It just ends up being cheaper.. Call it want you want.. its all about forcing the medicinal companies and hospitals to do collective bargaining with the people.. A libertarian would love a national Health "union".. These American "libertarians" are probably just using it as a badge.
Maybe Rand Paul is up-in-arms against the idea because it could means a smaller pay-check for him.
OK, snarkiness aside, Canadian doctors are not obligated to take part in Medicare. Our country has private clinics and the government allows it. If physicians don't want to care for somebody, no communist police is going to put them behind bars (though their job is at risk).
@WheresPoochie but the citizens still pay for the public system whether or not they take part in it. This is welfare. Why is paying a doctor bill the responsibility of anyone other than the person who saw the doctor?
@jbthetrainer Universal health care is based on the principal that it is a citizen's duty to help ensure the health benefits of his/her neighbors.
Is it perfect? Heck no. Is it mandatory charity? Well, you can think of it that way. You can call this socialist discourse many negatives things but you can't call it a selfish pursuit. Public opinion (though deterring) would tell you that the Canadian majority really don't mind helping others get treatment.
I've never heard of such a thing happening in any country which has Universal Healthcare. This is really sad, because the USA is the only developed country which has no Universal Healthcare. If the government put the war money into healthcare, the USA would have the best healthcare in the world. Not only this, but the mess the USA has right now concerning healthcare and dodgy insurance companies is even more expensive than Universal Healthcare, it makes no sense that this madness doesn't stop.
AMERICANS KNOW NOTHING ABOUT SINGLE PAYER HEALTHCARE SO WHAT EVER AN AMERICAN SAYS SINGLE HEALTHCARE IS SOCIALISM IS COMPLETELY GROUNDLESS!!!!!! Most ameircans are brainwashed into biased american right wing conservative propaganda
@harrisonconstantinou Shouting won't solve this, lets have a reasonable discussion. We'll start with just 2 questions: 1. Does a doctor have the right to refuse to help someone who demands to be treated? 2. Do I have the right to decide that I want only to pay for my own medical expenses and not pay into a collective pool for everyone else?
Its funny people don't understand his point because they don't understand freedom or the philosophy of liberty and just to make this clear health care isn't "free" nothing is free someone is paying for it one way or another, and the UK healthcare system is going into bankruptcy
@jsbobo36 don't believe everything you watch on FOX everything that they said about the UK NHS was a lie and the people who they tricked into doing the interviews later came out saying that they were either misquoted or that FOX made what they said up.
There is a new book just published everyone should read. It addresses what is really wrong with both America and the rest of the world; how most people have been turned into money slaves and how most people are taken advantage of by the money masters. It also addresses all the political "cool aid". To find out more, check out Get-The-Book. com. "Money Slaves and Cool Aid" may also be found at Amazon or B&N. Rand Paul is on the right track. Too bad most of Congress is so corrupt though.
Leave the country if you think you'd be a slave under UHC. Oh wait, every first world country in the world has socialized medicine except the US. Somalia has a place just for you!
@johnnypeps of course i would help. we just don't think if someone was dying at YOUR doorstep, and YOU said no, that men with guns should get sent to your home to put you in a cage.
Rights are something natural that you are innately born with just by being human. You have the right to own property, the right to sell or give what's yours, the right to use your abilities however you wish as long as it does not harm others. You have the right to live and seek the means to sustain that life. The right to do with your property what you wish as long as it does not harm others. Those are your rights, but to say you have a right to a doctor's help is absurd.
Hey guys, I'm an Australian with a neutral look on the world's politics but to the left in my own and I'll say this about my countries Universal Healthcare system versus your current system, in my country no one dies because they cannot afford medical treatment, I'll say that again just in case it didn't sink in the first time, in my country no one dies because they cannot afford medical treatment.
@KaineTECH And the retard is you, you can't even talk about your thuggish history of theft, colonization, murder, and slavery and how you defended it and still do, all you can do is avoid talking about it and create some hogwash about "NEGATIVE comparator" just put whites as the labor and we'll see your tune change quick, there's the reason why they brought in slaves from Africa and exploited the Mestizo and that's because they know their own laziness.
@ZionismBitestheDust I don't *HAVE* a thuggish history of theft, colonization, murder or slavery. My family has never owned slaves, murdered, or oppressed anyone. Blaming me for something that happened generations ago and wasn't even perpetrated by my bloodline is ludicrous. Don't talk about things "I've" done just because I'm white, and I won't blame you for the bicycles, televisions and car stereos that go missing.
@KaineTECH You do have it because everything you have is a result of slavery, thuggish history, murder, and theft you weer born hundreds of years after it happened but you profited from it just the same and fell no shame profiting off of it, you're actually happy about it, feel superior because of it enough to dismiss it off hand. Those are things you are not just "done" a thug who dismisses the blood thirst and slavery that resulted in your things that you place value in, talking about it.
@KaineTECH Your thuggish history doesn't go away because you dismiss it, you are caught in your little white world and perspective, you are the most murderous people on the planet and you want to spit on people about a TV with your lies, your media is just white supremacy repeated back to you, you ignorant slavers don't know anything and drink the blood of the people you exploit then turn around with some high horse judgement of others, its catching up to you now and its funny.
@KaineTECH Another typical white thing to say, when a white excuses slavery "We're not excusing slaver", when a white praises their militant and thuggish culture "No we are peace lovers, we don't conquer we never gained anything from mass killings of people who's land we coveted, nope not us" The criminal doesn't admit to the crime and thus proves what? That they didn't commit the crime? No that they deny it, that's all.
really services that provide for the peoples welfare is slavery? doctors are paid to treat people, isnt it the best interest of our country to make sure the people have affordable healthcare and that we are healthy? and really how is a service paid for by tax payer dollars a form of slavery in which the doctors themselves are paid to do such services?
@evb4mvp what he means is just that, if health care is a right that means that it NEEDS to be granted to you. If health care is a right then it would be okay to FORCE a doctor to treat you against his will. Since it's wrong to FORCE a doctor to treat you against his will then health care can't be a right. That's all he is saying.
@FreedomFighter1131 slavery - a state in which a person is owned as property and forced to work. no one owns a doctor and no one forces them to become a doctor. doctors become doctors because they want to treat people and make sure theyre healthy. if you are provided it by the government its your job to call a doctor, any doctor of your choosing to seek treatment you need. they get payed by the government to treat people who request and/or need treatment, no one is forcing them to be there.
@evb4mvp okay u ignored my statement I simply showed how services are not rights. Anyway 2 questions: 1. Here does the government get the money to pay the doctors? and 2. Do you have a right to negotiate with your doctor without any third party involvement?
1-the same place it gets money to fund other programs, taxation.
2-you have a right to choose your doctor. with a UHS system going to a doctor is free, no payments up front like our current system. eliminate the middle man or 3rd party, insurance companies, who jack up the prices to be able to see a doctor.
@evb4mvp if a doctor is getting paid by the government and the government is paying them by taking money from everyone else then there is no solitary interaction between you and your doctor because the government is already there as a third party paying the doctor on your behalf. This a. creates and incentive for doctors to use the lowest quality care at the highest prices and b. gives the government the incentive to create restrictions and rules and terms for you and your doctor to follow.
@FreedomFighter1131 who exactly says that you do not have solitary interaction between your doctor? there are laws specifically title 2 of the HIPAA which protect your privacy as a patient.
do your have proof that government run healthcare tries to provide the lowest quality and highest price?
@evb4mvp when You need to go through the government for payment or insurance companies or when doctors need to check restictions on what they can perscribe then that is 3rd party involvement, thus no one on one between u and the doctor. government run health care is free from the law of compitition because it holds a monopoly. All monopolies by definition have an incentive to provide the lowest quality at the highest price because no one can undercut them or provide a better product.
@FreedomFighter1131 the reasons why there are restrictions on medicines is to make sure they are safe, that they will not cause you to OD and die. such regulations are made for patient and doctor safety. trying to profit on saving peoples is both unfair and just plain wrong. you are just making a statement about government healthcare being low quality, is there proof of such?
@evb4mvp That might be the intent behind the restrictions but all they do is prevent and slow the progress of medical science and restrict other very good treatments. You say profits from saving people is wrong, but what is really wrong is not profiting from using your abilities. Profits are what you earn through ability. A doctor deserves payment not just to earn a living but to get luxuries because of his abilities.
@FreedomFighter1131 can you explain why the US is ranked number 37 in the world in quality healthcare behind many nations who have successfully been using socialized systems? like with any job today government or private employees are always compensated for their work. in our prifit driven industry we see people who are dying since they cant afford basic healthcare where in other countries like canada or france or england they would get the same treatment and not have to worry about paying.
@evb4mvp in canada and england people are put on priority wait lists which can take months before they get seen or treated. The government has no buisness forcing everyone to get insurance when some people don't want insurance and it also has no buisness taking from everyone (most who have low health costs) and using it to pay everyone's medical bills. Especially when it has to borrow billions of dollars to cover the differance.
