This was one of the best explanations on what is a right and good that I have ever heard. Thank you, Judge, for your consistent work for the sake of liberty. You are a true patriot.
One thing this idiot is omitting is that the Geneva Convention, which the U.S. agreed to, states that health care is a right and depriving someone of health care is an act of torture. That's why prisoners get health care while they are incarcerated. They do not pay for it, therefore it is not a good. Besides, even if something is a good, it can still be legislated as a necessity and need not be exploited for profit. Energy Cooperatives do the same thing with electricity and natural gas already.
@Mugchgu FAIL! LOL, Yhea" Judge Napolitano is dumb and your wicked smart! Try reading the complete GC papers, not an abstract summary on some blog! Jezzz!!!
@zepDzen My answer to you is simple. Karma is a bitch. If you don't want universal health care and stand by the Insurance industry snakes who kill 45,000 people per year by denying them health care coverage, then I hope your child or your spouse or someone you love develops a chronic illness that needs sustained medical treatments. Then the industry that you so idiotically defend will drop their coverage and you'll have the pleasure of watching them die slowly. FAIL INDEED!
@Mugchgu WoW" Thats beautiful, you wish illness on my children, loved ones and to watch them die a slow death...hmmm...You do care about people!,,,But only if they agree with your rationnal...Karma loves people like you my friend". Don't write me back, your a scary person.
@zepDzen Spare me your hypocritical double standards. It may not happen to your loved ones but it will happen to thousands of other people's loved ones every year. Since you oppose universal health care, then you want their loved ones to die slowly. I just want you to have the same thing for you that you want for them.
@Mugchgu yea... and government run health care programs have never denied treatment to any patient... get real! I work in health care as a pharmacist and see it every day. You know who the biggest offenders of coverage denial are?? Medicare denies more patient claims than any insurance company in the country.
@Mugchgu Where is the double standard on my side? I never said anything about expecting others to take care of me or my family? No one in the US is denied Med attention, one of the reasons priv health Ins is so high, and why an asprin cost 400% more in a hospital. Its simple economics, the ones that pay will always pay more to subsadize those who can't or won't. I think you are taking for grantide that this is a little more sophistocated than "everyone should have it".
@Mugchgu to continue...Thanks for wanting me to have what I want for my family (and Im serious). But that is my responsability and choice to pick the type of health plan with the options myself and family need. I dont mean to pry but do you feel this way because you don't have heath ins yourself?
This was the exact same healthcare bill that Republicans proposed in 1994, so in today's intellectual bankruptcy, anti-ideology, and worship of political pragmatism, it's unsurprising that even Republicans forgot such range-of-the-moment policies.
I cannot fault his logic. But would not live in such a world. In europe we have a different veiw of society. It is called the Common Good however If you and he are prepared to live with the consquences of his philosphy then so be it . Don't you care for those who fall by the wayside??
All charity in the Christian tradition as well as the libertarian tradition has come from the individual. Only people can do it with compassion, care, or concern. A case worker cannot.
Is it little wonder, then, that the country that gives the most charitable donations per capita is the US to the aid of their fellow man (not abroad, but the US gives the most in absolute terms)? Capitalism and freedom require and compels individual compassion, which is true charity, not legislation.
@Sfan985 Indeed; anything else than voluntary charity, as in legislated 'charity,' would cease to be so and would instead become an imposed collectivism. By definition charity is voluntary; anything legislated CANNOT be charity.
I live in the great state Texas where we have no state income tax and are the leaders of jobs and economic growth. I have 3 brothers and my dad worked his ass off and didn't ask for a dime in assistance. You take the money from people like my father and myself to support a health care program that takes money from me and my state to pay for you. Obama struck deals with big pharma and ins companies to keep from going across state lines he received 5 mill from Goldman and $ from Fannie and Freddie
Who caused this mess in the name of social justice & will cost the tax payer of $ 1 trillion which bigger than the entire bank bailout headed by Franklin Raines &Jim Johnson advisers to Obama that made of 100 million combined,so dont give me this Im a capitalist and support these crony corporations, that make their money. Im a free market capitalist that believes gov should stay out of the way and not influence commerce to benefit lobbyist.Look at NJ CA Greece Spain all socialist union problems
@labmonky, by the Judge's logic, legal representation should not be a right, because it is a good. Regarding the right to bear arms, that extends from our right to life, and our right to protect ourselves. The founders created a Republic form or government, not a democracy. True, we elect politicians, but they and the people are restrained by the Constitution. In other words, 51% of the people can't vote to kill all (fill in the blank), which would be democracy in action.
Hey i'm back LOL.Just wanted to point out that the ranking for the best places to live is done by using a system called quality of life index.They factor in health, family life, community life, material well being, political well being and security, climate and geography, job security, political freedom and gender equality.And sorry I meant Switzerland not Sweden
That makes sense. Switzerland is a more capitalistic country than even America and has a far less intrusive government. All of that great quality of life occurs as a direct result of wealth production and lower taxes, not government mandates. Capitalism = wealth production. Creating a huge new government bureaucracy will not only make our health system less efficient, it causes a necessary increase in tax. Increased tax = less capital for production = less wealth = lower standard of life.
OK, this bugs me more then anything Stalin and Mao were TOTALITARIANIST .Pol Pott was a monster NO ONE not even communist justify what he did.France is widely considered socialist and they were just ranked the #1 place in the world to live.Sweeden has a form of Democratic Socialism and they are usually ranked #1
Ranked by whom? As you point out, the whole world is socialist. Why do insist on reducing the one country where freedom is a value? People around the world vote with their feet to come to America, not for the European-style entitlements, but for the liberty to market the products of their minds.
@fzqlcs "the one country where freedom is a value".... omg i think i just wet my pants. Big news for you: every country has got immigration and emigration. Maybe you should stop thinking America is the centre of the world ty.
And I would love to say that my opinions are those of youth full rebellion but I am a young ADULT and I have grown my opinions from personal experience.I will never turn my back on the middle class no matter how old I get I will always be a socialist at heart, I have known I was a socilaist since I could form a political opinion
Well i'm sure that even you would agree that $680 a month is WAY too much for a BASE plan.And as I pointed out I work full time in a industry that is very productive and my point about the $20 is I will pay my taxes and not whine and cry if it means that someone else will benefit because I can think beyond myself
why do people need medical care more than say, housing or food? Shouldn't we pay for all of that? How about people in other countries? Why should they starve? Think beyond yourself and live as a sacrificial lamb. Is that what you advocate?
Nope right now I am advocating that we get some form of universal health care and I believe that all of the things you have listed are important.Other industrialized countries have done a much better job then America at taking care of it's people
I believe in separation of church and state but it is the most conservative people that claim to follow Jesus, and then support regannomics and corporations with their life
I think the problem is a natural conflict between faith (belief, with no evidence) and reason (the perception, identification and integration of sensory information). Believers, placing faith above reason, can argue anything. But if reason is one's absolute, for which no value is placed higher, hypocrisy can be easily avoided. One simply has to understand the human survival mechanism, and the concepts of reason, liberty and justice (a level playing field, not a desired outcome) naturally follow.
Yeah that is true, but I feel personally feel like health care is a right and should be a right and not a privilege.I don't understand how some people can be so cold to human suffering and then justify it by saying that they are somehow better
You are me in my twenties, but Winston Churchill got this exactly right. "To be young and not be liberal is to have no heart, but to be older and not be conservative is to have no mind."
For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." We should take care of widows, orphans or people that cannot take care of themselves not those who choose not to provide for themselves and not those in society that would rather have a $500 payment and not health insurance. I am sick of people pulling into the projects on $40,000 vehicles and live off the back of the working middle class who struggle for their leisure!
I work FULL TIME in the mental health and substance abuse field and I work hard for what I have it is not a lack of morality that I needed help at one point because my companies health insurance is $680 a month with outrageous co pays
I get it. As long as one has a need for money, taking it by force (whether using a gun or politician) from someone else is perfectly acceptable. Sounds like a morality issue to me.
Oh and I love how all these people can speak on how bad government health is,I live in Massachusetts where health care reform has already happened and I was on MassHealth for a little while and it was THE BEST INSURANCE EVER the only time I have had problems was with for profit insurance companies
Yeah your right let those dumb poor people die, they don't deserve health care anyways they are second class citizens.Only crazy people like Jesus and Gandhi advocated helping the poor
I think Jesus might have been attempting to persuade his followers to help their brothers, not using government force to impose policy. That is the difference between a spiritual leader and a tyrant.
If you really think that Obama is a tyrant then there is obviously no getting through to you.Jesus was the biggest champion of the poor that ever lived, yes he was a spiritual leader but i'm sure he wouldn't be too happy with the fact that people are dying because they can't afford health insurance or freezing because they can't afford heating oil or aren't able to drive a car because the oil companies are gauging prices
I never once said being happy was a right , neither did I advocate taking things with a gun???.Anyways if you providing people with affordable health insurance is the right thing to do, we should not let our fellow american's die because they can't afford an insurance policy and if they want to take an extra $20 out of my paycheck each week so that over 10,000 american's don't die this year I will do it and not complain and THAT is being patriotic
As you pointed out earlier, $20 a week wouldn't pay for your own health care. You are still a social vampire sucking life from more productive members of society. And you dare feel patriotic about that? It takes no morality to be generous with OTHER people's money. That is the true morality of the left--the morality of a thief. No wonder this country is sinking in debt.
@SS5507 Health care in MASS is rated poor, you have the highest premiums and have asked the federal gov (aka the other 49 tax paying states) to pay for your $260 million hospital short fall. They also have some of the longest wait times in the country, so its more expensive and takes longer to see a doctor. Great system oh & youre welcome for my tax dollars going to your health care system! UK is now trying to privatize their system because socialized medicine unsustainable,as your state proves
@quinnrasta Actually MA has the 3rd best health care in the US and the 2nd best medicaid program, gee do you live in MA??because I do and I can personally tell you that the state run program is excellent, and the for profit insurance companies have caused nothing but problems, and ya know who is really riding off your back?? The huge corporations you are protecting that have billions of our tax dollars
@SS5507 Protecting corporations? What are you talking about? Higher taxes help corporations because it kills small business. And what socialist country has more prosperity than America? Cuba, China, Venezuela, USSR. Since the MASS bill became law, the state’s total direct health-care spending has increased by a remarkable 52 %. Medicaid spending has gone from less than $6 billion a year to more the $9 billion. Many consumers have seen double-digit %in their premiums. Yall are damn geniuses!
