The sloppy arguments regarding health care

[Listening]

I was reading some arguments for and against Obamacare and this one seemed to carry quite a large number of sloppy arguments in the debate.

Why Universal Health Care Is Our Inalienable Right | Sanjay Sanghoee

Here is my analysis from some of the statements this guy makes.

In the political firestorm over the ungainly rollout of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, one central question that should be front and center in our national debate seems to have receded into the background, and that is whether universal health care is a fundamental right or a privilege.​

Garbage. His first assertion and it's already off the cliff. People have been making this claim since Hillarycare the rebuttals are just as frequent. It was Obama who said it was a right.

Does Sanghoee want to tell us what his definition of rights are ? Usually a definition of rights includes some statement of universal application. Does everyone have health care ? No.

Sanghoee then goes on to some pretend to utilize the some kind constitutional argument to justify....what I can't tell.

He states:

The reason that Americans are so divided on this issue is that the right to good health (which can only be ensured through guaranteed health care) is not mentioned in any of our founding documents. Unlike life, liberty, and happiness, which are protected by the Declaration of Independence, or the right to free speech, which is protected by the Constitution, our health is seemingly on its own, and therein lies the problem. We are so mired in the literal interpretation of our founding documents that we easily forget a number of important things:​

Again, bullpuckey.

Where is his justification for this claim.

Let's step back and look at his comment on how only through guaranteed health care can people realize a right to good health.

Did he even proofread his argument ? First, there is no right to good health. Second, people have taken steps to guarantee their ability to get good health care. They don't need the government to do this for them. But, setting that aside, there is the argument that people on Medicare somehow get good coverage. Many many doctors are not taking medicare patients. Hows that working for them ?

But birdbrain then goes on to say:

Our founding framework was never meant to be a static structure but a living contract amongst the citizens of the United States that evolved over time to serve the best interests of the people.

The Constitution does not explicitly describe every right that we enjoy; such as, for example, the right to privacy. Amendments such as the Fourth, which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, and the Fifth, which confers a right against self-incrimination and other due process rights, light the way to privacy but do not mention it directly. And yet nobody would ever question that it is still a right.

If life, liberty, and happiness are indeed so important, then it stands to reason that health, which dictates the quality of our life and determines our ability to enjoy liberty and pursue happiness, is equally crucial to our welfare.​

You bet. There was a process set up to modify it. Where was Obama in that ? Where is our amendment ? The right to privacy is a manufactured piece of crap. Lots of people deny it's existence.

And then there is the tired argument against his last point that food should come before health care. Where is Obama on that topic...and why has Songhoee ignored that fact.

He then goes on to satisfy his need to look stupid by making further arguments which you can read. The founders didn't know there would be huge costs of health care...so they didn't include them. OMG. What a tard.

This guy hasn't got a clue.

Neither do most.

As dblack has pointed on many occasions...it is definitions or a lack of agreement on definitions that cause people issues.

In this thread, I'd like to develop that list. We could have used some from Mr. Sloopy as he attempted to look smart.....

First, just what is health care ? In other words, just what do you have a right to have ? How will we know when someone has been granted this right ? I'll wait for the left to explain. We'll then tear into that one for starters.

 

[Listening]

So let's try something else.

Just what was the issue with pre-existing conditions ?

You can't even find stuff on the web that isn't tainted.

Health Insurers: We'll Deny Coverage For Pre-Existing Conditions If Health Mandate Is Repealed | ThinkProgress

They said they'd work to get the requirement removed. They didn't say they'd deny anyone.

ThinkProgress has always been pretty much a rag.

And wasn't the pre-existing condition thing addressed by Bill Clinton ?

Exposing more Sebelius crap.

http://www.avikroy.org/2011/01/come-on-kathleen.html

Here is something on HIPPA and pre-existing conditions. Obamacare did what ?

http://www.insure.com/articles/healthinsurance/HIPAA.html

 

[oldfart]

I was reading some arguments for and against Obamacare and this one seemed to carry quite a large number of sloppy arguments in the debate.