@FreedomFighter1131 in england if you have a life threatening disease such as cancer you are required by law to see treatment within 2 weeks of your referral. if lets say you need heart surgery and losing weight will help you recovery you will wait for 16 weeks to lose the weight. your access in such countries are based on need rather than pay. basing such a system off of the european and canadian models and our very own hawaiis will give easy access to care across the US.
The Ames, Iowa Straw poll is scheduled to take place on August 13, 2011. Because of this, it is imperative to catapult Ron Paul to victory in the straw poll. On July 19, 2011, we will hold an online money bomb in support of Ron Paul for President 2012, with the goal to win the Ames, Iowa straw poll.
Please invite all your friends and help Ron Paul end our costly military involvements overseas, shrink the size of our government and restore the republic
The simple fact that idiots like this, who's only concern is a lust and greed for wealth and power, and ensuring their pathetic confederate idiots can exercise a lust and greed for wealth and power regardless of consequences, are still being elected is both disgusting and frightening.
This is why, when I go to my job and my boss asks me to do an assignment, I reply, "Fuck you! I will not submit to slavery!" How dare doctors be handsomely paid to do their jobs?
LOL.. Is this guy a doctor? health worker?? Pity the poor sods who think he is able to tie his own shoes, wipe his own arse! The guy is mentally retarded.. Really makes me worry about this so called "super power"
I fear any "super power" that has the ability to enslave us as Rand describes. I'm an engineer. You have no right to have the government come to my house and force me to engineer something for you.
Same goes for doctors.
I know you can't intellectually grasp a simple idea that forcing someone to do something (even by proxy) is akin to slavery.
@hbxcskier - In the U.S., no it isn't. The 13th amendment abolishes slavery and involuntary servitude. The Supreme Court ruled that compulsory military service is not involuntary servitude. It has to do with the intent of the law. Congress did not intend the draft to be involuntary servitude.
"The intent of the legislators constitutes the law."
@hbxcskier - Well, that depends. The draft isn't slavery. On the other hand, what would you call being forced by the gov't to work against your will and without pay? If that comes to fruition, could ObamaCare be argued as a violation of the 13th amendment? Maybe.
The hyperbolic rhetoric is getting out of control. "They're going to kick down my door in the middle of the night and drag me away to force me to treat you". What a fucking drama queen.
@2ndAsstJizzMopper ah, ok, insults when you don't agree - gotcha - typing slowly now for ya: "you're going to enslave me" (Slavery) compared to right to healthcare
Real classy, just flag every comment you disagree with as spam so no one gets to see the reasonable responses. You know you lost this argument that's why you had to resort to this cheap tactic.
I live in the UK and our NHS costs the state half as much as the healthcare in the US, and it is free, and it is ranked higher by the World Health Organisation (UK = 18th, USA = 37th)
So a problem made worse by government edicts can be solved by government edicts? Why not allow free markets and competition to work and revamp our entire system?
@Aviator9999 Have you used the NHS lately? I am glad I haven't, some of my relatives haven't been so lucky. Those numbers are probably skewed for the US as many people aren't insured - mostly due to their own choices. A major reason I will be leaving these not so happy lands is that I do not want to grow old relying on the NHS. It will no doubt be the death of me.
America has universal defence, universal policing, universal fire fighting, universal customs, universe post, but universal health care thats communist!!
I don't understand, how is demanding the right to other people's labor not slavery?
Universal Healthcare is slavery b/c it implies that you have the right to other people's services.
Serious reading comprehension problems. You want to help those in need? Donate to charity and hospitals like real good people. Don't use force or petition the heavy immoral hand of big government to force people to do things. Health care is a service. You are not entitled to other people's services.
The government has every right to take money out of your pocket and use it to put every child through school, and the government will do that to you forever. And there's nothing you can ever do about it, because lawmakers don't interpret the constitution as conservatively as they did when it was drafted, and they never will again, and I'm very glad about that. If you don't like it, maybe you should move to a Libertarian paradise like Haiti, where you'll really get a sense of a low-tax nation. :)
ShaelRiley, you believe that not all humans are created equal with regard to rights. that's the problem. has nothing to do with rights not discussed by the constitution. the constitution is, by definition, wholly irrelevant to unalienable rights.
@ShaelRiley I am not aware of what the offical tax rate is in Haiti, found this on wiki
According to a World Bank report in 2006, "In Haiti, the process of business regulations is complex and customs procedures are lengthy."[8] On average, opening a business took 204 days.
A libertarian paridise? Yep, too much capitalism clearly.
@EhSteve11 - They had the same nonsense in Puerto Rico. Now it takes one form (on-line if you like) and a two week wait to open a business. Puerto Rico is dumping socialism and moving toward freedom.
@EhSteve11 There's a fair number of things. That's not the point. ShaelRiley was looking for a 'free market' example. Somalia is a better one than Haiti.
He speaks from a doctor's point of view. In Canada, a doctor is a government employee. If you like getting paid by the government and being kept to time worked, you will like being a doctor in Canada. It is becoming a pink collar job on the whole. It is becoming clear that there needs to be pay for option too here in Canada. The government rations how much doctors do by having 1 year waiting lists. My son has a cyst in his back and I have waited 1 year for the operation to drain it.
The metaphor may be extreme but the essence is correct. We DO NOT have the right to demand healthcare. The current issues with insurance companies gets back to government regulating the business. Get the government away and companies will compete for your wallet. It's funny that we never have these type of issues with other forms insurance . . . and the only difference is the level of government regulation involved.
Darusdei, refute him. refute exactly what he said here. if he doesn't seem very bright, shouldn't take long to do properly, with no straw man fallacy, etc.
Darusdei, no, conventional three-party firefighters and school "teachers" aren't slaves. now, please refute exactly what he said, without fallacy. it will be straw man fallacy if you assert that rand paul declared that conventional doctors are slaves. he did not, and nothing he said may be transmuted into an assertion that conventional (three-party) firefighters and school "teachers" are slaves.
the people forced to pay for firefighters and school "teachers" are enslaved, however partially.
Darusdei, i not only heard him, i transcribed every word he said:
tinyurl*com/3vsd3qe
what he said is 100% correct. if you have a right to health care, then you must be ABLE, rightfully, to conscript a doctor. most people find that directness distasteful, so they use a disguise method -- the one you're falsely confusing with what he described. the disguise is to add a party ("society"), enslave that party, and pay the doctor with its wealth. in that realm the doctor is a parasite, not slave.
@2ndAsstJizzMopper the right to free healthcare would mean that you would have right to beat his door with the police and use force to conscript him to help you. this is what he said and it's false
Darusdei, correct until the last phrase. you're employing the fallacy of equivocation. here rand paul uses the word "right" to mean something which you may not be ethically denied. apparently, you're using it to mean, "that which i can get away with through 'government'". you may not switch definitions on paul. you're confused between what people do and what they allege is a right. now, people ARE threatened with having their door beaten down if they don't pay for others' doctors. it's real.
This is right on. When the government does anything but protect all citizens from having basic rights violated, they must unavoidably rob from someone to help someone else. That's all there is to it, there is no way around it. So who do we rob? Who's rights do we deem to be expendable? The person who may think they are safe from the pick-pocketing of the government could be tomorrow's victim.
Like Rand says, Healthcare reform takes away doctors' freedoms. Many of you Democrat/Liberals do not even know what you are really supporting... You are giving the government even more POWER and CONTROL over your lives.
TonyKaku, in other words, dummkopf, you've refuted nothing in any of your comments here. you arrived, assumed an unfounded arrogance, said, "Eek, a mouse!" -- twice, and retreated, too busy to worry about logic or language.
@deficithawker please stick to actually talking about the subject.. proper grammar, though important, isn't my focus here. What you have just described is a form of force.. you illogical communist.
His comments are entirely uncontroversial. Saying that some good or service is a "right" means that anyone that has the capacity to provide that good or service but doesn't is violating your right.
It's basically a semantics thing, and Rand Paul has it correct.
People who advocate universal health care often state that there are poor people who can't afford certain services like health care or education so the government needs to tax people so they can pay for these things for the people. However my argument is that it is wrong to forcefully take from people who don't use a service or use a small amount and it and give it to those who us a lot of the service.
@unpopularchunk Parameters that wide actually invite more violations than any other perspective. Thats what I don't think you understand. The codification of laws and obligations to balance society, ensuring the highest degree of personal autonomy requires it. Otherwise, the only freedom you'll have is the freedom to starve to death on the side of a private-highway.
This guy is a fucking nutter. He also thinks his audience are idiots. The Right have taken over the craziness that used to be the forte of extreme left wingers.
@unpopularchunk Thats the essence of a democratic society. The establishment and implementation of codified laws and obligations that can widely be agreed upon by society. Fire-fighters, Police, teachers and even the DMV are all part of our established constitutional democracy. If you don't want to pay for fire fighters or cops, move to Somalia.
