that’s still more than you’re saying.

9/10/2009 12:45:06 AM

healthcare is a right. this is my opinion, and the opinion of many others. i know you do not agree, but it's my stand.


doctors are a part of one of the oldest, and greatest professions of all time. it is a great profession, meaning that a doctor must go through extensive training/education in order to become a licensed professional. as a profession, they have an overseeing body that regulates the number of professionals and protects the trade. you should, in theory, be able to go to any doctor and be assured that he or she is just as capable of treating you as the next. because of this, the rules of supply/demand are inherently skewed. they are not mechanics, they are not cable/satellite providers. this is why they generally do not need to advertise their "services" because they have fiduciary responsibility to a patient. not to a customer, but to a patient.


i'm not trying to vilify doctors here. i just think that insurance companies took a good thing, and shit all over it. your argument that healthcare is a service completely undermines the value of the profession and applies trite and hackneyed rules of economics in a field far to intricate for your free market zealotry.

[Edited on September 10, 2009 at 12:57 AM. Reason : ]

9/10/2009 12:49:47 AM

wow. so much stupid. so little support for your claim that healthcare is a right. It was a nice rant, though.

[Edited on September 10, 2009 at 12:57 AM. Reason : ]

9/10/2009 12:57:05 AM

^haha.


you ask me to make my claim. and i do. and do you try to refute or even acknowledge anything?



no, you don't. instead, true to form, you capitalize on another chance to act like a total boner.

9/10/2009 12:59:58 AM

your only support is that doctors need training. Lots of other services require training, too. at best, you appealed to emotion as opposed to any other support. I threw that out the window as soon as you did it, as it is grounded in absolutely nothing. Then you ranted against capitalism, like a good little communist.

Please, though, point to a section in the Constitution or its Amendments, you know, where our rights are, on the whole, defined or derived, and show where healthcare resides.

lawyers don't have customers, they have clients. They still offer services. Lawyers also need lots of training and have professional organizations that define their conduct. They still offer a service.

Investment firms also don't have customers, they have clients. Same arguments apply.

9/10/2009 1:08:55 AM

Quote :

" RIGHT TO A LAWYER"

9/10/2009 1:12:16 AM

i knew you would play that. But, note that that is actually codified. healthcare is not. moreover, the right to a lawyer actually has merit to it. healthcare does not.

9/10/2009 1:13:26 AM

then why did you use lawyer as an example?

and how does a right to a lawyer have merit in your opinion. Just wondering.

9/10/2009 1:15:04 AM

i pointed to lawyers because he tried the bullshit example of customer vs patient. So, I did customer vs client.

And, your right to a lawyer is not universal. It only applies in cases where you are the defendant. I'm not sure if it applies in civil court, though. Moreover, the SC has ruled that a person has said right. And it only makes sense. If the government is going to take your ass to court, you at least ought to have someone who is supposed to know the law representing you against the lawyers the government will have. Otherwise, how could that be considered a "fair trial."

9/10/2009 1:18:18 AM

ok thats fair enough

9/10/2009 1:23:32 AM

I don't think people should have to go completely broke because they get an illness. If you disagree, fuck you.


Why the fuck does medicine cost so much more in this country anyway? It's bullshit to pay 9 dollars for an asprin when you go to the hospital, but pay 25 cents for one in a gas station vending machine.

9/10/2009 12:45:33 PM

That's a rather simple analogy, but the reason is that you have private companies making a profit.

9/10/2009 12:56:27 PM

^^ Because of all of the "value-adds" that a hospital provides for that aspirin?

[Edited on September 10, 2009 at 1:02 PM. Reason : can't count]

9/10/2009 1:01:44 PM

Think of it this way

With a private company,

[Cost of producing medicine] + [Administrative costs] + [Reasonable profit] = [Amount you pay]

With the government,

[Cost of producing medicine] + [Administrative costs] = [Amount you pay]

Why do you think it's cheaper to ship USPS?

[Edited on September 10, 2009 at 1:27 PM. Reason : ]

9/10/2009 1:27:20 PM

Quote :

"Why do you think it's cheaper to ship USPS?"

If that were true, why then do UPS and FedEx exist - profitably, at that?

9/10/2009 1:55:41 PM

it can't possibly be because they offer a superior good/service at a reasonable rate

[Edited on September 10, 2009 at 1:58 PM. Reason : while the government option keeps getting more expensive]

9/10/2009 1:57:34 PM

Quote :

"If that were true, why then do UPS and FedEx exist - profitably, at that?"

EXACTLY.

Cue arguments from conservatives about how their private health insurance will "go out of business" if the government offers a public option.

9/10/2009 2:09:39 PM

Quote :

"EXACTLY."

No, not "EXACTLY." The USPS in many cases is not cost-competitive, or service-competitive. The only reason it even stays in business at all is due to a government-sanctioned monopoly over first-class mail delivery.

9/10/2009 2:11:00 PM

9/10/2009 2:11:45 PM

Nice rebuttal.

9/10/2009 2:13:51 PM

I would say it's more like the North Carolina Beach Plan...