I would agree that seeking well reasoned arguments for or against the ACA results in a lot of Star Trek moments ("Beam me up, Scotty; there's no intelligent life down here"). Huffington Post picks up a lot of material from other sources, some of it excellent and some of it pretty terrible. Most online news sources have a similar problem.

Here is my analysis from some of the statements this guy makes.

In the political firestorm over the ungainly rollout of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, one central question that should be front and center in our national debate seems to have receded into the background, and that is whether universal health care is a fundamental right or a privilege.​

Garbage. His first assertion and it's already off the cliff. People have been making this claim since Hillarycare the rebuttals are just as frequent. It was Obama who said it was a right.

No, it is a right created in a Reagan administration law. Any hospital accepting Hill-Burton and similar federal funds cannot turn away any patient with a condition which threatens life or severe bodily harm. They can stabilize and transfer a patient, but only to another facility that has agreed to accept them. "Dumping" patients is illegal.

Now this obviously covers heart attacks, car accidents, and impending births, but is short of guaranteeing anyone anything remotely close to what we would call adequate health care. But it does take "Let them die!" off the table. So to the extent that a limited "right" to health care exists, it is the result of the Reagan years.

First, there is no right to good health.

Agreed. Some of us are not born with robust health and there is no one who can insulate us from the vagarities of our genes or the results of our improvident lifestyles.

Second, people have taken steps to guarantee their ability to get good health care. They don't need the government to do this for them. But, setting that aside, there is the argument that people on Medicare somehow get good coverage. Many many doctors are not taking medicare patients. Hows that working for them ?

Yes people have been getting private health insurance without direct government assistance since the fifties. This is the result of the original Blue Cross system, the Kaiser experiment, and a big boost from tax laws. It would never exist without government preferential treatment. Then there are direct medical care delivery systems run by the government (the military and VA health systems) and insurance programs run by the government (Medicare, Medicaid, CHIPS). Consistently the Kaiser Foundation and other polling shows that of the medical delivery systems available, users of direct government services rate their care highest, users of direct payer systems come in second, and private sector health insurance comes in a distant last.

Now this is the CDZ. I realize that I and you can say anything we want that trashes third parties, we are only constrained to to civil to each other, which I have done. I believe you are mistaken and given to factual errors and sloppy logic. That doesn't give me the right to be sarcastic to you or call you names. Agreed?

 

[Listening]

I was reading some arguments for and against Obamacare and this one seemed to carry quite a large number of sloppy arguments in the debate.

I would agree that seeking well reasoned arguments for or against the ACA results in a lot of Star Trek moments ("Beam me up, Scotty; there's no intelligent life down here"). Huffington Post picks up a lot of material from other sources, some of it excellent and some of it pretty terrible. Most online news sources have a similar problem.

Here is my analysis from some of the statements this guy makes.

In the political firestorm over the ungainly rollout of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, one central question that should be front and center in our national debate seems to have receded into the background, and that is whether universal health care is a fundamental right or a privilege.​

Garbage. His first assertion and it's already off the cliff. People have been making this claim since Hillarycare the rebuttals are just as frequent. It was Obama who said it was a right.

No, it is a right created in a Reagan administration law. Any hospital accepting Hill-Burton and similar federal funds cannot turn away any patient with a condition which threatens life or severe bodily harm. They can stabilize and transfer a patient, but only to another facility that has agreed to accept them. "Dumping" patients is illegal.

Now this obviously covers heart attacks, car accidents, and impending births, but is short of guaranteeing anyone anything remotely close to what we would call adequate health care. But it does take "Let them die!" off the table. So to the extent that a limited "right" to health care exists, it is the result of the Reagan years.

First, there is no right to good health.

Agreed. Some of us are not born with robust health and there is no one who can insulate us from the vagarities of our genes or the results of our improvident lifestyles.

