Health Care Is A Right Not a Privilege!

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Will you wear a funny hat too?

if I said or implied that our military founded the Tigris and Euphrates I'll pay you $10,000. Bet

But what about the hat? No deal without the hat.

if I said or implied that our military founded the Tigris and Euphrates I'll pay you $10,000. Bet

 

[dblack]

if I said or implied that our military founded the Tigris and Euphrates I'll pay you $10,000. Bet

But what about the hat? No deal without the hat.

if I said or implied that our military founded the Tigris and Euphrates I'll pay you $10,000. Bet

No hat, no bet.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

But what about the hat? No deal without the hat.

if I said or implied that our military founded the Tigris and Euphrates I'll pay you $10,000. Bet

No hat, no bet.

if I said or implied that our military founded the Tigris and Euphrates I'll pay you $10,000. Bet

 

[dadsgm]

Health Care Is A Right Not a Privilege!

Let's be clear. Our health care system is disintegrating. Today, 46 million people have no health insurance and even more are underinsured with high deductibles and co-payments. At a time when 60 million people, including many with insurance, do not have access to a medical home, more than 18,000 Americans die every year from preventable illnesses because they do not get to the doctor when they should. This is six times the number who died at the tragedy of 9/11 - but this occurs every year.

In the midst of this horrendous lack of coverage, the U.S. spends far more per capita on health care than any other nation - and health care costs continue to soar. At $2.4 trillion dollars, and 18 percent of our GDP, the skyrocketing cost of health care in this country is unsustainable both from a personal and macro-economic perspective.

Sen. Bernie Sanders: Health Care Is a Right, Not a Privilege

I do not care what Sanders said. He did not grant nor can he grant anyone a 'right'. Besides those rights mentioned in the Constitution you are guaranteed the 'right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'. No where are you guaranteed something for nothing; you can get an education and with that and your drive you can pursue and accomplish what you are driven to. Be a slacker and you have earned the right to be a slacker and receive the minimum that life has to offer and do not expect the rest of us to pay your way.

 

[Political Junky]

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.

No other civilized nation lets its citizens die rather than provide medical care to them.

 

[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.

No other civilized nation lets its citizens die rather than provide medical care to them.

How many people, would you say, you've let die this week?

 

[Listening]

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.

No other civilized nation lets its citizens die rather than provide medical care to them.

Bullshit.

The British are more than willing to let the elderly past a certain age die. They provide palitive care say get your stuff together and move on.

Death Panel Update British Journal Article Recommends Dehydrating Dementia Patients to Death to Save Money The Gateway Pundit

 

[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.

No other civilized nation lets its citizens die rather than provide medical care to them.

How many people, would you say, you've let die this week?

To clarify, I don't expect you to answer this question. But I'm hoping that, in trying to, you might recognize how your above comment is incoherent. What does it actually mean for you, or society, or a 'civilized nation', to "let" someone die?

 

[Political Junky]

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.

No other civilized nation lets its citizens die rather than provide medical care to them.

Bullshit.

The British are more than willing to let the elderly past a certain age die. They provide palitive care say get your stuff together and move on.

Death Panel Update British Journal Article Recommends Dehydrating Dementia Patients to Death to Save Money The Gateway Pundit

Could you have found a more biased source to quote?

 

[Listening]

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.

No other civilized nation lets its citizens die rather than provide medical care to them.

Bullshit.

The British are more than willing to let the elderly past a certain age die. They provide palitive care say get your stuff together and move on.

Death Panel Update British Journal Article Recommends Dehydrating Dementia Patients to Death to Save Money The Gateway Pundit

Could you have found a more biased source to quote?

A. You are not refuting it ? Or can we expect more later....

B. All you need do is google the general idea of old people in England and you'll get a months worth of reading material....

Hospitals letting patients die to save money rsquo - Telegraph

Or you can go in the other direction where some Japs think old people should hurry up and die.

I wonder if Alan "The Jerkwad" Grayson will say anything about this ?

Japan should let old hurry up and die minister - Business Insider

 

[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.

No other civilized nation lets its citizens die rather than provide medical care to them.

Bullshit.