We're not talking about stamps and mailboxes.

9/10/2009 2:15:41 PM

As stated in other threads, I'm not worried about private insurers going out of business, I'm worried about business opting out of this new insurance requirement and taking the government sanctioned "penalty."

9/10/2009 2:16:28 PM

Quote :

" If that were true, why then do UPS and FedEx exist - profitably, at that? "

for the same reason BMW and Lexus exist since people want more than just a metal box with wheels and a spartan seat or the DUKE's, Yale's, or Cambell University exists when you can attend a state university for cheaper.

9/10/2009 2:22:54 PM

I'm fairly sure the last time I shipped with UPS it wasn't about name-brand status-seeking or plushness - but your mileage may vary.

9/10/2009 2:25:37 PM

the UPS store near my house is run by idiots.

so I go to the post office which is run by idiots.

its all a big shit hole.

9/10/2009 11:00:39 PM

Quote :

"healthcare is a right. this is my opinion, and the opinion of many others. "

What exactly is your definition of a "right?" Clearly it's much different than what a "right" actually is. If you are in favor of government provided healthcare, fine. But let's not be intellectually dishonest. It's an entitlement. not a right.

"Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness", freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble, all rights you exercise, something you do. Health care as a right? That'd be a right to demand a service of others without compensation - forcing services from the doctor that he/she won't be compensated for.

A right can't be something that only exists by virtue of someone else being able to provide it.

9/11/2009 8:58:08 AM

Quote :

"Health care as a right? That'd be a right to demand a service of others without compensation - forcing services from the doctor that he/she won't be compensated for."

Uh... maybe I'm mistaken, but doctors are still going to get paid. The government isn't going to roll in and say "hey, we covered this guy, so just mark it $0"

9/11/2009 9:28:50 AM

i think that's BD's point

if money/compensation is exchanged then it's still a service....not a right

[Edited on September 11, 2009 at 9:36 AM. Reason : dadsfd]

9/11/2009 9:36:08 AM

Quote :

"i think that's BD's point if money/compensation is exchanged then it's still a service....not a right"

But our other inalienable rights are ultimately protected by the Government or the Military.

Both of whom get compensation for their services.

[Edited on September 11, 2009 at 9:52 AM. Reason : .]

9/11/2009 9:52:10 AM

neither the military, nor the government, provides me with life, freedom, or happiness

those are all up to me


they may ultimately help provide for my safety and they can certainly take away my freedom and make me unhappy...but none of those things are inherently provided for me, by them, in any way


they can't provide me with any of those things because they are rights...not mandates of law...but they can provide me with health insurance...mandated by law...therefore it is an entitlement...not a right

[Edited on September 11, 2009 at 10:03 AM. Reason : alksdjfl]

9/11/2009 10:00:59 AM

In hindsight using the word "inalienable" above was a mistake as it's more our constitutional rights that I meant to single out, not the whole "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" aspect. That said, I would still argue that a person's freedom is ultimately provided by and ensured by the government.

9/11/2009 10:17:16 AM

^^"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." are considered natural, moral, inalienable rights. Everything else is a legal right, and they are without a doubt inherently provided for you by the government.


But all this is beside the point. On the previous page, mls09 used the phrase, public good. Just replace the word, right, with the word, public good, and his argument is back on track to legitimacy.

9/11/2009 10:22:53 AM

Quote :

"I would still argue that a person's freedom is ultimately provided by and ensured by the government."

I think this is the crux of the argument. A person's freedom should not provided nor ensured by the government. It's guaranteed in spite of the government. Sure, we need them to protect us from other government etc... (I don't really want to get into that argument). But a lot of people, myself included, don't want a government big enough that it is responsible for ensuring all those rights/freedoms. Once it's big enough to "give" us the right, it can just as easily take it away.

[Edited on September 11, 2009 at 10:24 AM. Reason : ]

9/11/2009 10:23:09 AM

Quote :

"Once it's big enough to "give" us the right, it can just as easily take it away."

You do realize that our government gave black people freedom in the United States less than 150 years ago, right?

[Edited on September 11, 2009 at 10:28 AM. Reason : .]

9/11/2009 10:28:32 AM

i've always thought the Constitutional Bill of Rights was a list of things the government/military could not do to the people of this country

not a list of things the government/military was supposed to do for the people of this country


even the ninth amendment that says "rights not enumerated in the Bill of Rights" is still limits on government control...not a list of entitlements provided by the government

i don't buy into the "living document" thing....if that were the case, it would be a lot easier to change....i agree that some changes/corrections/additions have to be made from time to time....but those times are very rare...the Constitution was never meant to be interpreted and changed to fit the whim of each administration

[Edited on September 11, 2009 at 10:32 AM. Reason : ^an example of when there was a direct NEED to change the Constitution]

9/11/2009 10:29:43 AM

^^^You don't want the Bill of Rights?

^I'm not sure where you're coming from here. Those rights, however you want to describe them (supposed to do or can't do), are provided to us by the government.

I agree that we can't go changing the Constitution to support our goals all the time.