By the same reasoning, if you believe children have a right to an education, or citizens have a right to be protected by the police, you also believe in slavery. Derp.
@ShaelRiley He is correct to assert that claiming a right to some service (health care, education, etc) IS a form of slavery. He is incorrect to imply that he is the slave. No. The slave is the taxpayer who has to pay for that "right", that someone else benefits from. The slavery part is quietly overlooked because it's insidiously withdrawn from your paycheck before you even see it. YOU must toil, so that I may get Rx drugs. YOU must toil so that my kids can go to school. And so on.
rmcdaniel, he is fully correct to state explicitly (not an implication) that in a two-party transaction he is the slave. he didn't discuss the three-party scenario you mention, which moves the slavery from the doctor (and staff, etc.) to the tax victim. any reasonable non-idiot gets the concept and can apply it across changes in parties and roles.
people not understanding that may be the most shocking aspect of this vid. it's their favorite tool for running away while snickering, "ridiculous".
@2ndAsstJizzMopper Do you really think the people he's referring to, that claim a "right to health care" etc, are actually going directly to him and demanding his services for free, with no 3rd party gov't involvement? OF COURSE there is a 3rd party! It's the people that want to fund & run the "universal health care" at taxpayer expense that Dr. Paul is arguing against here. What "two-party transaction" involving enslaved doctors are you talking about?
rmcdaniel423, feigned incredulity isn't a refutation. in paul's reductio ad absurdum ("that’s ultimately what the right to free health care would be"), he referred explicitly to only a direct patient / provider relationship. read:
tinyurl*com/3vsd3qe
no, no one with a brain believes that that conceptual example represents conventional three-party "health care". non-idiots recognize that in this brief EXCERPT he referred to that reality with only a single phrase: "you gotta take it from someone"
@ShaelRiley What a silly thing to say. you should have thought more about it. Children don't have a right to education. How is that a right? It's a parent's responsibility to teach their children, if i child wants to be educated they don't have the right to go to an adult and say "teach me!" and that adult has to stop everything and teach them. And police actually protect a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, Rand Paul supports protection of actual rights, not desires.
@ShaelRiley Thats partly true. Education is the wrong word though. I believe you are thinking of schooling not education. Everyone individual has a right to education/information but that doesn't mean that the government has the right to take money to provide schooling for an individual. Individuals have a right information, it is unethical and immoral to deter someone from information/education.
But ur point on police is a little out there. every individual has a right to protect themselves
Google "Robert Nozick Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy," and read sections 2. a. and 2. b. This will explain why taxation to fund anything other than the most minimal state (i.e. to enforce people's "rights" to goods and services like healthcare) is equivalent to slavery and therefore morally indefensible.
@2ndAsstJizzMopper Did you read the highly acclaimed academic work of philosophy by a Harvard professor that argues in favor of that "silly myth"? (Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Nozick) I'm sure you worked out a thorough and logically rigorous refutation of that argument before deciding it was a "silly myth."
@2ndAsstJizzMopper I'm not saying he's right because he's from Harvard, I'm saying he's right because I am convinced by his argument, a summary of which I linked to. My point about authority was that if it were just a "silly myth" then it wouldn't have taken an entire philosophical monograph to argue it--or if it had, then it would have been torn apart in review. If it were really a "silly myth" then you could provide a simple and logical refutation of it here. Not holding my breath.
onyomi, bullshit. you mentioned harvard for blowhard factor. love this, BTW:
"[...] if it were just a 'silly myth' then it wouldn't have taken an entire philosophical monograph to argue it--or if it had, then it would have been torn apart in review"
here's the refutation: taxation is involuntary against those who've not initiated force. therefore, it is unethical.
i base this upon the unfounded (yet least assailable foundation) theory that all humans are created equal with regard to rights.
onyomi, nozick's defense of "minarchism" (ludicrous term) is purely utilitarian, not ethical. i think it likely that his premise of "anarchism" (another stupid term) devolving into states is correct. however, that doesn't render this monopolistic condition able to ethically force others to pay for its "services".
i argue for defending voluntarism in all areas. most people will never be voluntarists, but it doesn't mean they can't be rightfully snakebit for aggression (such as "minarchism").
@2ndAsstJizzMopper I see now that your original post was against the notion that any taxation is ever permissible--I first read it as "the possibility of a (merely) minimalist state is a myth." I honestly tend to agree with you that I'd prefer a purely voluntary society and am not comfortable with taxation for any reason. I just also tend to be convinced by Nozick's idea that protection agencies will become de facto mini states and therefore tend to advocate a Libertarianish ultra-minimal state.
onyomi, so long as people look favorably upon any state, i think a minimal state is impossible. if states were always viewed correctly as evil, i think things might be workable; let the fuckers exist and be resisted at every turn.
where i get pissed off at arguments like nozick's is when they acquiesce. resistance is not futile, but rather crucial. always. on the present path, america will within 10 years resemble late 30s germany, precisely because most can't fathom that it could happen.
@2ndAsstJizzMopper Well, no argument there. I'm so accustomed to arguing against people who view me as radically anti-government that when someone argues I'm being too pro-government it doesn't even compute at first! We only hear/read what we expect to hear/read, I suppose...
onyomi, yeah, well YouTube isn't the place where you expect anyone to not be arguing from his anus. fun anyway.
state brainwashing's a crazy strong thing. doubt we'll ever been seen as not evil for opposing the state. that's the problem. inversion. i often tell people that if i'd heard myself 30 years ago talking as i talk now, i'd be scared of me. the wrong version is my younger self, however -- that stupid fuck.
I wish people thought of health-care as a right! Rights generally mean a check on coercive power. People consider the "right" to free speech as a guard against thugs keeping you from doing something. If health-care was a right like that of free speech then people could do what they wanted without the consent of rich people who win popularity contests (e.g. limiting your health related liabilities with people from other states, or choosing not to pay for hairloss coverage).
@PumpkinJoe999 How far do we go to ensure this right is upheld? Do we rob people to pay for someone's health care? Do we force doctors to treat people against their will? How do we provide the service that doctors give as a right? If we don't force doctors to help people then how will this right work? Will government pay for it all? How will government pay for it? Where does government get the money to pay for it? Do we steal it from people who don't get sick in order to help those that do?
@PumpkinJoe999 Many people, like myself, don't consider health-care a right, because it's (a) unaffordable to provide free health care and (b) helps create overpopulation and (c) aids flaws in gene pools to perpetuate. Go rent Idiocracy.
@3MARSAURELIUS : streets were much safer, healthcare didn't cost arms and legs and doctors didn't have to charge $200-$400 per visit.
What I find particularly so offensive about liberals' big gov't propaganda is that they always seem to narrate a bleak, dystopian society in pre-big gov't era, but rarely talk about all social upheaval, political, economic chaos that came right after their botched changes in the 60's and 70's. Then conveniently blame Reagan for their failures in the preceeding
tooltalk, also in the other time direction, we're supposedly always one election away from fixing everything. gonna be so awesome! enlightening to listen to some of the "we're going to end poverty" speeches from lyndon johnson, etc., or reagan's defeat-terrorism shtick. almost nobody catches on that it's all speechifying BS? the fools somehow figure that with one magic four-year period they'll beat the opposition into confluence and everything will go their way. SHOCKINGLY, more strife ensues.
@3MARSAURELIUS : eh? doesn't mean that you can't use the same demagoguery employed by democrats to smear their opponent. It's though rather sad to see folks, non-democrats, whose short-term memory clouds their understanding of US politics.
Sure, it's a small charity work, but that's how most doctors operated in those days without the big gov't. Obviously I'm not old enough to give my personal account, but I'm told before the liberal revolution of the 60's, education was quite affordable,
To those who disagree with Rand Paul here I just want to know.
1. What constitutes a right? What is a right? Define "a right".
2. How is a right, provided? What are the circumstances for ensuring a right?
3. What are the restrictions and limitations on granting, ensuring or providing a right?
If there are any contradictions in the answers to these questions then your premise concerning a right is flawed and you need to rethink your premise.
If you don't have the means to support your own life then you don't have the right to violate someone else's rights to ensure your survival. My rights end where yours begin, I can't force you to help me, against your will, just to make sure I don't die. That sounds a bit harsh but you have rights, just like every other individual and those rights can't violate another's rights. When you voluntarily choose to provide a service that is fine. The point is we can't make them provide it.
Once you have your life you have the right to seek for yourself the means to sustain that life, but you can't impose on others an obligation to sustain your life for you. Health care is a service which a doctor provides and you can't violently impose on him an obligation to provide that service, whether you pay him or not. Also if you are destitute and do not have the money to purchase health care from a doctor, you can not forcefully impose on others an obligation to pay for you.