@quinnrasta I'm not giving you a boo hoo story I am speaking from experience, I am speaking the truth of millions of working class people who will NEVER be millionaires, i'm not living in some fantasy land that Glenn Beck put in my head that say's that the only reason I am not rich is because I am lazy, it is logistically impossible for even half of America to achieve the "American Dream", and the cost of living is soaring higher then wages can keep up with
@DecemberParis The American Dream isnt to be a millionaire its to live comfortable & free. Wages will continually soar as the gov imposes more and more taxes, wait for cap and trade and see fuel prices, electricity to "skyrocket " as Obama says they will. With the taxes in the new HC bill business will have to raise prices on their goods because of gov. HC costs will skyrocket as they have done in MASS, Hawaii had to eliminate theirs for bankruptcy in 9months. Gov is the problem not the solution
@quinnrasta And I love how all these dumb assholes think that anyone who needs help is lazy, you know what I grew up in the middle class, my father worked 2 full time jobs while putting himself through school on no public assistance, he has his Juris Doctor in Labor Law and has worked harder then any right winger I have met and he is a socialist, he doesn't play the victim because he has to pay taxes, stop blaming the people on the bottom.......
@quinnrasta and blame the people who are screwing all of us, how many families today can live off of one income, your a capitalist right??? Has your dream of becoming a millionaire been achieved yet. I am working class as well, I am supporting 3 people (including myself) and you know who I blame, the people who are charging a fortune for the gas I need for my car, or my groceries, or the (gasp) health insurance companies that want to charge $600 + a month, and I need to wake up HA.
@SS5507 The whole reason insurance companies charge what they do is because of what they are charged by the doctors who are forced to treat people that would rather have a car than insurance,bigger home, cell phones, clothes etc... and pass the cost to people that have insurance. I grew up with little money and my father got scholarship from Cornell and played football, he grew up working construction at 12,so dont give me a boohoo story of people that cant make it. You live in that lib state...
Wow this commentary is very dangerous.If you had a child that was diagnosed with cancer, you were recently unemployed and couldn't afford cobra (it's pretty expensive) then I guess it would be a privilege that your child gets the treatment to save his or her life???That happens everyday yet the people making this commentary are rich so why should they care,it is absolutely disgusting.
Some folks don't have health insurance, but you never hear of anyone denied health care. Such stories would be front page if they existed to try to pimp Obamacare. Besides, where do you find a right to take the property of another man for your use? Like the Judge says, don't confuse rights with charity. If you want something that you have not earned, put your hand out and ask for help. Don't stick a gun in the ribs of taxpayers as if it is owed to you. It is not. Yes, the truth is dangerous
Yes health care is denied, if you have diabetes you cannot have regular visit's with a primary care physician the only time you cannot be denied care is if you go into diabetic shock and have to go to the er which at that point it might be too late.And can conservatives show ANY sympathy or compassion for anyone but a CEO?
Compassion and sympathy are private matters. For example, had President Obama pledged $10,000 of his own money to the people of Chili and asked other Americans to join, that would have shown him to a be compassionate person. But simply pledging other people's money, like taxpayers, requires only the morality of a thief. You just want those who put out the effort to produce be made the slaves for those who do not. Such a total lack of morality is disgusting.
The real issue is the health insurance companies and the drug companies. They buy the politicians and we suffer the consequences.All the politicians that accept contributions from these industries should be voted out of office.
Political corruption will always exist to the extent they have power to take one man's money and simply give it to another--subsidies, bailouts, welfare, etc. If a clean government is the goal, get government out our economic lives. Separation of church and state is good. Separation of capitalism and the state is even better, if spelling the end of political corruption is the objective. Until then, we must live with the current reality.
I think that Americans are basically good people that want to give others the benefit of the doubt. We've been taught that our Representatives care about our welfare, believe in their oath to uphold the constitution, etc. Unfortunately, these people are interested in themselves far more than the people they represent, and therefore, cannot be true representatives. The constitution and Bill of Rights are nothing more to them than symbols of the past instead of rules to follow.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The point he's ignoring is that government is (well, is supposed to be) whatever we the people want it to be. Government works for us. Likewise, there's no supernaturally created definition of what is and isn't a 'right'. We as a society decide. We vote on it. If enough people get together and agree that everyone is allowed to check a book out of the library, then it becomes a right. If enough people decide that everyone must pay taxes, then that becomes an obligation. That's how it works.
Again you misunderstand. We are not what any wants, we are a Constitutional republic. You do not have a right to take the property of your fellow man. You do not have a right to steal and a right to be cared for. You do not have a right to live at someone else expense. Is this the shit they preach in school these days?
My whole point is that he (and you perhaps) is/are getting bogged down in the definition of 'rights', which is quite a strawman argument when you consider many progressives (myself included) are working for healthcare reform NOT because we think it's a right but because we think it's morally responsible and better for society. I've got news for you, bud: living at someone else's expense is part of life and it's how all civilized democracies work. It's called taxation and it's necessary.
There is no morality whatsoever to what you advocate. There is nothing moral about taking one man's property and giving it to another. That is the essence of political corruption. Someone cannot have a created right (health care) at the expense of someone else inalienable right (property). I do not call a morality that allows theft moral in any way. It is exactly the opposite.
Of course, butwho says that natural rights even exist? Just claiming they do is begging the question. It assumes a supreme being or right giver or, at the very least, it assumes some type of moral realism. I personally am unconvinced that anyone has natural rights. Can you prove that we do without invoking a supreme deity?
Rights were not mechanisms of survival. Evolution works off variation and natural selection. No early organisms survived because other organisms respected their rights. And if we're to speak of group selection, it's safe to say that animal tribes survived better when they got along, shared resources, etc. In other words, animals weren't libertarians.
First, animals are not human. Second, libertarians are not averse to charity; Objectivists are. Third, taking from someone by force and giving the stolen goods to someone else is not "sharing resources."
This isn't what we're talking about, but I don't get that 2nd to last sentence.
Animals share resources, huh? Which animals?
Among both prey herds and predatory packs, there is only competition for resources. The strongest buck, or wolf gets the best of everything. Everybody else gets what's left over in descending order. If there's not enough for everybody, there is no sharing, the weakest die, or they man up fight for a share.
The right to use one's mind to serve his own self-interest as well as the right of self-defense are basic survival mechanisms. Collectivists, like the animals you mention, seem to lack the ability to reason. Perhaps that explains why neither become libertarians.
You wrote: 'A natural right exists in the very being of the individual, irregardless of society.'
That's simply an assertion. I'm asking you to demonstrate how this is true. I don't believe you. And since you're the one making a positive claim, the burden of proof is on you.
As far as Thomas Paine... Look, I've read tons of books too and we can name-drop authors and titles all day long. No I didn't read Common Sense. But why don't you make a point instead of appealing to famous figures?
I'm not, 'name dropping' you asked for proof. I simply pointed you to a source that might answer the question. Any answer I give you would be nothing more than regurgitation of all these 'famous authors I have read' anyway. I simply pointed you directly to one of those authors.
... but here goes, if you find yourself completely alone and isolated in a modern city, what laws do you obey?
a)The laws of civil society
b)The laws of self preservation and self determination.
You're not making sense here. I've asked you to demonstrate why you think we have 'a natural right' to ANYTHING (as opposed to civil rights which are agreed on by collective society).
Your last response argues that a human will strive for self preservation and self determination. But I'm not arguing that! I've never said the contrary. I won't disagree that we have survival instincts that require a healthy dose of selfishness.
But you're mixing up rights and personal desires/instincts.
"If enough people get together and agree that everyone is allowed to check a book out of the library, then it becomes a right. If enough people decide that everyone must pay taxes, then that becomes an obligation. That's how it works."
Then I guess that if enough people vote to execute you for no reason that would be okay with you too? Or perhaps not it suddenly should not work like that?
No, what you people are having a hard time with is separating the question of moral realism (whether objective morality even exists) and practical applications of a collective society that needs to work together to boost its survival chances. I'm not saying that the majority is always right. I'm saying that the best we can do as a society is work together to come up with what we belive are the most beneficial ways to co-exist. Pretending you're fully fit to survive with no one's help is naive.
But a democracy combines resources and agrees on how to use them. You can pretend you're against that, but the fact is, you wouldn't survive a week without the power of collective society. Why don't you go move to Somalia and try your hand there? There's no govt there. Yemen seems to be opening up lately to libertarian ideals. You might want to check that country out. Crying about socialism (which EVERY healthy democracy has) is just a way for greedy people to kick and scream about taxes.
A democracy that does not recognize property rights could combine resources. That would be democratic socialism. A democracy that derives from law (like ours, the Constitution) is to respect individual property rights (Bill of Rights). You are so twisted about liberty and government that I see no point in continuing this discussion.
Universal healthcare, if implemented by the WILL of the people, would be no different than how we pay taxes for police protection and public school. It's just extending socialism that ALREADY exists in the US. You can say that this would be terrible economics, or that the govt is inefficient, and I can't disagree. But at the end of the day, this really comes down to how generous we want to be as a society. You don't want to share. I do. Plain and simple.
So, in that case, when you're forced to pay taxes and that money goes to public schools and police stations, is that theft too? What about the military? Theft? I could kick and scream and say that I don't need the US govt to defend me from colonialist invaders or terrorists. I can do it myself, or with some friends! But I don't really have a choice, do I? That's the thing about taxation: we don't always get a say about how the money is used.
You misconstrue. The taking of tax money for services rendered in the operation of government (which includes the military, police services and the courts) was not described as theft. The taking of tax monies to give those resources to others either directly or in services not universally enjoyed by the populace is what was desribed as theft.
No one is complaining about the exercise of govt powers that have ALWAYS been govt powers - that's nothing but a strawman.
You're not being consistent. How about public education? We don't all benefit from tax spending equally. I can argue that public shools shouldn't be tax funded as much as you can argue that healthcare shouldn't be tax funded. In fact, I could probably make a better case for the federal funding of healthcare. You're just being ultra-selective and creating stipulations to fit what you think should and shouldn't be taxed. But when you get down to it, you can't make a good argument.
I'm being perfectly consistent. The provision of national defense and police protection are societal in nature. The benefits of education are personal in nature (as is healthcare). I can argue that NEITHER should be tax funded quite easily (both on moral AND practical grounds). In BOTH cases, again, they are the use of societal funds to meet individual needs and in BOTH cases the private sector can demonstrabvly provide a better product.
No, you're just asserting lots of things which boils down to your own pesonal opinion. I could respect your argument more if you simply admit that it's your desire vs. others', but instead, you seem to want to play games where you try to categorize things to fit what you want. And another strawman: I didn't say that ALL scientific reasearch was govt-funded. I gave an example where my tax money is going to something that I don't get to choose. Keep ignornig my points if it makes you happy.
Sorry, that's simple ignorance. NONE of the points made are "just assertions". That national defense and police powers are in the govt purview is definitional. That the benefits of these items are societal rather than individual and that the benficiaries of health care and education are individual is a matter of basic understanding. If you wish to argue that society benefits from the availability of education, that's a different point than the one you were making.
