 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> 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 know 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:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> 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 know that.
>
Completely separate issues, of course. Because it doesn't cost money to
improve "the health of people." Neeum should go into the political
bumper-sticker business.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 18:54:59 -0400, Tim Cook wrote:
> 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
So in other words, the DoI states what we set out to do, and then we
failed short?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 18:49:32 -0500, Shay wrote:
> 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?
The document in question says "all men".
> 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.
Don't conflate what I'm saying here.
> The Constitution says that we are born with the right to pursue
> happiness, not the that government must pave the road to it.
Yes. But health != happiness.
>> 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."
Right. That old and perhaps demented person might be your local WallMart
greeter. He gets sick, he passes it on to the checker who checks out
your monster size box of Coco Puffs. Like it or not, we're all in this
together here.
> The entity wanting to take over health care is 12 Trillion in debt, but
> we'll just print more money, right?
And how did we get into that debt? Partly by skyrocketing health care
costs. The bloody insurance companies aren't going to fix that. The
whole friggin' system is set up to keep us SICK so the shareholders in
hospitals and insurance companies can MAKE MORE MONEY. That's messed up.
> 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."
If costs come down, that's a good thing, right?
When you open your coffee shop and expand to the point you need
employees, are you going to give them health care? If so, good for you.
If not, hope they don't get sick and pass it on to you. You gonna check
medical insurance cards at the door and ask for a medical history to
ensure nobody who's ill doesn't come in the door and pass on some
communicable disease to you or your staff?
Are you the "bubble boy"?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 19:22:23 -0500, Shay wrote:
> 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.
Doctors who receive their licenses in the US are licensed to practice in
the US. It's interstate commerce, something the federal government is
mandated by the constitution to regulate. Doctors are routinely flown in
across state lines to perform operations.
Medical equipment isn't manufactured in every state; that MRI machine may
have been manufactured anywhere in the US (or the world, for that matter).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:43:41 -0500, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> His stated goal is also not to have single payer.
I think you missed an "only" in there. IOW, a single-payer system isn't
the only option.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 18:49:32 -0500, Shay wrote:
>> 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?
The document's pretty clear it means for all people and not just a
"special super-elite class".
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/27/09 19:22, Shay wrote:
>> 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.
You seem to be complaining not based on principle, but on quibbles. You
act as if you're invoking an unceasing willingness to conform to the
Constitution, regardless of whether that's a good thing, or not. The
Constitution is merely a document, not a source for morality or ethics.
What different does it make if it's state vs federal? One way or other,
it's taking money out of your pocket, which was your complaint. I wasn't
aware that you think it's OK to forcefully take money from your pocket
if the _state_ is doing it, rather than the federal government.
> 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
OK, I'll play along. How about states mandating UHC?
--
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 18:56, Shay wrote:
> 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/
Yes. So? I never denied that his stated goal was 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/27/09 19:26, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:43:41 -0500, Neeum Zawan wrote:
>
>> His stated goal is also not to have single payer.
>
> I think you missed an "only" in there. IOW, a single-payer system isn't
> the only option.
No, I meant what I said. He stated that he is not pursuing single payer:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Town-Hall-on-Health-Insurance-Reform-in-Portsmouth-New-Hampshire/
"All right? So I'm not promoting a single-payer plan."
(Never mind his lies in what he said throughout...)
--
I am reading a very interesting book about anti-gravity. I just can't
put it down.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