The British are more than willing to let the elderly past a certain age die. They provide palitive care say get your stuff together and move on.

Death Panel Update British Journal Article Recommends Dehydrating Dementia Patients to Death to Save Money The Gateway Pundit

Could you have found a more biased source to quote?

It's a well known fact to those of us who are not ignorant with an axe to grind.

Patients starve and die of thirst on hospital wards - Telegraph

Gastroparesis Mother-of-two with paralysed stomach fears she will starve to death after NHS Trust refuse op Mail Online

Premature baby left to die by doctors after mother gives birth just two days before 22-week care limit Mail Online

No treatment for smokers or the obese Doctors back measures to deny procedures for those with unhealthier lifestyles Mail Online

NHS care Hospitals treat elderly like slabs of meat Mail Online

I don't know why this is so hard for the left, and yet so obvious for me.

If you have limited resources, and you simply can't supply unlimited care to everyone, because you are constrained by the limited resources.... it is unavoidable unless you live in a mythical Leftard Utopia..... That you are going to ration care.

You are going to look at two people who have the same needs, and say... hmmm... one person is 90 and the other 20, which do you give the operation too? The one who you could treat and cure, and could end up dead the next day of old age, or the guy who is only 20 with the rest of his life ahead of him?

See, in a socialist system, that's problem right there. Limited fund. Can't treat everyone. Have to make choices.

So two people walk in need critical care, and one is 400 lbs, and the other is 150 lbs, who do you treat? The guy who is going to end up with all kinds of health problems anyway, or the guy who is eating responsibly? Or one is smoking and the other is not?

There simply isn't enough money in the world, to give everyone unlimited care. So naturally in a socialized system, one is screwed, and left to die, treated like a 'slab of meat' and the other is given all the care he needs.

In a Capitalist system, the amount of money is dynamic. I can get the money and pay for the care. I can buy insurance, and pay for the care. Or I can get the care, and get billed, and pay the bill for the care.

In a Capitalist system almost everyone get's the care.

In the socialist system, the amount of money is static. Thus you are either lucky and get the care, or you die. But not everyone get's the care. There simply isn't the money for that.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear @dblack and @EdwardBaiamonte or @EdwardBaiamonte
Sorry I cannot follow this new format too well.
If this msg is totally out of sync with where the thread was, or when I last posted, pls forgive
me for jumping in wherever I could find a spot and starting there.

that things like the price and quality of services available, and how our health and lifespans, are legitimate concerns of government.

of course they are concerns of govt since the govt represents us. And it is a concern to us the people since most of the planet is certain that govt can better the lives of people!

Against our will even!

In response to the quotes above where I'm rejumping in
(EB was emphasizing how important it is to fix the health care economics that are burdened with
excess cost or waste, and DB was contesting that just because this is a concern for people/govt
does not mean to impose policies "against the will of the people")

What I find going on, in addition the actual issue at hand with the financial mismanagement
and waste of resources in health care/medical services,

is that
* people who assume the govt represents their view THINK they are helping and doing the right thing
by using govt to implement what they consider improvements and solutions
* people who see better ways to fix it and/or who believe the people is the PRIVATE sector
see this use of govt as unnecessary infringement and even burdening and taking
ability and resources AWAY from the people/private sector who can make the changes more effectively

So the clash to address first is the issue of trusting govt or trusting people to correct the problem,
instead of ASSUMING either way: either ASSUMING govt is the "ONLY WAY" to address it publicly,
or ASSUMING that everyone can trust people/businesses to fix things on their own without being
punished or regulated by govt.

Why not have BOTH and let people CHOOSE which way they want to go?

Why not let those who want to work with PRIVATE business, schools, nonprofits, etc. invest and deduct from taxes using THOSE means of fixing problems with health care access funding and efficiency

And why not let those who WANT to mainstream everything equally through govt fund their own
systems that are first developed and perfected by THOSE people, such as by party?

So why not QUIT fighting over how people want to approach this as "THE PEOPLE"

* let those who see People as Govt set up their own mandated system and MAKE IT WORK
where people CHOOSE to participate because they believe in this way

* let those who see People as Individuals in Private Business and Sectors and MAKE IT WORK
where we all work FREELY by FREE MARKET to set up a good working system
BEFORE implementing the parts into govt we agree are resolved and good to go.

