and to the post that addressed my number three idea, no i don't think that healthcare cost would suddenly drop lower after one year, but i don't that the government should have to buy for healthcare the rest of your life.
Then what do you do about people who have lifelong conditions that prevent them from working? A system that only covers short term illnesses is not a proper healthcare system.
Also, short term illnesses are not what makes healthcare expensive.
But yes, I'm going to agree with "Not a right enumerated in the Constitution, but it is a human right"
IIRC, doesn't your constitution specifically have a "there are also other rights not listed here, this isn't the definitive list" clause?
yup
the right to party falls into this category
If it was listed in the constitution then you wouldn't have to fight for it.
when has the Communist Cuban government ever give their people rights?
Their rights as specified in the constitution or as specified in Cuban law?
OK you are right there but the Cuban people don't have a choice. the Cuban government runs nearly every things in that country. so in my option that's no good.
So you have no intention of an honest discussion then?
Lawndart flat out disproved what you said.
he didn't disprove anything. he make a joke i thought it was funny. plain and simple. and i want a honest discussion. plus i seriously believe if you polled most of Americans they don't think taxes are lower then decades before.
and to the post that addressed my number three idea, no i don't think that healthcare cost would suddenly drop lower after one year, but i don't that the government should have to buy for healthcare the rest of your life.
Then what do you do about people who have lifelong conditions that prevent them from working? A system that only covers short term illnesses is not a proper healthcare system.
Also, short term illnesses are not what makes healthcare expensive.
But yes, I'm going to agree with "Not a right enumerated in the Constitution, but it is a human right"
IIRC, doesn't your constitution specifically have a "there are also other rights not listed here, this isn't the definitive list" clause?
yup
the right to party falls into this category
In specific, it's the 9th.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Which I swear some people love to forget about when they argue about rights in the country
So you have no intention of an honest discussion then?
Lawndart flat out disproved what you said.
he didn't disprove anything. he make a joke i thought it was funny. plain and simple. and i want a honest discussion. plus i seriously believe if you polled most of Americans they don't think taxes are lower then decades before.
Popular perception does not however change the reality of a situation.
+23
Options
Clown ShoesGive me hay or give me death.Registered Userregular
when has the Communist Cuban government ever give their people rights?
Their rights as specified in the constitution or as specified in Cuban law?
OK you are right there but the Cuban people don't have a choice. the Cuban government runs nearly every things in that country. so in my option that's no good.
You don't have a choice either. If you did, significant numbers of Americans would choose to have a right to healthcare.
So you have no intention of an honest discussion then?
Lawndart flat out disproved what you said.
he didn't disprove anything. he make a joke i thought it was funny. plain and simple. and i want a honest discussion. plus i seriously believe if you polled most of Americans they don't think taxes are lower then decades before.
He did disprove what you said though. He gave you actual, quantifiable stats.
Whether people *feel* like taxes are higher now than 10 years ago doesn't mean anything. I can say that I *felt* the world was flat tens years ago, but reality proves me incorrect.
0
Options
Clown ShoesGive me hay or give me death.Registered Userregular
yes cause the IRS never lying about tax rates. jez...
What a dilemma. Do we believe the government department whose claims can be easily checked because it's publicly available information or the random internet guy who really, really believes something?
just listening the news and you'll know i mine.
I'm not sure of the relevance of your mineral extraction efforts.
Clown Shoes on
+29
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
yes cause the IRS never lying about tax rates. jez... just listening the news and you'll know i mine.
...Are you disputing the IRS numbers? Because those are the numbers everyone uses to estimate their taxes. If they were not accurate, people would notice.
I certainly balk at calling health care a constitutional right, for more or less the reasons given in the OP.
That said, legitimately accessible health care is probably a moral obligation, in much the same way I would say a rich dude sitting on a pile of food has a moral obligation to give some to the starving guy sitting across the way.
Either way, though, it's pretty clear that the constitution does not bar the government from establishing some sort of UHC system, and further, I think it's easy to make a case that it would be the best and most affordable way to set up our system. So regardless of whether or not our nation must necessarily provide health care to everyone, it should, simply on pragmatic grounds.