@tooltalk So, Paul is against getting paid for medical services if the check comes from the govt? It isn't the middle class and above only who use Medicare. So, why isn't he willing to provide "charity care" to those on Medicare? To him, it should matter whether it goes broke or not. He'll provide services for free, right, because he cares about people? At what point does a person because racist for being againt Obama? A racist comment is a racist comment-regardless of who you are for/against...
@rpierre777 : that's an interesting premise. I don't know if Rand paul provides "charity care" in lieu of accepting Medicare like his father does. But while his father deals with life and death - from what I understand, he spend more time doing Lasiks than any life-death surgeries.
So now following your logic, Rand is against income tax and if he refuses Medicare payment, does that mean he can stop paying federal income tax? Or are you just asking him to pay for things he can't use (eg, roads
@tooltalk Well, he can't stop paying income tax if he is strictly a constitutionalist...if he refuses medicare payments, he only hurts the patients-not the govt.
@rpierre777 : federal funded highways, SS, medicare, etc) for your own benefit? You know most of us still have to pay for federal programs like the war in Iraq, drug, poverty whether we support or benefit from it not; else we go to jail. Now, that doesn't mean that we can't speak out against the gov't federal programs like the war in Iraq, drug and poverty. Or are you among those who believe it's hypocritical to oppose the war in Iraq when we are safer b/c of it?
@tooltalk How does he NOT benefit from roads and highways? Of course with his income from being a doctor and being in congress, he probably won't use SS or Medicare, but that doesn't mean since he's not using it, no one should be able to use it. No one will go to jail for NOT paying for any of those things. If so, all the unemployed would be arrested. I don't care if someone opposes or supports a war. That's what they do. I don't believe we are safer from the war in Iraq....
Honey, not all roads and highways are funded by the federal gov't. In fact, most of our taxes don't go paying for highways, bridges, police, fireman or schools (the latter three usually belong to the state/city) - over 3/4 of all federal gov't spending ends in some form of warfare and welfare programs. So cut your BS with highway (or police or firemen).
"No one will go to jail for NOT paying for any of those things" - every year, approx 300 people get indicted on tax
3~@mickeysears Everything else in the Patriot Act expired. So, how was it "beefed up"? Open Borders has always been the "American Way". "Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" is on the Statue of Liberty as an open call to foreigners. Gitmo is still open due to Republican opposition-not Obama policy. Remember how he wanted to close the base and hold trials in NY for the inmates?
1~@mickeysears The Tea Party pushing for less spending???? What exactly are they pushing to spend less on? They want smaller govt. What specific aspect of govt are they pushing to end? Contined expaned wars??? Obama ended military campaigns in Iraq.
@rpierre777 : well, you are demagoguing the issue here: there are now about 100K private contractors running the show - Bush' policy once liberal democrats riled viciously. Now that Obama is doing it, liberals pretend that it's no longer a problem. Go listen to Jeremy Scahill, okie?
1~@tooltalk How? 1) I posed a question about the Tea Party and their intensions, 2) I pointed out the facts of the Patriot Act as it relates to Obama and warrantless wiretapping, 3) I pointed out how "Open Borders" has been the "American Way" since this country's founding and it NOT just an Bush/Obama policy, and 4) I pointed out why Gitmo is still open. So, how exactly did I "demogogue" the issue? So, it's Obama's fault the Republican's refused to close Gitmo? Obama only authorized court....
@rpierre777 : eh? You are all over the place - you are not answering the points I raised. How is replacing the troops in Iraq with private contractors any better? Likewise Obama's defense budget has been going up, not down. 1) honey, the tp was pretty clear where and what they wanted to cut, after all, this mvt was born in 2007 in response to Bush's warfare and corporate welfare politics. The mvt re-emerged again as a populist mvt against the gov't bailout of the banks, a policy
1~@tooltalk Whether it's better or not is debatable. It just depends on how you feel about private contractors (to each its own). If this country is so concerned about being attacked, why would they want to decrease defense spending? That's like being concerned you're gonna run out of gas on a 100 mile trip, but only set aside enough money for a quarter tank of gas (then wonder why you ran out). Duh!!! Put more money in defending yourself and you won't to be as concerned with possible threats.
It just ends up being cheaper.. Call it want you want.. its all about forcing the medicinal companies and hospitals to do collective bargaining with the people.. A libertarian would love a national Health "union".. These American "libertarians" are probably just using it as a badge.
jsgdk 1 week ago
Maybe Rand Paul is up-in-arms against the idea because it could means a smaller pay-check for him.
OK, snarkiness aside, Canadian doctors are not obligated to take part in Medicare. Our country has private clinics and the government allows it. If physicians don't want to care for somebody, no communist police is going to put them behind bars (though their job is at risk).
WheresPoochie 1 month ago
@WheresPoochie but the citizens still pay for the public system whether or not they take part in it. This is welfare. Why is paying a doctor bill the responsibility of anyone other than the person who saw the doctor?
jbthetrainer 3 weeks ago
@jbthetrainer Universal health care is based on the principal that it is a citizen's duty to help ensure the health benefits of his/her neighbors.
Is it perfect? Heck no. Is it mandatory charity? Well, you can think of it that way. You can call this socialist discourse many negatives things but you can't call it a selfish pursuit. Public opinion (though deterring) would tell you that the Canadian majority really don't mind helping others get treatment.
WheresPoochie 3 weeks ago
Rand Paul is not even fit to be the janitor of that clinic, let alone the physician.
Vondur 1 month ago
I've never heard of such a thing happening in any country which has Universal Healthcare. This is really sad, because the USA is the only developed country which has no Universal Healthcare. If the government put the war money into healthcare, the USA would have the best healthcare in the world. Not only this, but the mess the USA has right now concerning healthcare and dodgy insurance companies is even more expensive than Universal Healthcare, it makes no sense that this madness doesn't stop.
givemearandomnamenow 1 month ago
AMERICANS KNOW NOTHING ABOUT SINGLE PAYER HEALTHCARE SO WHAT EVER AN AMERICAN SAYS SINGLE HEALTHCARE IS SOCIALISM IS COMPLETELY GROUNDLESS!!!!!! Most ameircans are brainwashed into biased american right wing conservative propaganda
harrisonconstantinou 2 months ago 4
@harrisonconstantinou Shouting won't solve this, lets have a reasonable discussion. We'll start with just 2 questions: 1. Does a doctor have the right to refuse to help someone who demands to be treated? 2. Do I have the right to decide that I want only to pay for my own medical expenses and not pay into a collective pool for everyone else?
FreedomFighter1131 2 months ago
Its funny people don't understand his point because they don't understand freedom or the philosophy of liberty and just to make this clear health care isn't "free" nothing is free someone is paying for it one way or another, and the UK healthcare system is going into bankruptcy
jsbobo36 3 months ago
@jsbobo36 don't believe everything you watch on FOX everything that they said about the UK NHS was a lie and the people who they tricked into doing the interviews later came out saying that they were either misquoted or that FOX made what they said up.
irishgodfatherchris 2 months ago
Ron taught him well
give him a couple years and he'll be a great candidate for president
ngord 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is a new book just published everyone should read. It addresses what is really wrong with both America and the rest of the world; how most people have been turned into money slaves and how most people are taken advantage of by the money masters. It also addresses all the political "cool aid". To find out more, check out Get-The-Book. com. "Money Slaves and Cool Aid" may also be found at Amazon or B&N. Rand Paul is on the right track. Too bad most of Congress is so corrupt though.
TMIAmerica 4 months ago
Leave the country if you think you'd be a slave under UHC. Oh wait, every first world country in the world has socialized medicine except the US. Somalia has a place just for you!
Sloxx701 5 months ago
@mikareler Do you really believe the healthcare industry doesn't benefit from the gigantic regulatory complex?
Madfoot713 5 months ago
@FloMonKish The state of Kentucky.
Madfoot713 5 months ago
@QuarkToo Thank the government for that.
Madfoot713 5 months ago
@johnnypeps of course i would help. we just don't think if someone was dying at YOUR doorstep, and YOU said no, that men with guns should get sent to your home to put you in a cage.
Madfoot713 5 months ago
Rights are something natural that you are innately born with just by being human. You have the right to own property, the right to sell or give what's yours, the right to use your abilities however you wish as long as it does not harm others. You have the right to live and seek the means to sustain that life. The right to do with your property what you wish as long as it does not harm others. Those are your rights, but to say you have a right to a doctor's help is absurd.
FreedomFighter1131 5 months ago
It's like listening to an adolescent Randroid.
smileyfacemug 6 months ago
Hey guys, I'm an Australian with a neutral look on the world's politics but to the left in my own and I'll say this about my countries Universal Healthcare system versus your current system, in my country no one dies because they cannot afford medical treatment, I'll say that again just in case it didn't sink in the first time, in my country no one dies because they cannot afford medical treatment.
irishgodfatherchris 6 months ago
@KaineTECH And the retard is you, you can't even talk about your thuggish history of theft, colonization, murder, and slavery and how you defended it and still do, all you can do is avoid talking about it and create some hogwash about "NEGATIVE comparator" just put whites as the labor and we'll see your tune change quick, there's the reason why they brought in slaves from Africa and exploited the Mestizo and that's because they know their own laziness.
