Morally Bizarre

[georgephillip]

The only shit for brains are those who because they offer skills worth no more than $2.13/hour plus tips think someone that has worked their way to more per hour or a high salary owe them something more for those low skills. When the skills someone has is only one step above what a monkey could be trained to do, getting paid a low wage is fitting.

Human rights aren't dependent upon the amount of money you make, unless you subscribe to the fascist-fool party line. Billionaires and fascists currently hoard trillions of dollars which they never would have acquired had wages kept pace with productivity gains over the last forty years; that waitress earning $2.13 an hour today would be earning closer to $21.30 an hour had wages matched productivity gains, and she could pay for your simian health care.

 

[idb]

I didn't say rights were forced on me.

I said you don't have a right to free health care.

And you don't.

You do if the people of the country decide that you do.

I thought the left has said that a majority vote can't take away someone's rights. They claim that on same sex marriage when the voters said no to it. Seems it's OK when it comes to someone else's money. Typical left wing hypocrites.

What?!
I'm talking about granting rights...not taking them away!

 

[Conservative65]

I didn't say rights were forced on me.

I said you don't have a right to free health care.

And you don't.

You do if the people of the country decide that you do.

Not if in fulfilling it someone else's rights are restricted or taken away.

I thought the left has said that a majority vote can't take away someone's rights. They claim that on same sex marriage when the voters said no to it. Seems it's OK when it comes to someone else's money. Typical left wing hypocrites.

What?!
I'm talking about granting rights...not taking them away!

 

[Conservative65]

The only shit for brains are those who because they offer skills worth no more than $2.13/hour plus tips think someone that has worked their way to more per hour or a high salary owe them something more for those low skills. When the skills someone has is only one step above what a monkey could be trained to do, getting paid a low wage is fitting.

Human rights aren't dependent upon the amount of money you make, unless you subscribe to the fascist-fool party line. Billionaires and fascists currently hoard trillions of dollars which they never would have acquired had wages kept pace with productivity gains over the last forty years; that waitress earning $2.13 an hour today would be earning closer to $21.30 an hour had wages matched productivity gains, and she could pay for your simian health care.

No right should be dependent on forcing another person to pay for it on your behalf including healthcare. Like I've said, if you know someone that can't buy it, pay their premium with your money. You have that right. You do not have the right, even with a majority vote, to force anyone else to do it. People like you claim that a majority vote can't take away a right, as you use that argument with same sex marriage, yet when it comes to things you want to do, you think you can vote to simply take away mine to keep the money I've earned.

As far as the waitress earning more than $2.13/hour, when that waitress does something to improve her skills to the same degree someone running a big company has done to improve his/hers, her wages will go up to the same degree. Minimum skill and wage jobs require today the same skill level they did 50 years ago. Jobs where marketable skills are required have people that have had to actually do something in order for their wages to grow. That's why wages on higher skills ed positions or jobs that take education/training have grown exponentially while jobs that are flooded with people doing something a monkey could be trained to do have grown only arithmetically. Since I spent thousands and thousands of hours getting an education, furthering my skills as a professional, and providing something that not everyone can do, my wages should be thousands and thousand higher. Since those who work low skilled jobs had to do nothing to be able to do their jobs, their wages should be thousands and thousands lower. If they don't like it, they should do something about it and that doesn't include demanding someone else pay for it on their behalf.

 

[Conservative65]

simian health care.

I had spinal fusion surgery a few years ago under the same healthcare plan I have now. It costs me $500 out of pocket for bills totally over $90,000. The problem with that is, because of Obozocare, that $500 would now be higher. People like you want me to thank that ass clown for improving healthcare. Don't see it.

 

[georgephillip]

People like you want me to thank that ass clown for improving healthcare. Don't see it.

Except I don't see the ACA as an improvement to healthcare.
Now, don't you feel stupid?

 

[Conservative65]

People like you want me to thank that ass clown for improving healthcare. Don't see it.

Except I don't see the ACA as an improvement to healthcare.
Now, don't you feel stupid?

So, you're one of those single payer proponents?

