Is healthcare a right? why or why not?

[kellyd]

Do you consider the postal service communist, or Cuban?

yes, and a good example, like health care and education, of what happens when monopolistic bureaucratic soviet govt runs something.

And yet it wasn't designed to be a business. It was designed to serve the people. Soviet has nothing to do with it. Much like the electoral college, the postal service is made to serve rural people, disadvantaged by their distance from populated areas. Instead of perceiving it as soviet, why not celebrate it for its role as a vital national glue?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And yet it wasn't designed to be a business.

and so it costs us 4 times what it should cost us thus depriving many of the quality they could afford in a capitalist system. Do you know why everybody starved to death in USSR and Red China?? Because of the national glue you insanely talk about.

 

[kellyd]

And yet it wasn't designed to be a business.

and so it costs us 4 times what it should cost us thus depriving many of the quality they could afford in a capitalist system. Do you know why everybody starved to death in USSR and Red China?? Because of the national glue you insanely talk about.

I suppose you could argue the same thing about the armed forces? You could get the job done with private contractors, no need for pensions, etc. But would it be right?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I suppose you could argue the same thing about the armed forces?

I have heard many argue that free market consumer oriented health care is a good idea but never anyone argue that it would work for the military. care to try again??

 

[kellyd]

I suppose you could argue the same thing about the armed forces?

I have heard many argue that free market consumer oriented health care is a good idea but never anyone argue that it would work for the military. care to try again??

The military is also a socialistic system. I was following your argument logically.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The military is also a socialistic system.

actually socialism is about govt ownership control management of business not the military. Sorry to rock your world.

 

[kellyd]

The military is also a socialistic system.

actually socialism is about govt ownership control management of business not the military. Sorry to rock your world.

No, that is communism

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The military is also a socialistic system.

actually socialism is about govt ownership control management of business not the military. Sorry to rock your world.

No, that is communism

???? so what???? socialism is a stepping stone to communism according to Marx and???????????????

 

[kellyd]

The military is also a socialistic system.

actually socialism is about govt ownership control management of business not the military. Sorry to rock your world.

No, that is communism

???? so what???? socialism is a stepping stone to communism according to Marx and???????????????

Just that you seem to be picky and choosy about what is acceptable socialism

 

[Flopper]

The attempt to label various services as "rights" is disingenuous propaganda. It's a lever on the common, and correct, understanding that government's primary mission statement is to protect our rights - above all other state interests. But the real goal has nothing to do with rights, some people just want government to control health care, even if it must violate our rights to do so.

No, what most people want is healthcare that will be there when they need it regardless of their financial situation. Whether it is controlled by the state, the federal government, or whoever is not a major concern of anyone accept political pundits.

I realize that the popular consensus among liberals is that people form their political convictions primarily from self-interest. They are surprised when voters vote against programs and policies that help them personally - usually pointing to it as a sign of ignorance, and not giving them credit for any kind of broader vision. How many times will liberals be surprised by this before they start to question their assumptions?

Although the rights specified in constitution have changed little, people enjoy many rights today that are not listed in the constitution such as the right to an education, the right to marry who you choose, the right to privacy, and the right to vote.

Can I ask how you define a 'right'? You're clearly using a different definition than I am. My understanding is that rights are freedoms that are off-limits. Whatever else government may be trying to accomplish, it isn't allowed to violate individual rights in the process. Rights protect the freedom of the individual from the will of the people.

Right - a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.

Inalienable Rights, that is they are not bestowed by law, custom, or belief, and which cannot be taken or given away, or transferred to another person. Although there is no one list that everyone accepts, the following rights are generally accepted as inalienable:
to act in your own self defense
to own private property
to work and enjoy the fruits of your labor
to move freely within your country
to think freely
to be secure within one's home
Generally inalienable rights are accepted in a court of law even though there may be no statue that guarantees them.

Rights that are guaranteed by constitutions. In the US those rights could be guaranteed by the US constitution, such as the right to bear arms or right to free speech. State constitutions may add detail to US constitutional rights or guarantee additional rights like the right to an education or a right to a speedy trial.

Rights are also guaranteed by laws both federal or state, such as civil rights, voting rights, right to privacy, right to marry, etc..

The bottom line is a right is a very general term that often needs qualifying.

 

[dblack]

The bottom line is a right is a very general term that often needs qualifying.

Yep. That's what I'm trying to do. Let's qualify the terms we're using and drop all the equivocation. The inalienable rights protected by the Constitution are utterly different than goods and services provided by government to appease the majority.