I believe it should on mortal grounds, but on an economic stand point where we are broke, trillions in debt, and trying to pick our asses up, UHC at the moment is really more of a strain on us. But I don't think healthcare should be a market either. Look at gas industry. Its so high right now and no one upstairs is trying to stop them atm.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited May 2013
I am fond of saying that the government is not a company and should not run like one, but health care is one place where I think this is wrong. Insurance companies provide certain administrative services which are paid from your premiums, but most of their profits come from them setting the premiums at an actuarially determined rate that will exceed the probable outlays by the insurer, when looking at the insured group in the aggregate. Most large employers (400+ employees) recognize that they can lower costs by collecting the premiums and paying the costs themselves, and so they self insure their medical insurance and only contract out with a 3rd party for administrative services (and access to their network of contracted prices with providers). The US government could provide insurance to the entire population on a similiar "self insured" basis, and as long as the tax rates are set appropriately, costs would plummet relative to the current system, because you would not be building in a profit (and insurerers are very profitable). That is what healthcare reform should have been.
So you have no intention of an honest discussion then?
Lawndart flat out disproved what you said.
he didn't disprove anything. he make a joke i thought it was funny. plain and simple. and i want a honest discussion. plus i seriously believe if you polled most of Americans they don't think taxes are lower then decades before.
wow, it's almost as if most americans don't have any clue about what is actually going on with the economy, in their country, with taxes or with healthcare. Like, it's as if certain sections of the media don't report news anymore, and really just bloviate political talking points.
I certainly balk at calling health care a constitutional right, for more or less the reasons given in the OP.
That said, legitimately accessible health care is probably a moral obligation, in much the same way I would say a rich dude sitting on a pile of food has a moral obligation to give some to the starving guy sitting across the way.
Either way, though, it's pretty clear that the constitution does not bar the government from establishing some sort of UHC system, and further, I think it's easy to make a case that it would be the best and most affordable way to set up our system. So regardless of whether or not our nation must necessarily provide health care to everyone, it should, simply on pragmatic grounds.
I believe it should on mortal grounds, but on an economic stand point where we are broke, trillions in debt, and trying to pick our asses up, UHC at the moment is really more of a strain on us. But I don't think healthcare should be a market either. Look at gas industry. Its so high right now and no one upstairs is trying to stop them atm.
If UHC is a drag, how is UHC+8% profit for share holders less of one? Especially since the government already gets the shit end of the stick anyways-old people, lots of kids, those with chronic illnesses preventing work, etc.
I certainly balk at calling health care a constitutional right, for more or less the reasons given in the OP.
That said, legitimately accessible health care is probably a moral obligation, in much the same way I would say a rich dude sitting on a pile of food has a moral obligation to give some to the starving guy sitting across the way.
Either way, though, it's pretty clear that the constitution does not bar the government from establishing some sort of UHC system, and further, I think it's easy to make a case that it would be the best and most affordable way to set up our system. So regardless of whether or not our nation must necessarily provide health care to everyone, it should, simply on pragmatic grounds.
I believe it should on mortal grounds, but on an economic stand point where we are broke, trillions in debt, and trying to pick our asses up, UHC at the moment is really more of a strain on us. But I don't think healthcare should be a market either. Look at gas industry. Its so high right now and no one upstairs is trying to stop them atm.
The US Government isn't "broke" by any stretch of the imagination. In fact the cost of borrowing for the government has dropped considerably over the past decade. If anything the treasury needs to issue more debt, not less.
I certainly balk at calling health care a constitutional right, for more or less the reasons given in the OP.
That said, legitimately accessible health care is probably a moral obligation, in much the same way I would say a rich dude sitting on a pile of food has a moral obligation to give some to the starving guy sitting across the way.
Either way, though, it's pretty clear that the constitution does not bar the government from establishing some sort of UHC system, and further, I think it's easy to make a case that it would be the best and most affordable way to set up our system. So regardless of whether or not our nation must necessarily provide health care to everyone, it should, simply on pragmatic grounds.
I believe it should on mortal grounds, but on an economic stand point where we are broke, trillions in debt, and trying to pick our asses up, UHC at the moment is really more of a strain on us. But I don't think healthcare should be a market either. Look at gas industry. Its so high right now and no one upstairs is trying to stop them atm.
The US Government isn't "broke" by any stretch of the imagination. In fact the cost of borrowing for the government has dropped considerably over the past decade. If anything the treasury needs to issue more debt, not less.
But, isn't that going to cause inflation? I mean, I don't have any cash, I do have a bunch of debt and we are still somewhat in a liquidity trap, but government debt causes dollars to be worth less. Debt and inflation are bad, right?
Bah. Of course, given wage stagnation for 95% or so of workers, inflation really is kinda shitty. Not really sure what to do to encourage the red!str*b*t!#n of w#*lth.
