106 replies to this topic

[El Guapo]

Pretty straight forward question.

I was listening to the Radio this morning and Harry Reid went on a rant about how people who don't want universal health care are the same as people who did not want to abolish slavery. So I was thinking about that, and the white elephant in the room that the Democrats are not really talking directly about is a 100% social issue that they believe everyone should get health care provided by the government.

So I want to know black and white, where people here stand. Even if you think we should have medicare and government programs to help the poor, that does not mean you think everyone should get free health care.

Feel free to qualify your answer either way.

[dapokerbum]

Short answer: Health Insurance is NOT a right

[hblask]

It's funny that the guy who said opponents are in favor of slavery thinks that some Americans have a right to the labor of others without paying them, under threat of punishment.

[Sal Paradise]

It's funny that the guy who said opponents are in favor of slavery thinks that some Americans have a right to the labor of others without paying them, under threat of punishment.

man this is awesome. this might have to turn into a facebook status.

[LongLiveYorke]

It's funny that the guy who said opponents are in favor of slavery thinks that some Americans have a right to the labor of others without paying them, under threat of punishment.

Yeah, I'm against slavery, but I'm for firemen (who I don't pay but who work for me). Man, I'm such a contradiction!

[LongLiveYorke]

Also, I don't like the phrasing of your question, since the term "right" is very loaded and, really, has no universally accepted meaning.

You should ask, "Would this country be better off if we had a universal system of health care, and in what ways would it be better, what ways would it be worse, and what would be the best means form of this universal heath care system?"

[hblask]

Yeah, I'm against slavery, but I'm for firemen (who I don't pay but who work for me). Man, I'm such a contradiction!

Fireman presumably are not forced into that line of work. Under Obama-care, companies and individuals would be forced to provide services to people at prices they do not agree to.

Certainly you are not saying that having a career option as a fireman is the same as telling an existing professional "do it our way or switch careers"?

To anticipate your follow-up to that, you are getting into further questions of consent and rule of law that are probably beyond the scope of this forum, but I'd be happy to engage if you wish.

[CaneBrain]

Short answer: Health Insurance is NOT a right

Equally short answer: But it should be.

[hblask]

Also, I don't like the phrasing of your question, since the term "right" is very loaded and, really, has no universally accepted meaning.

You should ask, "Would this country be better off if we had a universal system of health care, and in what ways would it be better, what ways would it be worse, and what would be the best means form of this universal heath care system?"

I disagree -- a right is something you are entitled to that the government must guarantee for you. For example, the most commonly made distinction is driving -- we are always told, driving is a privilege, not a right.

In the context of the health care debate, we start getting into issues of positive and negative rights. We have many negative rights -- those rights that just require others to not bothers us. The right to privacy, the right to free speech, the right to choose a religion. Where we starting getting into troubles is with positive rights -- those rights that actively require someone to give you something. You can never legitimately have such a right, because such a right is a demand for others to serve you -- in effect, that you owe a part of your life to random strangers, just by virtue of being born.

So that's the long answer to the quiz question.

[hblask]

Equally short answer: But it should be.

I don't know if you believe that, or were just pointing out that short answers don't mean much. I'm guessing you don't really believe it, because it seems to go against much of what you believe in.

[El Guapo]

Also, I don't like the phrasing of your question, since the term "right" is very loaded and, really, has no universally accepted meaning.

You should ask, "Would this country be better off if we had a universal system of health care, and in what ways would it be better, what ways would it be worse, and what would be the best means form of this universal heath care system?"

Henry pretty much answered it, but I didn't want to go back to the positives and negative of various forms of universal health care. I wanted to know if people here thought it was a "right" deemed through law, bill, or other means that this country should provide free health care to all citizens.

If you do fine, if you don't then the other discussion needs to continue.

[CaneBrain]

I don't know if you believe that, or were just pointing out that short answers don't mean much. I'm guessing you don't really believe it, because it seems to go against much of what you believe in.

I think we have advanced to the point where we can do it. We both have discussed at length the health care plan proposed in that article posted by FCP Bob. That article lays out the framework for a plan which would allow us to offer catastrophic coverage to every American (which is what they really need) and ensure that no one is bankrupted by health care costs.

Of course to do so, we would have to allow a true free market system to apply to all other health care expenses. That seems like a fair compromise to me.

Your point about positive rights and negative rights is well taken but, on the whole, I think people are better off letting some be granted a positive right or two just by being born.

My answer to pokerbum was that the Constitution clearly does not give people a right to health care. So that takes care of that (sorry poor people). But I think we have reached a point in our evolutuion as a society where we can afford to do this and therefore we should. And the trade-off should be that non-emergency procedures go back to solely being a transaction btw doctor and patient.

So, to answer the OP, no.....there is nothing in our laws that states that health care is a right. That is easy. But, if we have the resources to put a system in place that takes care of everyone.....should we? I think we should.

[hblask]

I think we have advanced to the point where we can do it. We both have discussed at length the health care plan proposed in that article posted by FCP Bob. That article lays out the framework for a plan which would allow us to offer catastrophic coverage to every American (which is what they really need) and ensure that no one is bankrupted by health care costs.

Of course to do so, we would have to allow a true free market system to apply to all other health care expenses. That seems like a fair compromise to me.

Your point about positive rights and negative rights is well taken but, on the whole, I think people are better off letting some be granted a positive right or two just by being born.

