Is healthcare a right? why or why not?

[IResist]

. We have capitalism with many impoverished.
.

hate to rock your world but Medicare, Medicaid, Schip, TriiCare, IHS, community clinics etc are not capitalist. Please tell me you understand???

Except Medicare isn't for the impoverished and Medicaid is for those who are. Everyone should have something.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. We have capitalism with many impoverished.
.

hate to rock your world but Medicare, Medicaid, Schip, TriiCare, IHS, community clinics etc are not capitalist. Please tell me you understand???

Except Medicare isn't for the impoverished and Medicaid is for those who are. Everyone should have something.

you said we had capitalism. Do you admit to being very very slow?? and then trying to change the subject????

 

[IResist]

. We have capitalism with many impoverished.
.

hate to rock your world but Medicare, Medicaid, Schip, TriiCare, IHS, community clinics etc are not capitalist. Please tell me you understand???

Except Medicare isn't for the impoverished and Medicaid is for those who are. Everyone should have something.

you said we had capitalism. Do you admit to being very very slow?? and then trying to change the subject????

We have both in this country. As it should be. Having either total capitalism or total socialism is not a good idea. A mixed system does well.

 

[dblack]

. We have capitalism with many impoverished.
.

hate to rock your world but Medicare, Medicaid, Schip, TriiCare, IHS, community clinics etc are not capitalist. Please tell me you understand???

Except Medicare isn't for the impoverished and Medicaid is for those who are. Everyone should have something.

you said we had capitalism. Do you admit to being very very slow?? and then trying to change the subject????

We have both in this country. As it should be. Having either total capitalism or total socialism is not a good idea. A mixed system does well.

What we have is corporatism - essentially the worst aspects of capitalism and socialism combined.

 

[IResist]

. We have capitalism with many impoverished.
.

hate to rock your world but Medicare, Medicaid, Schip, TriiCare, IHS, community clinics etc are not capitalist. Please tell me you understand???

Except Medicare isn't for the impoverished and Medicaid is for those who are. Everyone should have something.

you said we had capitalism. Do you admit to being very very slow?? and then trying to change the subject????

We have both in this country. As it should be. Having either total capitalism or total socialism is not a good idea. A mixed system does well.

What we have is corporatism - essentially the worst aspects of capitalism and socialism combined.

Much of this is because this country has socialism for the rich.

 

[dblack]

hate to rock your world but Medicare, Medicaid, Schip, TriiCare, IHS, community clinics etc are not capitalist. Please tell me you understand???

Except Medicare isn't for the impoverished and Medicaid is for those who are. Everyone should have something.

you said we had capitalism. Do you admit to being very very slow?? and then trying to change the subject????

We have both in this country. As it should be. Having either total capitalism or total socialism is not a good idea. A mixed system does well.

What we have is corporatism - essentially the worst aspects of capitalism and socialism combined.

Much of this is because this country has socialism for the rich.

Is socialism only for the poor?

 

[PoliticalChic]

If it's not against the law. Maybe I should have added that caveat, your rights stop when they conflict with someone else's or when the public good is infringed upon. IOW, you don't get to break the law.

That seems a bit arbitrary to me. So you're saying that any of the rights you've enumerated could easily be taken away simply by outlawing them.

And I guess you're correct, rights are precisely what the law says they are. So if the law declares healthcare to be a right, it's a right.

Only with a Constitutional Amendment

President Reagan made healthcare an entitlement for every single individual in the nation.

"Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA)

In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. Section 1867 of the Social Security Act imposes specific obligations on Medicare-participating hospitals that offer emergency services to provide a medical screening examination (MSE) when a request is made for examination or treatment for an emergency medical condition (EMC), including active labor, regardless of an individual's ability to pay. Hospitals are then required to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with EMCs. If a hospital is unable to stabilize a patient within its capability, or if the patient requests, an appropriate transfer should be implemented."
Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) - Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

 

[IResist]

Except Medicare isn't for the impoverished and Medicaid is for those who are. Everyone should have something.

you said we had capitalism. Do you admit to being very very slow?? and then trying to change the subject????

We have both in this country. As it should be. Having either total capitalism or total socialism is not a good idea. A mixed system does well.

What we have is corporatism - essentially the worst aspects of capitalism and socialism combined.

Much of this is because this country has socialism for the rich.

Is socialism only for the poor?

It seems like socialism for the poor is demonized while socialism for the rich isn't.

 

[dblack]

you said we had capitalism. Do you admit to being very very slow?? and then trying to change the subject????

