Is healthcare a right? why or why not?

[Ernie S.]

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.

How about an example of socialism for the rich.

 

[dblack]

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.

How about an example of socialism for the rich.

The bankster bailouts.

 

[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

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.

"Abortions, birth control and sex reassignment surgery and associated hormones are hardly emergency."

So?

As I said, since 1986, every individual in this nation has had healthcare.

 

[Flopper]

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.

Pure capitalism is where the market is the dominant sector. The markets would essentially provide the framework of society with no regulation from the government. The most extreme form of free-market/laissez-faire capitalism.

Under a pure capitalistic system, there are no rules for business. Large businesses absorb smaller business until they control the means of production so new businesses can not compete and thus the free market is no longer free. Pure capitalism like pure socialism has never existed because neither is practical. Both are self destructive. Capitalism existed today only as regulated capitalism.

The closest thing to pure capitalism is probably the settling of the American Wild West.

 

[dblack]

Pure capitalism is where the market is the dominant sector. The markets would essentially provide the framework of society with no regulation from the government. The most extreme form of free-market/laissez-faire capitalism.

Under a pure capitalistic system, there are no rules for business. Large businesses absorb smaller business until they control the means of production so new businesses can not compete and thus the free market is no longer free. Pure capitalism like pure socialism has never existed because neither is practical. Both are self destructive. Capitalism existed today only as regulated capitalism.

The closest thing to pure capitalism is probably the settling of the American Wild West.

It sounds like you're using "pure capitalism" as a synonym for anarchy, and that's definitely not what I advocate. I just don't want government mandating our economic decisions. State power and economic power should be kept separate. Combining them is like combining state power and religious power, and is a bad idea for the same reasons.

 

[Flopper]

Pure capitalism is where the market is the dominant sector. The markets would essentially provide the framework of society with no regulation from the government. The most extreme form of free-market/laissez-faire capitalism.

Under a pure capitalistic system, there are no rules for business. Large businesses absorb smaller business until they control the means of production so new businesses can not compete and thus the free market is no longer free. Pure capitalism like pure socialism has never existed because neither is practical. Both are self destructive. Capitalism existed today only as regulated capitalism.

The closest thing to pure capitalism is probably the settling of the American Wild West.

It sounds like you're using "pure capitalism" as a synonym for anarchy, and that's definitely not what I advocate. I just don't want government mandating our economic decisions. State power and economic power should be kept separate. Combining them is like combining state power and religious power, and is a bad idea for the same reasons.

Anarchy would be the result of pure capitalism.

In some cases, I think the government has gone too far with regulations but that doesn't mean there should be no regulations at all. There are some actions that effect the economy that government should take. For example, many regulations are necessary such as bank regulations that protect depositors, regulations on Wall Street to prevent insider trading and full disclosure of public stock and bond offerings, and protecting the air we breath and water we drink, etc...

Regulations are a two edged sword. They can add significant business costs. However, they can help businesses comply with the law as well as protecting the public.

Most regulations benefit both the business and the the public. Those environment studies, applications, notices, and hearings which businesses hate often uncover serious potential damage to the environment and save the company huge future cleanup costs and severe financial penalties. Regulations also clarify legislation as to how it effects various businesses. And it the business is sued, often the strongest evidence of legal compliance to the law is proof of adherence to the regulations which grew out of the law.

As soon as Obamacare was signed into law, insurance companies, pharmaceutical manufactures, and hospital associations were clamoring for the regulations. Without those regulations, each company would be making it's own interpretations of law and would not know exactly what it needed to do to be in compliance with the law.

Whether we like it or not, regulations are needed. If we don't like regulations, then we shouldn't pass the laws.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. For example, many regulations are necessary such as bank regulations that protect depositors,

wrong, stupid and liberal of course!!! Banks in Europe and USA were very heavily regulated and of course that's exactly what caused the collapse. If depositors for example had to be careful instead of lulled into false sense of security that monopoly soviet genius govt was protecting them they would demand very very conservative banks that protected their money, not gambled with it !!!
Do you understand?

magical soviet govt never works but liberals lack the IQ to understand how individual freedom works!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Under a pure capitalistic system, there are no rules for business.

of course that's totally stupid and liberal. Under capitalism employees and customers make the rules for business and they are harsh indeed with 10,000 corporations a month being driven in bankruptcy primarily because they cant provide the best jobs and products in the world to raise our standard of living at the fastest possible rate. You have learned this 45 times now. Do you finally understand?