Teh first step seems to be to QUIT this fight over Govt taking away the liberties
and choice of resources from people WILLING to fix the problems WITHOUT being forced
mandated or regulated by Govt AGAINST our will, especially when we have solutions that
either work better or CANNOT be implemented by Govt such as spiritual healing methods
that must remain a private choice. That isn't even accounted for by the liberal Democrat
politicians and party who do not recognize these methods and even seek to BAN some of them
such as reparative forms of healing therapy that have cured people of pedophile type addictions.

This isn't even recognized as valid by most Democrats I speak with, so why the *****
are Democrats making health care policies if they don't even have knowledge of how
healing works and involves spiritual elements as part of the cause and cure of sickness.

That part is beyond me. I wouldn't ask someone to make policies on complex math
if they didn't understand calculus. So that is ONE area that we definitely need to separate
belief systems by party where it is directly or indirectly affecting how we approach health care!
Both the belief or lack of understanding that spiritual decisions and methods of healing
have ANYTHING to do with the cause or cure of sickness; and the belief or nonbelief in
health care as a right through govt or health care as part of free will/free choice reserved to the people or states.

We need to address that, and not let it block the ability to address the actual health care and financial issues
underneath. The issues of beliefs are liek the huge Elephant or Donkey in the middle of the room
blocking the view, so we can't get anything done until we get that out of the way first!!!

Thank you very much
Sorry if this is thrown in wherever, but I am completely lost on this new format
so I just posted this to start somewhere, my apologies!

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear @mskafka:
The solution I see is to reward people, groups and states for coming up with their own solutions.
Instead of competing to discredit or propagandize one solutions over another, let people choose their methods and networks of affiliation to organize their own resources and systems, such as through Party.

Let members participate and fund solutions they believe in voluntarily.
And let the best solutions speak for themselves, where people will naturally gravitate and adopt solutions that work better for different situations.

There is not one size fits all. There are different methods of addressing different situations.
So let the people choose and reward the solutions that work best by allowing tax deductions
for investing in that, and quit punishing people by taking away freedom and choices and imposing
ways they don't agree with just because it is assumed that nothing else will fix the problems.

I'm still waiting for compelling stats showing that unpaid care is a major source of health care inflation. I haven't seen it yet. What I've seen is that most uninsured people do pay their bills, even if they don't have all of it up front. EMTALA only requires immediate emergency care, not long term life-sustaining services.

It's not lack of insurance that's making prices go up. If anything, it's the opposite. It's our national habit of over-insuring that's driving health care inflation. There is virtually no downward price pressure from health care consumer who are 'covered' by standard group plans. In fact, they have exactly the opposite incentive. Once their deductible is met, it's entirely in their interests to seek the best, and the most expensive care they can arrange.

That's what makes the mandate doubly damning. Not only is a blatant abuse of the consumers right to refuse to purchase products they don't want, it's actually doubling down a health care financing strategy that's a proven failure.



I'm always sort of fascinated by these kinds of comments. You often hear similar disparaging remarks about people who are opposed to heavily progressive taxes - even while they themselves aren't wealthy. Have you ever considered that some people don't view politics from a "what's-in-it-for-me" perspective? Some of us are genuinely worried about what kind of world these policy changes will create. What kind of legacy will we be leaving our children? What kind of debt? What will life be like under a caretaker government? Will there be any room left for people who value freedom as much as security?

Here is one link. If you aren't familiar, this is our teaching hospital and Level-One trauma Center in Middle Tennessee:

Vanderbilt University Medical Center - VUMC Bears Brunt of Uncompensated Care Burden



This is in Nashville, TN alone. Where does the money come from to cover this? Government? Wouldn't that mean basically....us? Feel free to dispute me.

Pretty astounding numbers, I would say. Disagree?

No disagreement with the numbers, but both of you are missing my point. I'm not questioning that it's a significant amount. What I am questioning is how it's affecting health care inflation. No doubt those costs are passed on, but it's overhead. And overhead is relatively static. It may make health care more expensive than it needs to be, but it doesn't account for continually rising prices.