Second, people have taken steps to guarantee their ability to get good health care. They don't need the government to do this for them. But, setting that aside, there is the argument that people on Medicare somehow get good coverage. Many many doctors are not taking medicare patients. Hows that working for them ?

Yes people have been getting private health insurance without direct government assistance since the fifties. This is the result of the original Blue Cross system, the Kaiser experiment, and a big boost from tax laws. It would never exist without government preferential treatment. Then there are direct medical care delivery systems run by the government (the military and VA health systems) and insurance programs run by the government (Medicare, Medicaid, CHIPS). Consistently the Kaiser Foundation and other polling shows that of the medical delivery systems available, users of direct government services rate their care highest, users of direct payer systems come in second, and private sector health insurance comes in a distant last.

Now this is the CDZ. I realize that I and you can say anything we want that trashes third parties, we are only constrained to to civil to each other, which I have done. I believe you are mistaken and given to factual errors and sloppy logic. That doesn't give me the right to be sarcastic to you or call you names. Agreed?

Can you supply some form of documentation to this claim. I am not disputing it. I'd just like to see it.

I am plenty open to you pointing out sloppy logic on my part. The time and effort it would have taken to dismantle the site referenced in the OP was beyond my level of interest and I cut it off.

Not that it matters because I would prefer to start with the general assertions on both sides and understand what is real and what is not.

At some point, a judgement must be made. For instance, we can look at the uninsured. Some are uninsured because they want to be and others are not. And yet the whole lot, along with a group of illegal aliens became the (40/50/60 million without insurance). That does not mean they all wanted to be rescued.

And yet that is what Obamacare claimed to do.

Am I wrong there ?

 

[dr.d]

Sigh...not all may "want to be rescued" while healthy...but most would like to receive medical treatment and survive when ill or hurt in accidents, attacks or natural disasters. That's what health insurance is for.
It makes absolutely no sense to believe that one is "superman" and will never require medical care.
It is also completely unrealistic to believe that everyone's health needs can be met thru personal wealth or dependance on "free" medical services thru charity or hospital ERs.
The ACA is no panacea, but it does make it possible for most Americans to access medical coverage...while utilizing existing insurance industry offering a competitive array of plans.
This is not "marxism" or "one size fits all" as detractors falsely claim...The ACA is clearly based on the bedrock American principles of private industry and competition coupled with personal responsibility of individuals.
Finally, the ACA is based on a successful healthcare model implemented by a republican governor in Massachusetts..who later ran away from it because he felt it would hurt his presidential aspirations....even tho it worked. He was wrong; and lost...whereas the advocate of ACA won.




Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Listening]

Sigh...not all may "want to be rescued" while healthy...but most would like to receive medical treatment and survive when ill or hurt in accidents, attacks or natural disasters. That's what health insurance is for.
It makes absolutely no sense to believe that one is "superman" and will never require medical care.
It is also completely unrealistic to believe that everyone's health needs can be met thru personal wealth or dependance on "free" medical services thru charity or hospital ERs.
The ACA is no panacea, but it does make it possible for most Americans to access medical coverage...while utilizing existing insurance industry offering a competitive array of plans.
This is not "marxism" or "one size fits all" as detractors falsely claim...The ACA is clearly based on the bedrock American principles of private industry and competition coupled with personal responsibility of individuals.
Finally, the ACA is based on a successful healthcare model implemented by a republican governor in Massachusetts..who later ran away from it because he felt it would hurt his presidential aspirations....even tho it worked. He was wrong; and lost...whereas the advocate of ACA won.




Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You've made a lot of claims. You've produced nothing to support them.

I'd really like to see your argument about the ACA being based on "bedrock" principles......