 

[dblack]

It sounds like you're using "pure capitalism" as a synonym for anarchy, and that's definitely not what I advocate. I just don't want government mandating our economic decisions. State power and economic power should be kept separate. Combining them is like combining state power and religious power, and is a bad idea for the same reasons.

Anarchy would be the result of pure capitalism.

Guess you'd have to be more clear on what you mean by pure capitalism. Free markets (ie free societies) require a government and laws to ensure the freedom required for them to operate. Let's dispense with pretending free markets are anarchy, k?

 

[Iceweasel]

Anarchy would be the result of pure capitalism.

In some cases, I think the government has gone too far with regulations but that doesn't mean there should be no regulations at all.

I'm not going to waste time with all of your nonsense but do you have any idea what you are talking about? First off, who is for removing all regulations? The argument is over business killing regulations. It's especially hard on small business, formerly known as the backbone of America.

Anarchy is a Mad Max movie, no regulations except what you can kill and take.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. For example, many regulations are necessary such as bank regulations that protect depositors,

wrong, stupid and liberal of course!!! Banks in Europe and USA were very heavily regulated and of course that's exactly what caused the collapse. If depositors for example had to be careful instead of lulled into false sense of security that monopoly soviet genius govt was protecting them they would demand very very conservative banks that protected their money, not gambled with it !!!
Do you understand?

magical soviet govt never works but liberals lack the IQ to understand how individual freedom works!!

magical soviet govt never works but liberals prefer it because they lack the IQ to understand how individual freedom works!!

• 
  Thank You! x 1
• List

 

[Flopper]

It sounds like you're using "pure capitalism" as a synonym for anarchy, and that's definitely not what I advocate. I just don't want government mandating our economic decisions. State power and economic power should be kept separate. Combining them is like combining state power and religious power, and is a bad idea for the same reasons.

Anarchy would be the result of pure capitalism.

Guess you'd have to be more clear on what you mean by pure capitalism. Free markets (ie free societies) require a government and laws to ensure the freedom required for them to operate. Let's dispense with pretending free markets are anarchy, k?

In a country with pure or unfettered capitalism there would be no regulatory laws and regulations that hindered commerce, no enforceable legal safety standards for food, medicine, cars, and other consumer products. Business's could sell miracle cures for disease that did nothing. Safety in food packaging would be left to the integrity of the producer. Highway safety equipment in cars would optional and available only in the more expenses vehicles. Wall Street would be free to disclose only information that helped them sell their stock and bond offerings reserving the real information for businesses associates. There would no requirements for businesses to protect the water we drink nor the air we breath. The only protection the public would have would be lawsuits after the damage was done directed at businesses that may be long gone.

That is pure unregulated capitalism. It exist nowhere today and has probably never existed. Under such a system the most powerful corporations would force the competition out of business destroying the free market. This is why we regulate capitalism. It is like nuclear energy. If harnessed it can be of tremendous benefit but if unregulated, it can destroy all.

 

[Flopper]

Anarchy would be the result of pure capitalism.

In some cases, I think the government has gone too far with regulations but that doesn't mean there should be no regulations at all.

I'm not going to waste time with all of your nonsense but do you have any idea what you are talking about? First off, who is for removing all regulations? The argument is over business killing regulations. It's especially hard on small business, formerly known as the backbone of America.

Anarchy is a Mad Max movie, no regulations except what you can kill and take.

The question raised by Dblack was what I meant by pure capitalism and that is what I was addressing. Hopefully, no one is in favor of removing all regulations, however I'm sure there are a few nuts on this board that advocate such.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

30065"]It sounds like you're using "pure capitalism" as a synonym for anarchy, and that's definitely not what I advocate. I just don't want government mandating our economic decisions. State power and economic power should be kept separate. Combining them is like combining state power and religious power, and is a bad idea for the same reasons.[/QUOTE]
Anarchy would be the result of pure capitalism.[/quote]

Guess you'd have to be more clear on what you mean by pure capitalism. Free markets (ie free societies) require a government and laws Under such a system the most powerful corporations would force the competition out of business destroying the free market. This is why we regulate capitalism. It is like nuclear energy. If harnessed it can be of tremendous benefit but if unregulated, it can destroy all.[/QUOTE]

You idiot we regulate communism to keep it communism too? It's like saying we freeze ice cream to keep it ice cream.