Moreover, I'm questioning how a mandate would change things. We'll still be spending just as much to care for the indigent. (actually, probably more - insurance companies take a cut as middle men).

To me there are two separate questions at the heart of the health care debate. One, is what we do about people who can't afford health care. And the other is what to do about runaway health care inflation. Reasonable safety nets for the poor can address the first issue. But by ignoring the inflation issue, PPACA pretty much guarantees that we'll need a safety net big enough for all of us. I suspect that's the point.

Good post, my man. You're making me think. You have a brain, and a heart....a rare combination. I wish that I knew the answer. Clearly, a single-payer system is not popular in the US. I understand this. So if this is such a bad idea....and Obamacare is such a bad idea....PRESENT ANOTHER IDEA....ANYONE. Someone with business sense, who fully understands the health insurance system, and who isn't going to suggest that we hand a neurologist a chicken after an exam. Let's have some real answers.

And just as a side note: most of us don't go into healthcare for the money. I'm a paramedic. I sure as HELL didn't go into it for the money. But I treat everyone the same-insured, uninsured....stinky, pleasant-smelling, wealthy and poor. And I'll tell ya-the rich of the world-the puke, piss, and shit smells just as bad as everyone else's. I know, as I've smelled and worn both. So let's come up with a solution, and present it to these bozos in congress.

We have brilliant people in here. Help come up with a solution.

 

[Stephanie]

I'm 60 years old and I've never seen it written in our constitution...that I have to pay for my family's healthecare and your families healthcare on top of mine

Do you people really not care you're living off the BACKS of others?

are you that pathetic and hopeless as a human being you can't TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF?

 

[emilynghiem]

I'm 60 years old and I've never seen it written in our constitution...that I have to pay for my family's healthecare and your families healthcare on top of mine

Do you people really not care you're living off the BACKS of others?

are you that pathetic and hopeless as a human being you can't TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF?

Hi @Stephanie! Thanks for bringing up the root issue and conflict
that should be addressed first. If we can agree to separate by beliefs/views, then everyone
can work separately to solve health care issues their own ways without competing or infringing
on each other!

The FIRST step is to recognize the inherent difference in people's beliefs that many of them CANNOT change, but just accept we don't see things the same way, much like theists and atheists just see things differently and it can't be forced by govt:

A. the liberals/Democrats who do NOT assume or see that "natural rights" come from God apart from Govt, so they depend on Govt instead of relying on free will and free market choice

B. the conservatives who DO see that freedom and responsibility comes from God first, and govt is supposed to respect that. So this whole business of "health care rights inherently built into and managed by Govt" is as FOREIGN to conservative Constitutionalists as
atheism is to theists or theism is to atheists!

We are getting NOWHERE trying to impose A on B, or B on A.

we need to SEPARATE and respect each other's beliefs, especially because we do not agree and just can't make sense of each other's views!

If we can agree to do that, we have a chance to resolve all other issues by getting out of each other's way. Let the liberals and Democrats set up their way of doing things through elected reps and policies for the group by party; let the conservatives and Constitutionalists set up free market ways that do not involve govt infringing on liberties and management of private groups and networks that can manage things more effectively by local jurisdictions; and let the Greens and Libertarians set up sustainable independent networks, and let citizens and members choose their affiliations to follow and fund, just like any other religious program.

Health care involves spiritual understanding and beliefs, so this cannot be legislated all "one way" by govt, any more than we could take a religion and nationalize it for all people.

People do not agree spiritually or religiously on
* the role of spiritual healing in health care including reparative therapy which the
Democrats push to ban while Republicans in TX offered to protect this as a free choice
(and the opposite with abortion where Democrats want to protect teh free choice
but prolife Republicans and Democrats want to regulate or ban it as not a choice)
* the role of govt or free market in whether health care is a right or a responsibility
* how to pay for health care, where some people would rather not make inmates work to pay for their costs but have no problem charging law abiding taxpayers to pay for that; and I am the opposite where I would hold wrongdoers responsible for their own costs and not keep imposing burdens on the taxpayers who do follow the laws just because it is convenient for govt.