I already addressed this tired old slavery question. The collective isn't always perfect. The collective WILL make mistakes. But it's the best system we have so we use it. It's my opinion that the majority today is wrong about interdicting gay marriage.
Regarding 'generosity', we don't really NEED to call it that then, do we? Free public school is undertaken by govt. That seems pretty generous to me. Same thing with highway repairs and the nice men and women in uniform who protect our shores.
Generosity is, by definition, WILLINGLY giving money or time. Tax dollars are never gathered willingly. Even if you, as an individual, willingly pay your taxes, they are still collected under the threat of force and, in toto, cannot be separated from funds that were taken unwillingly. That taxes are taken to perform services for the society is, again, not an issue; that they are also taken to be distributed in the form of either money or goods is the problem.
But you see, that's where we disagree. You simply assert that it's a problem. I say it's not. Sure, taxation is implemented by the force of the majority. Sure it's used to pay for things you don't want to. But I'm fine with that and so are a lot of people. We think that's what it takes to make society strong. Call it service, call it goods. It's irrelevant what you call it. In essence, we're forcing the wealthier (a category that I fall into) to pay more to help the needier.
If we disagree then it becasue you are disregarding the basic definition and have lost the point. That you are "fine" with the use of taxation is merely the expression of your personal opinion. If that's all you have to offer ("it's okay with me") it's an abyssmally weak argument which in no way constitutes a defense of the position. And, actually, the examples are really forcing the middle class to provide inferior goods to everyone, but that's another issue.
But you see, that's just it! I'm admitting that it's my opinion. I can do that but you can't. You, instead, like to pretend that we're all bound to some selective interpretation of the constitution or inherent god-given rights. You say that I'm making a weak argument to defend a position. But that's dead wrong, because I'm admitting that it comes down to preference -- that it comes down to how collective society wants and chooses to spend tax money.
I can't admit that Brittney Spears is a great professional football player either - and for the SAME REASON. That is precisely the difference between our stances; yours is based solely on your personal opinions; mine is based on facts and the actual definitions of the terms being used. There's nothing selective or interpretive about those definitions. They can be found in any dictionary or work on the subject all the way back to the Enlightenment.
No, you're disgusing your personal opinions as something that should be taken seriously as objective truth, yet you never make a case as to why or how.
If rights are only aspects that stem from humanity, from nature... then does this mean we don't have a right to the services of the police and national military? By his definition, these are merely goods. Do my kids have the right to be taught in a tax-funded school? According to him, this too falls under the category of goods. Why do we allow the state to finance things like schools and police stations? These aren't rights!
you misunderstand completely. Rights are not something that has to be financed. They existed prior to government. American government was set up to protect rights, not provide them. The Constitution says they may not be infringed. Only goods need to be financed. Such expenses as military, police, fire, roads, etc are goods commonly used my all citizens.
Now you're begging the question. You write that 'military, police, fire, roads, etc are goods commonly used my [sic] all citizens' as if somehow that's an argument against collective healthcare. Well, if a form of socialized healthcare were to pass, then years later, someone could write the same phrase you just wrote, and simply add the word 'healthcare'. What good argument can you make against universal healthcare that you can't apply to public schools? Give it a try. I'd like to see this.
That would be easy. These argument apply equally to schools and health care. Education is not a right, it is a good. If we abide by the Constitution, the federal government has no authority to provide either one. States can however. Perhaps you and I decide that both are good things for our state. I would advocate both be voucher systems, where govt only financed services, allowing individuals to select the schools and health insurance of their choice. But neither one are rights.
Good. Glad to see we're getting somewhere here. Now that you've admitted that education and healthcare are on equal footing, would you like to see the govt bud out of education and close all public schools? And while we're at it, why should the govt even finance school services (as you've suggested)? Why not leave the govt out of education completely and allow families to pay for their own education? This is what many conservatives are proposing vis-à-vis healthcare. Why not be consistant?
I am willing to let democracy settle those issues at the state level. I am not interested in imposing my will on you. My interest is in avoiding that you impose your will on me.
OK, so you'd be for the creation of a government-run healthcare bureaucracy to compete with private insurers as long as it's a STATE government? Is that correct?
If so, why only respect the democratic majority when it's at the state level?
Here's another one... what if the majority of voters in your state wanted to opt into a federal-run program? In other words, you'd be adhering to state rights but end up with a federal solution. How 'bout that? That'd be good ol' state democracy, right?
I would be opposed to state-run health insurance, but it is at least legal function of democracy. As long as it is a state option, I would be free to move to a friendlier state if I did not like the way it was run. Here is my question to you. Tell me of a successful federal program that solves a social problem and does not run at a deficit? I'll be waiting.
That's a TOTAL non-sequitur. No one is talking about government efficiency here. I never said for a second that the govt would be good at running a public option. In fact, I don't think they would be very efficient. I'm for healthcare reform DESPITE the fact that it would be difficult to work out economically. And I'm for a public option because I think, DESPITE the govt's inefficiency, such an option would still put pressure on private insurers and ultimately drive down the cost of premimums.
The problem with a public option is this. No for-profit entity can COMPETE with an endlessly subsidized one. The public option will drive the market options away leaving us with no options. That result is both predictable and inevitable.
If your argument is true, then the US Post Office should have driven the market options away and there should be no UPS, DHL, etc. There should also be no private schools or private defense contractors. LOL, you're living in a dream world! If the govt created a healthcare bureaucracy, this would radically change the way private insurers operate but it wouldn't kill them. They'd have to adapt. And this is good news considering the monopoly they have and how they blatantly refuse service.
One final point... Have you thought about how insane it is to scream against a govt-run option when at the same time private insurers are flat-out saying NO to a lot of people? Think about that for a second. There are people who want to pay the private insurers and have the money, but they are being told no because they have pre-existing conditions. Well, how on earth can you complain about creating a govt-run system? At the very least, there should be a system available for these people!
I have more than one pre-existing condition and have repeatedly changed insurers without difficulty. The issue is about those who choose not to purchase (affordable - and, yes, it is) insurance (designed to cover RISK) until they get sick and then expect everyone else who has paid their premiums all along to absorb the costs they never paid for.
The issue for you maybe. The issue for me and others is that healthcare is way too expensive and we don't feel like it should be run like a business. I'm all for healthy capitalism, but not when it comes to people's health.
It is easily argued that healthcare is not too expensive, but even conceding your subjective position, the great cost driver in the US health care system is the govt intervention that is already occurring and that doesn't change the nature of the debate. And, in fact, the private sector does a far better job of providing actual care than does socialized medicine.
The private sector hasn't been doing a 'far better job' providing healthcare to 50 million people who haven't had it for years. The system in France (where I've been living for 9 yrs now) works very well. It's a mix of public and private. Everyone is insured, the costs are very low, and the quality is fine. We also have fully private insurers here and "mutuelles" if people want to opt into those. We have the best healthcare system in the world here. I know both very well.
And yet every reputable study (for years now) shows that the US system provides superior care. If you are diagnosed with a serious illness (and given care rationing under socialism you may wait too long for that), your chances of long term survival are FAR higher in the US. The French ration care in other ways. The possibility that patients in the US could die becasue their environment wasn't controlled (during, say, a heat wave that killed thousands) would not be tolerated here.
Ha ha, you're so hilarious. French ration care, huh? Funny, I've never seen or heard of it in 9 years here. And look how pathetic you are to talk about the heat wave of Aug 2003. You moron, old people died because they weren't being looked after and France wasn't used to such a drastic, long-lasting rise in temp. It had nothing to do with healthcare rationing. If any of those people called the emergency number or France's SOS Médecins, they would've been taken care of immediately.
Cont... And what studies are you refering to? Most studies I've seen, including the World Health Organization (which is composed of US representatives too) place America way down on the list. France is number one. For what it's worth, I'm very familiar with both the US and France's systems, since I lived with and paid into BOTH systems for many years. There's really no comparison. The most you can argue about France's is that it's more expensive for tax payers. But the quality is great.
The methodology for the WHO study was discredited 30 years ago. It presumes (contrary to reality) that universal insurance means universal care and that lack of insurance means lack of care); includes life expectancy and infant mortality, which, in the first world, are driven entirely by genetics and behavior, not care quality; and it includes cost which, while a legitimate topic for discussion has, again, nothing to do with care quality.
Next sugest "Sicko" and then watch "Dead Meat". There are all kinds of personal perspectives available. I'll stick with the actual data rather than cherry-picking opinions as you insist on doing.
I'm not cherrypicking. I forwarded you a link to a clip from CBS news to give you a glimpse of what I'm talking about. You're the equivalent of a kid holding his ears and screaming that he's not listening. Why don't you open up your box and consider for a second that you might be wrong? Maybe... just maybe... the US' healthcare system is shit and people across the globe think it's a joke.
Yes, you are cherry-picking. I had already seen that. I didn't put forth the 20/20 piece or "Dead Meat" or all the other pices with a contrarian view because I am not interested in pursuing the perspectives on the issue only the related facts as to its efficacy. MINE hold up, YOURS don't even make the feeble attempt. You hold your videos and opinions and polls up as if they have any value at all.
It would be funny if it weren't so completely pathetic.
But I never said, 'Here, this link represents proof that I'm right.' I genuinely wanted you to watch it because it lays things out in a way you may not have realized. I KNOW the French system is superior because I've been in France for 9 years and I spent my early career in the US. Studies support me. Surveys support me. And, on top of all that, I KNOW both systems first-hand. You however prefer to cherrypick cancer survival rates and claim that this must be thanks to the US's healthcare system!
What baffles me most about you is your inability to realize what I'm arguing and what I'm not. Throughout these long threads, you've constantly attacked strawmen. I think your problem is that you're used to discussing this with liberals who claim that healthcare is a right, constitutionally legal, smarter economics, etc, etc. In other words, people who do the same thing as you: disguise their PERSONAL wants as something that has some sort of objective, transcendent truth attached to it.
I'd have more respect for you if you simply said, 'Hey, I don't want my tax dollars going to help other people. I want to keep more of my money.' That would be your personal wish.
But instead, you're acting like your view is grounded in some supernatural objective morality or some constitutional validity that allows you to demonize reform and equate it to stealing.
This is why I've decided to call you out on your total bullshit. I'm being honest. You're not.
I'm done. You're certainly not the first to engage in bald-faced lies (or even the first to do so on a forum that saves one's words for posterity). This is why I decided to call you on your total BS. I'm being honest. You're not even trying. But eventually a point is reached where the nature of such comments are more than obvious to anyone who comes along and that has been reached.
Anyone coming here has now been sufficiently immunized against believing anything you say.
A simple read though this thread is enough for any truly open-minded person to see I'm being reasonable and honest.
Unlike many liberals, I'm flat-out admitting that univ. healthcare is my personal WANT, yet shared by many and due to happen through collective power.
