Morally Bizarre

[georgephillip]

I'd consider none of those "rights". Post offices and minting money are legitimate (constitutionally authorized) services of the federal government. Education is not.

Doesn't the word "power" describe congressional authority better than "right" or "service?"
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States..."
Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

 

[dblack]

I'd consider none of those "rights". Post offices and minting money are legitimate (constitutionally authorized) services of the federal government. Education is not.

Doesn't the word "power" describe congressional authority better than "right" or "service?"

Sure. "Right" doesn't describe Congressional authority at all.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States..."
Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

Yeah, yeah. I don't even wanna go there. That quote describes the power to collect taxes, not the power to conduct wide-ranging social engineering projects in the name of 'general welfare'. The argument's been beat to death, and was thoroughly resolved in Federalist 41. Everything else on the matter is just lawyers angling for more power.

 

[georgephillip]

Since when is it the responsibility of for-profit insurance companies to make medical costs cheaper for anyone? Are you suggesting for-profit companies like paying high medical costs?

I'm simply pointing out how profits increase by denying needed medical coverage under our current capitalistic insurance model. I'm not sure what you're getting at when you mention a 40% tax on insurance policies for the rich; if that's part of the ACA, it simply proves you can't change anything of substance by "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican in the voting booth.

 

[BlackSand]

Since when is it the responsibility of for-profit insurance companies to make medical costs cheaper for anyone? Are you suggesting for-profit companies like paying high medical costs?

I'm simply pointing out how profits increase by denying needed medical coverage under our current capitalistic insurance model. I'm not sure what you're getting at when you mention a 40% tax on insurance policies for the rich; if that's part of the ACA, it simply proves you can't change anything of substance by "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican in the voting booth.

Cadillac plans will have a 40% tax added by 2017 ... An attempt to punish the rich for simply wanting to buy a product they can afford and that suits their desires.

The person I was responding to was touting the benefit the rich would receive from the ACA's attempt to ensure everyone suffers equally.

.

 

[Conservative65]

Nothing more than those of paying more into the system to fund those paying less into it then getting the same thing. Sorry, not interested in socialism.

Does for-profit insurance appeal more to you? You seem completely ignorant of how Medicare for All would reduce US medical costs by more than $400 billion a year despite a massive expansion of medical care to those currently under served by capitalism. Like a classic conservative you can't put aside your selfish contempt for those who earn less than you do even when the changes they support will work to your economic advantage as well as theirs.

For profit insurance has worked for ME for years.

Your claims about Medicare for All saving medical costs by more than $400 is pure speculation. Since it hasn't happened, the only thing you have to base that on is a PREDICTION. Since you can't prove it would be an advantage for me, I'll stick with what I've had that I can show objective proof where it has.

I don't have contempt for those who make less than me. I have contempt for anyone, because they do, thinking that because I make more I should be willing to share more of it with them. It is that group that shows its selfish contempt for the rest of us by demanding we provide them with a share of what we've earned. Call me selfish if you will but anyone thinking that what I've earned should be given to them because they have but if you really think they give a damn about where it comes from as long as they get it, you're quite foolish. Also, you should look up the word share before you misuse it again. Sharing involves a willful act by the one from which the funding would come. Sharing, just like compassion, can't be a mandate.

 

[Conservative65]

What you support is worse. Why can't you provide to yourself what you should be doing? It's not my responsibility to do it for you.

Current paradigms for funding Medicare for All require employers and employees to pay a modest payroll tax thereby producing a sizable savings for private and public employers who currently have to purchase coverage for their employees from private insurance corporations. Assuming it's true that 95% of Americans will pay less for their healthcare than they are currently paying, the collective responsibility lies with changing the corporate status quo, no?

There's the kicker. Employers and employees are already paying a payroll tax that goes to Medicare under the current system. At least be honest and say an ADDITIONAL payroll tax. Also, there is nothing modest about forcing someone to pay something on another person's behalf. If it's a penny more out of MY check so it can be handed to someone else, it's ONE CENT too much.

You base your support on it on an ASSUMPTION. I base what I have now on how it's worked in the past. When you say modest payroll tax, what percentage do you use? If it's more than 1% each for the employee and employer, that percentage already places a higher costs taken out of my check than what I would pay out of pocket in a contract year under my current policy. Since it would do that, I'm not interested. What I have now works fine for ME. Again, you can call that selfish but looking out for me is no different than someone else supporting it because it would be cheaper on them to do it your way.

 

[georgephillip]

For profit insurance has worked for ME for years.

Your claims about Medicare for All saving medical costs by more than $400 is pure speculation. Since it hasn't happened, the only thing you have to base that on is a PREDICTION. Since you can't prove it would be an advantage for me, I'll stick with what I've had that I can show objective proof where it has

Are you saying only those who earn enough money to afford corporate for-profit health care have a right to that service?

 

[Conservative65]

at I

For profit insurance has worked for ME for years.

Your claims about Medicare for All saving medical costs by more than $400 is pure speculation. Since it hasn't happened, the only thing you have to base that on is a PREDICTION. Since you can't prove it would be an advantage for me, I'll stick with what I've had that I can show objective proof where it has

Are you saying only those who earn enough money to afford corporate for-profit health care have a right to that service?