Since I do not agree religiously or spiritually with the policies of the Democrat Party
I do not see how this party can be forced by law on anyone when it is clearly political
beliefs; the same way religious beliefs should not be imposed by law or govt.

We need to make this point and reach an agreement, and everything else can be
worked out after we agree to respect and separate by beliefs and/or by party. period!

 

[Stephanie]

I'm 60 years old and I've never seen it written in our constitution...that I have to pay for my family's healthecare and your families healthcare on top of mine

Do you people really not care you're living off the BACKS of others?

are you that pathetic and hopeless as a human being you can't TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF?

Hi @Stephanie! Thanks for bringing up the root issue and conflict
that should be addressed first. If we can agree to separate by beliefs/views, then everyone
can work separately to solve health care issues their own ways without competing or infringing
on each other!

The FIRST step is to recognize the inherent difference in people's beliefs that many of them CANNOT change, but just accept we don't see things the same way, much like theists and atheists just see things differently and it can't be forced by govt:

A. the liberals/Democrats who do NOT assume or see that "natural rights" come from God apart from Govt, so they depend on Govt instead of relying on free will and free market choice

B. the conservatives who DO see that freedom and responsibility comes from God first, and govt is supposed to respect that. So this whole business of "health care rights inherently built into and managed by Govt" is as FOREIGN to conservative Constitutionalists as
atheism is to theists or theism is to atheists!

We are getting NOWHERE trying to impose A on B, or B on A.

we need to SEPARATE and respect each other's beliefs, especially because we do not agree and just can't make sense of each other's views!

If we can agree to do that, we have a chance to resolve all other issues by getting out of each other's way. Let the liberals and Democrats set up their way of doing things through elected reps and policies for the group by party; let the conservatives and Constitutionalists set up free market ways that do not involve govt infringing on liberties and management of private groups and networks that can manage things more effectively by local jurisdictions; and let the Greens and Libertarians set up sustainable independent networks, and let citizens and members choose their affiliations to follow and fund, just like any other religious program.

Health care involves spiritual understanding and beliefs, so this cannot be legislated all "one way" by govt, any more than we could take a religion and nationalize it for all people.

People do not agree spiritually or religiously on
* the role of spiritual healing in health care including reparative therapy which the
Democrats push to ban while Republicans in TX offered to protect this as a free choice
(and the opposite with abortion where Democrats want to protect teh free choice
but prolife Republicans and Democrats want to regulate or ban it as not a choice)
* the role of govt or free market in whether health care is a right or a responsibility
* how to pay for health care, where some people would rather not make inmates work to pay for their costs but have no problem charging law abiding taxpayers to pay for that; and I am the opposite where I would hold wrongdoers responsible for their own costs and not keep imposing burdens on the taxpayers who do follow the laws just because it is convenient for govt.

Since I do not agree religiously or spiritually with the policies of the Democrat Party
I do not see how this party can be forced by law on anyone when it is clearly political
beliefs; the same way religious beliefs should not be imposed by law or govt.

We need to make this point and reach an agreement, and everything else can be
worked out after we agree to respect and separate by beliefs and/or by party. period!

well that's all nice and sweet but you already know that isn't going to happen. Obama and Democrats laid this new "Entitlement" which is all ObamaCare is. On our backs against our will and with NOT one Republican vote. so the time to come together as I see it IS OVER. now it's time to fight down and DIRTY politics just like the Democrat/progressive/commie party and their sheep followers do

 

[Stephanie]

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.

And you claim you served?
OUR taxes should go the military as that is the one function that "government" SUPPOSE TO do, they took an oath to protect and serve the PEOPLE of the country, not the ones where they go around telling others what they can eat and drink

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

agree to respect and separate by beliefs and/or by party. period!

yes, we should respect and separate as much as possible but liberals are 100% opposed. They are naturally violent and want to use govt violence to impose their will and taxes on everybody else regardless of their beliefs.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

our incredibly bloated and outdated military.

can you present your best example of this or is it merely a lie?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

OUR taxes should go the military

Especially now that so much of the world falling apart and now that we are spending so little on the military as a percent of GDP.