Health Care Is A Right Not a Privilege!

[Quantum Windbag]

good for you! Calling names like a child
with no justification is shameful. Ask your mother if you doubt it.

He did not call you names, he said you are insane. I happen to agree with him, maybe you should consider seeing a professional.

another idiot who calls names like a small child. Obviously you would present your reasons if you had them. Are you fooling yourself at least?

Once again, stating a belief that you are insane is not calling you names. You really should learn the difference.

The reason I have for thinking you are insane is self evident in this post.

we need a powerful conservative/libertarian state to impose and maintain freedom and capitalism

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

He did not call you names, he said you are insane. I happen to agree with him, maybe you should consider seeing a professional.

another idiot who calls names like a small child. Obviously you would present your reasons if you had them. Are you fooling yourself at least?

Once again, stating a belief that you are insane is not calling you names. You really should learn the difference.

The reason I have for thinking you are insane is self evident in this post.

we need a powerful conservative/libertarian state to impose and maintain freedom and capitalism

its self-evident meaning you lack the IQ to explain it??

 

[Quantum Windbag]

another idiot who calls names like a small child. Obviously you would present your reasons if you had them. Are you fooling yourself at least?

Once again, stating a belief that you are insane is not calling you names. You really should learn the difference.

The reason I have for thinking you are insane is self evident in this post.

we need a powerful conservative/libertarian state to impose and maintain freedom and capitalism

its self-evident meaning you lack the IQ to explain it??

No, self evident as in not needing to be explained.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Once again, stating a belief that you are insane is not calling you names. You really should learn the difference.

The reason I have for thinking you are insane is self evident in this post.

its self-evident meaning you lack the IQ to explain it??

No, self evident as in not needing to be explained.

oh good so you're ignorance is self-evident too!! After all, you're the utter fool who cant explain why my supposed insanity is self-evident.


Government Rules Make Markets and Capitalism Possible
Markets, like governments, are very much social constructs. The market is a set of behaviors that is structured by rules, and many of the most important rules have been developed and enforced by government. Without these rules, our prized free-market economy would be a stunted and feeble version of what we see today. To see how this is the case, lets looks at these essential “rules” – the vast infrastructure of laws and policies that make a modern capitalist economy possible.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

its self-evident meaning you lack the IQ to explain it??

No, self evident as in not needing to be explained.

oh good so you're ignorance is self-evident too!! After all, you're the utter fool who cant explain why my supposed insanity is self-evident.

I can explain it, you just won't get it because you are bat shit crazy.

By the way, if calling people names is a sign of not being able to debate, why do you do so much of it?

Government Rules Make Markets and Capitalism Possible
Markets, like governments, are very much social constructs. The market is a set of behaviors that is structured by rules, and many of the most important rules have been developed and enforced by government. Without these rules, our prized free-market economy would be a stunted and feeble version of what we see today. To see how this is the case, lets looks at these essential “rules” – the vast infrastructure of laws and policies that make a modern capitalist economy possible.

Explain black/gray markets using that argument.

See what I mean about being self evident yet?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Explain black/gray markets using that argument.

dear, you forgot to say what argument you are talking about. Slow?

 

[Andylusion]

Government Rules Make Markets and Capitalism Possible
Markets, like governments, are very much social constructs. The market is a set of behaviors that is structured by rules, and many of the most important rules have been developed and enforced by government. Without these rules, our prized free-market economy would be a stunted and feeble version of what we see today. To see how this is the case, lets looks at these essential “rules” – the vast infrastructure of laws and policies that make a modern capitalist economy possible.

That is not entirely true.

There were free-markets that worked, long before we had bridges and roads. They were all perfectly functional and growing, without any of the infrastructure you claim is so required.

Now there are cases where infrastructure can increase economic growth, but at what cost?

I would argue most of the interstate system, was largely a net loss to the country, not a net gain.

I can show you towns here in Ohio, that are all abandoned and vacant, because there were perfectly good, perfectly fine roads being used, that these towns grew up around, that were all replaced by Federal interstates. The interstate didn't add anything, it merely cost a lot of money, and killed off existing towns and infrastructure.

A great example of free-markets not needing infrastructure, would be Gujarat.

Gujarat was already widely known as the absolute poorest of all provinces in India. Few if any had roads, water, electricity, or anything. It was a no mans land of nothing.

In 2001, they were hit by a massive earthquake that completely leveled the very little they had.

The government stepped in, and create tax-free zones, and regulation free-zones. Companies could invest, and grow their businesses, with zero taxes, and almost no regulations.

Now keep in mind, they don't have roads, don't have electricity, don't have water. The companies stepped in, built train tracks, built the roads, built electrical power plants. Built water supplies. They even built an entire seaport, all funded with private dollars.

