son needs a heart transplant and he has no money for it. He works his ass off, but does he get the rewards he deserves? I guess not. For people who thinks everyone can success with hard working, they r probably living in their own "republican" world. One bore into a world without being able to choose which environment one can thrive in. I think more emphasis must place on positive rights which make some contributions on things such as health care, or other public goods. When you are exploitating the poors with ur daily "consumption", is it too hard to give a little away for the better of society. Sure, I know everyone must be able to make his or her own decision under the liberal's terminology, but then, one has to understand he lives in a SOCIETY not by himself. You interacts with other people, and live with them, you don't live in a cave by yourself. Would you call ambulance if you see someone being wounded? I hope you would. Every human being has the rights to survive, just like how tree are always try to entrech to places where there's sunshine, and how animals are always relocating to places that have food. This is a basic condition that in a "civilized" era we are in now that must be provided.

John Q... good movie by the way. A man trying to fight both the medical insurance system, as well as time. A good case for making sure that you know what the legalese and language is in your contract with the insurers.

Could you explain what 'negative rights' are, and what are the 'positive rights'? This is the first time I have heard of these.

Would you call an ambulance if you see someone is wounded. Yes. Same as you would call police if you see someone being attacked.

Like someone else said, what if we finally get around to nanobot technology that can indefinitely prolong life. But the inherent cost of such a technology, even if you were to dismiss profit, R&D costs, and labor, comes out to be $1 billion per person. Should the government provide this technology to everyone that desires it, upon demand?
Even if the procedure were $100,000 per person, same question applies, should the government provide this procedure to everyone that desires it, upon demand?

[Frohickey]

However, there were founding fathers who disagreed with the founding fathers that you quoted. In the end, they reached a comprimise, but they still had differing opinions about how the country should be run.

By picking two founding fathers (Jefferson and Madison), quoting them, then trying to extrapolate the opinions of ALL of the founding fathers from those quotes, you are trying to obscure the fact that there was disagreement between the founding fathers. Likely, not ALL of them felt the same way about the General Welfare clause (or any other clause for that matter).


Okay, show me wrong then. Show me the quotes from other Founding Fathers that express the opposite of what Jefferson and Madison have said.

Remember, Madison was considered to be one of the Federalists, in the same camp as Hamilton and Washington and Adams.
Jefferson was considered to be one of the Democrat-Republicans, the anti-Federalist, if you will. Along with Burr (not a FF).

[Taft]

Okay, show me wrong then. Show me the quotes from other Founding Fathers that express the opposite of what Jefferson and Madison have said.

Remember, Madison was considered to be one of the Federalists, in the same camp as Hamilton and Washington and Adams.
Jefferson was considered to be one of the Democrat-Republicans, the anti-Federalist, if you will. Along with Burr (not a FF).

I'll look for some information over the weekend. Until then, I give you this passage, which concludes there was much disagreement in the US over what the Constitution should contain and the direction in which the country should be taken.

From: http://earlyamerica.com/review/2002_summer_fall/party_formation.htm

Part II: Divisions in the Constitutional Convention

According to Article VII of the Constitution, the document was prepared, “in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present.” [8] While this statement is technically true, it is also somewhat misleading. At the Constitutional Convention, (as in the Continental Congress) each state, as opposed to each state representative, received one vote. Therefore, while the majority of the delegates in each state delegation did vote for the proposed constitution, therefore creating unanimous consent from the individual states, sixteen of the fifty-five delegates who attended the convention refused to sign the document.

There are various reasons to explain why these sixteen delegates did not sign the Constitution. Some delegates were just not there to sign it, but others in attendance refused to do so. Standing out in the list of non-signers are Edmund Randolph and George Mason of Virginia and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts. Of those three, only Randolph and Gerry spoke to their refusal before the delegates. Randolph cited his belief that leaving the final determination on the constitution up to the people of the individual states would doom it to failure. Therefore, he could not put his name to it.

Gerry’s reasons were much the same. According to Madison’s notes, Gerry, “hoped he should not violate that respect in declaring on this occasion his fears that a Civil war may result from the present crisis of the U.S.” Gerry went on to explain his apprehension that the proponents of democracy, “the worst though of all political evils,” and the proponents of extremely centralized government would clash violently in regard to their opinions on the Constitution thus causing more chaos. [9]

While these are the only two contrary opinions regarding signing the proposed constitution, there are several other indicators that the final document was far from the unanimous choice of those who deliberating on it. Many of those who signed it despite their objections, did so for one or both of the following reasons:

First, many signed and supported the document out of a real and urgent need to do something about the current deplorable state of the U.S. government at the time. According to Madison, Alexander Hamilton fell into this category. “No man’s ideas were more remote from the plan than his were known to be; but is it possible to deliberate between anarchy and Convulsion on one side, and the chance of good to be expected from the plan on the other.” [10]

The second reason was the result of a feeling on the part of many members to defer to the will of the majority. The statements of Governeur Morris best reflect this tendency. During the debate over who would sign and who wouldn’t, Morris stated that, “the majority had determined in its favor and by that determination he should abide . . .the signing in the form proposed related only to the fact that the States [emphasis Madison’s] present were unanimous.” [11] It is interesting to note that, although the sources consulted here reveal no breakdown of how each delegate voted within his individual state caucus, Morris used the term majority instead of unanimous consent. It is not certain that his (or Madison’s) use of the term indicates that individual members of state delegations voted in the negative. However, it does leave the door open for that interpretation.

In addition to the dissenting views of members who attended the convention, the outright refusal of some leading men to attend, such as Patrick Henry, and the sizable opposition to ratification that developed point to a climate of division rather than consensus regarding the document. Whether or not substantial opposition to the proposed constitution existed at the convention, we can be certain that many disagreements erupted over particular issues debated during the summer of 1787. The subject of slavery was one such issue.

Taft

[SlyHunter]

our current medical system requires all hospitals with emergency rooms to treat all patients with life threatening emergencies without regard to the ability of the patient to pay. They even handle allot of non emergencies. Life saving technology isn't being refused to anyone. The hospitals have to eat the loss (minus the part the Fed pays them) as the price for being allowed to opperate an emergency room. True some hospitals refuse to have one because of this cost. If enough do so I'm sure the Fed will increase payments to get them to open them back up again. The worst penalty that happens to you for not paying (at least in the state of Florida) is your credit is ruined for up to 7 years.

If you need Flue shots or other vaccines and you don't have the money to pay they have free clinics where you can get them. Yes the lines are long, but its free.

In other words this national health care crap isn't necessary.