But I didn't realize we were at risk of doing that. Has there been some news about a constitutional amendment that I missed? Last big one I heard about was those crazy homophobes wanting to guarantee marriage was between a man and a woman.



If you read mls09's post, it's clear he's talking about a public good, not a right. He misspoke or got a little uppity or something.

9/11/2009 10:44:51 AM

^^^Freedom it took from them in the first place???

^What part of my post says I don't want the Bill of Rights?

You do know the Bill of Rights are a bunch of prohibitions against the federal government right?

[Edited on September 11, 2009 at 10:47 AM. Reason : ]

9/11/2009 10:44:58 AM

i just tried to make that point

it did no good

9/11/2009 10:52:12 AM

The Bill of Rights is an enumeration of pre-existing rights that we as human beings have so that the government cannot infringe upon them.

They are not rights that the government "gave us."

[Edited on September 11, 2009 at 10:57 AM. Reason : ]

9/11/2009 10:56:17 AM

^,^^Sorry for saying the Bill of Rights. I meant to include all the amendments, not just the first ten.

And I'm still not quite clear what you're saying. You want these rights, but you don't want a government big enough to protect them? If a local official tells you you can't vote and the state does nothing about it...you don't want the federal government to step in there?


I think y'all are being a little righteous about the fact that you don't want a big government because you don't wanna pay too much in taxes. Just admit you're stingy. Don't try to mask it in contrived arguments about the Constitution.

^No, it is not.

[Edited on September 11, 2009 at 11:04 AM. Reason : ]

9/11/2009 11:03:09 AM

Quote :

"The Bill of Rights is an enumeration of pre-existing rights that we as human beings have so that the government cannot infringe upon them. They are not rights that the government "gave us.""

Ideally, yes. However if the government doesn't agree to them, you're going to have a hell of a time actually using them. Regardless of who gave you those rights, they're ultimately protected and ensured by the government.

Quote :

"^^^Freedom it took from them in the first place???"

What you're saying is you don't want a government that's big enough to grant people rights because it could take them away; despite the fact that the government has been able to both grant and repeal rights for the majority of it's existence, regardless of size.

[Edited on September 11, 2009 at 11:08 AM. Reason : .]

9/11/2009 11:07:17 AM

this is hurting my brain:

http://usdebtclock.org/

9/11/2009 11:35:46 AM

Quote :

"I agree that we can't go changing the Constitution to support our goals all the time. But I didn't realize we were at risk of doing that. Has there been some news about a constitutional amendment that I missed?"

Clearly you haven't been watching our government for the past 70 years

9/11/2009 1:15:46 PM

^^

I think it's pretty clear that those of us who still care about the national debt are too small of a minority to be heard.

Let's spend $10billion a month blowing up brown people
Let's spend hundreds of billions more bailing out banks
Let's spend a trillion dollars giving everyone "free" healthcare.
Let's put it all on a giant credit card and hope China doesn't demand payoff.

Back to the topic at hand...

Quote :

"I would still argue that a person's freedom is ultimately provided by and ensured by the government."

This is kind of funny considering the biggest threat to a person's freedom is the government itself.


Again a basic human right has to exist in a vacuum. Once it's dependent on someone else GIVING something tangible to a person, it's no longer a right, it's an entitlement. Education, fire and police departments, roads, social security, medicare, et al., are entitlements, not rights.

There's no question that our current healthcare system is broken. However trying to redefine it as a basic right as a justification to put the burden of providing healthcare on the government is nothing more than a strawman setup.

9/11/2009 1:21:35 PM

Arguing whether it's a right is completely moot.

a) as people have mentioned, even if it were a right, that only means the government couldn't prevent you from having health care; not that health care was an entitlement. Does the government force us to own firearms?

b) it doesn't need to be a right for us to all agree that universal healthcare is a good thing that should be enacted.

9/11/2009 1:25:07 PM

Praise you for correctly using 'whether'.

Back on topic. Honestly, if you're against universal healthcare, you're a douche. Now, I'm not saying that you're a douche if you're against Obama plans for reasons like you're concerned about how we're going to pay for it and offer up reasonable alternatives.

But if your reasons are "natural selection" and "people should pay for services", then you're a douche.

9/11/2009 1:36:02 PM

Quote :

"Arguing whether it's a right is completely moot."

Agreed.

The proponents are going to say it's a right, because it's an easy soundbite to appeal to the common person, but they know, and everyone knows, the exact phrase itself is mostly meaningless.

It's the same strategy at play when the right tries to impugn anything they hate with the label of "communism" or "socialism" or "Anti-americanism" or whatever else. They know those labels are meaningless in and of themselves, it's just a way to try and rally support.

9/11/2009 1:38:34 PM

how about if i'm against it because i don't want to be forced to pay for your service?

9/11/2009 1:39:33 PM

clearly you are a douche, LP. Dissent makes you a douche

9/11/2009 1:41:10 PM

They aren't douches, it's just that their (the right that is) guiding principle is "Fuck you, I got mine".

Wait, nevermind, I guess that does make them douches. Carry on.

9/11/2009 1:42:51 PM