Gujarat today, is now the manufacturing capital of India. The free market worked, without a single penny of government infrastructure.

So why does that not happen here? Pretty much, companies know that the socialists in government are more than willing to spend millions of tax payer money, to fund a project for companies.

If we didn't do that, and only offered 10-year tax free investment, companies would build all the roads, tracks, bridges they needed without a penny from the tax payers.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Government Rules Make Markets and Capitalism Possible
Markets, like governments, are very much social constructs. The market is a set of behaviors that is structured by rules, and many of the most important rules have been developed and enforced by government. Without these rules, our prized free-market economy would be a stunted and feeble version of what we see today. To see how this is the case, lets looks at these essential “rules” – the vast infrastructure of laws and policies that make a modern capitalist economy possible.

That is not entirely true.

There were free-markets that worked, long before we had bridges and roads. They were all perfectly functional and growing, without any of the infrastructure you claim is so required.

Now there are cases where infrastructure can increase economic growth, but at what cost?

I would argue most of the interstate system, was largely a net loss to the country, not a net gain.

I can show you towns here in Ohio, that are all abandoned and vacant, because there were perfectly good, perfectly fine roads being used, that these towns grew up around, that were all replaced by Federal interstates. The interstate didn't add anything, it merely cost a lot of money, and killed off existing towns and infrastructure.

A great example of free-markets not needing infrastructure, would be Gujarat.

Gujarat was already widely known as the absolute poorest of all provinces in India. Few if any had roads, water, electricity, or anything. It was a no mans land of nothing.

In 2001, they were hit by a massive earthquake that completely leveled the very little they had.

The government stepped in, and create tax-free zones, and regulation free-zones. Companies could invest, and grow their businesses, with zero taxes, and almost no regulations.

Now keep in mind, they don't have roads, don't have electricity, don't have water. The companies stepped in, built train tracks, built the roads, built electrical power plants. Built water supplies. They even built an entire seaport, all funded with private dollars.

Gujarat today, is now the manufacturing capital of India. The free market worked, without a single penny of government infrastructure.

So why does that not happen here? Pretty much, companies know that the socialists in government are more than willing to spend millions of tax payer money, to fund a project for companies.

If we didn't do that, and only offered 10-year tax free investment, companies would build all the roads, tracks, bridges they needed without a penny from the tax payers.

well I generally agree but you need govt police, courts, coordination/planning/zoning for airports bridges etc.,etc.

 

[Andylusion]

Government Rules Make Markets and Capitalism Possible
Markets, like governments, are very much social constructs. The market is a set of behaviors that is structured by rules, and many of the most important rules have been developed and enforced by government. Without these rules, our prized free-market economy would be a stunted and feeble version of what we see today. To see how this is the case, lets looks at these essential “rules” – the vast infrastructure of laws and policies that make a modern capitalist economy possible.

That is not entirely true.

There were free-markets that worked, long before we had bridges and roads. They were all perfectly functional and growing, without any of the infrastructure you claim is so required.

Now there are cases where infrastructure can increase economic growth, but at what cost?

I would argue most of the interstate system, was largely a net loss to the country, not a net gain.

I can show you towns here in Ohio, that are all abandoned and vacant, because there were perfectly good, perfectly fine roads being used, that these towns grew up around, that were all replaced by Federal interstates. The interstate didn't add anything, it merely cost a lot of money, and killed off existing towns and infrastructure.

A great example of free-markets not needing infrastructure, would be Gujarat.

Gujarat was already widely known as the absolute poorest of all provinces in India. Few if any had roads, water, electricity, or anything. It was a no mans land of nothing.

In 2001, they were hit by a massive earthquake that completely leveled the very little they had.

The government stepped in, and create tax-free zones, and regulation free-zones. Companies could invest, and grow their businesses, with zero taxes, and almost no regulations.

Now keep in mind, they don't have roads, don't have electricity, don't have water. The companies stepped in, built train tracks, built the roads, built electrical power plants. Built water supplies. They even built an entire seaport, all funded with private dollars.

Gujarat today, is now the manufacturing capital of India. The free market worked, without a single penny of government infrastructure.

So why does that not happen here? Pretty much, companies know that the socialists in government are more than willing to spend millions of tax payer money, to fund a project for companies.

If we didn't do that, and only offered 10-year tax free investment, companies would build all the roads, tracks, bridges they needed without a penny from the tax payers.

well I generally agree but you need govt police, courts, coordination/planning/zoning for airports bridges etc.,etc.

That statement to me, is confusing two completely different issues.