Not at all. I want to say I've made it clear that if someone you know can't afford it, YOU are more than welcome to pay their premiums with your own money. If you think it is a right, prove it by doing just that and keeping your hands off my wallet. What I am saying is that their ability to have it shouldn't be based on someone else being forced to fund it simply because they make more money. That's socialism and I'm not interested in it.

I sat in high school classes with the very people who argue the issue from your viewpoint. They were the screw-ups and goof offs, many of whom quit before graduating. That they now want the rest of us to make up for their bad choices gives me the opportunity to say touch shit, you shouldn't have made that decision.

 

[georgephillip]

ot at all. I want to say I've made it clear that if someone you know can't afford it, YOU are more than welcome to pay their premiums with your own money. If you think it is a right, prove it by doing just that and keeping your hands off my wallet.

So, in your view rights exist only for those who can arrange the private financing of those rights, right?

 

[dblack]

ot at all. I want to say I've made it clear that if someone you know can't afford it, YOU are more than welcome to pay their premiums with your own money. If you think it is a right, prove it by doing just that and keeping your hands off my wallet.

So, in your view rights exist only for those who can arrange the private financing of those rights, right?

What do you mean by saying that "rights exist"? In the context of government policy, the question is whether or not your rights are protected by government, and that is unrelated to whether or not you currently have the capacity to utilize them. Does my freedom of speech "exist" if I have laryngitis? It's still a right that's protected by the Constitution, regardless of whether or not I can speak.

 

[dblack]

at I

For profit insurance has worked for ME for years.

Your claims about Medicare for All saving medical costs by more than $400 is pure speculation. Since it hasn't happened, the only thing you have to base that on is a PREDICTION. Since you can't prove it would be an advantage for me, I'll stick with what I've had that I can show objective proof where it has

Are you saying only those who earn enough money to afford corporate for-profit health care have a right to that service?

Not at all.

I don't know why you wouldn't just answer "yes" here. No one has a right to the services of others.

 

[Conservative65]

at I

For profit insurance has worked for ME for years.

Your claims about Medicare for All saving medical costs by more than $400 is pure speculation. Since it hasn't happened, the only thing you have to base that on is a PREDICTION. Since you can't prove it would be an advantage for me, I'll stick with what I've had that I can show objective proof where it has

Are you saying only those who earn enough money to afford corporate for-profit health care have a right to that service?

Not at all.

I don't know why you wouldn't just answer "yes" here. No one has a right to the services of others.

That's why I didn't answer yes. I won't say people can't do something. I said that it shouldn't come at the forced expense of another person.

 

[Conservative65]

ot at all. I want to say I've made it clear that if someone you know can't afford it, YOU are more than welcome to pay their premiums with your own money. If you think it is a right, prove it by doing just that and keeping your hands off my wallet.

So, in your view rights exist only for those who can arrange the private financing of those rights, right?

That's why you bleeding heart morons want everything considered as a right. That way you can convince yourself one person should be forced to provide it for another person. My right to keep what I've earned is as important to me as the right you claim someone has to healthcare and if they, as you say, have a right to healthcare, I have a right to keep MY money. Not one dime of what I have earned can be taken to fulfill anything for another person without violating mine.

 

[Conservative65]

ot at all. I want to say I've made it clear that if someone you know can't afford it, YOU are more than welcome to pay their premiums with your own money. If you think it is a right, prove it by doing just that and keeping your hands off my wallet.

So, in your view rights exist only for those who can arrange the private financing of those rights, right?

Are you saying that my right to keep what I'VE earned is less of one than you consider healthcare as one? If so, go screw yourself.

 

[georgephillip]

I don't know why you wouldn't just answer "yes" here. No one has a right to the services of others.

How are your rights protected without requiring the service of others?

 

[dblack]

I don't know why you wouldn't just answer "yes" here. No one has a right to the services of others.

How are your rights protected without requiring the service of others?

Didn't you ask that exact same question a few pages back?

 

[georgephillip]

Didn't you ask that exact same question a few pages back?

Probably.
Did I get an answer?

 

[georgephillip]

Yeah, yeah. I don't even wanna go there. That quote describes the power to collect taxes, not the power to conduct wide-ranging social engineering projects in the name of 'general welfare'. The argument's been beat to death, and was thoroughly resolved in Federalist 41. Everything else on the matter is just lawyers angling for more power.

When did Federalist 41 resolve this issue, and what has changed since that time?

 

[koshergrl]

I had spinal fusion surgery a few years ago under the same healthcare plan I have now. It costs me $500 out of pocket for bills totally over $90,000

I had a malignant melanoma that had been festering for years because I had no insurance removed in 2013 by a plastic surgeon on Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills. the initial procedure lasted hours with multiple follow up with a total bill running into the tens of thousand of dollars, and I paid zero $, proving health care is a right for those who live long enough to benefit from Medicare.

Correction..you had a malignant melanoma that was festering for years because you chose not to get it treated.

 

[Conservative65]

I had spinal fusion surgery a few years ago under the same healthcare plan I have now. It costs me $500 out of pocket for bills totally over $90,000

I had a malignant melanoma that had been festering for years because I had no insurance removed in 2013 by a plastic surgeon on Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills. the initial procedure lasted hours with multiple follow up with a total bill running into the tens of thousand of dollars, and I paid zero $, proving health care is a right for those who live long enough to benefit from Medicare.

Correction..you had a malignant melanoma that was festering for years because you chose not to get it treated.

Sounds like to me he waited until someone else paid for it.