Ron Paul says healthcare not a right

Quote from jueco2005:

From a philosophical point of view you are 100% right. But this is not philosophy 101. This is real life.

We are forced to pay for so many things that It doesn't bother me to pay for a million more.

If you oppose healthcare, you must also oppose having a city, state or federal police. You must also oppose the army, the border patrol, immigration and many other stuff that we normally pay for (way more than healthcare) without much bitching in forums like this one.
More...

I disagree completely.
It is necessary to correctly define INALIENABLE RIGHTS in order to frame the debate on healthcare, or any other services that anyone cares to discuss. The underlying philosophy lays an important foundation upon which we agree.

THEN, with that established (what constitutes a RIGHT), we can agree that there are also "common good" services that do exist and are deemed basic necessities by whatever society at large you freely belong to. In a civilized society, we choose to make sure there is level of "safety net" and public provision of the same, at SOME level. If you dont like your current societal definition of these services and the extent to which they are provided and who pays for them and on what terms, then work within the societal reform system to CHANGE the rules, or move to a different SOCIETY.

We should then be able to have rational debate regarding WHO should pay, how much, when, and expect to receive what. That government will be inefficient and incompetent is assumed and expected, unfortunately.
Odysseus
 
I posted this on the ZeroHedge health care rant, and I'll post it here too.

Most of the 'philosophical' arguments being presented against any level of socialized health provision is patently flawed.

--

There is nothing philosophically wrong about "stealing" from the rich, lucky and opportunistic and redistributing such wealth such that lives are saved. Freedom, when it directly and categorically culminates in the hoarding of material goods, creating and watching television shows such as "Paris Hilton's BFF", is nothing more than a systematic extermination of the less endowed or less capable. Just like every worker must be guaranteed a minimum wage (to prevent outright slavery), every human being must be guaranteed a bare minimum of health care so long as society engages in such obtuse wastes of capital. The reason why the supreme court is able to overturn legislation is because the actions of the Majority can, simply put, be Wrong (i.e. pre-WWII Germany). Like anything in life, what constitutes "wrong" is a highly subjective and contentious matter. But when you have near-fraudulent and devious and opportunistic drug lobbies and health insurance companies, absurd television shows and intense and increasing concentrations of wealth in individuals and parties that increasingly do not engage in the type of altruism the author is describing, when do we say 'enough is enough.' I dare anyone to read The Grapes of Wrath by Steinbeck and argue that such a wealthy society should allow such a poor standard of "living" for anyone, never mind the unlucky farmers and children portrayed in that novel. Because if there was 0 "socialized" health care support for the weakest among us, it is practically a certainty that, at variant points of time, the majority will tighten its altruism in favour of producing the next Bachelorette television series or some other worthy endeavor of the sort.

---

Note that I am not commenting on the relevant economics, efficiencies or exact allocation of socialized care.
 
Quote from Scataphagos:

Well, it SHOULD bother you... a great deal.

Government SHOULD be a "collective sacrifice for the common good"... that is, government should be paid to provide "things" for society which individuals cannot provide for themselves... Like national defense, police and fire protection, etc.

Government should NOT be "dominating every aspect of individual life... with their head so far up your ass you can taste the Brylcreem in the back of your throat".. :mad:
More...

To me they are all the same. (national defense, healthcare, police and the city hall) Either we have them all or we dont have them at all.

LETS PUT HYPOCRISY ASIDE PLEASE.
 
Health care is not a right that is to be provided for you.

Health care is your own personal responsibility.

US childhood obesity has increased by 3 times since 1980. 16% of children are obese. 32% are overweight. Results in diabetes, high blood pressure, asthma, etc. More than 60% of adult Americans are overweight, 25% are obese. Heart disease, cancer, arthritis, etc.

That is an excellent indicator on how well people are taking care of themselves. How can the health care industry or any government plan keep up with what most people are doing to themselves?

If health care was "free" would people take better care of themselves or just the opposite? Ever see the way people eat when there is lots of free food? Before health insurance was commonly provided by most employers, people took much better care of themselves, they dared not get sick as doctor visits were paid in cash.

Good job to everyone on their way towards self-induced health problems, whether through ignorance, apathy or outright defiance. The health care industry consumes $2 Trillion per year to try to fix what has been done, $6700 per person. A ''free'' doctor for a quick fix so you can continue to abuse yourselves. A "free" health care bailout for the wrong that you have done to yourselves.

Morbidly obese Michael Moore makes a good poster boy fighting for your rights.
 
Quote from odysseus11:

I disagree completely.
It is necessary to correctly define INALIENABLE RIGHTS in order to frame the debate on healthcare, or any other services that anyone cares to discuss. The underlying philosophy lays an important foundation upon which we agree.

THEN, with that established (what constitutes a RIGHT), we can agree that there are also "common good" services that do exist and are deemed basic necessities by whatever society at large you freely belong to. In a civilized society, we choose to make sure there is level of "safety net" and public provision of the same, at SOME level. If you dont like your current societal definition of these services and the extent to which they are provided and who pays for them and on what terms, then work within the societal reform system to CHANGE the rules, or move to a different SOCIETY.