I certainly balk at calling health care a constitutional right, for more or less the reasons given in the OP.
That said, legitimately accessible health care is probably a moral obligation, in much the same way I would say a rich dude sitting on a pile of food has a moral obligation to give some to the starving guy sitting across the way.
Either way, though, it's pretty clear that the constitution does not bar the government from establishing some sort of UHC system, and further, I think it's easy to make a case that it would be the best and most affordable way to set up our system. So regardless of whether or not our nation must necessarily provide health care to everyone, it should, simply on pragmatic grounds.
I believe it should on mortal grounds, but on an economic stand point where we are broke, trillions in debt, and trying to pick our asses up, UHC at the moment is really more of a strain on us. But I don't think healthcare should be a market either. Look at gas industry. Its so high right now and no one upstairs is trying to stop them atm.
The US Government isn't "broke" by any stretch of the imagination. In fact the cost of borrowing for the government has dropped considerably over the past decade. If anything the treasury needs to issue more debt, not less.
But, isn't that going to cause inflation? I mean, I don't have any cash, I do have a bunch of debt and we are still somewhat in a liquidity trap, but government debt causes dollars to be worth less. Debt and inflation are bad, right?
Bah. Of course, given wage stagnation for 95% or so of workers, inflation really is kinda shitty. Not really sure what to do to encourage the red!str*b*t!#n of w#*lth.
at this point I'm not convinced inflation would necessarily be bad for the majority of citizens
we need something to get those corps with piles of cash to spend
What would a new amendment to make healthcare a constitutional right look like? What would be the wording?
No citizen of the United States, or person in the borders thereof, shall be denied reasonable care for infirmities, illness, or injuries, by any medical institution or emergency service within the United States of America or its territories.
or something, I aint no lawyer
then you follow it with 5000 pages defining reasonable
I'd go with something like "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to receive healthcare shall not be infringed."
+15
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
You don't need to put every little thing in the constitution. Nothing in it makes providing healthcare illegal so a new amendment is unnecessary.
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Yes it does, actually. Because 1.) it accepts the idiot premise of anti-UHCers that government sponsored healthcare is somehow unamerican and 2.) it cheapens the amendment process.
Not every law needs to be in the constitution, nor does every right need to be explicit. That's a relatively new and novel invention.
Also torture is already illegal. The way to stop that is to stop voting for people who do it.
I certainly balk at calling health care a constitutional right, for more or less the reasons given in the OP.
That said, legitimately accessible health care is probably a moral obligation, in much the same way I would say a rich dude sitting on a pile of food has a moral obligation to give some to the starving guy sitting across the way.
Either way, though, it's pretty clear that the constitution does not bar the government from establishing some sort of UHC system, and further, I think it's easy to make a case that it would be the best and most affordable way to set up our system. So regardless of whether or not our nation must necessarily provide health care to everyone, it should, simply on pragmatic grounds.
I believe it should on mortal grounds, but on an economic stand point where we are broke, trillions in debt, and trying to pick our asses up, UHC at the moment is really more of a strain on us. But I don't think healthcare should be a market either. Look at gas industry. Its so high right now and no one upstairs is trying to stop them atm.
The US Government isn't "broke" by any stretch of the imagination. In fact the cost of borrowing for the government has dropped considerably over the past decade. If anything the treasury needs to issue more debt, not less.
But, isn't that going to cause inflation? I mean, I don't have any cash, I do have a bunch of debt and we are still somewhat in a liquidity trap, but government debt causes dollars to be worth less. Debt and inflation are bad, right?
Bah. Of course, given wage stagnation for 95% or so of workers, inflation really is kinda shitty. Not really sure what to do to encourage the red!str*b*t!#n of w#*lth.
Inflation is at something ridiculously low like 1.5% pa right now
We're actually at risk of mild deflation
fuck gendered marketing
+1
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.
As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.
This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.
As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.
I work for one of the biggest health care providers in the US, and I still think the government should provide universal health care. Medicare for everybody, as it were. It wouldn't kill the private sector, because the private sector would still do a better job than the government can at providing coverage, but it would mean people who can't afford private insurance don't have to. The cost of healthcare in the US is rising at an incredible rate, and average people can't afford coverage any more.
When medical costs are driving most bankruptcies in middle America, we have a problem. The costs themselves are a complex issue, because the biggest drivers are related directly to the obesity epidemic we have here, but caring for sick people has to happen either way.