We have both in this country. As it should be. Having either total capitalism or total socialism is not a good idea. A mixed system does well.

What we have is corporatism - essentially the worst aspects of capitalism and socialism combined.

Much of this is because this country has socialism for the rich.

Is socialism only for the poor?

It seems like socialism for the poor is demonized while socialism for the rich isn't.

I suppose it is. But that's not how I see it. I oppose mixing socialism with capitalism because it inevitably creates "socialism for the rich". That's why I'm saying it's the worst of both worlds. It mixes the greed and profiteering of capitalism with the pervasive state power of socialism.

 

[IResist]

We have both in this country. As it should be. Having either total capitalism or total socialism is not a good idea. A mixed system does well.

What we have is corporatism - essentially the worst aspects of capitalism and socialism combined.

Much of this is because this country has socialism for the rich.

Is socialism only for the poor?

It seems like socialism for the poor is demonized while socialism for the rich isn't.

I suppose it is. But that's not how I see it. I oppose mixing socialism with capitalism because it inevitably creates "socialism for the rich". That's why I'm saying it's the worst of both worlds. It mixes the greed and profiteering of capitalism with the pervasive state power of socialism.

Are you in favor of a total capitalism country? We do have socialist elements in America.

 

[Flopper]

Capitalism isn't beautiful. It's predatory..

100% stupid and liberal. Try going into business as a predator and see how well you do. Try going into business with a great product that everyone loves and see how well you do?

See why we have to conclude that liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

You know who predators are? Insurance companies. They care about profit, not about health. Nationalizing healthcare insures everyone has it as they should. We have capitalism with many impoverished.

People can't love the product if it's an obscene amount. That's why a national healthcare system is needed and insurance companies must be eliminated.

Have you noticed that health insurance companies always refer to their product as a "healthcare plan", not an insurance policy. This is because they control your healthcare. The only type of plan where you control your healthcare is indemnity plans that few have today because of the premium cost and/or limited benefits.

Most people with private insurance, have a manged care plan, HMO, PPO, POS, etc.. Managed care plans have networks of doctors that contract with the insurance company to provide services at a fixed fee. To go out of network will mean you either have no coverage or greatly reduced benefits.

The network is the first tool insurance companies use to control your healthcare. They select the doctors and hospitals you can use. Second, the company controls your healthcare via a primary care doctor. This is the person who directly controls your healthcare for the insurance company. If your primary care doctor doesn't think you need a specialist or hopes to keep the insurance company happy, you don't get to see a specialist. If your doctor decides on a special treatment, then the insurance company decides if it will pay for that treatment. Last, if the doctor prescribes medication, the insurance company decides whether to pay for that medication.

Insurance companies make money by maximizing premiums and minimizing claims. There is nothing wrong with that if the customer can evaluate the quality of various products versus cost. Most people can't do that because of the difference in products. Also, the customer has to have a sufficient number of alternatives which most people don't have since their insurance options are determined by their employer.

Replacing insurance providers with a government provider just changes who will control your healthcare.

 

[IResist]

With a universal system you could see whoever you want.

 

[Flopper]

We have both in this country. As it should be. Having either total capitalism or total socialism is not a good idea. A mixed system does well.

What we have is corporatism - essentially the worst aspects of capitalism and socialism combined.

Much of this is because this country has socialism for the rich.

Is socialism only for the poor?

It seems like socialism for the poor is demonized while socialism for the rich isn't.

I suppose it is. But that's not how I see it. I oppose mixing socialism with capitalism because it inevitably creates "socialism for the rich". That's why I'm saying it's the worst of both worlds. It mixes the greed and profiteering of capitalism with the pervasive state power of socialism.

If you have pure capitalism in healthcare, millions will die needlessly. Most of the healthcare industry is regulated capitalism. which is not a bad idea. What is wrong is the regulatory system is screwed up. If we can't straighten it out so everyone has good quality healthcare at an affordable cost, then we will have to socialized medicine with full government control.

 

[IResist]

What we have is corporatism - essentially the worst aspects of capitalism and socialism combined.

Much of this is because this country has socialism for the rich.

Is socialism only for the poor?

It seems like socialism for the poor is demonized while socialism for the rich isn't.

I suppose it is. But that's not how I see it. I oppose mixing socialism with capitalism because it inevitably creates "socialism for the rich". That's why I'm saying it's the worst of both worlds. It mixes the greed and profiteering of capitalism with the pervasive state power of socialism.

