I gots rights to good medical care & decent housing!

[Rearden Metal]

Some of you seem to assume that police protection is a legal right. Not so. Let's say there's an intruder inside your home, and he's already raping & beating your roomate. You report this to the police, but <b>they have absolutely no obligation to do anything but sit there and consume another half-dozen Krispy Kremes.</b> There have been court cases to this regard, and the judgements always confirm that you have no legal right to police protection.

http://www.jrwhipple.com/findit/firearm_dial911.html

http://flyservers.registerfly.com/members5/policecrime.com/policeprotection.html

 

[Haroki]

Quote from Rearden Metal:

Some of you seem to assume that police protection is a legal right. Not so. Let's say there's an intruder inside your home, and he's already raping & beating your roomate. You report this to the police, but <b>they have absolutely no obligation to do anything but sit there and consume another half-dozen Krispy Kremes.</b> There have been court cases to this regard, and the judgements always confirm that you have no legal right to police protection.

http://www.jrwhipple.com/findit/firearm_dial911.html

http://flyservers.registerfly.com/members5/policecrime.com/policeprotection.html

Well, I'm no attorney, but reading those seem to mean that the police can't be held responsible if they are too bsy, or protected from lawsuit if someone dies, etc if they have no control over the situation.

On the flip, I've got my sawed off too... so I'll call, buuuut, ready.

 

[Rearden Metal]

JAGUARBONE, I think you're already an objectivist, whether you know it or not.

In The Virtue Of Selfishness, by Ayn Rand, these exact points are laid out.

From chapter 12. Man's Rights:

"The concept of a 'right' pertains only to action- specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive--of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights."

http://snow.prohosting.com/rights/indexphilo.htm

http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=22568

http://ellensplace.net/ar_pboy.html

 

[Ricter]

Why did she draw the line at physical compulsion anyway? Was she weak?

 

[riserburn]

Quote from dddooo:
................................................

What you are proposing is essentially socialized healthcare and thats a hard sell. Considering our government's track record of handling all their other programs soooo well; you can hardly blame people for being skeptical about how they would handle healthcare if they had the entire thing within their control.

Having said that, I do understand that your proposal is to regulate the system by being the sole provider of health insurance; which is doable BUT has several obstacles:

1) You are going to tackle the high profit insurance industry. WHOA!! Good luck with that. You better hope none of them have ties with the mob!

2) The present means by which this government balances the books on Medicare/Medicaid absolutely stinks. I discussed it in more detailed in this post on another thread. THIS is why people are skeptical about handing over the payment system to the government. THIS has to be cleaned up. Besides, simply cleaning up that mess will go a long ways into reducing the costs of the present system; not to mention freeing up money to implement a new one. You'll have to do it anyways before you can lay down the ground work for a new payment system.

3) Employers are presently skirting the system by using various ways of categorizing their employees so they aren't elligible for insurance (e.i. part-time, contract labor, etc.). What you are proposing would close that loophole BUT, man, you are going to piss off every business in this country by tying this straight into their profit margin. You HAVE GOT TO come up with a better way to pay for this or you just won't get the votes.

4) Lastly, the biggie: Your proposal is a UNIVERSAL SOCIALIZED system. The public phobia of socialized anything alone is going to stop this proposal dead in its tracks. You HAVE GOT TO convince people that a socialized payment system IS NOT socialized healthcare and, like I said, thats a hard sell.

Bud, if I lived in your district you would get my vote as an A for effort alone; I think you are on the right track. I agree whole-heartedly on a lot of your positions on this subject. However, I would still tell you that this proposal needs work.

 

[dddooo]

Quote from riserburn:

What you are proposing is essentially socialized healthcare and thats a hard sell.

Well, I am not Dennis Kucinich, I just posted a quote from his website in which he was talking about his proposal. I was simply responding to your comment that there were no intelligent well thought-out detailed proposals on Healthcare reform. These proposals do exist although you're probably right, Universal Healthcare is a hard sell. Then again, should the number of uninsured americans, the amount of insurance premiums and the salaries of CEOs double in the next couple of years that may quickly change. I remember reading that even right now 35% of americans would support Universal Healthcare and given how quickly the situation is deteriorating the number has nowhere to go but up.

 

[dddooo]

Quote from dddooo:
I remember reading that even right now 35% of americans would support Universal Healthcare and given how quickly the situation is deteriorating the number has nowhere to go but up.