We should then be able to have rational debate regarding WHO should pay, how much, when, and expect to receive what. That government will be inefficient and incompetent is assumed and expected, unfortunately.
Odysseus
More...

LET ME SHOW YOU THE HYPOCRISY HERE

You claim healtcare is an individual matter, not social. But instead defense is a "common" stuff and we should all pay for it.

Let me see. The last time this country was invaded was 1812. ALMOST 200 years ago. I would not be so concern with defense, specially when the border is virtually open to illegals, very hypocritical.

ON the hand, more people die from hospitals "malpractice" than for the next top 5 causes of death. You see..........there is the real war.

IF YOU WANT TO KNOW
about the difference of individual vs. community needs I suggest you take PSY-101.
IT REALLY HELPS.
 
I CANT TOLERATE THE IGNORANCE ANYMORE!!!

You need to see the movie FOOD INC ASAP.

When you see what you eat, what people eat, maybe then you will reconsider what you think you "know"

Quote from FightTheFuture:

Health care is not a right that is to be provided for you.

Health care is your own personal responsibility.

US childhood obesity has increased by 3 times since 1980. 16% of children are obese. 32% are overweight. Results in diabetes, high blood pressure, asthma, etc. More than 60% of adult Americans are overweight, 25% are obese. Heart disease, cancer, arthritis, etc.

That is an excellent indicator on how well people are taking care of themselves. How can the health care industry or any government plan keep up with what most people are doing to themselves?

If health care was "free" would people take better care of themselves or just the opposite? Ever see the way people eat when there is lots of free food? Before health insurance was commonly provided by most employers, people took much better care of themselves, they dared not get sick as doctor visits were paid in cash.

Good job to everyone on their way towards self-induced health problems, whether through ignorance, apathy or outright defiance. The health care industry consumes $2 Trillion per year to try to fix what has been done, $6700 per person. A ''free'' doctor for a quick fix so you can continue to abuse yourselves. A "free" health care bailout for the wrong that you have done to yourselves.

Morbidly obese Michael Moore makes a good poster boy fighting for your rights.
More...
 
Quote from jueco2005:

I CANT TOLERATE THE IGNORANCE ANYMORE!!!

You need to see the movie FOOD INC ASAP.

When you see what you eat, what people eat, maybe then you will reconsider what you think you "know"
More...

I don't eat any processed, factory food at all. You think people should blame the food industry for their health? Like they don't have a choice of what to eat?
 
Quote from FightTheFuture:

I don't eat any processed, factory food at all. You think people should blame the food industry for their health? Like they don't have a choice of what to eat?
More...

When you have only 4 producers of food in the country you have a lot of choice of what to eat.

What about the hospital's malpractice deaths. It is bigger than the next top 5 causes of death. Look it you yourself.

What then?? Who is responsible??

WE ALL ARE. That's my point. I am no extremist and I never have an extremist point of view.
 
Quote from Angrycat: The more your income is under threat of confiscation, the more you tend to horde and the less you tend to give to Charity.
More...
Then where are all the jobs that were supposed to be created by the Bush tax cuts to the rich? For 8 years, the rich knew their taxes weren’t going up, but yet the private sector job market has been dwindling for years.
Quote from Angrycat: Government tries to appeal to our desire to not let people die in the streets but all it does is enrich interest groups and wastes roughly $0.98 of every dollar.
More...
Where do you get the figure that they waste 98 cents out of every dollar and what’s your reasoning behind it? A lot of Republicans have the notion that when government taxes people, the money is somehow thrown down a toilet. That’s not true. The sad truth is that if taxes were lowered on the rich and the government cut spending as a result, unemployment would skyrocket. All those people working for the government would be out of a job and most would not be rehired by the rich in the private sector because just like you said, rich people hoard the money. Trickle down economics is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.
 
Quote from Shreddog:

It's abundantly clear that those who are against universal coverage are not trading for a living. Because if you were you'd be buying your own healthcare on the individual market and realize that you are one sickness or chronic condition away from being uninsurable.

If for no other reason than attrition we are moving further and further from an employer based model toward individual policies.

The problem is that individual policies are fundamentally flawed. They are priced based on your current individual risk which means that when you need it most you most likely will not be able to afford it. The only way to fix this flaw is to provide coverage to all at the same rate for all.

At one time, when it was standard for an employer to provide health insurance we effectively had universal coverage because anyone with a job had coverage and anyone who didn't went on Medicaid. Now this is not the case at all. If employers are unwilling to provide coverage then it falls to the government to provide a scheme (public, private, I don't care) to cover all.

All this other debate about whether healthcare is a right is a giant circle jerk between you lefties and righties. Get over it. It is irrelevant. Universal coverage is the only way to have an effective healthcare system.
More...
I don’t trade for a living, but I do buy my own insurance because no employer I’ve ever worked for provided it. My premium has gone from $135 to $272 in the past 6 years. I can safely say that my income has not doubled in the time period to make up for it.

You are right, I constantly worry that if I lose it for whatever reason, I won’t be insurable again for whatever reason. I don’t know that universal health care is the solution either, but something’s gotta give. Our system isn’t working.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top