If you have pure capitalism in healthcare, millions will die needlessly. Most of the healthcare industry is regulated capitalism. which is not a bad idea. What is wrong is the regulatory system is screwed up. If we can't straighten it out so everyone has good quality healthcare at an affordable cost, then we will have to socialized medicine with full government control.

May every person in the House who votes for this bill be voted out in 2018.

 

[dblack]

What we have is corporatism - essentially the worst aspects of capitalism and socialism combined.

Much of this is because this country has socialism for the rich.

Is socialism only for the poor?

It seems like socialism for the poor is demonized while socialism for the rich isn't.

I suppose it is. But that's not how I see it. I oppose mixing socialism with capitalism because it inevitably creates "socialism for the rich". That's why I'm saying it's the worst of both worlds. It mixes the greed and profiteering of capitalism with the pervasive state power of socialism.

If you have pure capitalism in healthcare, millions will die needlessly.

I have no idea what you mean by 'pure capitalism', but I'm not advocating abolishing safety nets. Conservatives often refer to those as socialism, but they're not.

Most of the healthcare industry is regulated capitalism. which is not a bad idea. What is wrong is the regulatory system is screwed up. If we can't straighten it out so everyone has good quality healthcare at an affordable cost, then we will have to socialized medicine with full government control.

I'm not entirely sure what you consider "regulated capitalism". The kind of laws that I'm opposed to are those that mandate behavior for the sake of a social agenda. Laws against fraud and deception, laws that require transparency, laws limiting pollution, are necessary and proper. It's when we start using the power of the government to manipulate society's economic decisions that we're playing with fire. That's the kind of middle ground between socialism and capitalism that I find far worse than either extreme.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What is wrong is the regulatory system is screwed up..

odd how that happened in USSR Red China East Germany Cuba Cambodia NOrth Korea Venezuela and 68 other countries. Do you think they were regulating to create poverty or that it was a natural manifestation of liberal regulation.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If you have pure capitalism in healthcare, millions will die needlessly.

backwards as always, millions died needlessly when you had pure socialism in USSR Red China etc, obviously!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What we have is corporatism - essentially the worst aspects of capitalism and socialism combined.

Much of this is because this country has socialism for the rich.

Is socialism only for the poor?

It seems like socialism for the poor is demonized while socialism for the rich isn't.

I suppose it is. But that's not how I see it. I oppose mixing socialism with capitalism because it inevitably creates "socialism for the rich". That's why I'm saying it's the worst of both worlds. It mixes the greed and profiteering of capitalism with the pervasive state power of socialism.

If you have pure capitalism in healthcare, millions will die needlessly. Most of the healthcare industry is regulated capitalism. which is not a bad idea. What is wrong is the regulatory system is screwed up. If we can't straighten it out so everyone has good quality healthcare at an affordable cost, then we will have to socialized medicine with full government control.

how stupid and utterly liberal???? you say regulation is screwed up and then you propose full govt regulation to fix it???? OMG!!!!! That's like when Stalin wanted an even grander 5 year plan after the first one killed 10 million!!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If you have pure capitalism in healthcare, millions will die needlessly.

it would not have to be pure capitalism as long as the vast majority were shopping with their own money, prices were published, and suppliers competing on basis of price and quality prices would come down 80% and 10-20 years would be added to our life expectencies!!.

 

[Ernie S.]

If it's not against the law. Maybe I should have added that caveat, your rights stop when they conflict with someone else's or when the public good is infringed upon. IOW, you don't get to break the law.

That seems a bit arbitrary to me. So you're saying that any of the rights you've enumerated could easily be taken away simply by outlawing them.

And I guess you're correct, rights are precisely what the law says they are. So if the law declares healthcare to be a right, it's a right.

Only with a Constitutional Amendment

President Reagan made healthcare an entitlement for every single individual in the nation.

"Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA)

In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. Section 1867 of the Social Security Act imposes specific obligations on Medicare-participating hospitals that offer emergency services to provide a medical screening examination (MSE) when a request is made for examination or treatment for an emergency medical condition (EMC), including active labor, regardless of an individual's ability to pay. Hospitals are then required to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with EMCs. If a hospital is unable to stabilize a patient within its capability, or if the patient requests, an appropriate transfer should be implemented."
Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) - Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

That's emergency care. Abortions, birth control and sex reassignment surgery and associated hormones are hardly emergency. Yeah, Reagan opened the door, but Democrats have opened it up to where we are paying for all kinds of elective crap.