You on the other hand are disguising your personal WANT by pretending it's supported by objective morality and constitutional truth. And to come off as convincing, you repeatedly attack points I'm not even trying to make!
This is rapidly becoming pointless. You seem to be only interested in using every invalid debating technique there is. When I suggest facts, you call me a liar (I never have) or deny that studies I suggest exist (on survival rates: Anderson & Hussey "Multinational Comparisons of Health Syatems Data") or pretend that I said something I didn't (that it was proof rather than yet another specious example). When we are discussing the efficacy of systems, you defer to opinions/polls...
... and when you defer to opinions/polls, you choose only thise polls that would appear to support your position. Again, it is ALWAYS invalid to rely on personal experience in such a discussion. That you cannot grasp this is a failure on your part, not mine. The studies DO NOT support you, by any stretch of the imagination, but lets look at this (imbecilic) comment about cancer survival rates.
You would rely on polls or the life expectancy/infant mortality figures of the WHO rather than cancer survival rates because, you argue, that correlation does not mean causation. Your position is monumentally stupid. The libks mentioned in the WHO study have that problem, but the FACT is that the primary factors in survival rates are early diagnosis and response to treatment which ARE directly related to care quality so your position is (not a surprise) factually WRONG.
I brought up WHO. You respond with studies about one tiny component (cancer survival rates), and even that is wrong b/c it doesn't conclude that this is thanks to the healthcare system. But even if it did, you're still cherrypicking ONE aspect that makes you look right.
I talk about support for reform (backed by repeated surveys) and, like a snake, you respond that people don't support the bills, which obviously is NOT the same thing!
You talk about the efficacy of systems and, though I have partaken in this discussion, this still isn't relevant because I've told you OVER and OVER again that I'm not claiming the govt would be more efficient than private insurers. I keep saying this!!
You say I'm choosing opinion polls that back me up, but support for the public option has been consistent in ALL major polls for MANY months now. Don't you read the papers?
Or maybe you'd watch John Stossel's "Whose Body is It Anyway?", the 6-part (as it appears here on Youtube) 20/20 special on the American health care system and how well Michael Moore's facts (sic) hold up.
More strawmen from you. I can't stand Michael Moore and I never proposed that you watch his videos. Do you see how intellectually dishonest (or dumb) you are? In two comments now you've screamed about Michael Moore and I've never said anything about him.
By the way, I will watch the video you proposed. I'm always interested in questioning things I believe and challenging my own point of view. I take people's arguments seriously until I realize they're willfully distoring facts.
If diagnosed with a serious illness such as cancer, the average American (including the poor) has a FAR higher chance of surviving 5 years or more than in any other country on the globe (including your beloved France).
Your anecdotal evidence is entirely useless and the available statistics support MY position, not yours.
I knew you'd cherrypick the tired-old cancer-survival 'argument'.
1. Correlation =/= causation. Studies like Lancet's don't attribute these higher survival rates to the healthcare systems of the countries! Post hoc ergo propter hoc. There could be MANY factors!
2. In the U.S. there's lots of praise about surviving cancer. But other countries prevent the cancer from occurring in the first place.
3. I love how you chose one tiny aspect that's in your favor and ignore everything else.
1. Nice try. I wasn't referring to the Lancet study (there are actually more than one). Inevtiably though, you have just destroyed your entire argument since you that position completely obliterates the WHO study as the link is even LESS relevant.
2. The study I referred to was not limited to cance. That was just an example though the results are, arguably, most dramatic for breast and prostate cancer. The cancer "prevention" position is without merit.
1. I said studies LIKE Lancet's. If you're referring to another one, let's hear it. Tell me about this reputable study that shows better survival rates are due to better healthcare. Come on, let's see this!
2. What a coincidence. You happen to mention the one aspect that neo-con nut bags keep bringing up over and over again. I smell bs. Why don't you tell me more about this study? You can start by naming it.
3. I chose WHO because it's huge, multinational and based on wide criteria.
Schoen, Blendon, DesRoches & Osborn; Anderson & Hussey; Donelan, et al; Anderson, Reinhart, Hussey & Petrosyan; Feachem, Sekhri & White; Schoen, et al; the CDC statistics vs. those of the British National Health Service or Health Canada for wait time lethality. That you are too blind to LOOK doesn't mean the studies aren't there.
And the overwhelming majority of those who died in the heat wave were ALREADY in health care facilities. Your stance (as usual) is completely wrong.
You're a flat-out liar here. These people might've ended up in hospitals when it was too late, but they weren't denied healthcare, you moron. Is that something they told you on American talk radio? The heat wave took people by surprise. People were badly prepared. In France, no one has air conditioning at home and few people use fans. Dehydration was the major cause of death. There was no rationing. You just made that up. How low can you get?
No, you are just too ideologically blind to look up the facts. Most of the people who died were elderly people already in care facilities. That's a(n EASILY RESEARCHED) fact. It was pointed out in numerous news articles.
Let's dispell with the "50 million" nonsense. First, try 24 million - the Census Bureau does two studies and that's the figure THEY concede is most accurate reflecting, among other things, the more than 15 million people who get ON DEMAND Medicais but haven't bothered to enroll. The remainder falls overwhelmingly into two categories - those who make FAR more than the Medicaid eligibility level ($80K/yr family of four) and illegal aliens.
Put aside the numbers problem; it's foolish to equate lack of insurance with lack of CARE. The uninsured get, again, better care than in much of the rest of the world. Some studies discuss how many deaths are "related" to lack of insurance, but no one discusses how many are "related" to care rationing. What we know is that care rationing leads DIRECTLY to to thousands upon thousands of deaths and the comparable figure in the US is less than 3,000 (CDC) out of 300 million people.
The uninsured get better care than the rest of the world? Ha ha, you're so hilarious. Do you know when I got the least/worst care in my life? It wasn't when I was a child in a poor family. And it wasn't as a wealthy adult. It was when I was 20 years old and hard-working but didn't have a job yet that provided healthcare. I suffered immensely. When I had tooth aches, I had nowhere to go. If I went to the ER, I'd end up with a $3,000 invoice for freakin' stitches. You call that good care?
Cont... To clarify, I'm not crying that nobody took care of me. I was smart and lucky enough to get out of my situation. Today I make $200K a year and don't need anyone's help. But I lived through terrible times and seen first-hand how badly people suffer. You're free to say that it shouldn't be your concern and you don't want to pay for them -- that's your right. But please don't act like the US offers superior care. That's absolutely insane.
Again, you just can't seem to grasp the obvious. No one CARES about your personal experieences. They are only valuable to YOU and are COMPLETELY USELESS in a comparison of systems because they are no more indicative of the total system than MY personal experiences or those of anyone else.
You wrote, "No one CARES about your personal experieences."
Ah ha! And here's the point you're having so much trouble with! I'm so glad you wrote this.
Yes, people DO care! People SHARE my views. That's exactly why there's been such huge support for a public option in virtually every poll they conduct. People might not like the bills in congress (I don't), but they're VASTLY for healthcare reform. People mostly agree with ME and not YOU. And this is what democracy is about.
This was one of the best explanations on what is a right and good that I have ever heard. Thank you, Judge, for your consistent work for the sake of liberty. You are a true patriot.
ZerogunRivale 11 months ago
One thing this idiot is omitting is that the Geneva Convention, which the U.S. agreed to, states that health care is a right and depriving someone of health care is an act of torture. That's why prisoners get health care while they are incarcerated. They do not pay for it, therefore it is not a good. Besides, even if something is a good, it can still be legislated as a necessity and need not be exploited for profit. Energy Cooperatives do the same thing with electricity and natural gas already.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@Mugchgu FAIL! LOL, Yhea" Judge Napolitano is dumb and your wicked smart! Try reading the complete GC papers, not an abstract summary on some blog! Jezzz!!!
zepDzen 1 year ago
@zepDzen My answer to you is simple. Karma is a bitch. If you don't want universal health care and stand by the Insurance industry snakes who kill 45,000 people per year by denying them health care coverage, then I hope your child or your spouse or someone you love develops a chronic illness that needs sustained medical treatments. Then the industry that you so idiotically defend will drop their coverage and you'll have the pleasure of watching them die slowly. FAIL INDEED!
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@Mugchgu WoW" Thats beautiful, you wish illness on my children, loved ones and to watch them die a slow death...hmmm...You do care about people!,,,But only if they agree with your rationnal...Karma loves people like you my friend". Don't write me back, your a scary person.
zepDzen 1 year ago
@zepDzen Spare me your hypocritical double standards. It may not happen to your loved ones but it will happen to thousands of other people's loved ones every year. Since you oppose universal health care, then you want their loved ones to die slowly. I just want you to have the same thing for you that you want for them.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@Mugchgu yea... and government run health care programs have never denied treatment to any patient... get real! I work in health care as a pharmacist and see it every day. You know who the biggest offenders of coverage denial are?? Medicare denies more patient claims than any insurance company in the country.
printo69 1 year ago 7
@Mugchgu Where is the double standard on my side? I never said anything about expecting others to take care of me or my family? No one in the US is denied Med attention, one of the reasons priv health Ins is so high, and why an asprin cost 400% more in a hospital. Its simple economics, the ones that pay will always pay more to subsadize those who can't or won't. I think you are taking for grantide that this is a little more sophistocated than "everyone should have it".
zepDzen 1 year ago
@Mugchgu to continue...Thanks for wanting me to have what I want for my family (and Im serious). But that is my responsability and choice to pick the type of health plan with the options myself and family need. I dont mean to pry but do you feel this way because you don't have heath ins yourself?
zepDzen 1 year ago
"A right to use our own property as we see fit"
property is theft
Shananaganss 1 year ago
This was the exact same healthcare bill that Republicans proposed in 1994, so in today's intellectual bankruptcy, anti-ideology, and worship of political pragmatism, it's unsurprising that even Republicans forgot such range-of-the-moment policies.
r0nchmeister 1 year ago
I cannot fault his logic. But would not live in such a world. In europe we have a different veiw of society. It is called the Common Good however If you and he are prepared to live with the consquences of his philosphy then so be it . Don't you care for those who fall by the wayside??
oatesn 1 year ago
@oatesn
All charity in the Christian tradition as well as the libertarian tradition has come from the individual. Only people can do it with compassion, care, or concern. A case worker cannot.
Is it little wonder, then, that the country that gives the most charitable donations per capita is the US to the aid of their fellow man (not abroad, but the US gives the most in absolute terms)? Capitalism and freedom require and compels individual compassion, which is true charity, not legislation.
Sfan985 1 year ago
@Sfan985 Indeed; anything else than voluntary charity, as in legislated 'charity,' would cease to be so and would instead become an imposed collectivism. By definition charity is voluntary; anything legislated CANNOT be charity.