 

[dr.d]

Pay attention to the actual construct of the ACA...what u currently say makes me think that u haven't reviewed the law and may be just responding to opponent's "talking points"...it's not my job to school u in the actual content on the ACA...what I've said about it is true and verifiable if u actually look into it. Once u do and know what ur talking about..I'd be happy to to debate u about any issues u have about it.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[jasonnfree]

I always think of all the European countries and also Japan, that had to rebuild after WW2. Yet, they have some type of national health care system. Canada also. When you hear America's the greatest, the richest country etc. I say sure, if you can afford it. I've known people that worked jobs they didn't like, myself included, but the jobs had health care for them or their kids, and the cost of health care in the "free market" was not affordable. These are the times you can't be all you can be as the saying goes. Working a job that maybe you hate, not able to realize your full potential. This is the reality of millions of people today in America. Don't forget, America is like 33rd in health care in the world. Nothing to be proud of. I just wish Obama would have pushed for single payer instead of ACA which keeps the for profit corporations in the game.

 

[Faun]

Sigh...not all may "want to be rescued" while healthy...but most would like to receive medical treatment and survive when ill or hurt in accidents, attacks or natural disasters. That's what health insurance is for.
It makes absolutely no sense to believe that one is "superman" and will never require medical care.
It is also completely unrealistic to believe that everyone's health needs can be met thru personal wealth or dependance on "free" medical services thru charity or hospital ERs.
The ACA is no panacea, but it does make it possible for most Americans to access medical coverage...while utilizing existing insurance industry offering a competitive array of plans.
This is not "marxism" or "one size fits all" as detractors falsely claim...The ACA is clearly based on the bedrock American principles of private industry and competition coupled with personal responsibility of individuals.
Finally, the ACA is based on a successful healthcare model implemented by a republican governor in Massachusetts..who later ran away from it because he felt it would hurt his presidential aspirations....even tho it worked. He was wrong; and lost...whereas the advocate of ACA won.




Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You've made a lot of claims. You've produced nothing to support them.

I'd really like to see your argument about the ACA being based on "bedrock" principles......

He said it is based on the "American bedrock" principle of "private industry and competition coupled with personal responsibility of individuals." You dispute those are "bedrock" principles of America? He also pointed out that the ACA is based on the successful healthcare plan implemented in Massachusetts, which is also true.

 

[Defiant1]

Sigh...not all may "want to be rescued" while healthy...but most would like to receive medical treatment and survive when ill or hurt in accidents, attacks or natural disasters. That's what health insurance is for.
It makes absolutely no sense to believe that one is "superman" and will never require medical care.
It is also completely unrealistic to believe that everyone's health needs can be met thru personal wealth or dependance on "free" medical services thru charity or hospital ERs.
The ACA is no panacea, but it does make it possible for most Americans to access medical coverage...while utilizing existing insurance industry offering a competitive array of plans.
This is not "marxism" or "one size fits all" as detractors falsely claim...The ACA is clearly based on the bedrock American principles of private industry and competition coupled with personal responsibility of individuals.
Finally, the ACA is based on a successful healthcare model implemented by a republican governor in Massachusetts..who later ran away from it because he felt it would hurt his presidential aspirations....even tho it worked. He was wrong; and lost...whereas the advocate of ACA won.




Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You've made a lot of claims. You've produced nothing to support them.

I'd really like to see your argument about the ACA being based on "bedrock" principles......

He said it is based on the "American bedrock" principle of "private industry and competition coupled with personal responsibility of individuals." You dispute those are "bedrock" principles of America? He also pointed out that the ACA is based on the successful healthcare plan implemented in Massachusetts, which is also true.

Except when the government mandates something it removes personal responsibility of individuals and the bedrock crumbles.

 

[Bfgrn]

You've made a lot of claims. You've produced nothing to support them.

I'd really like to see your argument about the ACA being based on "bedrock" principles......

He said it is based on the "American bedrock" principle of "private industry and competition coupled with personal responsibility of individuals." You dispute those are "bedrock" principles of America? He also pointed out that the ACA is based on the successful healthcare plan implemented in Massachusetts, which is also true.

