Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Boss, Sep 9, 2016.
Let's approach this another way, sparky. In the spirit of the OP, answer this... What is your health and well-being worth to you? Let's say you have some kind of treatable and non-terminal condition that requires medical attention but without it, you're going to die... what price are you willing to pay personally for the treatment to cure you? What is your limit... the amount you would no longer be willing to pay?
I think most people would probably say there is no price you can put on your health. Whatever amount it takes, it would be worth it to you. If it bankrupts you or if you have to pay for it the rest of your life... doesn't matter. You would agree to pay whatever the cost to preserve your health.
Now... let's ask someone who doesn't know you and has never met you and probably never will. How much do you believe your health is worth to them? How much are they willing to pay to ensure you are cured? How much would they consider "too much" for them personally to pay? I think you'll find there is a BIG difference in perspectives. And this is the problem we face with the question of nationalized health care.
I know it sounds like a great idea to spread everyone's health care costs around so we all pay for it but the problem is perspectives of worth. You value the worth of your personal health care more than anyone. Turn it all over to a government bureaucracy and you'll discover that others don't share your perspective of worth, especially a faceless, soulless government entity with limited resources.
A fair Q Boss
It would appear you're asking, in a roundabout way, if we are our 'brothers keeper'
It's interesting in that ,we are on a global scale , yet do not subscribe to the same with our own
That said, gub'mit does not maintain the moral benchmark of human worth, social zeitgeist does & always has
Good health to you just the same sir
The thing is, you're still out there slinging propaganda from pre-Obamacare as if ACA never passed. You don't seem to understand you were duped into believing a bunch of trumped up nonsense so that Big Pharma and the health insurance industry could compose legislation to feather their nests on the backs of the taxpayer. It didn't solve any of the problems with regard to health care in America. Obama fans run around boasting about adding 17 million who now have health care.. well, it was supposed to add 40-50 million... and all it really did was increase Medicaid/Medicare recipients without addressing the solvency problem with that program. Most people just had a 200-400% increase in premiums and/or deductibles or lost their employer-provided health care all together. And now, the same exact people are all out there screaming and moaning that we need MORE health care legislation. They are willing to let the same politicians who screwed them the first time to screw them again because they believe the propaganda.
We have to stop this nonsense of thinking the government is going to solve all our problems. Like Reagan said, government IS the problem! Get the damn government out of our way and let free market principles solve our problems like it always can when we let it.
Health care costs are high and the reasons are simple. We demand impeccable health care. There is no econo-line when it comes to health care. We don't have a generic low-cost option. We want the best doctors, the most qualified professionals, the state-of-the-art equipment and treatment, top-shelf facilities and demanding accountability on all fronts. We don't cut corners. We're a litigious society who doesn't tolerate the least hint of malpractice or negligence. For these reasons, the cost of health care is high and there isn't a way to make it cheap, much less, FREE!
Your conjecture leads to who is subservient to who Boss. It is not the gub'mit's job to run any business because a democratic republic is not even close to the realm of it. (despite Mr Trump's insistence it is) , it is, however, their job to create a level playing field for Capitalism to exist & flourish
Thus the ADA's 'rein' on the monolthic insurance cabal , which had grown to the point where it was stronger and controlling than the 'state' itself
Definitionally ,any one entity doing so is fascist.
When you use disparaging terms like "gub'mit" it makes me think you don't really appreciate government or governmental solutions... but then, in the same breath, you lobby for the same "gub'mit" to create "fairness" for you. Guess what? They're NEVER going to do that in a FREE society!
We already have a "level playing field" ...it's called a U.S. Constitution and it lays out in no uncertain terms, our equal an unalienable rights as individuals. It grants us practically unlimited power and enumerates specific power for a functioning government. If you begin to follow any other course of reasoning, you'll end up listening to some dingbat former first lady telling you how we need "equal pay for women" or some other nonsense we've already had the past 50 years.
And I am not here to defend Donald Trump. I do not support Donald Trump. I might vote for him to keep the Marxist out of the oval office, but I simply don't support him on many of his positions. Of course the government isn't a business and isn't run like one or else you'd get votes based on how much tax you pay. But the government is also not there to be the "arbiter of fairness" in a free market capitalist system. By allowing them to be, you are are submitting more and more of your personal freedom.
This is the CDZ folks, please remember to wipe your feet. No mud slinging.
Yes in fact i do use the term to disparage them Boss, most (especially career incumbents, accounting for 90% of Congress) have little to no clue about the 'real world of capitalism' most of us survive in.
Further, their influences of lobbyists and elitist $$$ have them turn a blind eye to the 'little guy' , and side with the fortune 5's , who's entire shtick is legislating favor unto themselves...
Not what i'd call ideal 'representative' , yet they're all we got....
Said uncertainty is in that it is a living document that currently sides with corporate personhood (believing property is a person) ,again tipping the scales
Always in flux, always subject to influence, and yes Edith Bunker Clinton would most likely liberalize it into some Dante's level of socialistic h*ll
Nor would i defend the prodigal son of wall street's take on things economic. Unfortunately , the choices of who holds the reins of the free market are either one or the other, GubM'it , or the fortune 5's
Libertopia will always devolve into anarchy , even diehard Randists agree on this btw
Someone has to make the call Boss....
*sigh* My dear boy, Citizens United was a landmark ruling by SCOTUS which upheld the 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech. You see, as a result of McCain-Feingold, people were being denied their freedom of speech because they belonged to a corporation. SCOTUS ruled (correctly) that you cannot do that. It's no different than denying you freedom of speech because you belong to the Republican party, or the Boy Scouts, or Greenpeace, or Netflix. The scales were not tipped, the hand of government was removed from the scales which had been placed on them in 2002 with McCain-Feingold.
Again, this is eloquently-stated nonsense. The reins of free market are held by free people. The more government constraint, the less free people are. Large corporations tend to lean toward "corporatism" which is the collusion of capitalism and government... this is not free market capitalism and actually threatens it more than Socialism.
Separate names with a comma.