Goodatconnect4 1 year ago
I live in the great state Texas where we have no state income tax and are the leaders of jobs and economic growth. I have 3 brothers and my dad worked his ass off and didn't ask for a dime in assistance. You take the money from people like my father and myself to support a health care program that takes money from me and my state to pay for you. Obama struck deals with big pharma and ins companies to keep from going across state lines he received 5 mill from Goldman and $ from Fannie and Freddie
quinnrasta 1 year ago
Who caused this mess in the name of social justice & will cost the tax payer of $ 1 trillion which bigger than the entire bank bailout headed by Franklin Raines &Jim Johnson advisers to Obama that made of 100 million combined,so dont give me this Im a capitalist and support these crony corporations, that make their money. Im a free market capitalist that believes gov should stay out of the way and not influence commerce to benefit lobbyist.Look at NJ CA Greece Spain all socialist union problems
quinnrasta 1 year ago
yes, goods like legal representation, bearing arms, and a democratic based government. there are clearly no goods in the constitution
labmonky 1 year ago
@labmonky, by the Judge's logic, legal representation should not be a right, because it is a good. Regarding the right to bear arms, that extends from our right to life, and our right to protect ourselves. The founders created a Republic form or government, not a democracy. True, we elect politicians, but they and the people are restrained by the Constitution. In other words, 51% of the people can't vote to kill all (fill in the blank), which would be democracy in action.
BRYAN351 1 year ago
Alright i'm gunna have to end this arguement for the night, so sad :(. Ha ha NOT
SS5507 2 years ago
sweet dreams
fzqlcs 2 years ago
Hey i'm back LOL.Just wanted to point out that the ranking for the best places to live is done by using a system called quality of life index.They factor in health, family life, community life, material well being, political well being and security, climate and geography, job security, political freedom and gender equality.And sorry I meant Switzerland not Sweden
SS5507 2 years ago
That makes sense. Switzerland is a more capitalistic country than even America and has a far less intrusive government. All of that great quality of life occurs as a direct result of wealth production and lower taxes, not government mandates. Capitalism = wealth production. Creating a huge new government bureaucracy will not only make our health system less efficient, it causes a necessary increase in tax. Increased tax = less capital for production = less wealth = lower standard of life.
fzqlcs 2 years ago
Don't think the health care debate is one between cruelty and kindness. It is one about an understanding of economic dynamics.
fzqlcs 2 years ago
OK, this bugs me more then anything Stalin and Mao were TOTALITARIANIST .Pol Pott was a monster NO ONE not even communist justify what he did.France is widely considered socialist and they were just ranked the #1 place in the world to live.Sweeden has a form of Democratic Socialism and they are usually ranked #1
SS5507 2 years ago
Ranked by whom? As you point out, the whole world is socialist. Why do insist on reducing the one country where freedom is a value? People around the world vote with their feet to come to America, not for the European-style entitlements, but for the liberty to market the products of their minds.
fzqlcs 2 years ago 3
@fzqlcs "the one country where freedom is a value".... omg i think i just wet my pants. Big news for you: every country has got immigration and emigration. Maybe you should stop thinking America is the centre of the world ty.
lleuwelynn 1 year ago
And I would love to say that my opinions are those of youth full rebellion but I am a young ADULT and I have grown my opinions from personal experience.I will never turn my back on the middle class no matter how old I get I will always be a socialist at heart, I have known I was a socilaist since I could form a political opinion
SS5507 2 years ago
Socialism is the philosophy of death. See Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. But, you live in freedom and can choose to be as you wish.
fzqlcs 2 years ago
Well i'm sure that even you would agree that $680 a month is WAY too much for a BASE plan.And as I pointed out I work full time in a industry that is very productive and my point about the $20 is I will pay my taxes and not whine and cry if it means that someone else will benefit because I can think beyond myself
SS5507 2 years ago
why do people need medical care more than say, housing or food? Shouldn't we pay for all of that? How about people in other countries? Why should they starve? Think beyond yourself and live as a sacrificial lamb. Is that what you advocate?
fzqlcs 2 years ago
Nope right now I am advocating that we get some form of universal health care and I believe that all of the things you have listed are important.Other industrialized countries have done a much better job then America at taking care of it's people
SS5507 2 years ago
I believe in separation of church and state but it is the most conservative people that claim to follow Jesus, and then support regannomics and corporations with their life
SS5507 2 years ago
I think the problem is a natural conflict between faith (belief, with no evidence) and reason (the perception, identification and integration of sensory information). Believers, placing faith above reason, can argue anything. But if reason is one's absolute, for which no value is placed higher, hypocrisy can be easily avoided. One simply has to understand the human survival mechanism, and the concepts of reason, liberty and justice (a level playing field, not a desired outcome) naturally follow.
fzqlcs 2 years ago
Yeah that is true, but I feel personally feel like health care is a right and should be a right and not a privilege.I don't understand how some people can be so cold to human suffering and then justify it by saying that they are somehow better
SS5507 2 years ago
You are me in my twenties, but Winston Churchill got this exactly right. "To be young and not be liberal is to have no heart, but to be older and not be conservative is to have no mind."
fzqlcs 2 years ago
Let me guess you are old and conservative LOL
SS5507 2 years ago
Correct on both counts. More importantly, I have no desire to live as a dependent at the expense of my fellow man.
fzqlcs 2 years ago
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle then for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven" Jesus Christ
SS5507 2 years ago
Thank goodness for the separation of church and state. Jesus would not get my vote for governor.
fzqlcs 2 years ago
@SS5507 2 Thessalonians 3:10
For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." We should take care of widows, orphans or people that cannot take care of themselves not those who choose not to provide for themselves and not those in society that would rather have a $500 payment and not health insurance. I am sick of people pulling into the projects on $40,000 vehicles and live off the back of the working middle class who struggle for their leisure!
quinnrasta 1 year ago
I work FULL TIME in the mental health and substance abuse field and I work hard for what I have it is not a lack of morality that I needed help at one point because my companies health insurance is $680 a month with outrageous co pays
SS5507 2 years ago
I get it. As long as one has a need for money, taking it by force (whether using a gun or politician) from someone else is perfectly acceptable. Sounds like a morality issue to me.
fzqlcs 2 years ago
Oh and I love how all these people can speak on how bad government health is,I live in Massachusetts where health care reform has already happened and I was on MassHealth for a little while and it was THE BEST INSURANCE EVER the only time I have had problems was with for profit insurance companies
SS5507 2 years ago
I can see your point. Getting a service and making someone else pay is a great joy--unless you have a sense of morality.
fzqlcs 2 years ago
Yeah your right let those dumb poor people die, they don't deserve health care anyways they are second class citizens.Only crazy people like Jesus and Gandhi advocated helping the poor
SS5507 2 years ago
I think Jesus might have been attempting to persuade his followers to help their brothers, not using government force to impose policy. That is the difference between a spiritual leader and a tyrant.
fzqlcs 2 years ago
If you really think that Obama is a tyrant then there is obviously no getting through to you.Jesus was the biggest champion of the poor that ever lived, yes he was a spiritual leader but i'm sure he wouldn't be too happy with the fact that people are dying because they can't afford health insurance or freezing because they can't afford heating oil or aren't able to drive a car because the oil companies are gauging prices
SS5507 2 years ago
Jesus may not have been too happy, but I am sure he realized being happy is not a right--particularly when he was on the cross.
fzqlcs 2 years ago
I never once said being happy was a right , neither did I advocate taking things with a gun???.Anyways if you providing people with affordable health insurance is the right thing to do, we should not let our fellow american's die because they can't afford an insurance policy and if they want to take an extra $20 out of my paycheck each week so that over 10,000 american's don't die this year I will do it and not complain and THAT is being patriotic
SS5507 2 years ago
As you pointed out earlier, $20 a week wouldn't pay for your own health care. You are still a social vampire sucking life from more productive members of society. And you dare feel patriotic about that? It takes no morality to be generous with OTHER people's money. That is the true morality of the left--the morality of a thief. No wonder this country is sinking in debt.
fzqlcs 2 years ago
@SS5507 Health care in MASS is rated poor, you have the highest premiums and have asked the federal gov (aka the other 49 tax paying states) to pay for your $260 million hospital short fall. They also have some of the longest wait times in the country, so its more expensive and takes longer to see a doctor. Great system oh & youre welcome for my tax dollars going to your health care system! UK is now trying to privatize their system because socialized medicine unsustainable,as your state proves
quinnrasta 1 year ago
@quinnrasta Actually MA has the 3rd best health care in the US and the 2nd best medicaid program, gee do you live in MA??because I do and I can personally tell you that the state run program is excellent, and the for profit insurance companies have caused nothing but problems, and ya know who is really riding off your back?? The huge corporations you are protecting that have billions of our tax dollars
SS5507 1 year ago
@SS5507 Protecting corporations? What are you talking about? Higher taxes help corporations because it kills small business. And what socialist country has more prosperity than America? Cuba, China, Venezuela, USSR. Since the MASS bill became law, the state’s total direct health-care spending has increased by a remarkable 52 %. Medicaid spending has gone from less than $6 billion a year to more the $9 billion. Many consumers have seen double-digit %in their premiums. Yall are damn geniuses!
quinnrasta 1 year ago
@quinnrasta I'm not giving you a boo hoo story I am speaking from experience, I am speaking the truth of millions of working class people who will NEVER be millionaires, i'm not living in some fantasy land that Glenn Beck put in my head that say's that the only reason I am not rich is because I am lazy, it is logistically impossible for even half of America to achieve the "American Dream", and the cost of living is soaring higher then wages can keep up with
DecemberParis 1 year ago
@DecemberParis The American Dream isnt to be a millionaire its to live comfortable & free. Wages will continually soar as the gov imposes more and more taxes, wait for cap and trade and see fuel prices, electricity to "skyrocket " as Obama says they will. With the taxes in the new HC bill business will have to raise prices on their goods because of gov. HC costs will skyrocket as they have done in MASS, Hawaii had to eliminate theirs for bankruptcy in 9months. Gov is the problem not the solution
quinnrasta 1 year ago
@quinnrasta And I love how all these dumb assholes think that anyone who needs help is lazy, you know what I grew up in the middle class, my father worked 2 full time jobs while putting himself through school on no public assistance, he has his Juris Doctor in Labor Law and has worked harder then any right winger I have met and he is a socialist, he doesn't play the victim because he has to pay taxes, stop blaming the people on the bottom.......
SS5507 1 year ago
@quinnrasta and blame the people who are screwing all of us, how many families today can live off of one income, your a capitalist right??? Has your dream of becoming a millionaire been achieved yet. I am working class as well, I am supporting 3 people (including myself) and you know who I blame, the people who are charging a fortune for the gas I need for my car, or my groceries, or the (gasp) health insurance companies that want to charge $600 + a month, and I need to wake up HA.
