Ron Paul says healthcare not a right

Angrycat · Jul 21, 2009

Quote from Kassz007:

Judging by this post, and the way you choose to end your argument, it sounds as though you are more against Obama than you are of socialized healthcare. I suspect this fact has at the very least swayed your opinion.

Nice debate in any case.

Kazz, I agree with the poster you replied to. I (and I'm pretty sure the poster too) would be against Obama, Bush or anyone else who tried to usurp power. But, Obama is in office and he's the one doing it now. So, his is the name you'll see.

Angrycat · Jul 21, 2009

Quote from Kassz007:

Wrong. Don't exprapolate my comments to the extreme...I am speaking strictly in terms of healthcare and nothing else. I am a free market advocate and nothing else. The only reason I support socialized healthcare is due to the human aspect. Instead of a few people getting great care, I would rather see all people get <b>at least some care</b> without having to mortgage their house to get it.

Fine, Kazz. But why does the government have to provision as well as fund it for the folks who are truly needy?

Also, they will still be denied some care because, the reality is there are diminishing marginal returns at some point even in healthcare. The guy who wants a $1MM treatment with a 5% chance of surviving 5 more years is unlikely to get it in any system.

Trouble is that when government provisions medicine, it is provisioned not based on medical need but on politics. So, flashy diseases get lots of coverage, politically connected people get pushed to the head of the line and everyone else can suck it. Plus, true to form, the provisioning is inefficient - when was the last time the government DIDN'T waste money.

Nobody minds helping out folks who can't afford it. Just give them the bloody money to pay for the dang treatments. Doesn't that address your concern?

Angrycat · Jul 21, 2009

Quote from the1:

If you don't get HC through your employer you can't afford -- simple as that. The pricing model the insurance companies use guarantees you can't afford it because a group of 100 people gets a different price than a group of 1, or a group of 1 family.

The price to offset risk should be based on the population rather than the individual policy but that basically gets us to the direction we're heading anyway -- socialized medicine.

And then, God forbid you have a heart attack or develop some chronic illness. Then, THEN, if you thought you couldn't afford it before........

I started my own business, moved it out of NYC and my health insurance is 2/3 LESS expensive than it was when I got it through my employer.

But, we really do need to get away from employer provided insurance. It's arbitrary.

Angrycat · Jul 21, 2009

Quote from Mom0/pH0x:

those governments have much better track records with regard to freedom than the usa... in my opinion the best argument against nationalized health care in the USA is that it would be facilitated by the US govt.

That's a great argument - even if I don't necessarily agree with the first part. But who knows, I'm agreeing with it more and more.

the1 · Jul 21, 2009

Yes it is arbitrary but I'm curious to hear how you accomplished that. Our insurance tripled once we started using it. This is how I managed to get more affordable rates.

http://www.healthinsurance.org/risk_pools/

Quote from Angrycat:

I started my own business, moved it out of NYC and my health insurance is 2/3 LESS expensive than it was when I got it through my employer.

But, we really do need to get away from employer provided insurance. It's arbitrary.

151 · Jul 22, 2009

Quote from Kassz007:

Education absolutely should be a right. This is one of the reasons (or selling points at least) for the war in Afghanistan. How does this befuddle you?

What is considered a right changes all of the time as the years pass. Think of a woman's right to vote, or the whole slavery issue. I would not be surprised at all if in 100 years it is considered a right to have access to broadband internet, just as a country's citizens should have the right to appropriate health care.

Surely you see the difference between withholding a right from a segment of the population, as with women and voting, and things that are not rights to begin with.

public education isnt even a privilage. we pay for it. Hell our children are forced into it actually.

151 · Jul 22, 2009

Quote from Kassz007:

So do you believe you are being stolen from because the government takes your taxes to build roads? To fund the military? It is the exact same argument. To someone who doesn't drive, the government is stealing their property and giving its benefits to others. I am all for the free market, but a certain level of government involvment is necessary/beneficial. And I believe this includes healthcare.

I don't mind paying taxes to build roads so my fellow Canadians can travel, same as how I don't mind paying taxes so my fellow Canadians can afford appropriate health care.

You need to look a little further into American taxes and appropriations.

Also your use of the military funding is nonsense. Everyone benifits from the military funding. If one does not like the way the military is used one votes for different representation.

151 · Jul 22, 2009

Quote from Kassz007:

Therein lies the issue. Those who can afford it don't care. Those who can't afford it suffer. I suspect there are many more Americans who can't afford it than can afford it.

You would be wrong. I really am sorry to pick on you. Many many many Americans that seem unable to pay for private health insurance are somehow able to pay for satalite TV, cell phones, internet service, fast food, beer, and name brand clothing.

OPTIONAL777 · Jul 22, 2009

Not everyone benefits from the military funding...

Quote from 151:

You need to look a little further into American taxes and appropriations.

Also your use of the military funding is nonsense. Everyone benifits from the military funding. If one does not like the way the military is used one votes for different representation.

Lucrum · Jul 22, 2009

Quote from Econmajor:

you do not have a right to food. You do not have a right to a house. You do not have a right to clothes. You do not have a right to good health. Just because they are basic needs doesn't give you a right to them.

You do have a right to protect your property though. No one can take something from you without consent. Therefore you have a right to own a gun to protect your life and property.

Quote from Ivanovich:

You are allowed to purchase and own a gun. It should not be a right that someone has to pay for your health care. If you want healthcare, you have a right to get it. I have a suspicion that RP is saying that you don't have a right to demand someone else pay for it.

And I agree with him.

Dito