I put health car in the same category as education. Not a constitutional right, possibly, like education, not a right in a legal sense, but viewed by many as a right in the moral sense (i.e. the people have a right to it because society has a moral obligation to provide it).
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
- John Stuart Mill
0
Options
Clown ShoesGive me hay or give me death.Registered Userregular
because the private sector would still do a better job than the government can at providing coverage
I'd love to see some evidence for that.
I believe it is founded in the practice of excluding high risk cases and preexisting conditions; you can provide excellent coverage if you don't have to "waste" your money spending more than you receive from your subscribers.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
Posts
Their rights as specified in the constitution or as specified in Cuban law?
If it was listed in the constitution then you wouldn't have to fight for it.
So you have no intention of an honest discussion then?
Lawndart flat out disproved what you said.
In specific, it's the 9th.
Which I swear some people love to forget about when they argue about rights in the country
Popular perception does not however change the reality of a situation.
You don't have a choice either. If you did, significant numbers of Americans would choose to have a right to healthcare.
He did disprove what you said though. He gave you actual, quantifiable stats.
Whether people *feel* like taxes are higher now than 10 years ago doesn't mean anything. I can say that I *felt* the world was flat tens years ago, but reality proves me incorrect.
You know that when it's written in blue and underlined when you move your mouse over it that it's a link, right?
A link to data from the IRS that directly contradicts your assertion.
In fact, I don't think you ever wanted to have one in the first place.
I got a little excited when I saw your ship.
What a dilemma. Do we believe the government department whose claims can be easily checked because it's publicly available information or the random internet guy who really, really believes something?
I'm not sure of the relevance of your mineral extraction efforts.
...Are you disputing the IRS numbers? Because those are the numbers everyone uses to estimate their taxes. If they were not accurate, people would notice.
If the only facts you'll accept are those you supply yourself there is really no point in continuing a discussion.
No one will be able to support a counter argument in your eyes if you just hand wave away everything as lies.
I believe it should on mortal grounds, but on an economic stand point where we are broke, trillions in debt, and trying to pick our asses up, UHC at the moment is really more of a strain on us. But I don't think healthcare should be a market either. Look at gas industry. Its so high right now and no one upstairs is trying to stop them atm.
Not minerals...Bitcoins!
That said, listening to the news is a fairly terrible way to get informed. You'll do better reading it...from multiple sources.
- John Stuart Mill
If UHC is a drag, how is UHC+8% profit for share holders less of one? Especially since the government already gets the shit end of the stick anyways-old people, lots of kids, those with chronic illnesses preventing work, etc.
You realize if the numbers they were giving were lies millions of people would be suing the pants off the IRS
because you can sue the government
You knew that right?
Edit: wait the OP doesn't know what hyperlinks are? Really? Really? Smells like malarky
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
The US Government isn't "broke" by any stretch of the imagination. In fact the cost of borrowing for the government has dropped considerably over the past decade. If anything the treasury needs to issue more debt, not less.
But, isn't that going to cause inflation? I mean, I don't have any cash, I do have a bunch of debt and we are still somewhat in a liquidity trap, but government debt causes dollars to be worth less. Debt and inflation are bad, right?
Bah. Of course, given wage stagnation for 95% or so of workers, inflation really is kinda shitty. Not really sure what to do to encourage the red!str*b*t!#n of w#*lth.
at this point I'm not convinced inflation would necessarily be bad for the majority of citizens
we need something to get those corps with piles of cash to spend
No citizen of the United States, or person in the borders thereof, shall be denied reasonable care for infirmities, illness, or injuries, by any medical institution or emergency service within the United States of America or its territories.
or something, I aint no lawyer
then you follow it with 5000 pages defining reasonable
Or one explicitly banning torture
Not every law needs to be in the constitution, nor does every right need to be explicit. That's a relatively new and novel invention.
Also torture is already illegal. The way to stop that is to stop voting for people who do it.
That would be the 8th Amendment.
Sockpuppets
avface
Inflation is at something ridiculously low like 1.5% pa right now
We're actually at risk of mild deflation
Who was this guy, some kind of fucking communist?
Also, gotta laugh at the OP and his alt.
When medical costs are driving most bankruptcies in middle America, we have a problem. The costs themselves are a complex issue, because the biggest drivers are related directly to the obesity epidemic we have here, but caring for sick people has to happen either way.
- John Stuart Mill
I'd love to see some evidence for that.
- John Stuart Mill