A Libcommie does not regulate to keep it capitalism but rather to change it to socialism.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Anarchy would be the result of pure capitalism.

In some cases, I think the government has gone too far with regulations but that doesn't mean there should be no regulations at all.

I'm not going to waste time with all of your nonsense but do you have any idea what you are talking about? First off, who is for removing all regulations? The argument is over business killing regulations. It's especially hard on small business, formerly known as the backbone of America.

Anarchy is a Mad Max movie, no regulations except what you can kill and take.

The question raised by Dblack was what I meant by pure capitalism and that is what I was addressing. Hopefully, no one is in favor of removing all regulations, however I'm sure there are a few nuts on this board that advocate such.

Lib lacks IQ to see that Republicans want all possible regulations to keep it capitalism while liberals want regulation to change it socialism.

 

[dblack]

Guess you'd have to be more clear on what you mean by pure capitalism. Free markets (ie free societies) require a government and laws to ensure the freedom required for them to operate. Let's dispense with pretending free markets are anarchy, k?

In a country with pure or unfettered capitalism there would be no regulatory laws and regulations that hindered commerce, no enforceable legal safety standards for food, medicine, cars, and other consumer products.

That's all more or less how I see it. But... anarchy?

The only thing I would disagree with in your characterization is the notion that a free market implies no laws that impede commerce. That implies the law is subordinate to commerce, and that's not so. The law should be protect liberty and justice, regardless of the impact on commerce. If, for example, a business is defiling the commons with pollution government should impede them, regardless of how it impacts their bottom line.

Under such a system the most powerful corporations would force the competition out of business destroying the free market.

Now this is worth discussing. Especially since I see good reason to be concerned with the opposite. It's virtually impossible for a business to exert the kind of control you're talking about legally. It takes a complicit government to make it happen. The regulatory regime, for purely pragmatic reasons (politicians generally aren't experts in the fields they're regulating), almost always works in 'partnership' with the dominant players in the industry they are regulating. And those dominant businesses exploit that relationship to control their markets - to thwart competition from other businesses, and prohibit alternatives for customers.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Business's could sell miracle cures for disease that did nothing.

they do now!! Go into a vitamin shop and ask for something for cancer and heart disease and they will sell it to you. This is good since it keeps everyone alert and thinking and growing. Imagine if a magical liberal govt could protect you from everything? We'd be a nation of helpless complacent fools, and then we'd be genocidally wiped out en masse when one libNazi bureaucrat gave us something deadly or denied us something life saving.

A liberal simple lacks the IQ to understand how freedom works. Liberals should be defined as stupid and deadly as our Founders, in effect, defined them.

 

[Flopper]

Guess you'd have to be more clear on what you mean by pure capitalism. Free markets (ie free societies) require a government and laws to ensure the freedom required for them to operate. Let's dispense with pretending free markets are anarchy, k?

In a country with pure or unfettered capitalism there would be no regulatory laws and regulations that hindered commerce, no enforceable legal safety standards for food, medicine, cars, and other consumer products.

That's all more or less how I see it. But... anarchy?

The only thing I would disagree with in your characterization is the notion that a free market implies no laws that impede commerce. That implies the law is subordinate to commerce, and that's not so. The law should be protect liberty and justice, regardless of the impact on commerce. If, for example, a business is defiling the commons with pollution government should impede them, regardless of how it impacts their bottom line.

Under such a system the most powerful corporations would force the competition out of business destroying the free market.

Now this is worth discussing. Especially since I see good reason to be concerned with the opposite. It's virtually impossible for a business to exert the kind of control you're talking about legally. It takes a complicit government to make it happen. The regulatory regime, for purely pragmatic reasons (politicians generally aren't experts in the fields they're regulating), almost always works in 'partnership' with the dominant players in the industry they are regulating. And those dominant businesses exploit that relationship to control their markets - to thwart competition from other businesses, and prohibit alternatives for customers.

I agree it would be impossible for a business to exert the kind of control needed to force all completion out of business in today's world, but not in the hypothetical world of pure capitalism.

I disagree a bit with your characterization of regulatory agencies. First, they are not politicians. They are career employees. Let's look at the process.