On the one hand you have regulations. That would be like zoning laws.

On the other you have justice. That would be police and courts and so on.

Those are two completely different things in my book.

Justice is punishment of doing wrong. Like fraud. I can't sell you a car for $10,000, and claim it only has 200 miles on it, and a bran new engine, have you buy and drive it around the block, only to have the engine fall out, and find the odometer was rolled back 200K miles.

Nor can I just flat out kill you, and take your stuff, or break into your house collect your valuables, rape your daughter and leave.

This is law enforcement, and the institution of justice.

Regulation is not like justice at all. Regulation is, you are doing something completely legal and fine, that harms no one and violates no ones rights. But I have deemed that I don't like the way you are doing your legal thing, and so I'm going to enforce my personal preference on how you do this legal thing you do.

Back in the late 80s, my father built me a tree house. It was nothing special, but it was 10 feet up in the air.

Did it harm anyone? No. Did it violate anyone's rights? Nope. Was there anything 'unjust' or morally wrong about it? Nope.

Nevertheless, our city we lived in had a rule that you can't have a tree house that was more than a few feet off the ground. I think it was 5 or 8. The city sent us a notice we had to lower or remove the tree house.

That's regulation. It's the arbitrary controls on people's lives, without any real cause. Sure they have their millions of excuses and rationalizations. But in the end, it's nothing more than government controlling our lives.

In fact, if you look up the Arab Spring, the source of the revolt was.... regulation.

It was not a lack of justice. It was government controlling and dictating every aspect of people's lives, and it finally caused a revolution.

Mohamed Bouazizi, in Tunisia set himself on fire, sparking the Arab Spring, in 2010.

Why? Bouazizi was a street vendor. He borrowed $200, and a wheel borrow, to sell vegetables on the street. The police discovered him, and when he didn't have a permit to sell, they confiscated the wheel borrow and all his produce.

Faced with no possible way to make a living, he went to the police station to plead for his stuff back, and when he didn't get it, set himself on fire.

He wasn't harming anyone. He was selling them food. He didn't violate anyone's rights. He was a legal citizen, doing a legal job, without a permit. The permit, is regulation.

When we on the right, the conservatives, talk about less government, less controlling our lives, this right here is what we're talking about.

I have not seen a conservative yet, stand up and say "I want less government. Lets cut the police and courts".

Never seen that. If anything, we support more police, more law enforcement, stronger penalties for breaking the law.

And equally, when we want to cut the budget, we're not talking about those things.

At the Federal level, justice, courts, law enforcement, is a mere fraction of the budget. Barely even significant. According to the 2013 budget, Dept. of Justice, was $16 Billion, and Dept of Homeland Security, was $39 Billion, and a good chunk of that includes international, rather than domestic law enforcement. So $55 Billion dollars, and the Federal Budget was $3,770 Billion.

Let's shave off that $3 Trillion, double law enforcement, and we'll still have Trillions of dollars left over in surplus money to pay off debt.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Explain black/gray markets using that argument.

dear, you forgot to say what argument you are talking about. Slow?

The one I quoted in my post, oh he who has problems understanding context.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

While health care is a right (paid for by taxes) in many other countries, its not a right in the US.

Even though we pay very high taxes, it goes to our incredibly bloated and outdated military. That's the same bloated and outdated military the right wants to spend more of our taxes on.

 

[dblack]

While health care is a right (paid for by taxes) in many other countries, its not a right in the US.

Even though we pay very high taxes, it goes to our incredibly bloated and outdated military. That's the same bloated and outdated military the right wants to spend more of our taxes on.

Ok... that's an interesting insight. Is that what "right" means to you? Paid for by taxes?

 

[Cecilie1200]

While health care is a right (paid for by taxes) in many other countries, its not a right in the US.

Even though we pay very high taxes, it goes to our incredibly bloated and outdated military. That's the same bloated and outdated military the right wants to spend more of our taxes on.

Ok... that's an interesting insight. Is that what "right" means to you? Paid for by taxes?

As a leftist, he thinks it means "the government promises to give it to me", yes.

 

[Andylusion]

While health care is a right (paid for by taxes) in many other countries, its not a right in the US.

Even though we pay very high taxes, it goes to our incredibly bloated and outdated military. That's the same bloated and outdated military the right wants to spend more of our taxes on.

You are nutz. We don't pay a fraction of the taxes that Europe does. That's why were doing far better than most of Europe, and have a better standard of living than Europe.

If we had the same health care system Europe does, we have to drastically lower our survival rates (let far more patients die), and nearly double our tax rates.

 

[emilynghiem]

While health care is a right (paid for by taxes) in many other countries, its not a right in the US.