ZionismBitestheDust 6 months ago
@ZionismBitestheDust I don't *HAVE* a thuggish history of theft, colonization, murder or slavery. My family has never owned slaves, murdered, or oppressed anyone. Blaming me for something that happened generations ago and wasn't even perpetrated by my bloodline is ludicrous. Don't talk about things "I've" done just because I'm white, and I won't blame you for the bicycles, televisions and car stereos that go missing.
KaineTECH 6 months ago
@KaineTECH You do have it because everything you have is a result of slavery, thuggish history, murder, and theft you weer born hundreds of years after it happened but you profited from it just the same and fell no shame profiting off of it, you're actually happy about it, feel superior because of it enough to dismiss it off hand. Those are things you are not just "done" a thug who dismisses the blood thirst and slavery that resulted in your things that you place value in, talking about it.
ZionismBitestheDust 6 months ago
@KaineTECH Your thuggish history doesn't go away because you dismiss it, you are caught in your little white world and perspective, you are the most murderous people on the planet and you want to spit on people about a TV with your lies, your media is just white supremacy repeated back to you, you ignorant slavers don't know anything and drink the blood of the people you exploit then turn around with some high horse judgement of others, its catching up to you now and its funny.
ZionismBitestheDust 6 months ago
@KaineTECH Another typical white thing to say, when a white excuses slavery "We're not excusing slaver", when a white praises their militant and thuggish culture "No we are peace lovers, we don't conquer we never gained anything from mass killings of people who's land we coveted, nope not us" The criminal doesn't admit to the crime and thus proves what? That they didn't commit the crime? No that they deny it, that's all.
ZionismBitestheDust 6 months ago
really services that provide for the peoples welfare is slavery? doctors are paid to treat people, isnt it the best interest of our country to make sure the people have affordable healthcare and that we are healthy? and really how is a service paid for by tax payer dollars a form of slavery in which the doctors themselves are paid to do such services?
evb4mvp 7 months ago
@evb4mvp what he means is just that, if health care is a right that means that it NEEDS to be granted to you. If health care is a right then it would be okay to FORCE a doctor to treat you against his will. Since it's wrong to FORCE a doctor to treat you against his will then health care can't be a right. That's all he is saying.
FreedomFighter1131 6 months ago
@FreedomFighter1131 slavery - a state in which a person is owned as property and forced to work. no one owns a doctor and no one forces them to become a doctor. doctors become doctors because they want to treat people and make sure theyre healthy. if you are provided it by the government its your job to call a doctor, any doctor of your choosing to seek treatment you need. they get payed by the government to treat people who request and/or need treatment, no one is forcing them to be there.
evb4mvp 6 months ago
@evb4mvp okay u ignored my statement I simply showed how services are not rights. Anyway 2 questions: 1. Here does the government get the money to pay the doctors? and 2. Do you have a right to negotiate with your doctor without any third party involvement?
FreedomFighter1131 6 months ago
@FreedomFighter1131 i did answer your statement but anyway
1-the same place it gets money to fund other programs, taxation.
2-you have a right to choose your doctor. with a UHS system going to a doctor is free, no payments up front like our current system. eliminate the middle man or 3rd party, insurance companies, who jack up the prices to be able to see a doctor.
evb4mvp 6 months ago
@evb4mvp if a doctor is getting paid by the government and the government is paying them by taking money from everyone else then there is no solitary interaction between you and your doctor because the government is already there as a third party paying the doctor on your behalf. This a. creates and incentive for doctors to use the lowest quality care at the highest prices and b. gives the government the incentive to create restrictions and rules and terms for you and your doctor to follow.
FreedomFighter1131 6 months ago
@FreedomFighter1131 who exactly says that you do not have solitary interaction between your doctor? there are laws specifically title 2 of the HIPAA which protect your privacy as a patient.
do your have proof that government run healthcare tries to provide the lowest quality and highest price?
evb4mvp 6 months ago
@evb4mvp when You need to go through the government for payment or insurance companies or when doctors need to check restictions on what they can perscribe then that is 3rd party involvement, thus no one on one between u and the doctor. government run health care is free from the law of compitition because it holds a monopoly. All monopolies by definition have an incentive to provide the lowest quality at the highest price because no one can undercut them or provide a better product.
FreedomFighter1131 6 months ago
@FreedomFighter1131 the reasons why there are restrictions on medicines is to make sure they are safe, that they will not cause you to OD and die. such regulations are made for patient and doctor safety. trying to profit on saving peoples is both unfair and just plain wrong. you are just making a statement about government healthcare being low quality, is there proof of such?
evb4mvp 6 months ago
@evb4mvp That might be the intent behind the restrictions but all they do is prevent and slow the progress of medical science and restrict other very good treatments. You say profits from saving people is wrong, but what is really wrong is not profiting from using your abilities. Profits are what you earn through ability. A doctor deserves payment not just to earn a living but to get luxuries because of his abilities.
FreedomFighter1131 6 months ago
@FreedomFighter1131 can you explain why the US is ranked number 37 in the world in quality healthcare behind many nations who have successfully been using socialized systems? like with any job today government or private employees are always compensated for their work. in our prifit driven industry we see people who are dying since they cant afford basic healthcare where in other countries like canada or france or england they would get the same treatment and not have to worry about paying.
evb4mvp 6 months ago
@evb4mvp in canada and england people are put on priority wait lists which can take months before they get seen or treated. The government has no buisness forcing everyone to get insurance when some people don't want insurance and it also has no buisness taking from everyone (most who have low health costs) and using it to pay everyone's medical bills. Especially when it has to borrow billions of dollars to cover the differance.
FreedomFighter1131 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FreedomFighter1131 in england if you have a life threatening disease such as cancer you are required by law to see treatment within 2 weeks of your referral. if lets say you need heart surgery and losing weight will help you recovery you will wait for 16 weeks to lose the weight. your access in such countries are based on need rather than pay. basing such a system off of the european and canadian models and our very own hawaiis will give easy access to care across the US.
evb4mvp 6 months ago
In our Nhs the doctors heal the sick, they are employed by the state at good wage and treat all those who appear at the A and E...
Yoiur American system according to this... Creature R paul is backward and may i say it.. third world.. Give me money less i dont treat you..
Americans stuck in the 17th C,,, LOL
whiskasalpha 7 months ago 2
Comment removed
Atheist2006 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Ames, Iowa Straw poll is scheduled to take place on August 13, 2011. Because of this, it is imperative to catapult Ron Paul to victory in the straw poll. On July 19, 2011, we will hold an online money bomb in support of Ron Paul for President 2012, with the goal to win the Ames, Iowa straw poll.
Please invite all your friends and help Ron Paul end our costly military involvements overseas, shrink the size of our government and restore the republic
JULY 19, 2011 - Ames Straw Poll Moneybomb!
theleemeister 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Then your boss/employee relationship has no bearing on the govt/doctor relationship.
EhSteve11 7 months ago
The simple fact that idiots like this, who's only concern is a lust and greed for wealth and power, and ensuring their pathetic confederate idiots can exercise a lust and greed for wealth and power regardless of consequences, are still being elected is both disgusting and frightening.
purelypygmalion 8 months ago 3
This is why, when I go to my job and my boss asks me to do an assignment, I reply, "Fuck you! I will not submit to slavery!" How dare doctors be handsomely paid to do their jobs?
hithazel 8 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@hithazel Are you then saying that doctors are employees of the govt?
EhSteve11 8 months ago
@EhSteve11 To say that doctors are employees of the government is factually incorrect. That's why it's called "private practice"
hithazel 7 months ago 3
LOL the CONservatives are payed millions of dollars by the health insurance corporations to make up horseshit like this.
hbxcskier 8 months ago 5
@kayddle I know what he's saying. My original comment still stands.
spicecake68 8 months ago
LOL.. Is this guy a doctor? health worker?? Pity the poor sods who think he is able to tie his own shoes, wipe his own arse! The guy is mentally retarded.. Really makes me worry about this so called "super power"
whiskasalpha 8 months ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
@whiskasalpha
I fear any "super power" that has the ability to enslave us as Rand describes. I'm an engineer. You have no right to have the government come to my house and force me to engineer something for you.
Same goes for doctors.
I know you can't intellectually grasp a simple idea that forcing someone to do something (even by proxy) is akin to slavery.
mashed107 8 months ago
The draft is slavery.
hbxcskier 8 months ago 2
@hbxcskier - In the U.S., no it isn't. The 13th amendment abolishes slavery and involuntary servitude. The Supreme Court ruled that compulsory military service is not involuntary servitude. It has to do with the intent of the law. Congress did not intend the draft to be involuntary servitude.
"The intent of the legislators constitutes the law."