Except when the government mandates something it removes personal responsibility of individuals and the bedrock crumbles.

We'll let the Heritage Foundation, the original author of the individual mandate explain it to you.

1994
Personal Freedom, Responsibility, And Mandates
by Robert E. Moffit

The national debate on universal health coverage is the latest incarnation of an ancient, enduring question of political philosophy: reconciling personal liberty and the authority of the State. It is the central problem of American political culture and is at the heart of nearly every major constitutional conflict in our history.

Americans-heirs of a classical liberal tradition, grounded in the political philosophy of John Locke and the spirit of Thomas Jefferson, in which personal freedom is paramount - harbor a deep distrust of governmental authority. We do not automatically assume that the individual is or should be subordinate to society, whether the issue is literary censorship or economic regulation. Therefore, any political limitation on personal freedom, regardless of prevailing wisdom, prejudices, or majority interests, must be based on a compelling argument.

The Taxpayer Mandate

Policy analysts at The Heritage Foundation have wrestled incessantly with this problem, while developing a “consumer choice” plan for comprehensive health system reform, now embodied in a major legislative proposal. Only after extensive analysis of the peculiar distortions of the health insurance market did Heritage scholars reluctantly agree to an individual mandate.

On this point, some observations are in order. First, much of the debate over whether we should have a mandate is, in a sense, a debate over a “metaphysical abstraction.” For all practical purposes, we already have a powerful and increasingly oppressive mandate: a mandate on taxpayers.

We all pay for the health care of those who do not pay, in two ways. First, people with private insurance pay through that insurance–even though that insurance is often the property of employers under current law. This reflects the ever-higher costs shifted to offset the billions of dollars of costs of uncompensated care in hospitals, clinics, and physicians’ offices. Second, if those who are uninsured get seriously ill and are forced to spend down their assets to cope with their huge medical bills, their care is paid for, not through employer-based or private insurance premiums, but through taxes, money taken by federal and state tax collectors to fund Medicaid or other public assistance programs that serve the poor or those impoverished because of a serious illness.

Hospitals also have legal obligations to accept and care for those who enter seeking assistance. No responsible public official is proposing repeal of these statutory provisions, and very few physicians, if any, are prepared to deny treatment to persons seeking their help merely because they cannot afford to pay. As taxpayers and subscribers to private health insurance, the American people pick up these bills.

Aside from current economic arrangements, the entire moral and cultural tenor of our society reinforces the taxpayer mandate. Those who are uninsured and cannot pay for their care will be cared for, and those who are insured and working will pay for that care.

So, we already have a mandate. But it is both inefficient and unfair.

A Snare And A Delusion

Employer-based health insurance in this country is the product of wartime economic and tax policy of the 1940s. There is no reason why health reform in the 1990s should be governed by those unique circumstances and outdated tax policies.

Uwe Reinhardt and Alan Krueger tell us that the tax treatment of employment-based health insurance now is sharply regressive. And, Mark Pauly confirms, it contributes to market distortions, high costs, and lack of portability in health insurance. Americans today get tax relief for health insurance on only one condition: that they get it from their employer. This has tied health insurance to the workplace in a way that no other insurance is treated. It means that if we lose or change a job, we lose our health coverage.

Pauly also tells us that employer-based insurance hides the true costs of health care. Thus, there is no normal collision between the forces of supply and demand on even the most basic level. Most workers do not purchase health insurance; it is purchased by somebody else, usually the company. For most workers, it is a “free good,” an extra, that automatically comes with the job. At least, we live with that comfortable illusion. But, in fact, it is not free at all, and the employer gives us nothing. Because too many people think that the employer’s contribution is the employer’s money and not theirs, the consumer’s perception is distorted (as is the provider’s), and health spending is not subject to market discipline. Likewise, because too many people still do not understand this reality, “hidden taxes” through the employer mandate are politically attractive. Such a mandate thus serves as a psychological snare and an economic delusion.

