 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
>
> We're not talking about just indigents. But the homeless living in our
> cities spread disease and they can't get treated. Helping the 46 million
> people without health care (many of whom are part-time workers who are
> ineligible for benefits) is a good idea.
>
> There was an episode of Morgan Spurlock's 30 Days that showed what living
> on minimum wage is like. That comes without health care. These are hard-
> working people, but they have to decide between eating and going to the
> hospital for necessary care.
>
> You think it's reasonable to just let them die?
If we're in a lifeboat made for six that is already carrying ten, then yes.
Some people are going to be allowed to die. This decision can be made by
some "medical moralist" employed by the government or by a patient's
having participated or not (by his patronage) in the
construction/support of the healthcare system.
You may feel that the latter is evil. I feel that the former is evil.
More evil is the degree of control we will insist on having over other's
unhealthful behaviors once these others are all in our pockets.
>
>> My being forced to pay for your healthcare isn't competition or the free
>> market, it's the tyranny of the majority, the specific threat our
>> Constitution was authored to protect us from. This is why, beyond a few
>> quips (and maybe even before that), this argument becomes very dull. A
>> statist will never see the most powerful entity in the country as a
>> potential threat and will therefore never understand the value of a
>> Constitutional Republic over a pure Democracy.
>
> If you pay insurance premiums, you pay for other people's health care
> NOW. I really wish the right would stop saying that what we have is "the
> best in the world" and BS like that.
Insurance premiums are VOLUNTARY.
>> Do you statists hate the Constitution so much that you can't bear to
>> read it?
>
> First, I've read it. Second, I understand it.
>
>> Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3
>
> You cited the 10th amendment, not this article before. Please make up
> your mind.
Making two different points.
>
> Cherry-picking parts of the constitution is like cherry-picking parts of
> the bible. If you are referring to:
>
> "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states,
> and with the Indian tribes; " - that's one of many items listed as a
> responsibility of the legislative branch. Again, this has nothing to do
> with the topic at hand unless you mean to read this clause as being the
> only thing Article 1, Section 8 is about.
Article 1, Section 8 - powers delegated to the US Government
10th Amendment - US Government has only those powers delegated to it by
the Constitution.
You call THAT "cherry picking"?
>
>> In instances where the TSA, FCC, etc. extend beyond this authority, yes,
>> they absolutely should be stopped.
>
> And I suppose you think the post office ought to be stopped, too.
Article 1 Section 8 Clause 7:
To establish post offices and post roads;
There I go, cherry picking again.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Shay wrote:
>> My being forced to pay for your healthcare isn't competition or the
>> free market, it's the tyranny of the majority
>
> So you're OK with the public option being optional? So you're not forced?
>
Absolutely not. The public option is an option for you to reach into my
wallet. You either believe that's wrong or you don't.
A person shouldn't even want to be in my wallet. What happens when ten
smokers decide that five bicyclists are too much of a strain on "their"
healthcare system?
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> Absolutely not. The public option is an option for you to reach into my
> wallet. You either believe that's wrong or you don't.
Would you be against the government setting up an insurance plan that's
zero-sum for anyone who wants to participate but which isn't funded by taxes
of those who don't get benefits?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> If we're in a lifeboat made for six that is already carrying ten, then yes.
But we're not.
> Some people are going to be allowed to die.
Sure. I'd rather have it decided by a doctor than a stockholder.
> or by a patient's
> having participated or not (by his patronage) in the
> construction/support of the healthcare system.
If people reliably got the care they paid insurance to cover, that would
work well.
> You may feel that the latter is evil. I feel that the former is evil.
> More evil is the degree of control we will insist on having over other's
> unhealthful behaviors once these others are all in our pockets.
There is that.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Shay wrote:
>> Our government can poison any industry by providing a "free" alternative.
>
> Why is that bad in this specific case? Would you still think it's bad
> if an amendment was passed specifically allowing health care to be
> government run?
>
What if your company would sell me a computer for $300 and the
government came along and offered to sell me the same computer for $400,
but in the government's case, Jim would be paying for my computer.
Which do you think I'd choose?
Amendment or no, it's wrong.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:06:55 -0500, Shay wrote:
>> You think it's reasonable to just let them die?
>
> If we're in a lifeboat made for six that is already carrying ten, then
> yes.
Seems like building a bigger lifeboat might be a better option.
>> If you pay insurance premiums, you pay for other people's health care
>> NOW. I really wish the right would stop saying that what we have is
>> "the best in the world" and BS like that.
>
> Insurance premiums are VOLUNTARY.
Guess what - participation in a single payer system would also be
voluntary. You don't have to get your service from it if you don't want
to.
>>> Do you statists hate the Constitution so much that you can't bear to
>>> read it?
>>
>> First, I've read it. Second, I understand it.
>>
>>> Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3
>>
>> You cited the 10th amendment, not this article before. Please make up
>> your mind.
>
> Making two different points.
And those points are.....?
> Article 1, Section 8 - powers delegated to the US Government 10th
> Amendment - US Government has only those powers delegated to it by the
> Constitution.
>
> You call THAT "cherry picking"?
The way it was presented, yes. If you're going to try to make a point,
at least make it in a way that's comprehensible. ;-)
>>> In instances where the TSA, FCC, etc. extend beyond this authority,
>>> yes, they absolutely should be stopped.
>>
>> And I suppose you think the post office ought to be stopped, too.
>
> Article 1 Section 8 Clause 7:
> To establish post offices and post roads;
>
> There I go, cherry picking again.
So, if we get a constitutional amendment, then you'd be OK with bringing
the US health care system up to par with the rest of the world?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:22:38 -0500, Shay wrote:
> Amendment or no, it's wrong.
Hmm, so much for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Scratch
off "life", scratch of "liberty" (thanks to the PATRIOT act). How shall
we squash the pursuit of happiness?
How about "all men are created equal"? Except for something as important
as health care. If they can't pay for it, screw 'em. Nice compassion
there.
The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are defined in
the Declaration of Independence as being among the "inalienable rights".
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> Which do you think I'd choose?
I don't think that's a valid analogy, so I won't address it.
The nature of insurance is that you don't pay for your own outlays, unless
they happen to be below the premiums. The only *cost* to insurance is the
overhead.
> Amendment or no, it's wrong.
Then why bring up the point of the amendments?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/27/09 08:47, Shay wrote:
> Our presidents *stated* goal is a single-payer government system.
His stated goal is also not to have single payer.
--
I am reading a very interesting book about anti-gravity. I just can't
put it down.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:22:38 -0500, Shay wrote:
>
>> Amendment or no, it's wrong.
>
> Hmm, so much for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Scratch
> off "life", scratch of "liberty" (thanks to the PATRIOT act). How shall
> we squash the pursuit of happiness?
>
> How about "all men are created equal"? Except for something as important
> as health care. If they can't pay for it, screw 'em. Nice compassion
> there.
You mean all Americans, don't you? Or would you actually like to extend
health care benefits outside our borders? If they were born 6" on the
wrong side of this imaginary line, screm 'em. Nice compassion there.
The Constitution says that we are born with the right to pursue
happiness, not the that government must pave the road to it.
>
> The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are defined in
> the Declaration of Independence as being among the "inalienable rights".
So, these rights are inalienable to the old and demented? Oh wait, I
forgot, the old and demented will not be excluded because we're
"building a bigger boat."
The entity wanting to take over health care is 12 Trillion in debt, but
we'll just print more money, right?
Even if I gave you that publicizing health care would make it better, we
still would only have achieved this by stealing from the next
generation. What about the next generation's right to "life."
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