SS5507 1 year ago
@SS5507 The whole reason insurance companies charge what they do is because of what they are charged by the doctors who are forced to treat people that would rather have a car than insurance,bigger home, cell phones, clothes etc... and pass the cost to people that have insurance. I grew up with little money and my father got scholarship from Cornell and played football, he grew up working construction at 12,so dont give me a boohoo story of people that cant make it. You live in that lib state...
quinnrasta 1 year ago
Wow this commentary is very dangerous.If you had a child that was diagnosed with cancer, you were recently unemployed and couldn't afford cobra (it's pretty expensive) then I guess it would be a privilege that your child gets the treatment to save his or her life???That happens everyday yet the people making this commentary are rich so why should they care,it is absolutely disgusting.
SS5507 2 years ago
Some folks don't have health insurance, but you never hear of anyone denied health care. Such stories would be front page if they existed to try to pimp Obamacare. Besides, where do you find a right to take the property of another man for your use? Like the Judge says, don't confuse rights with charity. If you want something that you have not earned, put your hand out and ask for help. Don't stick a gun in the ribs of taxpayers as if it is owed to you. It is not. Yes, the truth is dangerous
fzqlcs 2 years ago
Yes health care is denied, if you have diabetes you cannot have regular visit's with a primary care physician the only time you cannot be denied care is if you go into diabetic shock and have to go to the er which at that point it might be too late.And can conservatives show ANY sympathy or compassion for anyone but a CEO?
SS5507 2 years ago
Compassion and sympathy are private matters. For example, had President Obama pledged $10,000 of his own money to the people of Chili and asked other Americans to join, that would have shown him to a be compassionate person. But simply pledging other people's money, like taxpayers, requires only the morality of a thief. You just want those who put out the effort to produce be made the slaves for those who do not. Such a total lack of morality is disgusting.
fzqlcs 2 years ago
The real issue is the health insurance companies and the drug companies. They buy the politicians and we suffer the consequences.All the politicians that accept contributions from these industries should be voted out of office.
isortparcels 2 years ago
the real issue is whether health care is a right or not.
raptor2391 2 years ago
Political corruption will always exist to the extent they have power to take one man's money and simply give it to another--subsidies, bailouts, welfare, etc. If a clean government is the goal, get government out our economic lives. Separation of church and state is good. Separation of capitalism and the state is even better, if spelling the end of political corruption is the objective. Until then, we must live with the current reality.
fzqlcs 2 years ago
Big government pwnd!
FaithlessLiberty 2 years ago
nice one!
ChristianVault 2 years ago
"The new doctrine of sovereignty of the people of free America"- coming soon...
megadrummer2 2 years ago
...Maybe we need a new language so people will understand and finally, "Get It" ....
jettbugg 2 years ago
Great video. Thanks for teaching the liberals.
IrenicIronist 2 years ago
This video does not deserve discussion. It is propaganda meant to diffuse ignorance.
elprincipitooooo 2 years ago
I think that Americans are basically good people that want to give others the benefit of the doubt. We've been taught that our Representatives care about our welfare, believe in their oath to uphold the constitution, etc. Unfortunately, these people are interested in themselves far more than the people they represent, and therefore, cannot be true representatives. The constitution and Bill of Rights are nothing more to them than symbols of the past instead of rules to follow.
PjPony123 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The point he's ignoring is that government is (well, is supposed to be) whatever we the people want it to be. Government works for us. Likewise, there's no supernaturally created definition of what is and isn't a 'right'. We as a society decide. We vote on it. If enough people get together and agree that everyone is allowed to check a book out of the library, then it becomes a right. If enough people decide that everyone must pay taxes, then that becomes an obligation. That's how it works.
dookdawg214 2 years ago
Again you misunderstand. We are not what any wants, we are a Constitutional republic. You do not have a right to take the property of your fellow man. You do not have a right to steal and a right to be cared for. You do not have a right to live at someone else expense. Is this the shit they preach in school these days?
fzqlcs 2 years ago
My whole point is that he (and you perhaps) is/are getting bogged down in the definition of 'rights', which is quite a strawman argument when you consider many progressives (myself included) are working for healthcare reform NOT because we think it's a right but because we think it's morally responsible and better for society. I've got news for you, bud: living at someone else's expense is part of life and it's how all civilized democracies work. It's called taxation and it's necessary.
dookdawg214 2 years ago
There is no morality whatsoever to what you advocate. There is nothing moral about taking one man's property and giving it to another. That is the essence of political corruption. Someone cannot have a created right (health care) at the expense of someone else inalienable right (property). I do not call a morality that allows theft moral in any way. It is exactly the opposite.
fzqlcs 2 years ago
There is a difference between CIVIL rights and NATURAL rights.
You are describing civil rights.
UtubeMyAccountName 2 years ago
Of course, butwho says that natural rights even exist? Just claiming they do is begging the question. It assumes a supreme being or right giver or, at the very least, it assumes some type of moral realism. I personally am unconvinced that anyone has natural rights. Can you prove that we do without invoking a supreme deity?
dookdawg214 2 years ago
yes, they were mankind's mechanisms of survival prior to government--God or no god.
fzqlcs 2 years ago
Rights were not mechanisms of survival. Evolution works off variation and natural selection. No early organisms survived because other organisms respected their rights. And if we're to speak of group selection, it's safe to say that animal tribes survived better when they got along, shared resources, etc. In other words, animals weren't libertarians.
dookdawg214 2 years ago
First, animals are not human. Second, libertarians are not averse to charity; Objectivists are. Third, taking from someone by force and giving the stolen goods to someone else is not "sharing resources."
CountArtha 2 years ago
This isn't what we're talking about, but I don't get that 2nd to last sentence.
Animals share resources, huh? Which animals?
Among both prey herds and predatory packs, there is only competition for resources. The strongest buck, or wolf gets the best of everything. Everybody else gets what's left over in descending order. If there's not enough for everybody, there is no sharing, the weakest die, or they man up fight for a share.
UtubeMyAccountName 2 years ago
The right to use one's mind to serve his own self-interest as well as the right of self-defense are basic survival mechanisms. Collectivists, like the animals you mention, seem to lack the ability to reason. Perhaps that explains why neither become libertarians.
fzqlcs 2 years ago
Actually the 'proof' of natural AND civil rights is in the very nomenclature.
A civil right can ONLY exist in a civil society. There would be no point to them otherwise.
A natural right exists in the very being of the individual, irregardless of society.
Perhaps you have never read Common Sense, by Thomas Paine (not Beck). He makes no plea to God to support his arguments. Quite the opposite in fact.
UtubeMyAccountName 2 years ago
You wrote: 'A natural right exists in the very being of the individual, irregardless of society.'
That's simply an assertion. I'm asking you to demonstrate how this is true. I don't believe you. And since you're the one making a positive claim, the burden of proof is on you.
As far as Thomas Paine... Look, I've read tons of books too and we can name-drop authors and titles all day long. No I didn't read Common Sense. But why don't you make a point instead of appealing to famous figures?
dookdawg214 2 years ago
I'm not, 'name dropping' you asked for proof. I simply pointed you to a source that might answer the question. Any answer I give you would be nothing more than regurgitation of all these 'famous authors I have read' anyway. I simply pointed you directly to one of those authors.
... but here goes, if you find yourself completely alone and isolated in a modern city, what laws do you obey?
a)The laws of civil society
b)The laws of self preservation and self determination.
UtubeMyAccountName 2 years ago
You're not making sense here. I've asked you to demonstrate why you think we have 'a natural right' to ANYTHING (as opposed to civil rights which are agreed on by collective society).
Your last response argues that a human will strive for self preservation and self determination. But I'm not arguing that! I've never said the contrary. I won't disagree that we have survival instincts that require a healthy dose of selfishness.
But you're mixing up rights and personal desires/instincts.
dookdawg214 2 years ago
You are intentionally misunderstanding me, I think. Just being alone in a city, does not put you in any mortal danger.
What I'm asking is will you still stop at red lights, wear your seatbelt, obey the speed limit, not walk on the grass, leash your dog, etc...
...and if not, what gives you the RIGHT to do otherwise!
Of course you will do what you must to survive. You're right such a question would not make sense. That's why I didn't ask you that.
UtubeMyAccountName 2 years ago
"If enough people get together and agree that everyone is allowed to check a book out of the library, then it becomes a right. If enough people decide that everyone must pay taxes, then that becomes an obligation. That's how it works."
Then I guess that if enough people vote to execute you for no reason that would be okay with you too? Or perhaps not it suddenly should not work like that?
asalade 2 years ago
No, what you people are having a hard time with is separating the question of moral realism (whether objective morality even exists) and practical applications of a collective society that needs to work together to boost its survival chances. I'm not saying that the majority is always right. I'm saying that the best we can do as a society is work together to come up with what we belive are the most beneficial ways to co-exist. Pretending you're fully fit to survive with no one's help is naive.
dookdawg214 2 years ago
for those seeking to live as dependent children at the expense of others, socialism makes sense.
fzqlcs 2 years ago
But a democracy combines resources and agrees on how to use them. You can pretend you're against that, but the fact is, you wouldn't survive a week without the power of collective society. Why don't you go move to Somalia and try your hand there? There's no govt there. Yemen seems to be opening up lately to libertarian ideals. You might want to check that country out. Crying about socialism (which EVERY healthy democracy has) is just a way for greedy people to kick and scream about taxes.
dookdawg214 2 years ago
A democracy that does not recognize property rights could combine resources. That would be democratic socialism. A democracy that derives from law (like ours, the Constitution) is to respect individual property rights (Bill of Rights). You are so twisted about liberty and government that I see no point in continuing this discussion.
fzqlcs 2 years ago
Universal healthcare, if implemented by the WILL of the people, would be no different than how we pay taxes for police protection and public school. It's just extending socialism that ALREADY exists in the US. You can say that this would be terrible economics, or that the govt is inefficient, and I can't disagree. But at the end of the day, this really comes down to how generous we want to be as a society. You don't want to share. I do. Plain and simple.
dookdawg214 2 years ago
Giving away other people's money is not generosity, it is simply theft. Don't be delusional, see yourself for who you are.
fzqlcs 2 years ago
So, in that case, when you're forced to pay taxes and that money goes to public schools and police stations, is that theft too? What about the military? Theft? I could kick and scream and say that I don't need the US govt to defend me from colonialist invaders or terrorists. I can do it myself, or with some friends! But I don't really have a choice, do I? That's the thing about taxation: we don't always get a say about how the money is used.
dookdawg214 2 years ago 2
You misconstrue. The taking of tax money for services rendered in the operation of government (which includes the military, police services and the courts) was not described as theft. The taking of tax monies to give those resources to others either directly or in services not universally enjoyed by the populace is what was desribed as theft.