Karen Davis and Cathy Schoen suggest a payroll tax to finance reform, whereby the employer pays 8 percent and the employee pays 2 percent. If one of our tasks is to make the true costs transparent, this suggestion does not help very much.

In his otherwise enlightening paper, Reinhardt calls attention to the virtues of a “mandated purchase” of health insurance. And he warns that calling an employer’s “mandated purchase” a “tax” comes close to debasing the English language. But, in a similar context, Reinhardt uses the word contribution to describe suspiciously similar functions. Suffice it to say, the campaign for linguistic precision is hardly advanced by using the word contribution to describe the state’s forcible extraction of citizens’ money.

In another context, Reinhardt proposes perhaps the best single reform idea to date. He suggests a simple financial disclosure on the part of the nation’s employers, requiring every employer to put periodically on the pay stub of every worker in America something like the following: “We have paid you X thousand dollars in health benefits. This has reduced your wages by X thousand dollars.” We would add: “Have a nice day!„

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/13/2/101.full.pdf

 

[Defiant1]

Why do you think I should agree with the 1994 Heritage Foundation?

I don't.

 

[dr.d]

I always think of all the European countries and also Japan, that had to rebuild after WW2. Yet, they have some type of national health care system. Canada also. When you hear America's the greatest, the richest country etc. I say sure, if you can afford it. I've known people that worked jobs they didn't like, myself included, but the jobs had health care for them or their kids, and the cost of health care in the "free market" was not affordable. These are the times you can't be all you can be as the saying goes. Working a job that maybe you hate, not able to realize your full potential. This is the reality of millions of people today in America. Don't forget, America is like 33rd in health care in the world. Nothing to be proud of. I just wish Obama would have pushed for single payer instead of ACA which keeps the for profit corporations in the game.

I hear u...and would have preferred single payor myself. Obama's administration DID put out feelers in that respect by offering a "public option", which got shouted down by screams of "socialism" and "tyranny"...
Funny, the same thing happened when the ACA was introduced, even tho it's clearly based on increasing access to the the existing insurance market and providing more choice for consumers...
My impression is that Obama hoped that implementing a health plan successfully done by a GOP governor (Romney in MA) based on competitive market principles and conservative ideas...would fly w the GOP and thereby garner their support.
It didn't happen. Howcome?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Defiant1]

I always think of all the European countries and also Japan, that had to rebuild after WW2. Yet, they have some type of national health care system. Canada also. When you hear America's the greatest, the richest country etc. I say sure, if you can afford it. I've known people that worked jobs they didn't like, myself included, but the jobs had health care for them or their kids, and the cost of health care in the "free market" was not affordable. These are the times you can't be all you can be as the saying goes. Working a job that maybe you hate, not able to realize your full potential. This is the reality of millions of people today in America. Don't forget, America is like 33rd in health care in the world. Nothing to be proud of. I just wish Obama would have pushed for single payer instead of ACA which keeps the for profit corporations in the game.

I hear u...and would have preferred single payor myself. Obama's administration DID put out feelers in that respect by offering a "public option", which got shouted down by screams of "socialism" and "tyranny"...
Funny, the same thing happened when the ACA was introduced, even tho it's clearly based on increasing access to the the existing insurance market and providing more choice for consumers...
My impression is that Obama hoped that implementing a health plan successfully done by a GOP governor (Romney in MA) based on competitive market principles and conservative ideas...would fly w the GOP and thereby garner their support.
It didn't happen. Howcome?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Do you understand anything about Massachusetts politics, the making of the Mass healthcare law, the Honorable Mitt Romney, and the back stabbing democrats?

 

[oldfart]

I was reading some arguments for and against Obamacare and this one seemed to carry quite a large number of sloppy arguments in the debate.