• The law is passed, the House codifies the law in the US Code, and the GPO makes the law available to all who want it. Laws rarely contain the details business, government, and the public needs to apply the law to particular circumstances. For example, clean water legislation might limit carcinogens that are put into rivers, and streams, and drinking water but not actually identify them or safe levels. Since groundwater is involved, many thousands of businesses are effected. This would mean a lot of regulations have to be created in order for the public to comply with the law. Usually the law will specify an agency that will be responsible for enforcement and creating regulations.

• When the law reach the regulatory agency, the first step is to determine if regulations are needed. If so, the agency will determine which areas require regulations.
• Assuming the regulation require technical expertise, a committee is formed of specialist in the field including the agency personnel to workout the details in the regulations.
• After creating the proposed regulations, Notice of the Proposed Rule Making is published in the Federal Registry. This will contain a request for comments from interested parties.
• After comment are received the rules are finalized and published.
• Complains are accepted and reviewed to determine if changes are needed in the regulations.
• After the regulations are completed, they are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Transparency in rule making is accomplished by publishing minutes of all meetings for review by all interested parties.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I agree it would be impossible for a business to exert the kind of control needed to force all completion out of business in today's world, but not in the hypothetical world of pure capitalism.

what?????capitalism is all about competition!! Capitalism is not allowed to end competition. If it did it would not be capitalism. This is why capitalists agreed to anti-trust 100 years ago.
You are a Marxist tool always drawn to support regulation, but only as a prelude to socialism.

Why are you always talking about the need to regulate it rather than the millions of lives it has saved from starvation? Because you are a Marxist tool without the IQ to know it!!

 

[dblack]

Guess you'd have to be more clear on what you mean by pure capitalism. Free markets (ie free societies) require a government and laws to ensure the freedom required for them to operate. Let's dispense with pretending free markets are anarchy, k?

In a country with pure or unfettered capitalism there would be no regulatory laws and regulations that hindered commerce, no enforceable legal safety standards for food, medicine, cars, and other consumer products.

That's all more or less how I see it. But... anarchy?

The only thing I would disagree with in your characterization is the notion that a free market implies no laws that impede commerce. That implies the law is subordinate to commerce, and that's not so. The law should be protect liberty and justice, regardless of the impact on commerce. If, for example, a business is defiling the commons with pollution government should impede them, regardless of how it impacts their bottom line.

Under such a system the most powerful corporations would force the competition out of business destroying the free market.

Now this is worth discussing. Especially since I see good reason to be concerned with the opposite. It's virtually impossible for a business to exert the kind of control you're talking about legally. It takes a complicit government to make it happen. The regulatory regime, for purely pragmatic reasons (politicians generally aren't experts in the fields they're regulating), almost always works in 'partnership' with the dominant players in the industry they are regulating. And those dominant businesses exploit that relationship to control their markets - to thwart competition from other businesses, and prohibit alternatives for customers.

I agree it would be impossible for a business to exert the kind of control needed to force all completion out of business in today's world, but not in the hypothetical world of pure capitalism.

I disagree a bit with your characterization of regulatory agencies. First, they are not politicians. They are career employees. Let's look at the process.

• The law is passed, the House codifies the law in the US Code, and the GPO makes the law available to all who want it. Laws rarely contain the details business, government, and the public needs to apply the law to particular circumstances. For example, clean water legislation might limit carcinogens that are put into rivers, and streams, and drinking water but not actually identify them or safe levels. Since groundwater is involved, many thousands of businesses are effected. This would mean a lot of regulations have to be created in order for the public to comply with the law. Usually the law will specify an agency that will be responsible for enforcement and creating regulations.

• When the law reach the regulatory agency, the first step is to determine if regulations are needed. If so, the agency will determine which areas require regulations.
• Assuming the regulation require technical expertise, a committee is formed of specialist in the field including the agency personnel to workout the details in the regulations.
• After creating the proposed regulations, Notice of the Proposed Rule Making is published in the Federal Registry. This will contain a request for comments from interested parties.
• After comment are received the rules are finalized and published.
• Complains are accepted and reviewed to determine if changes are needed in the regulations.
• After the regulations are completed, they are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Transparency in rule making is accomplished by publishing minutes of all meetings for review by all interested parties.

Thanks for the summary. That's pretty much what I've always assumed. It's straight up corporatism.