 

[manifold]

Which might explain why every country that beats the US in education recognizes every child's right to an education and more importantly, centralizes education policy as a key focus of the nation. In this country, the qualify of a child's education depends on each state and local school district, a system that guarantees a wide disparity in qualify and relatively poor overall results.

Don't believe the hype. Other countries don't do any better at educating anyone, they just cheat the statistics.

 

[kellyd]

Which might explain why every country that beats the US in education recognizes every child's right to an education and more importantly, centralizes education policy as a key focus of the nation. In this country, the qualify of a child's education depends on each state and local school district, a system that guarantees a wide disparity in qualify and relatively poor overall results.

Don't believe the hype. Other countries don't do any better at educating anyone, they just cheat the statistics.

Where did you learn that? My kids went to school around the world as we were on postings, and I can say that the calibre of teacher was high, and the support of families for their children's education was awe inspiring. In those countries, being a teacher is a highly respected profession. I pity teachers here

 

[Cecilie1200]

One of the biggest problems in our system is we use all of the above which results in the most expensive healthcare in the world and not the best care.

the only problem with our system is it is not capitalist it is socialist or Cuban which we know will not work. Do you understand?

Do you consider the postal service communist, or Cuban?

What is it with you leftists and your "all or nothing" reasoning that if the government does anything, that makes it okay for the government to do EVERYTHING?

The USPS (I know nothing about how the postal service works in Canada) is a department of the US government. It is specified as such in our Constitution. There is nothing "communist" about having a governmental structure that performs certain functions. That has no bearing on the fact that there are many, MANY more things which are not the purview of the government, nor should they be.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Do you consider the postal service communist, or Cuban?

yes, and a good example, like health care and education, of what happens when monopolistic bureaucratic soviet govt runs something.

And yet it wasn't designed to be a business. It was designed to serve the people. Soviet has nothing to do with it. Much like the electoral college, the postal service is made to serve rural people, disadvantaged by their distance from populated areas. Instead of perceiving it as soviet, why not celebrate it for its role as a vital national glue?

Because, as has been proven, there are some functions that the USPS serves that can now be done better by private enterprise.

Likewise, a free market system in healthcare, with perhaps governmental assistance only for those who truly cannot acquire healthcare on their own, would provide better service.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Do you consider the postal service communist, or Cuban?

yes, and a good example, like health care and education, of what happens when monopolistic bureaucratic soviet govt runs something.

And yet it wasn't designed to be a business. It was designed to serve the people. Soviet has nothing to do with it. Much like the electoral college, the postal service is made to serve rural people, disadvantaged by their distance from populated areas. Instead of perceiving it as soviet, why not celebrate it for its role as a vital national glue?

Because, as has been proven, there are some functions that the USPS serves that can now be done better by private enterprise.

Likewise, a free market system in healthcare, with perhaps governmental assistance only for those who truly cannot acquire healthcare on their own, would provide better service.

Yes the few who truly could not afford capitalist healthcare could be given Vouchers convertible to cash at the end of the year so they would shop carefully for their healthcare among providers competing on the basis of price and quality. Capitalism would probably reduce the cost of healthcare 80%

 

[Cecilie1200]

Do you consider the postal service communist, or Cuban?

yes, and a good example, like health care and education, of what happens when monopolistic bureaucratic soviet govt runs something.

And yet it wasn't designed to be a business. It was designed to serve the people. Soviet has nothing to do with it. Much like the electoral college, the postal service is made to serve rural people, disadvantaged by their distance from populated areas. Instead of perceiving it as soviet, why not celebrate it for its role as a vital national glue?

Because, as has been proven, there are some functions that the USPS serves that can now be done better by private enterprise.

Likewise, a free market system in healthcare, with perhaps governmental assistance only for those who truly cannot acquire healthcare on their own, would provide better service.

Yes the few who truly could not afford capitalist healthcare could be given Vouchers convertible to cash at the end of the year so they would shop carefully for their healthcare among providers competing on the basis of price and quality. Capitalism would probably reduce the cost of healthcare 80%

I know that's how it's working for me. My family chose a high-deductible, low-premium health insurance with an HSA, because we're rarely sick enough to require a doctor. This shifted the priorities when choosing our doctors significantly. It became necessary to actually research the doctors in my area to find one who was competent and experienced and ALSO had a low fee scale for routine office visits, in order to minimize the use of my HSA funds so that they would be available in the event of a catastrophic illness. I probably wouldn't have bothered to check their fee scales at all if I'd had health insurance that just covers everything and charges me out the ass for premiums.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Do you consider the postal service communist, or Cuban?

yes, and a good example, like health care and education, of what happens when monopolistic bureaucratic soviet govt runs something.