I would agree that seeking well reasoned arguments for or against the ACA results in a lot of Star Trek moments ("Beam me up, Scotty; there's no intelligent life down here"). Huffington Post picks up a lot of material from other sources, some of it excellent and some of it pretty terrible. Most online news sources have a similar problem.



No, it is a right created in a Reagan administration law. Any hospital accepting Hill-Burton and similar federal funds cannot turn away any patient with a condition which threatens life or severe bodily harm. They can stabilize and transfer a patient, but only to another facility that has agreed to accept them. "Dumping" patients is illegal.

Now this obviously covers heart attacks, car accidents, and impending births, but is short of guaranteeing anyone anything remotely close to what we would call adequate health care. But it does take "Let them die!" off the table. So to the extent that a limited "right" to health care exists, it is the result of the Reagan years.



Agreed. Some of us are not born with robust health and there is no one who can insulate us from the vagarities of our genes or the results of our improvident lifestyles.

Second, people have taken steps to guarantee their ability to get good health care. They don't need the government to do this for them. But, setting that aside, there is the argument that people on Medicare somehow get good coverage. Many many doctors are not taking medicare patients. Hows that working for them ?

Yes people have been getting private health insurance without direct government assistance since the fifties. This is the result of the original Blue Cross system, the Kaiser experiment, and a big boost from tax laws. It would never exist without government preferential treatment. Then there are direct medical care delivery systems run by the government (the military and VA health systems) and insurance programs run by the government (Medicare, Medicaid, CHIPS). Consistently the Kaiser Foundation and other polling shows that of the medical delivery systems available, users of direct government services rate their care highest, users of direct payer systems come in second, and private sector health insurance comes in a distant last.

Now this is the CDZ. I realize that I and you can say anything we want that trashes third parties, we are only constrained to to civil to each other, which I have done. I believe you are mistaken and given to factual errors and sloppy logic. That doesn't give me the right to be sarcastic to you or call you names. Agreed?

Can you supply some form of documentation to this claim. I am not disputing it. I'd just like to see it.

I am plenty open to you pointing out sloppy logic on my part. The time and effort it would have taken to dismantle the site referenced in the OP was beyond my level of interest and I cut it off.

Not that it matters because I would prefer to start with the general assertions on both sides and understand what is real and what is not.

At some point, a judgement must be made. For instance, we can look at the uninsured. Some are uninsured because they want to be and others are not. And yet the whole lot, along with a group of illegal aliens became the (40/50/60 million without insurance). That does not mean they all wanted to be rescued.

And yet that is what Obamacare claimed to do.

Am I wrong there ?

I'm currently getting slammed at work and let this thread fall between the cracks. But I thought you might find this interesting:

An Analysis of Survey Data from 11 Countries Finds That "Satisfaction" with Health System Performance Means Many Things - The Commonwealth Fund

 

[Faun]

You've made a lot of claims. You've produced nothing to support them.

I'd really like to see your argument about the ACA being based on "bedrock" principles......

He said it is based on the "American bedrock" principle of "private industry and competition coupled with personal responsibility of individuals." You dispute those are "bedrock" principles of America? He also pointed out that the ACA is based on the successful healthcare plan implemented in Massachusetts, which is also true.

Except when the government mandates something it removes personal responsibility of individuals and the bedrock crumbles.

Feel free to explain how having health insurance, which most Americans already had, removes personal responsibility and crumbled that bedrock of principles.

 

[Flopper]

I was reading some arguments for and against Obamacare and this one seemed to carry quite a large number of sloppy arguments in the debate.

Why Universal Health Care Is Our Inalienable Right | Sanjay Sanghoee

Here is my analysis from some of the statements this guy makes.

In the political firestorm over the ungainly rollout of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, one central question that should be front and center in our national debate seems to have receded into the background, and that is whether universal health care is a fundamental right or a privilege.​

Garbage. His first assertion and it's already off the cliff. People have been making this claim since Hillarycare the rebuttals are just as frequent. It was Obama who said it was a right.