US Supreme Court
Steward vs Kahn 78 US 504
B17Boy 8 months ago
@B17Boy So Paul's comparison is just as invalid then.
hbxcskier 8 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@hbxcskier - Well, that depends. The draft isn't slavery. On the other hand, what would you call being forced by the gov't to work against your will and without pay? If that comes to fruition, could ObamaCare be argued as a violation of the 13th amendment? Maybe.
B17Boy 8 months ago
Comment removed
hbxcskier 8 months ago
The hyperbolic rhetoric is getting out of control. "They're going to kick down my door in the middle of the night and drag me away to force me to treat you". What a fucking drama queen.
johnmickle 8 months ago
@2ndAsstJizzMopper ah, ok, insults when you don't agree - gotcha - typing slowly now for ya: "you're going to enslave me" (Slavery) compared to right to healthcare
yeah, still an analogy to me
nilsca 8 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
Real classy, just flag every comment you disagree with as spam so no one gets to see the reasonable responses. You know you lost this argument that's why you had to resort to this cheap tactic.
Cruizn247 8 months ago
I live in the UK and our NHS costs the state half as much as the healthcare in the US, and it is free, and it is ranked higher by the World Health Organisation (UK = 18th, USA = 37th)
Aviator9999 8 months ago 11
This has been flagged as spam show
@Aviator9999
So a problem made worse by government edicts can be solved by government edicts? Why not allow free markets and competition to work and revamp our entire system?
mashed107 8 months ago
@Aviator9999 Because the governments involvement in our health care has made prices skyrocket and unaffordable...
PROUDLIKECOWZ 1 month ago
@Aviator9999 nothing is free. someone has to pay for it. Just not you, right?
jbthetrainer 3 weeks ago
@Aviator9999 Have you used the NHS lately? I am glad I haven't, some of my relatives haven't been so lucky. Those numbers are probably skewed for the US as many people aren't insured - mostly due to their own choices. A major reason I will be leaving these not so happy lands is that I do not want to grow old relying on the NHS. It will no doubt be the death of me.
DukeofWellington91 6 days ago
America has universal defence, universal policing, universal fire fighting, universal customs, universe post, but universal health care thats communist!!
Seriously America the fuck?
TheFluffyDuck 8 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
TheFluffyDuck, check your "logic".
2ndAsstJizzMopper 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I don't understand, how is demanding the right to other people's labor not slavery?
Universal Healthcare is slavery b/c it implies that you have the right to other people's services.
Serious reading comprehension problems. You want to help those in need? Donate to charity and hospitals like real good people. Don't use force or petition the heavy immoral hand of big government to force people to do things. Health care is a service. You are not entitled to other people's services.
Deadwind002 8 months ago
The government has every right to take money out of your pocket and use it to put every child through school, and the government will do that to you forever. And there's nothing you can ever do about it, because lawmakers don't interpret the constitution as conservatively as they did when it was drafted, and they never will again, and I'm very glad about that. If you don't like it, maybe you should move to a Libertarian paradise like Haiti, where you'll really get a sense of a low-tax nation. :)
ShaelRiley 8 months ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
ShaelRiley, you apparently aren't aware of the meaning of the phrase "has every right".
2ndAsstJizzMopper 8 months ago
@2ndAsstJizzMopper I believe in rights not covered by the constitution.
ShaelRiley 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ShaelRiley, you believe that not all humans are created equal with regard to rights. that's the problem. has nothing to do with rights not discussed by the constitution. the constitution is, by definition, wholly irrelevant to unalienable rights.
2ndAsstJizzMopper 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ShaelRiley I am not aware of what the offical tax rate is in Haiti, found this on wiki
According to a World Bank report in 2006, "In Haiti, the process of business regulations is complex and customs procedures are lengthy."[8] On average, opening a business took 204 days.
A libertarian paridise? Yep, too much capitalism clearly.
EhSteve11 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EhSteve11 - They had the same nonsense in Puerto Rico. Now it takes one form (on-line if you like) and a two week wait to open a business. Puerto Rico is dumping socialism and moving toward freedom.
B17Boy 8 months ago
@ShaelRiley Somalia, not Haiti. FTFY.
rehsabthgir 8 months ago 5
@rehsabthgir Do you think that high taxes to pay for Medicare, Medicaid, and social security is what seperates us from Somalia?
EhSteve11 8 months ago
@EhSteve11 There's a fair number of things. That's not the point. ShaelRiley was looking for a 'free market' example. Somalia is a better one than Haiti.
rehsabthgir 8 months ago
@rehsabthgir Is a constant warzone truly a market?
EhSteve11 7 months ago
@EhSteve11 It can be a very lucrative one, if you are in the right business.
rehsabthgir 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
He speaks from a doctor's point of view. In Canada, a doctor is a government employee. If you like getting paid by the government and being kept to time worked, you will like being a doctor in Canada. It is becoming a pink collar job on the whole. It is becoming clear that there needs to be pay for option too here in Canada. The government rations how much doctors do by having 1 year waiting lists. My son has a cyst in his back and I have waited 1 year for the operation to drain it.
Chilililabombwe 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The metaphor may be extreme but the essence is correct. We DO NOT have the right to demand healthcare. The current issues with insurance companies gets back to government regulating the business. Get the government away and companies will compete for your wallet. It's funny that we never have these type of issues with other forms insurance . . . and the only difference is the level of government regulation involved.
razorsyntax 8 months ago
rand paul doesn't seem very bright...
Darusdei 8 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
Darusdei, refute him. refute exactly what he said here. if he doesn't seem very bright, shouldn't take long to do properly, with no straw man fallacy, etc.
2ndAsstJizzMopper 8 months ago 2
@2ndAsstJizzMopper well, are firefighters and school teachers slaves?
Darusdei 8 months ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
Darusdei, no, conventional three-party firefighters and school "teachers" aren't slaves. now, please refute exactly what he said, without fallacy. it will be straw man fallacy if you assert that rand paul declared that conventional doctors are slaves. he did not, and nothing he said may be transmuted into an assertion that conventional (three-party) firefighters and school "teachers" are slaves.
the people forced to pay for firefighters and school "teachers" are enslaved, however partially.
2ndAsstJizzMopper 8 months ago
@2ndAsstJizzMopper so you didn't hear him? he said by having right people can come in and conscript him.
which isn't exactly the case
Darusdei 8 months ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
Darusdei, i not only heard him, i transcribed every word he said:
tinyurl*com/3vsd3qe
what he said is 100% correct. if you have a right to health care, then you must be ABLE, rightfully, to conscript a doctor. most people find that directness distasteful, so they use a disguise method -- the one you're falsely confusing with what he described. the disguise is to add a party ("society"), enslave that party, and pay the doctor with its wealth. in that realm the doctor is a parasite, not slave.
2ndAsstJizzMopper 8 months ago
@2ndAsstJizzMopper the right to free healthcare would mean that you would have right to beat his door with the police and use force to conscript him to help you. this is what he said and it's false
Darusdei 8 months ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
Darusdei, correct until the last phrase. you're employing the fallacy of equivocation. here rand paul uses the word "right" to mean something which you may not be ethically denied. apparently, you're using it to mean, "that which i can get away with through 'government'". you may not switch definitions on paul. you're confused between what people do and what they allege is a right. now, people ARE threatened with having their door beaten down if they don't pay for others' doctors. it's real.
2ndAsstJizzMopper 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is right on. When the government does anything but protect all citizens from having basic rights violated, they must unavoidably rob from someone to help someone else. That's all there is to it, there is no way around it. So who do we rob? Who's rights do we deem to be expendable? The person who may think they are safe from the pick-pocketing of the government could be tomorrow's victim.
Jreedlin 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Like Rand says, Healthcare reform takes away doctors' freedoms. Many of you Democrat/Liberals do not even know what you are really supporting... You are giving the government even more POWER and CONTROL over your lives.
raocool1986 9 months ago
@jwbrown1969 Putting "you clear have no understanding" in your post makes neither you nor Rand any less of a kook. It is as simple as that.
TonyKaku 9 months ago 14
This has been flagged as spam show
TonyKaku, congratulations: it appears you're the thousandth "Eek, a mouse!" guy in this thread. also one of the first, turns out. a bookending pussy.
2ndAsstJizzMopper 9 months ago
@2ndAsstJizzMopper Thank you. That was an interesting collection of words. I have no idea what they are about, but they are interesting.
TonyKaku 9 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
TonyKaku, in other words, dummkopf, you've refuted nothing in any of your comments here. you arrived, assumed an unfounded arrogance, said, "Eek, a mouse!" -- twice, and retreated, too busy to worry about logic or language.
2ndAsstJizzMopper 9 months ago
@2ndAsstJizzMopper So we have something in common.
But I don't waste my time refuting obvious claptrap.
TonyKaku 9 months ago 19
This has been flagged as spam show
TonyKaku, you can't refute it. thus the cowardice masquerading as good times.