And yet it wasn't designed to be a business. It was designed to serve the people. Soviet has nothing to do with it. Much like the electoral college, the postal service is made to serve rural people, disadvantaged by their distance from populated areas. Instead of perceiving it as soviet, why not celebrate it for its role as a vital national glue?

Because, as has been proven, there are some functions that the USPS serves that can now be done better by private enterprise.

Likewise, a free market system in healthcare, with perhaps governmental assistance only for those who truly cannot acquire healthcare on their own, would provide better service.

Yes the few who truly could not afford capitalist healthcare could be given Vouchers convertible to cash at the end of the year so they would shop carefully for their healthcare among providers competing on the basis of price and quality. Capitalism would probably reduce the cost of healthcare 80%

I know that's how it's working for me. My family chose a high-deductible, low-premium health insurance with an HSA, because we're rarely sick enough to require a doctor. This shifted the priorities when choosing our doctors significantly. It became necessary to actually research the doctors in my area to find one who was competent and experienced and ALSO had a low fee scale for routine office visits, in order to minimize the use of my HSA funds so that they would be available in the event of a catastrophic illness. I probably wouldn't have bothered to check their fee scales at all if I'd had health insurance that just covers everything and charges me out the ass for premiums.

Yes and if everybody was shopping like that with their own money for price and quality the downward pressure on price would be tremendous .

 

[Cecilie1200]

yes, and a good example, like health care and education, of what happens when monopolistic bureaucratic soviet govt runs something.

And yet it wasn't designed to be a business. It was designed to serve the people. Soviet has nothing to do with it. Much like the electoral college, the postal service is made to serve rural people, disadvantaged by their distance from populated areas. Instead of perceiving it as soviet, why not celebrate it for its role as a vital national glue?

Because, as has been proven, there are some functions that the USPS serves that can now be done better by private enterprise.

Likewise, a free market system in healthcare, with perhaps governmental assistance only for those who truly cannot acquire healthcare on their own, would provide better service.

Yes the few who truly could not afford capitalist healthcare could be given Vouchers convertible to cash at the end of the year so they would shop carefully for their healthcare among providers competing on the basis of price and quality. Capitalism would probably reduce the cost of healthcare 80%

I know that's how it's working for me. My family chose a high-deductible, low-premium health insurance with an HSA, because we're rarely sick enough to require a doctor. This shifted the priorities when choosing our doctors significantly. It became necessary to actually research the doctors in my area to find one who was competent and experienced and ALSO had a low fee scale for routine office visits, in order to minimize the use of my HSA funds so that they would be available in the event of a catastrophic illness. I probably wouldn't have bothered to check their fee scales at all if I'd had health insurance that just covers everything and charges me out the ass for premiums.

Yes and if everybody was shopping like that with their own money for price and quality the downward pressure on price would be tremendous .

True. One need only look at procedures that are not typically covered under health insurance. Typically, a new procedure like that is expensive when it first comes out, and then the prices start dropping as more and more people start to provide it, and more and more people hear about it and want it. Also, advancements in those areas progress fairly rapidly, since there's a large profit motivation involved in finding new and better ways to do those things.

 

[Flopper]

One of the biggest problems in our system is we use all of the above which results in the most expensive healthcare in the world and not the best care.

the only problem with our system is it is not capitalist it is socialist or Cuban which we know will not work. Do you understand?

Do you consider the postal service communist, or Cuban?

What is it with you leftists and your "all or nothing" reasoning that if the government does anything, that makes it okay for the government to do EVERYTHING?

The USPS (I know nothing about how the postal service works in Canada) is a department of the US government. It is specified as such in our Constitution. There is nothing "communist" about having a governmental structure that performs certain functions. That has no bearing on the fact that there are many, MANY more things which are not the purview of the government, nor should they be.

The Post Office is not a department in the US government and the Postmaster General is no longer a cabinet member. Since 1971, it has operated as an independent agency of the executive branch. The Postmaster General is not appointed by the president but rather the Governors of the Postal Service. It is considered a non-partisan, non-political position.

The only mention of the Post Office is in Article 1 Section 8 in which congress has the power to pay
"To establish Post Offices and post Roads"