Does Sanghoee want to tell us what his definition of rights are ? Usually a definition of rights includes some statement of universal application. Does everyone have health care ? No.

Sanghoee then goes on to some pretend to utilize the some kind constitutional argument to justify....what I can't tell.

He states:

The reason that Americans are so divided on this issue is that the right to good health (which can only be ensured through guaranteed health care) is not mentioned in any of our founding documents. Unlike life, liberty, and happiness, which are protected by the Declaration of Independence, or the right to free speech, which is protected by the Constitution, our health is seemingly on its own, and therein lies the problem. We are so mired in the literal interpretation of our founding documents that we easily forget a number of important things:​

Again, bullpuckey.

Where is his justification for this claim.

Let's step back and look at his comment on how only through guaranteed health care can people realize a right to good health.

Did he even proofread his argument ? First, there is no right to good health. Second, people have taken steps to guarantee their ability to get good health care. They don't need the government to do this for them. But, setting that aside, there is the argument that people on Medicare somehow get good coverage. Many many doctors are not taking medicare patients. Hows that working for them ?

But birdbrain then goes on to say:

Our founding framework was never meant to be a static structure but a living contract amongst the citizens of the United States that evolved over time to serve the best interests of the people.

The Constitution does not explicitly describe every right that we enjoy; such as, for example, the right to privacy. Amendments such as the Fourth, which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, and the Fifth, which confers a right against self-incrimination and other due process rights, light the way to privacy but do not mention it directly. And yet nobody would ever question that it is still a right.

If life, liberty, and happiness are indeed so important, then it stands to reason that health, which dictates the quality of our life and determines our ability to enjoy liberty and pursue happiness, is equally crucial to our welfare.​

You bet. There was a process set up to modify it. Where was Obama in that ? Where is our amendment ? The right to privacy is a manufactured piece of crap. Lots of people deny it's existence.

And then there is the tired argument against his last point that food should come before health care. Where is Obama on that topic...and why has Songhoee ignored that fact.

He then goes on to satisfy his need to look stupid by making further arguments which you can read. The founders didn't know there would be huge costs of health care...so they didn't include them. OMG. What a tard.

This guy hasn't got a clue.

Neither do most.

As dblack has pointed on many occasions...it is definitions or a lack of agreement on definitions that cause people issues.

In this thread, I'd like to develop that list. We could have used some from Mr. Sloopy as he attempted to look smart.....

First, just what is health care ? In other words, just what do you have a right to have ? How will we know when someone has been granted this right ? I'll wait for the left to explain. We'll then tear into that one for starters.

There is no statement in the constitution stating that you have the right to healthcare or for that matter other commonly accepted rights. Healthcare can only be an implied right.

Implied rights may be derived from a particular definition of key words or certain phrases. Implied rights are identified and explained by the High Court, in cases where it is required to interpret the Constitution.

If you believe that constitutional rights are limited solely to those spelled out in the text of the Constitution, you must be able to defend the absence of a right to privacy, rights to travel, right to a fair trial, ect....

 

[Listening]

Pay attention to the actual construct of the ACA...what u currently say makes me think that u haven't reviewed the law and may be just responding to opponent's "talking points"...it's not my job to school u in the actual content on the ACA...what I've said about it is true and verifiable if u actually look into it. Once u do and know what ur talking about..I'd be happy to to debate u about any issues u have about it.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

This thread is about the sloppy arguments made in either direction with the link being a prime example.

It is all over the place and appeals to a great many things that are pretty meaningless in terms of being forceful in their impact.

It isn't about the ACA. Please go back and reread the OP for what I said...not what you think I said.

In reading through the posts to this thread...it appears that once again we have a ready fire (well forget the ready part) aim.

This isn't about the ACA...it is about the way we argue for or against it.

Can I get someone to acknowledge that is what I posted as the point of the ACA ?