My answer to pokerbum was that the Constitution clearly does not give people a right to health care. So that takes care of that (sorry poor people). But I think we have reached a point in our evolutuion as a society where we can afford to do this and therefore we should. And the trade-off should be that non-emergency procedures go back to solely being a transaction btw doctor and patient.

So, to answer the OP, no.....there is nothing in our laws that states that health care is a right. That is easy. But, if we have the resources to put a system in place that takes care of everyone.....should we? I think we should.

OK, good answer. The question then is how we provide it, from a practical point of view, and, depending on how it's implemented, is it then a right? Let's say that poor people can get free care through a certain program. Is that a right? If so, can I make myself temporarily poor, and get free care? Can I pay off my half million dollar house, stash my money in a box, and claim no income? What if I am able-bodied and there are jobs in my field available, but I like living over mom's garage and getting free health care? If it is a right, the answer to all of those is yes, but few people would support such a program.

So while I agree with you that a rich society can care for their poor, I think declaring things rights that clearly are not rights is a bad way to go about that.

[El Guapo]

I think we have advanced to the point where we can do it. We both have discussed at length the health care plan proposed in that article posted by FCP Bob. That article lays out the framework for a plan which would allow us to offer catastrophic coverage to every American (which is what they really need) and ensure that no one is bankrupted by health care costs.

Of course to do so, we would have to allow a true free market system to apply to all other health care expenses. That seems like a fair compromise to me.

I just hope you realize that this ^ is impossible.

[LongLiveYorke]

In the context of the health care debate, we start getting into issues of positive and negative rights. We have many negative rights -- those rights that just require others to not bothers us. The right to privacy, the right to free speech, the right to choose a religion. Where we starting getting into troubles is with positive rights -- those rights that actively require someone to give you something. You can never legitimately have such a right, because such a right is a demand for others to serve you -- in effect, that you owe a part of your life to random strangers, just by virtue of being born.

This is why my question is better. The question as stated makes it too easy to dodge the real issue at hand with discussions about types of rights and things like that. My question forces the reader to actually talk about health care in a concrete way.

[CaneBrain]

I just hope you realize that this ^ is impossible.

It is practically impossible (because a variety of things would have to happen----health care companies being rendered obsolete despite their lobbyists throwing cash at everyone, the American people understanding that they are better off paying more for a checkup because it will be offset by not having so much deducted from each paycheck, everyone agreeing on what the dollar trigger would be for catastrophic care, how much we would have to ration end of life care, can we get private insurance companies to fill the voids that will arise, etc, etc.)

But, theoretically it is very possible.

[hblask]

This is why my question is better. The question as stated makes it too easy to dodge the real issue at hand with discussions about types of rights and things like that. My question forces the reader to actually talk about health care in a concrete way.

Well, if you want to get into practical questions rather than theoretical, I think the correct starting point is:

Are there any examples of government services being provided more efficiently and effectively than free markets? Are any centrally planned societies more successful than free market societies?

Do we have any examples of highly regulated industries that were deregulated within our country? Was the result better or worse than before? Were prices higher or lower? Was there more access and choices or less? Was innovation greater or less?

Do we have examples of industries that were previously relatively free market that were moved to highly regulated? What was the result?

EDIT: In case you didn't guess, I have looked into the answers to these questions, which is why I opposed a federal takeover of medical care.

[LongLiveYorke]

Fireman presumably are not forced into that line of work. Under Obama-care, companies and individuals would be forced to provide services to people at prices they do not agree to.

Certainly you are not saying that having a career option as a fireman is the same as telling an existing professional "do it our way or switch careers"?

My point was that the existence of a government implies control over the lives of its citizens. It implies that there will be jobs directly funded by the government, such as firemen, and that there will be rules and restrictions placed on jobs not directly funded by the government.

All regulation of industry in a sense "forces people to provide services" that they wouldn't necessarily do in a vacuum. That doesn't make the regulation evil. The regulation is bad if the net cost is worse than the net benefit (in whatever way you decide to measure those).

Again, my point was that in order to call Obama-care slavery, you have to be consistent and call everything else the government does or imposes slavery. Which is fine, if you're an anarchist and that's what you believe, but one has to be consistent.

(Also, I apologize for going on this mini-rant as a response to a funny joke that you made. The humor wasn't lost on me, contrary to what my desire to set the record straight may imply)

[hblask]

It is practically impossible (because a variety of things would have to happen----health care companies being rendered obsolete despite their lobbyists throwing cash at everyone, the American people understanding that they are better off paying more for a checkup because it will be offset by not having so much deducted from each paycheck, everyone agreeing on what the dollar trigger would be for catastrophic care, how much we would have to ration end of life care, can we get private insurance companies to fill the voids that will arise, etc, etc.)

But, theoretically it is very possible.

I believe it is not even theoretically possible at the federal level, questionably possible at the state level, and very possible (and probably desirable) at the community level.

[nutzbuster]

Short answer: Health Insurance is NOT a right

It's funny that the guy who said opponents are in favor of slavery thinks that some Americans have a right to the labor of others without paying them, under threat of punishment.

Harry Reid is one despicable human being. There is not a line he won't cross to try to push this shit through.

So anyone in opposition (as well as those who do not like Obama) are rascists? What a soulless cocksucker.


Funny how they feel the need to rush this crap through and criticize those who want to wait and debate and try to get it right, yet when the Afghanistan troop surge issue came up it was ok then to wait and debate and try to get it right?

blah blah blah....


so depressing