2ndAsstJizzMopper 9 months ago
Holy shit. The guy is certifiably nuts...
lordlacolith 9 months ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
lordlacolith, "Eek, a mouse!" isn't a refutation, in case you thought otherwise.
2ndAsstJizzMopper 9 months ago
@2ndAsstJizzMopper I didn't think "The aliens are watching us! Oh no, that policeman is a reptoid soldier! RUNNNNNNNNNNN!" needed refutation.
lordlacolith 9 months ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
lordlacolith, that was your second round of "Eek, a mouse!"
the text, for your refutation pleasure:
tinyurl*com/3vsd3qe
attack.
2ndAsstJizzMopper 9 months ago
@2ndAsstJizzMopper The fuck are you talking about?
lordlacolith 9 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
lordlacolith, move along, brainiac.
2ndAsstJizzMopper 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@deficithawker please stick to actually talking about the subject.. proper grammar, though important, isn't my focus here. What you have just described is a form of force.. you illogical communist.
conradpilapil 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
His comments are entirely uncontroversial. Saying that some good or service is a "right" means that anyone that has the capacity to provide that good or service but doesn't is violating your right.
It's basically a semantics thing, and Rand Paul has it correct.
libertyplayground 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Most all the dislikes are think progress loons that couldnt wrap their narrow mind around paul's concept, so they just disliked. To them: wake up!!
scalp340 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
100% agree with Rand Paul.
islandmuffin 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To all you dislikes - FUCK YOU, SLAVE DRIVER!
furyofbongos 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
People who advocate universal health care often state that there are poor people who can't afford certain services like health care or education so the government needs to tax people so they can pay for these things for the people. However my argument is that it is wrong to forcefully take from people who don't use a service or use a small amount and it and give it to those who us a lot of the service.
FreedomFighter1131 9 months ago
@unpopularchunk Parameters that wide actually invite more violations than any other perspective. Thats what I don't think you understand. The codification of laws and obligations to balance society, ensuring the highest degree of personal autonomy requires it. Otherwise, the only freedom you'll have is the freedom to starve to death on the side of a private-highway.
Commieforrent 9 months ago
This guy is a fucking nutter. He also thinks his audience are idiots. The Right have taken over the craziness that used to be the forte of extreme left wingers.
revjimbob 9 months ago 10
@unpopularchunk Thats the essence of a democratic society. The establishment and implementation of codified laws and obligations that can widely be agreed upon by society. Fire-fighters, Police, teachers and even the DMV are all part of our established constitutional democracy. If you don't want to pay for fire fighters or cops, move to Somalia.
Commieforrent 9 months ago
Commieforrent, if you presume the state owns everyone, move to the USSR.
oh, that's right...
2ndAsstJizzMopper 9 months ago
By the same reasoning, if you believe children have a right to an education, or citizens have a right to be protected by the police, you also believe in slavery. Derp.
ShaelRiley 9 months ago 14
This has been flagged as spam show
ShaelRiley, derp.
2ndAsstJizzMopper 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ShaelRiley He is correct to assert that claiming a right to some service (health care, education, etc) IS a form of slavery. He is incorrect to imply that he is the slave. No. The slave is the taxpayer who has to pay for that "right", that someone else benefits from. The slavery part is quietly overlooked because it's insidiously withdrawn from your paycheck before you even see it. YOU must toil, so that I may get Rx drugs. YOU must toil so that my kids can go to school. And so on.
Derp.
rmcdaniel423 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
rmcdaniel, he is fully correct to state explicitly (not an implication) that in a two-party transaction he is the slave. he didn't discuss the three-party scenario you mention, which moves the slavery from the doctor (and staff, etc.) to the tax victim. any reasonable non-idiot gets the concept and can apply it across changes in parties and roles.
people not understanding that may be the most shocking aspect of this vid. it's their favorite tool for running away while snickering, "ridiculous".
2ndAsstJizzMopper 9 months ago
@2ndAsstJizzMopper Do you really think the people he's referring to, that claim a "right to health care" etc, are actually going directly to him and demanding his services for free, with no 3rd party gov't involvement? OF COURSE there is a 3rd party! It's the people that want to fund & run the "universal health care" at taxpayer expense that Dr. Paul is arguing against here. What "two-party transaction" involving enslaved doctors are you talking about?
"Ridiculous" (snicker snicker ha ha ha)
rmcdaniel423 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
rmcdaniel423, feigned incredulity isn't a refutation. in paul's reductio ad absurdum ("that’s ultimately what the right to free health care would be"), he referred explicitly to only a direct patient / provider relationship. read:
tinyurl*com/3vsd3qe
no, no one with a brain believes that that conceptual example represents conventional three-party "health care". non-idiots recognize that in this brief EXCERPT he referred to that reality with only a single phrase: "you gotta take it from someone"
2ndAsstJizzMopper 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ShaelRiley What a silly thing to say. you should have thought more about it. Children don't have a right to education. How is that a right? It's a parent's responsibility to teach their children, if i child wants to be educated they don't have the right to go to an adult and say "teach me!" and that adult has to stop everything and teach them. And police actually protect a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, Rand Paul supports protection of actual rights, not desires.
Jreedlin 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ShaelRiley Thats partly true. Education is the wrong word though. I believe you are thinking of schooling not education. Everyone individual has a right to education/information but that doesn't mean that the government has the right to take money to provide schooling for an individual. Individuals have a right information, it is unethical and immoral to deter someone from information/education.
But ur point on police is a little out there. every individual has a right to protect themselves
DubGongTuff 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Google "Robert Nozick Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy," and read sections 2. a. and 2. b. This will explain why taxation to fund anything other than the most minimal state (i.e. to enforce people's "rights" to goods and services like healthcare) is equivalent to slavery and therefore morally indefensible.
onyomi 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
onyomi, "taxation" to fund anything is equivalent to slavery. min"archism" is a silly myth.
2ndAsstJizzMopper 9 months ago
@2ndAsstJizzMopper Did you read the highly acclaimed academic work of philosophy by a Harvard professor that argues in favor of that "silly myth"? (Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Nozick) I'm sure you worked out a thorough and logically rigorous refutation of that argument before deciding it was a "silly myth."
onyomi 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
well shit, onyomi, you hadn't old me it was a "highly acclaimed academic work" by a "highly acclaimed academic work". fuck me.
except my refutation was logically rigorous. more rigorous than the argument by authority fallacy you appear to favor.
2ndAsstJizzMopper 9 months ago
@2ndAsstJizzMopper I'm not saying he's right because he's from Harvard, I'm saying he's right because I am convinced by his argument, a summary of which I linked to. My point about authority was that if it were just a "silly myth" then it wouldn't have taken an entire philosophical monograph to argue it--or if it had, then it would have been torn apart in review. If it were really a "silly myth" then you could provide a simple and logical refutation of it here. Not holding my breath.
onyomi 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
onyomi, bullshit. you mentioned harvard for blowhard factor. love this, BTW:
"[...] if it were just a 'silly myth' then it wouldn't have taken an entire philosophical monograph to argue it--or if it had, then it would have been torn apart in review"
here's the refutation: taxation is involuntary against those who've not initiated force. therefore, it is unethical.
i base this upon the unfounded (yet least assailable foundation) theory that all humans are created equal with regard to rights.
2ndAsstJizzMopper 9 months ago
@2ndAsstJizzMopper So you are arguing for anarchism as against minarchism, then?
onyomi 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
onyomi, nozick's defense of "minarchism" (ludicrous term) is purely utilitarian, not ethical. i think it likely that his premise of "anarchism" (another stupid term) devolving into states is correct. however, that doesn't render this monopolistic condition able to ethically force others to pay for its "services".
i argue for defending voluntarism in all areas. most people will never be voluntarists, but it doesn't mean they can't be rightfully snakebit for aggression (such as "minarchism").
2ndAsstJizzMopper 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@2ndAsstJizzMopper I see now that your original post was against the notion that any taxation is ever permissible--I first read it as "the possibility of a (merely) minimalist state is a myth." I honestly tend to agree with you that I'd prefer a purely voluntary society and am not comfortable with taxation for any reason. I just also tend to be convinced by Nozick's idea that protection agencies will become de facto mini states and therefore tend to advocate a Libertarianish ultra-minimal state.
onyomi 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
onyomi, so long as people look favorably upon any state, i think a minimal state is impossible. if states were always viewed correctly as evil, i think things might be workable; let the fuckers exist and be resisted at every turn.
where i get pissed off at arguments like nozick's is when they acquiesce. resistance is not futile, but rather crucial. always. on the present path, america will within 10 years resemble late 30s germany, precisely because most can't fathom that it could happen.
2ndAsstJizzMopper 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@2ndAsstJizzMopper Well, no argument there. I'm so accustomed to arguing against people who view me as radically anti-government that when someone argues I'm being too pro-government it doesn't even compute at first! We only hear/read what we expect to hear/read, I suppose...
onyomi 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
onyomi, yeah, well YouTube isn't the place where you expect anyone to not be arguing from his anus. fun anyway.
state brainwashing's a crazy strong thing. doubt we'll ever been seen as not evil for opposing the state. that's the problem. inversion. i often tell people that if i'd heard myself 30 years ago talking as i talk now, i'd be scared of me. the wrong version is my younger self, however -- that stupid fuck.