Even though we pay very high taxes, it goes to our incredibly bloated and outdated military. That's the same bloated and outdated military the right wants to spend more of our taxes on.

Ok... that's an interesting insight. Is that what "right" means to you? Paid for by taxes?

As a leftist, he thinks it means "the government promises to give it to me", yes.

Dear [MENTION=14617]Cecilie1200[/MENTION] and [MENTION=30065]dblack[/MENTION]
From trying to understand where Luddly Neddite, Dante and other liberals are coming from, the belief seems to be that the govt is the "default" source of making sure the public is taken care of equally. That is the starting point assumption.

What adds to this is the assumption that since hospitals/ER provide care unconditionally, and taxpayers already pay for this, then the regulations set up were attempts to hold people responsible for their own health care costs such as by requiring insurance.

unfortunately this doesn't solve the problems but makes them worse.
instead of holding the people responsible who are INCURRING costs to the public,
the liberal legislation took rights and liberties away from law-abiding citizens
without first proving by due process that any such people committed crimes or
had any intent of dumping more costs on the public than these citizens pay in.

since the arguments have been against whole groups,
these parties have not been communicating constructively to try to solve problems.

so now the conflicts have escalated to badmouthing and demonizing both sides,
instead of addressing the real issues of health care and how to pay for it responsibly.

one side does not want to pay for war and destroying infrastructure when govt funding could be used to pay for hospital development and health care.

one side does not want to pay for welfare and criminal prison populations while
law abiding citizens are robbed of rights, freedoms and taxes to pay for other
people's costs and consequences of irresponsible unlawful behavior.

why can't both parties pay for health care by redirecting taxes that they don't want to waste on problems that can be solved instead? why not let all parties pay for health care by reducing or preventing waste or abuses in areas they deem wasteful?

do we really expect to pay for things all the same way?
why not let each party take on problems of govt abuse and waste,
solve those problems, and redirect those funds to pay for health care, education etc.

why not let all approaches work together to solve the problems of waste
and let people pay their taxes into whatever programs they believe are cost effective

who says it all has to be done the same way?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

While health care is a right (paid for by taxes) in many other countries, its not a right in the US.

Even though we pay very high taxes, it goes to our incredibly bloated and outdated military. That's the same bloated and outdated military the right wants to spend more of our taxes on.

This is true, we obviously need a bigger military given the huge new terrorist threats we face from the middle east and now a reawakened Russia under Putin. America is bombing in Iraq to prevent genocide because only we have the capitalist wealth and moral standing to do it!.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

While health care is a right (paid for by taxes) in many other countries, its not a right in the US.

Even though we pay very high taxes, it goes to our incredibly bloated and outdated military. That's the same bloated and outdated military the right wants to spend more of our taxes on.

Ok... that's an interesting insight. Is that what "right" means to you? Paid for by taxes?

more specificially they feel they have the right to tax other people or steal from other people to pay for their health care.

 

[dblack]

While health care is a right (paid for by taxes) in many other countries, its not a right in the US.

Even though we pay very high taxes, it goes to our incredibly bloated and outdated military. That's the same bloated and outdated military the right wants to spend more of our taxes on.

This is true, we obviously need a bigger military given the huge new terrorist threats we face from the middle east and now a reawakened Russia under Putin. America is bombing in Iraq to prevent genocide because only we have the capitalist wealth and moral standing to do it!.

[ame=http://youtu.be/Ksa4VjKE3RY]Paul Simon - Still Crazy After All These Years + lyrics - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Luddly Neddite]

While health care is a right (paid for by taxes) in many other countries, its not a right in the US.

Even though we pay very high taxes, it goes to our incredibly bloated and outdated military. That's the same bloated and outdated military the right wants to spend more of our taxes on.

This is true, we obviously need a bigger military given the huge new terrorist threats we face from the middle east and now a reawakened Russia under Putin. America is bombing in Iraq to prevent genocide because only we have the capitalist wealth and moral standing to do it!.

No, dear, we don't.

America?s staggering defense budget, in charts - The Washington Post

 

[Luddly Neddite]

While health care is a right (paid for by taxes) in many other countries, its not a right in the US.

Even though we pay very high taxes, it goes to our incredibly bloated and outdated military. That's the same bloated and outdated military the right wants to spend more of our taxes on.

Ok... that's an interesting insight. Is that what "right" means to you? Paid for by taxes?

more specificially they feel they have the right to tax other people or steal from other people to pay for their health care.

I mean what I wrote.

As I have said before, after WWII, other countries raised their taxes and then spent the money on their people.

The US raised taxes but spent it on the military which, in turn, made the rich richer.

Here in the US, we pay but we don't get.