 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> 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?
>
I'm not preaching that Capitalism is a panacea or that our Constitution
is perfect, but my principal fear is what will (continue to) happen as
we lose our constitutional protection from the majority.
However, socialism gained by any other, even legal, means is just as
dangerous.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are defined in
> the Declaration of Independence as being among the "inalienable rights".
The DoI is not a legal document, as such. It's effectively just pretty
words. See also 'enemy combatant' vs. 'prisoner of war', any legal
tiptoeing to shoehorn enhanced interrogation techniques into being just
this side of *technically* legal, waiving of said 'inalienable rights'
by committing this or that crime, moving prisoners out of territory so
certain laws don't apply, et cetera.
If it can be waived, ever, or at the very least if it needs to be
spelled out because any people don't have it, it's not an inalienable
right. IMO
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> 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.
>
>
How about, "straight from the horse's mouth"?
http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-in-03-id-like-to-see-a-single-payer-health-care-plan/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/27/09 17:06, 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.
>
> 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.
False dichotomy. The two are not exclusive. And I'd rather put that
choice in the hands of the government with oversight than at the hands
of an employee at an insurance company with no transparency.
>> 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.
As is, you know, going to a store and buying food.
--
I am reading a very interesting book about anti-gravity. I just can't
put it down.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/27/09 13:15, Shay wrote:
> And I know a dozen who have been laid off. The numbers are the numbers,
> our individual anecdotes are nearly worthless.
In which case, we should be discussing the numbers related to health
care in the US vs other industrialized countries.
> We have excessive lifestyles and a large population of indigents. *My*
> healthcare is excellent. Hell, as long as we're giving healthcare away
> to indigents, why stop at the border? What is other industrialized
> nations "provided" healthcare to non-citizens? Should we then?
Actually, I suspect almost all industrialized countries that provide
UHC give health care to anyone legally in the country. I know that at
least in Canada, you need not be a permanent resident.
In the UK, I believe you have to pay if you're a short term resident
(tourist, etc). But I'm sure if you're working there, you're covered.
> 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
The same argument can be applied to libraries, police and fire
departments. How do you feel about those?
--
I am reading a very interesting book about anti-gravity. I just can't
put it down.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/27/09 17:17, Shay wrote:
>> 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.
Likely not *your* wallet, because you likely don't earn enough. But
that's a minor point.
Are you against all federally funded science research, and federally
funded transportation (e.g. interstates)?
And Medicare and Medicaid?
--
I am reading a very interesting book about anti-gravity. I just can't
put it down.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/27/09 13:28, 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
He was taking about the insurance industry - not the health of the
people...
--
I am reading a very interesting book about anti-gravity. I just can't
put it down.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> In the UK, I believe you have to pay if you're a short term resident
> (tourist, etc). But I'm sure if you're working there, you're covered.
In europe, on public transit, I always saw ads for "holiday insurance",
which I assumed meant your healthcare if you were traveling outside the country.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 08/27/09 13:15, Shay wrote:
>> And I know a dozen who have been laid off. The numbers are the numbers,
>> our individual anecdotes are nearly worthless.
>
> In which case, we should be discussing the numbers related to health
> care in the US vs other industrialized countries.
So discuss them. What have you got?
>
>> 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
>
> The same argument can be applied to libraries, police and fire
> departments. How do you feel about those?
>
Not federal!!!!!! What federal money that does go into the library
system should not.
That's it! I'm willing to discuss, but pointing out *obvious*
distinctions between the Post Office, Fire Department, etc. and Public
Medicine to the ignorant is over. This could go on forever. Learn how
the country is designed to work before making political decisions, please.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 08/27/09 17:17, Shay wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> Likely not *your* wallet, because you likely don't earn enough. But
> that's a minor point.
Oh my god! Are you f**king kidding me?!
The greedy rich are paying for all of this and just need to open their
purse strings a *bit* more. Right?
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
