HC reform proves that the system has broken

[Bern80]

You do have a right to life...your own, just not a right to another individuals life. By the govt mandating free/low cost healthcare, they are in reality mandating someone's hard work and time to you at a price the govt choses.

I wonder if those that demand free HC because they feel it is not something one should be able to make a profit from (Health Insurance profit margins are not even in the top 35 highest). It seems the liberal mindset is that no profit should be made off of anything that people need to survive. Bear in mind this list would include grocery stores (we all need food), Water Department (we all need water) and etc.

I would like to hear a liberal's response to this. With what businesses or someone's skills do we cut the list off?

Private contractors, maybe even the auto companies.

You won't get a response because the premise has been shown already to be completely ridiculous it's basically inarguable. Truth would have to concede that point, that if a right to something means it must be provided to you then he would have to concede the same argument would require that all of us be provided a gun, since I have the right to one.

 

[code1211]

Remember which side is about to save American lives by ending pre exsisting conditions.

Which is moral how exactly? Should you get to buy auto insurance AFTER you get in a car accident?

There is one party who doesnt care and has killed healthcare reform EVERY time it has been attempted and then did NOTHING to fix it while in complete control for years.

Then there's the other party who's 'solution' is unconstitutional and will make things worse.

So, what are you saying with regard to pre-existing conditions?

Excuse me barging in. Pre-existing conditions is the one and only area in which I feel that some kind of government insurance is required. The insurance companies are in business to make money and this is impossible if they take on enough clients who will incur more costs than the policy can charge.

Insurance on homes in the coastal areas prone to being destroyed by hurricanes are insured by the government and this is a good model to follow in this case.

If a person has some allergy or emotional problem that can be controlled by medicines which are costly, that is a bad thing for them and the government could offer a policy that charged a nominal fee to enter the program and get drugs to cover the usage.

This would flatten the risk for the insurer and all by itself open the doors to insurance at normal cost for these afflicted.

Beyond that, it's simple and direct.

 

[code1211]

Healthcare is a life and death issue.

The founders wrote into our documents the right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Healthcare is a right by our founders own definition.

That right is "endowed by thier Creator". If they had meant that the State endowed that right, I'm pretty sure they would have said it that way. Unlike many today, they believed that words mean things and they continue to mean what they mean.

Also believed by our Founders was the notion that a right is something we just have. Healthcare Insurance Reform does not provide insurance. It provides the right to buy insurance.

The theives in DC just can't wait to get their sticky fingers on another 2 Trillion or so dollars.

I still can't figure out how a plan to raise insurance premiums, raise taxes, spend another trillion of money we dont't have and force every American to pony up the increased premiums will reduce costs.

If it will reduce costs, why are they raising the price of every facet of the operation?

So you contend that the founders did not intend for the American people to have the right to LIFE?????

What you contend is that the Founders, in this case Jefferson, was meaning something that he did not say. What I contend is that jefferson meant something that he did say.

Please read the entire clause to which you refer and tell me where Jefferson is saying that the state has an obligation to correct illness or to extend life.

"We hold these truths to be self evident. That all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." (I think this is a quote, but I did it from memory.)

It is apparent that Jefferson is refering to rights that are given by the Creator. If you disagree, show the reason for your disagreement by these words that Jefferson wrote. It is you who brought these words forward to support your case. Your creator has endowed you with the liberty to prove your case.

Do so.

 

[tigerbob]

Which is moral how exactly? Should you get to buy auto insurance AFTER you get in a car accident?



Then there's the other party who's 'solution' is unconstitutional and will make things worse.

So, what are you saying with regard to pre-existing conditions?

Excuse me barging in. Pre-existing conditions is the one and only area in which I feel that some kind of government insurance is required. The insurance companies are in business to make money and this is impossible if they take on enough clients who will incur more costs than the policy can charge.

Insurance on homes in the coastal areas prone to being destroyed by hurricanes are insured by the government and this is a good model to follow in this case.

If a person has some allergy or emotional problem that can be controlled by medicines which are costly, that is a bad thing for them and the government could offer a policy that charged a nominal fee to enter the program and get drugs to cover the usage.

This would flatten the risk for the insurer and all by itself open the doors to insurance at normal cost for these afflicted.

Beyond that, it's simple and direct.

Isn't that one of the reasons Blue Cross Blue Shield exists?