No one is complaining about the exercise of govt powers that have ALWAYS been govt powers - that's nothing but a strawman.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
You're not being consistent. How about public education? We don't all benefit from tax spending equally. I can argue that public shools shouldn't be tax funded as much as you can argue that healthcare shouldn't be tax funded. In fact, I could probably make a better case for the federal funding of healthcare. You're just being ultra-selective and creating stipulations to fit what you think should and shouldn't be taxed. But when you get down to it, you can't make a good argument.
dookdawg214 2 years ago
I'm being perfectly consistent. The provision of national defense and police protection are societal in nature. The benefits of education are personal in nature (as is healthcare). I can argue that NEITHER should be tax funded quite easily (both on moral AND practical grounds). In BOTH cases, again, they are the use of societal funds to meet individual needs and in BOTH cases the private sector can demonstrabvly provide a better product.
My arguments hold up just fine. Yours...
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
No, you're just asserting lots of things which boils down to your own pesonal opinion. I could respect your argument more if you simply admit that it's your desire vs. others', but instead, you seem to want to play games where you try to categorize things to fit what you want. And another strawman: I didn't say that ALL scientific reasearch was govt-funded. I gave an example where my tax money is going to something that I don't get to choose. Keep ignornig my points if it makes you happy.
dookdawg214 2 years ago
Sorry, that's simple ignorance. NONE of the points made are "just assertions". That national defense and police powers are in the govt purview is definitional. That the benefits of these items are societal rather than individual and that the benficiaries of health care and education are individual is a matter of basic understanding. If you wish to argue that society benefits from the availability of education, that's a different point than the one you were making.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
So, if the will of the people were to reinstitute slavery that would be just hunky dory? There's no room for a principled stand against it?
And generosity is carried out by individuals. It can never be undertaken by government.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
I already addressed this tired old slavery question. The collective isn't always perfect. The collective WILL make mistakes. But it's the best system we have so we use it. It's my opinion that the majority today is wrong about interdicting gay marriage.
Regarding 'generosity', we don't really NEED to call it that then, do we? Free public school is undertaken by govt. That seems pretty generous to me. Same thing with highway repairs and the nice men and women in uniform who protect our shores.
dookdawg214 2 years ago
Generosity is, by definition, WILLINGLY giving money or time. Tax dollars are never gathered willingly. Even if you, as an individual, willingly pay your taxes, they are still collected under the threat of force and, in toto, cannot be separated from funds that were taken unwillingly. That taxes are taken to perform services for the society is, again, not an issue; that they are also taken to be distributed in the form of either money or goods is the problem.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
But you see, that's where we disagree. You simply assert that it's a problem. I say it's not. Sure, taxation is implemented by the force of the majority. Sure it's used to pay for things you don't want to. But I'm fine with that and so are a lot of people. We think that's what it takes to make society strong. Call it service, call it goods. It's irrelevant what you call it. In essence, we're forcing the wealthier (a category that I fall into) to pay more to help the needier.
dookdawg214 2 years ago
If we disagree then it becasue you are disregarding the basic definition and have lost the point. That you are "fine" with the use of taxation is merely the expression of your personal opinion. If that's all you have to offer ("it's okay with me") it's an abyssmally weak argument which in no way constitutes a defense of the position. And, actually, the examples are really forcing the middle class to provide inferior goods to everyone, but that's another issue.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
But you see, that's just it! I'm admitting that it's my opinion. I can do that but you can't. You, instead, like to pretend that we're all bound to some selective interpretation of the constitution or inherent god-given rights. You say that I'm making a weak argument to defend a position. But that's dead wrong, because I'm admitting that it comes down to preference -- that it comes down to how collective society wants and chooses to spend tax money.
dookdawg214 2 years ago
I can't admit that Brittney Spears is a great professional football player either - and for the SAME REASON. That is precisely the difference between our stances; yours is based solely on your personal opinions; mine is based on facts and the actual definitions of the terms being used. There's nothing selective or interpretive about those definitions. They can be found in any dictionary or work on the subject all the way back to the Enlightenment.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
No, you're disgusing your personal opinions as something that should be taken seriously as objective truth, yet you never make a case as to why or how.
dookdawg214 2 years ago
That you have reading comprehension problems, can't find a dictionary or are logically impaired is not my problem.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
If rights are only aspects that stem from humanity, from nature... then does this mean we don't have a right to the services of the police and national military? By his definition, these are merely goods. Do my kids have the right to be taught in a tax-funded school? According to him, this too falls under the category of goods. Why do we allow the state to finance things like schools and police stations? These aren't rights!
dookdawg214 2 years ago
you misunderstand completely. Rights are not something that has to be financed. They existed prior to government. American government was set up to protect rights, not provide them. The Constitution says they may not be infringed. Only goods need to be financed. Such expenses as military, police, fire, roads, etc are goods commonly used my all citizens.
fzqlcs 2 years ago
Now you're begging the question. You write that 'military, police, fire, roads, etc are goods commonly used my [sic] all citizens' as if somehow that's an argument against collective healthcare. Well, if a form of socialized healthcare were to pass, then years later, someone could write the same phrase you just wrote, and simply add the word 'healthcare'. What good argument can you make against universal healthcare that you can't apply to public schools? Give it a try. I'd like to see this.
dookdawg214 2 years ago
That would be easy. These argument apply equally to schools and health care. Education is not a right, it is a good. If we abide by the Constitution, the federal government has no authority to provide either one. States can however. Perhaps you and I decide that both are good things for our state. I would advocate both be voucher systems, where govt only financed services, allowing individuals to select the schools and health insurance of their choice. But neither one are rights.
fzqlcs 2 years ago
Good. Glad to see we're getting somewhere here. Now that you've admitted that education and healthcare are on equal footing, would you like to see the govt bud out of education and close all public schools? And while we're at it, why should the govt even finance school services (as you've suggested)? Why not leave the govt out of education completely and allow families to pay for their own education? This is what many conservatives are proposing vis-à-vis healthcare. Why not be consistant?
dookdawg214 2 years ago
I am willing to let democracy settle those issues at the state level. I am not interested in imposing my will on you. My interest is in avoiding that you impose your will on me.
fzqlcs 2 years ago
OK, so you'd be for the creation of a government-run healthcare bureaucracy to compete with private insurers as long as it's a STATE government? Is that correct?
If so, why only respect the democratic majority when it's at the state level?
Here's another one... what if the majority of voters in your state wanted to opt into a federal-run program? In other words, you'd be adhering to state rights but end up with a federal solution. How 'bout that? That'd be good ol' state democracy, right?
dookdawg214 2 years ago
I would be opposed to state-run health insurance, but it is at least legal function of democracy. As long as it is a state option, I would be free to move to a friendlier state if I did not like the way it was run. Here is my question to you. Tell me of a successful federal program that solves a social problem and does not run at a deficit? I'll be waiting.
fzqlcs 2 years ago
That's a TOTAL non-sequitur. No one is talking about government efficiency here. I never said for a second that the govt would be good at running a public option. In fact, I don't think they would be very efficient. I'm for healthcare reform DESPITE the fact that it would be difficult to work out economically. And I'm for a public option because I think, DESPITE the govt's inefficiency, such an option would still put pressure on private insurers and ultimately drive down the cost of premimums.
dookdawg214 2 years ago
The problem with a public option is this. No for-profit entity can COMPETE with an endlessly subsidized one. The public option will drive the market options away leaving us with no options. That result is both predictable and inevitable.
fzqlcs 2 years ago
If your argument is true, then the US Post Office should have driven the market options away and there should be no UPS, DHL, etc. There should also be no private schools or private defense contractors. LOL, you're living in a dream world! If the govt created a healthcare bureaucracy, this would radically change the way private insurers operate but it wouldn't kill them. They'd have to adapt. And this is good news considering the monopoly they have and how they blatantly refuse service.
dookdawg214 2 years ago
One final point... Have you thought about how insane it is to scream against a govt-run option when at the same time private insurers are flat-out saying NO to a lot of people? Think about that for a second. There are people who want to pay the private insurers and have the money, but they are being told no because they have pre-existing conditions. Well, how on earth can you complain about creating a govt-run system? At the very least, there should be a system available for these people!
dookdawg214 2 years ago
I have more than one pre-existing condition and have repeatedly changed insurers without difficulty. The issue is about those who choose not to purchase (affordable - and, yes, it is) insurance (designed to cover RISK) until they get sick and then expect everyone else who has paid their premiums all along to absorb the costs they never paid for.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
The issue for you maybe. The issue for me and others is that healthcare is way too expensive and we don't feel like it should be run like a business. I'm all for healthy capitalism, but not when it comes to people's health.
dookdawg214 2 years ago
It is easily argued that healthcare is not too expensive, but even conceding your subjective position, the great cost driver in the US health care system is the govt intervention that is already occurring and that doesn't change the nature of the debate. And, in fact, the private sector does a far better job of providing actual care than does socialized medicine.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
The private sector hasn't been doing a 'far better job' providing healthcare to 50 million people who haven't had it for years. The system in France (where I've been living for 9 yrs now) works very well. It's a mix of public and private. Everyone is insured, the costs are very low, and the quality is fine. We also have fully private insurers here and "mutuelles" if people want to opt into those. We have the best healthcare system in the world here. I know both very well.
dookdawg214 2 years ago
And yet every reputable study (for years now) shows that the US system provides superior care. If you are diagnosed with a serious illness (and given care rationing under socialism you may wait too long for that), your chances of long term survival are FAR higher in the US. The French ration care in other ways. The possibility that patients in the US could die becasue their environment wasn't controlled (during, say, a heat wave that killed thousands) would not be tolerated here.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
Ha ha, you're so hilarious. French ration care, huh? Funny, I've never seen or heard of it in 9 years here. And look how pathetic you are to talk about the heat wave of Aug 2003. You moron, old people died because they weren't being looked after and France wasn't used to such a drastic, long-lasting rise in temp. It had nothing to do with healthcare rationing. If any of those people called the emergency number or France's SOS Médecins, they would've been taken care of immediately.
dookdawg214 2 years ago
Cont... And what studies are you refering to? Most studies I've seen, including the World Health Organization (which is composed of US representatives too) place America way down on the list. France is number one. For what it's worth, I'm very familiar with both the US and France's systems, since I lived with and paid into BOTH systems for many years. There's really no comparison. The most you can argue about France's is that it's more expensive for tax payers. But the quality is great.
dookdawg214 2 years ago
The methodology for the WHO study was discredited 30 years ago. It presumes (contrary to reality) that universal insurance means universal care and that lack of insurance means lack of care); includes life expectancy and infant mortality, which, in the first world, are driven entirely by genetics and behavior, not care quality; and it includes cost which, while a legitimate topic for discussion has, again, nothing to do with care quality.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
Watch this video regarding the French healthcare system: v=uNR_6UuVl4s
If nothing else, it could shed some light on the why everyone is saying France's system is so much better.
dookdawg214 2 years ago
Next sugest "Sicko" and then watch "Dead Meat". There are all kinds of personal perspectives available. I'll stick with the actual data rather than cherry-picking opinions as you insist on doing.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
I'm not cherrypicking. I forwarded you a link to a clip from CBS news to give you a glimpse of what I'm talking about. You're the equivalent of a kid holding his ears and screaming that he's not listening. Why don't you open up your box and consider for a second that you might be wrong? Maybe... just maybe... the US' healthcare system is shit and people across the globe think it's a joke.
dookdawg214 2 years ago
Yes, you are cherry-picking. I had already seen that. I didn't put forth the 20/20 piece or "Dead Meat" or all the other pices with a contrarian view because I am not interested in pursuing the perspectives on the issue only the related facts as to its efficacy. MINE hold up, YOURS don't even make the feeble attempt. You hold your videos and opinions and polls up as if they have any value at all.