Actually I take it back:

Oct. 20 2003

In an extensive ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, Americans by a 2-1 margin, 62-32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system. That support, however, is conditional: It falls to fewer than four in 10 if it means a limited choice of doctors, or waiting lists for non-emergency treatments.

Support for change is based largely on unease with the current system's costs. Seventy-eight percent are dissatisfied with the cost of the nation's health care system, including 54 percent "very" dissatisfied.

Indeed, most Americans, or 54 percent, are now dissatisfied with the overall quality of health care in the United States — the first majority in three polls since 1993, and up 10 points since 2000.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html


More recent WSJ poll:
October 20, 2005

...75% favor universal health insurance, compared with 17% who oppose it.
http://online.wsj.com/public/articl...222-7Jjp4Ckx_LsV4qI5rjzrENNIcAQ_20061020.html

 

[riserburn]

Quote from Haroki:

Well, the other part of that would, indeed require some health care reform. I will admit that I have no specifics here.Requiring employers to do it is.... wrong. IMO.

AGREE. It doesn't matter who you require to do what. In the end, you have to fund the account and someone has to write the check. Simply putting the burden on businesses is, well, a poor business decision.

We pay for it now, however indirectly, the 40% that do have ins... I would think that , again, putting the burden of responsibility on the individual would be better. For instance, I know that when I was younger - 20's - I didn't give a crap about my ins. I would have rather had the cash - my decision. And if I got hurt - my responsibility to repay. That would be ok too. I suppose (?) that ins companies could offer various deductibles for different plans - for example, high deductibles for single guys, etc that were at low risk - thinking of my situation here. It would be a personal decision for each - take the money and buy the big screen and the Xbox, or be responsible and pay for some med ins.

AGREE. I'm not opposed to requiring everyone to have healthcare insurance as a law much like having car insurance. Give businesses a tax-break on the ENTIRE amount of their healthcare insurance packages. This would create a huge competitive free-market incentive to go along with salary when it comes to keeping good employees (as well as encouraging peope to go out and get jobs). BUT how are you going to enforce it? Simply relying on people to do the "right thing" has proven tragic for many other issues besides just healthcare and housing.

Another idea might be term health ins? Just a random idea.... Get money back after a time....

Not a bad idea either. Anything that increases choices in a competitive free market is a good thing for consumers.

As far as politicizing - well, it is a political issue... sorry if I offended...

None taken. I'm just tired of hearing people pump one party over the other. They are equally inept when it comes to dealing with our issues as a nation. The Republicans haven't solved anymore problems than the Democrats did when they were in majority power; if anything, they've accomplished less. The only difference I see is that one is in majority power with more money than the other at the moment. This will change in time, because it always does and those that are waving victory banners today will be charged as whining losers tomorrow and visa versa. My only concern, as an INDEPENDENT voter, is: what the hell have you accomplished today and what do you plan to do tomorrow about the issues that I care most about?

 

[riserburn]

Quote from dddooo:

Well, I am not Dennis Kucinich, I just posted a quote from his website in which he was talking about his proposal.

Thats too bad, because I was going to let you "have it" on your position on how to handle the current terrorism issue. While pulling out of NAFTA and the WTO may be prudent for other reasons, it won't do SQUAT to combat terrorism. How the hell he correlated those 2 issues is beyond me.

I was simply responding to your comment that there were no intelligent well thought-out detailed proposals on Healthcare reform. These proposals do exist although you're probably right, Universal Healthcare is a hard sell.

Like I said, its a long ways from "well thought out". While a national healthcare insurance plan has its merits, simply throwing the responsibility to fund it on the backs of businesses is waaaayyyy off the mark.

 

[dddooo]

Quote from riserburn:

simply throwing the responsibility to fund it on the backs of businesses is waaaayyyy off the mark.

Isn't that where the responsibility is right now, I mean businesses are not legally obligated to provide health insurance but most of them are still doing it anyway. As a matter of fact the first thing that will happen should Universal Healthcare be implemented - businesses will stop paying $10,000 - $12,000 a year per employee to insurance companies, they (businesses) will immediately be in the black.
Of course they will start paying more in taxes but still significantly less than $10,000 a year per employee, will avoid the hussle of shopping and managing health plans and will cover every american. Sounds like a win-win deal to me, of course Health Insurance companies will lose big.

Your auto-insurance premiums will also decrease significantly as a big part of it covers bodily injury and this coverage will become redundant.