2ndAsstJizzMopper 9 months ago
I wish Rand Paul would say the same thing about education.
LockDeltz 9 months ago
Rand Paul=Corn Pone Nazi=Inbreeding run amok!!
HUMANSAREBENEATHME 9 months ago 5
I wish people thought of health-care as a right! Rights generally mean a check on coercive power. People consider the "right" to free speech as a guard against thugs keeping you from doing something. If health-care was a right like that of free speech then people could do what they wanted without the consent of rich people who win popularity contests (e.g. limiting your health related liabilities with people from other states, or choosing not to pay for hairloss coverage).
PumpkinJoe999 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PumpkinJoe999 How far do we go to ensure this right is upheld? Do we rob people to pay for someone's health care? Do we force doctors to treat people against their will? How do we provide the service that doctors give as a right? If we don't force doctors to help people then how will this right work? Will government pay for it all? How will government pay for it? Where does government get the money to pay for it? Do we steal it from people who don't get sick in order to help those that do?
FreedomFighter1131 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PumpkinJoe999 Many people, like myself, don't consider health-care a right, because it's (a) unaffordable to provide free health care and (b) helps create overpopulation and (c) aids flaws in gene pools to perpetuate. Go rent Idiocracy.
cyryc 9 months ago
@3MARSAURELIUS : two decades.
tooltalk 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@3MARSAURELIUS : streets were much safer, healthcare didn't cost arms and legs and doctors didn't have to charge $200-$400 per visit.
What I find particularly so offensive about liberals' big gov't propaganda is that they always seem to narrate a bleak, dystopian society in pre-big gov't era, but rarely talk about all social upheaval, political, economic chaos that came right after their botched changes in the 60's and 70's. Then conveniently blame Reagan for their failures in the preceeding
tooltalk 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
tooltalk, also in the other time direction, we're supposedly always one election away from fixing everything. gonna be so awesome! enlightening to listen to some of the "we're going to end poverty" speeches from lyndon johnson, etc., or reagan's defeat-terrorism shtick. almost nobody catches on that it's all speechifying BS? the fools somehow figure that with one magic four-year period they'll beat the opposition into confluence and everything will go their way. SHOCKINGLY, more strife ensues.
2ndAsstJizzMopper 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@3MARSAURELIUS : eh? doesn't mean that you can't use the same demagoguery employed by democrats to smear their opponent. It's though rather sad to see folks, non-democrats, whose short-term memory clouds their understanding of US politics.
Sure, it's a small charity work, but that's how most doctors operated in those days without the big gov't. Obviously I'm not old enough to give my personal account, but I'm told before the liberal revolution of the 60's, education was quite affordable,
tooltalk 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To those who disagree with Rand Paul here I just want to know.
1. What constitutes a right? What is a right? Define "a right".
2. How is a right, provided? What are the circumstances for ensuring a right?
3. What are the restrictions and limitations on granting, ensuring or providing a right?
If there are any contradictions in the answers to these questions then your premise concerning a right is flawed and you need to rethink your premise.
FreedomFighter1131 9 months ago
Comment removed
cyryc 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you don't have the means to support your own life then you don't have the right to violate someone else's rights to ensure your survival. My rights end where yours begin, I can't force you to help me, against your will, just to make sure I don't die. That sounds a bit harsh but you have rights, just like every other individual and those rights can't violate another's rights. When you voluntarily choose to provide a service that is fine. The point is we can't make them provide it.
FreedomFighter1131 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Once you have your life you have the right to seek for yourself the means to sustain that life, but you can't impose on others an obligation to sustain your life for you. Health care is a service which a doctor provides and you can't violently impose on him an obligation to provide that service, whether you pay him or not. Also if you are destitute and do not have the money to purchase health care from a doctor, you can not forcefully impose on others an obligation to pay for you.
FreedomFighter1131 9 months ago
@tooltalk So, Paul is against getting paid for medical services if the check comes from the govt? It isn't the middle class and above only who use Medicare. So, why isn't he willing to provide "charity care" to those on Medicare? To him, it should matter whether it goes broke or not. He'll provide services for free, right, because he cares about people? At what point does a person because racist for being againt Obama? A racist comment is a racist comment-regardless of who you are for/against...
rpierre777 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rpierre777 : that's an interesting premise. I don't know if Rand paul provides "charity care" in lieu of accepting Medicare like his father does. But while his father deals with life and death - from what I understand, he spend more time doing Lasiks than any life-death surgeries.
So now following your logic, Rand is against income tax and if he refuses Medicare payment, does that mean he can stop paying federal income tax? Or are you just asking him to pay for things he can't use (eg, roads
tooltalk 9 months ago
@tooltalk Well, he can't stop paying income tax if he is strictly a constitutionalist...if he refuses medicare payments, he only hurts the patients-not the govt.
rpierre777 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rpierre777 : federal funded highways, SS, medicare, etc) for your own benefit? You know most of us still have to pay for federal programs like the war in Iraq, drug, poverty whether we support or benefit from it not; else we go to jail. Now, that doesn't mean that we can't speak out against the gov't federal programs like the war in Iraq, drug and poverty. Or are you among those who believe it's hypocritical to oppose the war in Iraq when we are safer b/c of it?
tooltalk 9 months ago
@tooltalk How does he NOT benefit from roads and highways? Of course with his income from being a doctor and being in congress, he probably won't use SS or Medicare, but that doesn't mean since he's not using it, no one should be able to use it. No one will go to jail for NOT paying for any of those things. If so, all the unemployed would be arrested. I don't care if someone opposes or supports a war. That's what they do. I don't believe we are safer from the war in Iraq....
rpierre777 9 months ago
@rpierre777 : eh?
Honey, not all roads and highways are funded by the federal gov't. In fact, most of our taxes don't go paying for highways, bridges, police, fireman or schools (the latter three usually belong to the state/city) - over 3/4 of all federal gov't spending ends in some form of warfare and welfare programs. So cut your BS with highway (or police or firemen).
"No one will go to jail for NOT paying for any of those things" - every year, approx 300 people get indicted on tax
tooltalk 9 months ago
3~@mickeysears Everything else in the Patriot Act expired. So, how was it "beefed up"? Open Borders has always been the "American Way". "Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" is on the Statue of Liberty as an open call to foreigners. Gitmo is still open due to Republican opposition-not Obama policy. Remember how he wanted to close the base and hold trials in NY for the inmates?
rpierre777 9 months ago
2~@mickeysears As far at wiretapping and the Patriot Act, these are the things he supports (these are from the Patriot Act):
1) Authorize court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones.
2) Allow court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism operations.
3) Permit surveillance against a so-called lone wolf, a non-U.S. citizen engaged in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group.
"Court approved" means warrant issued.
rpierre777 9 months ago
1~@mickeysears The Tea Party pushing for less spending???? What exactly are they pushing to spend less on? They want smaller govt. What specific aspect of govt are they pushing to end? Contined expaned wars??? Obama ended military campaigns in Iraq.
rpierre777 9 months ago
@rpierre777 : well, you are demagoguing the issue here: there are now about 100K private contractors running the show - Bush' policy once liberal democrats riled viciously. Now that Obama is doing it, liberals pretend that it's no longer a problem. Go listen to Jeremy Scahill, okie?
tooltalk 9 months ago
1~@tooltalk How? 1) I posed a question about the Tea Party and their intensions, 2) I pointed out the facts of the Patriot Act as it relates to Obama and warrantless wiretapping, 3) I pointed out how "Open Borders" has been the "American Way" since this country's founding and it NOT just an Bush/Obama policy, and 4) I pointed out why Gitmo is still open. So, how exactly did I "demogogue" the issue? So, it's Obama's fault the Republican's refused to close Gitmo? Obama only authorized court....
rpierre777 9 months ago
@rpierre777 : eh? You are all over the place - you are not answering the points I raised. How is replacing the troops in Iraq with private contractors any better? Likewise Obama's defense budget has been going up, not down. 1) honey, the tp was pretty clear where and what they wanted to cut, after all, this mvt was born in 2007 in response to Bush's warfare and corporate welfare politics. The mvt re-emerged again as a populist mvt against the gov't bailout of the banks, a policy
tooltalk 9 months ago
1~@tooltalk Whether it's better or not is debatable. It just depends on how you feel about private contractors (to each its own). If this country is so concerned about being attacked, why would they want to decrease defense spending? That's like being concerned you're gonna run out of gas on a 100 mile trip, but only set aside enough money for a quarter tank of gas (then wonder why you ran out). Duh!!! Put more money in defending yourself and you won't to be as concerned with possible threats.
rpierre777 9 months ago