It would be funny if it weren't so completely pathetic.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
But I never said, 'Here, this link represents proof that I'm right.' I genuinely wanted you to watch it because it lays things out in a way you may not have realized. I KNOW the French system is superior because I've been in France for 9 years and I spent my early career in the US. Studies support me. Surveys support me. And, on top of all that, I KNOW both systems first-hand. You however prefer to cherrypick cancer survival rates and claim that this must be thanks to the US's healthcare system!
dookdawg214 2 years ago
What baffles me most about you is your inability to realize what I'm arguing and what I'm not. Throughout these long threads, you've constantly attacked strawmen. I think your problem is that you're used to discussing this with liberals who claim that healthcare is a right, constitutionally legal, smarter economics, etc, etc. In other words, people who do the same thing as you: disguise their PERSONAL wants as something that has some sort of objective, transcendent truth attached to it.
dookdawg214 2 years ago
I'd have more respect for you if you simply said, 'Hey, I don't want my tax dollars going to help other people. I want to keep more of my money.' That would be your personal wish.
But instead, you're acting like your view is grounded in some supernatural objective morality or some constitutional validity that allows you to demonize reform and equate it to stealing.
This is why I've decided to call you out on your total bullshit. I'm being honest. You're not.
dookdawg214 2 years ago
I'm done. You're certainly not the first to engage in bald-faced lies (or even the first to do so on a forum that saves one's words for posterity). This is why I decided to call you on your total BS. I'm being honest. You're not even trying. But eventually a point is reached where the nature of such comments are more than obvious to anyone who comes along and that has been reached.
Anyone coming here has now been sufficiently immunized against believing anything you say.
Adieu.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
A simple read though this thread is enough for any truly open-minded person to see I'm being reasonable and honest.
Unlike many liberals, I'm flat-out admitting that univ. healthcare is my personal WANT, yet shared by many and due to happen through collective power.
You on the other hand are disguising your personal WANT by pretending it's supported by objective morality and constitutional truth. And to come off as convincing, you repeatedly attack points I'm not even trying to make!
dookdawg214 2 years ago
This is rapidly becoming pointless. You seem to be only interested in using every invalid debating technique there is. When I suggest facts, you call me a liar (I never have) or deny that studies I suggest exist (on survival rates: Anderson & Hussey "Multinational Comparisons of Health Syatems Data") or pretend that I said something I didn't (that it was proof rather than yet another specious example). When we are discussing the efficacy of systems, you defer to opinions/polls...
(cont)
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
... and when you defer to opinions/polls, you choose only thise polls that would appear to support your position. Again, it is ALWAYS invalid to rely on personal experience in such a discussion. That you cannot grasp this is a failure on your part, not mine. The studies DO NOT support you, by any stretch of the imagination, but lets look at this (imbecilic) comment about cancer survival rates.
(cont)
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
You would rely on polls or the life expectancy/infant mortality figures of the WHO rather than cancer survival rates because, you argue, that correlation does not mean causation. Your position is monumentally stupid. The libks mentioned in the WHO study have that problem, but the FACT is that the primary factors in survival rates are early diagnosis and response to treatment which ARE directly related to care quality so your position is (not a surprise) factually WRONG.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
You keep going on with the same BS...
I brought up WHO. You respond with studies about one tiny component (cancer survival rates), and even that is wrong b/c it doesn't conclude that this is thanks to the healthcare system. But even if it did, you're still cherrypicking ONE aspect that makes you look right.
I talk about support for reform (backed by repeated surveys) and, like a snake, you respond that people don't support the bills, which obviously is NOT the same thing!
Cont...
dookdawg214 2 years ago
You talk about the efficacy of systems and, though I have partaken in this discussion, this still isn't relevant because I've told you OVER and OVER again that I'm not claiming the govt would be more efficient than private insurers. I keep saying this!!
You say I'm choosing opinion polls that back me up, but support for the public option has been consistent in ALL major polls for MANY months now. Don't you read the papers?
dookdawg214 2 years ago
Or maybe you'd watch John Stossel's "Whose Body is It Anyway?", the 6-part (as it appears here on Youtube) 20/20 special on the American health care system and how well Michael Moore's facts (sic) hold up.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
More strawmen from you. I can't stand Michael Moore and I never proposed that you watch his videos. Do you see how intellectually dishonest (or dumb) you are? In two comments now you've screamed about Michael Moore and I've never said anything about him.
By the way, I will watch the video you proposed. I'm always interested in questioning things I believe and challenging my own point of view. I take people's arguments seriously until I realize they're willfully distoring facts.
dookdawg214 2 years ago
BTW, in the video you suggested, one of the points they make is that the methodology of the WHO ranking has been seriously questioned.
This'll get you started:
v=aE-I0ombIEY
v=kf3MtjMBWx4
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
Dude, the WHO ranking is so insane, I saw how they calculate it and much has nothing to do with healthcare. Keep up the fight
fdny9682 2 years ago
If diagnosed with a serious illness such as cancer, the average American (including the poor) has a FAR higher chance of surviving 5 years or more than in any other country on the globe (including your beloved France).
Your anecdotal evidence is entirely useless and the available statistics support MY position, not yours.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
I knew you'd cherrypick the tired-old cancer-survival 'argument'.
1. Correlation =/= causation. Studies like Lancet's don't attribute these higher survival rates to the healthcare systems of the countries! Post hoc ergo propter hoc. There could be MANY factors!
2. In the U.S. there's lots of praise about surviving cancer. But other countries prevent the cancer from occurring in the first place.
3. I love how you chose one tiny aspect that's in your favor and ignore everything else.
dookdawg214 2 years ago
1. Nice try. I wasn't referring to the Lancet study (there are actually more than one). Inevtiably though, you have just destroyed your entire argument since you that position completely obliterates the WHO study as the link is even LESS relevant.
2. The study I referred to was not limited to cance. That was just an example though the results are, arguably, most dramatic for breast and prostate cancer. The cancer "prevention" position is without merit.
3. Pot, kettle, black
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
1. I said studies LIKE Lancet's. If you're referring to another one, let's hear it. Tell me about this reputable study that shows better survival rates are due to better healthcare. Come on, let's see this!
2. What a coincidence. You happen to mention the one aspect that neo-con nut bags keep bringing up over and over again. I smell bs. Why don't you tell me more about this study? You can start by naming it.
3. I chose WHO because it's huge, multinational and based on wide criteria.
dookdawg214 2 years ago
Schoen, Blendon, DesRoches & Osborn; Anderson & Hussey; Donelan, et al; Anderson, Reinhart, Hussey & Petrosyan; Feachem, Sekhri & White; Schoen, et al; the CDC statistics vs. those of the British National Health Service or Health Canada for wait time lethality. That you are too blind to LOOK doesn't mean the studies aren't there.
And the overwhelming majority of those who died in the heat wave were ALREADY in health care facilities. Your stance (as usual) is completely wrong.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
You're a flat-out liar here. These people might've ended up in hospitals when it was too late, but they weren't denied healthcare, you moron. Is that something they told you on American talk radio? The heat wave took people by surprise. People were badly prepared. In France, no one has air conditioning at home and few people use fans. Dehydration was the major cause of death. There was no rationing. You just made that up. How low can you get?
dookdawg214 2 years ago
No, you are just too ideologically blind to look up the facts. Most of the people who died were elderly people already in care facilities. That's a(n EASILY RESEARCHED) fact. It was pointed out in numerous news articles.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
Let's dispell with the "50 million" nonsense. First, try 24 million - the Census Bureau does two studies and that's the figure THEY concede is most accurate reflecting, among other things, the more than 15 million people who get ON DEMAND Medicais but haven't bothered to enroll. The remainder falls overwhelmingly into two categories - those who make FAR more than the Medicaid eligibility level ($80K/yr family of four) and illegal aliens.
(cont.)
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
Put aside the numbers problem; it's foolish to equate lack of insurance with lack of CARE. The uninsured get, again, better care than in much of the rest of the world. Some studies discuss how many deaths are "related" to lack of insurance, but no one discusses how many are "related" to care rationing. What we know is that care rationing leads DIRECTLY to to thousands upon thousands of deaths and the comparable figure in the US is less than 3,000 (CDC) out of 300 million people.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago 2
The uninsured get better care than the rest of the world? Ha ha, you're so hilarious. Do you know when I got the least/worst care in my life? It wasn't when I was a child in a poor family. And it wasn't as a wealthy adult. It was when I was 20 years old and hard-working but didn't have a job yet that provided healthcare. I suffered immensely. When I had tooth aches, I had nowhere to go. If I went to the ER, I'd end up with a $3,000 invoice for freakin' stitches. You call that good care?
dookdawg214 2 years ago
Cont... To clarify, I'm not crying that nobody took care of me. I was smart and lucky enough to get out of my situation. Today I make $200K a year and don't need anyone's help. But I lived through terrible times and seen first-hand how badly people suffer. You're free to say that it shouldn't be your concern and you don't want to pay for them -- that's your right. But please don't act like the US offers superior care. That's absolutely insane.
dookdawg214 2 years ago
Again, you just can't seem to grasp the obvious. No one CARES about your personal experieences. They are only valuable to YOU and are COMPLETELY USELESS in a comparison of systems because they are no more indicative of the total system than MY personal experiences or those of anyone else.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
You wrote, "No one CARES about your personal experieences."
Ah ha! And here's the point you're having so much trouble with! I'm so glad you wrote this.
Yes, people DO care! People SHARE my views. That's exactly why there's been such huge support for a public option in virtually every poll they conduct. People might not like the bills in congress (I don't), but they're VASTLY for healthcare reform. People mostly agree with ME and not YOU. And this is what democracy is about.
dookdawg214 2 years ago
Don't ever attempt to pretend you know anything about science or research. That people SHARE your views is