 

[georgephillip]

I had spinal fusion surgery a few years ago under the same healthcare plan I have now. It costs me $500 out of pocket for bills totally over $90,000

I had a malignant melanoma that had been festering for years because I had no insurance removed in 2013 by a plastic surgeon on Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills. the initial procedure lasted hours with multiple follow up with a total bill running into the tens of thousand of dollars, and I paid zero $, proving health care is a right for those who live long enough to benefit from Medicare.

 

[georgephillip]

So, you're one of those single payer proponents?

Exactly. Medicare for all.

 

[dblack]

C-65,

You need to understand that modern liberals aren't making a distinction between "rights" and "things we ought to provide as government services". I share your frustration because I agree there's an important distinction to be made there. Rights are more fundamental. We protect rights, not only with government but, from government, via Constitutional limits. Secondary services, like the post office, minting money, education, etc... aren't rights in the same sense, and should only be taken up as government services when the cost is minimal (both in terms of finances and loss of liberty) and the consensus is very broad. That's why they should be implemented as Constitutional amendments that clearly establish them as new functions of government.

In my opinion, the overall campaign to declare certain services as "rights" is a deliberate trojan, to evade the onerous process of amending the Constitution and instead to piggyback on the accepted notion that protecting "rights" is a core function of government. It's bad government in my opinion, and will ultimately destroy a free democracy.

 

[Conservative65]

So, you're one of those single payer proponents?

Exactly. Medicare for all.

That's worse and even more so of a redistribution of wealth program. Why can't you do for yourself instead of expecting someone else to do it for you? Are you really that irresponsible?

 

[Conservative65]

I had spinal fusion surgery a few years ago under the same healthcare plan I have now. It costs me $500 out of pocket for bills totally over $90,000

I had a malignant melanoma that had been festering for years because I had no insurance removed in 2013 by a plastic surgeon on Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills. the initial procedure lasted hours with multiple follow up with a total bill running into the tens of thousand of dollars, and I paid zero $, proving health care is a right for those who live long enough to benefit from Medicare.

Then someone else was forced to pay for it on your behalf. You sound like you're proud to be a leech.

 

[Conservative65]

People like you want me to thank that ass clown for improving healthcare. Don't see it.

Except I don't see the ACA as an improvement to healthcare.
Now, don't you feel stupid?

What you support is worse. Why can't you provide to yourself what you should be doing? It's not my responsibility to do it for you.

 

[Conservative65]

So, you're one of those single payer proponents?

Exactly. Medicare for all.

Nothing more than those of paying more into the system to fund those paying less into it then getting the same thing. Sorry, not interested in socialism.

 

[georgephillip]

Secondary services, like the post office, minting money, education, etc... aren't rights in the same sense, and should only be taken up as government services when the cost is minimal (both in terms of finances and loss of liberty) and the consensus is very broad. That's why they should be implemented as Constitutional amendments that clearly establish them as new functions of government.

Establishing post offices and minting money are powers given to congress in Article I, yet education isn't. Is the provision of education any less of a right than post offices and money?

 

[BlackSand]

Read this a few days ago, and found it really striking, because the author's reaction is exactly the same as my reaction to the idea that a service someone else provides can be claimed as a right. THAT seems morally bizarre to me.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact employer provided health-coverage became pretty much a staple in employee compensation packages. Add the fact that corporations introduced the concept of employer provided healthcare insurance to circumvent wage caps instituted by President Roosevelt ... And better compete for quality employees.

The Progressive Liberals cannot let corporations take the credit for providing healthcare coverage ... They had to turn the privilege into a right to make them the heroes.

.

 

[georgephillip]

What you support is worse. Why can't you provide to yourself what you should be doing? It's not my responsibility to do it for you.

Current paradigms for funding Medicare for All require employers and employees to pay a modest payroll tax thereby producing a sizable savings for private and public employers who currently have to purchase coverage for their employees from private insurance corporations. Assuming it's true that 95% of Americans will pay less for their healthcare than they are currently paying, the collective responsibility lies with changing the corporate status quo, no?

 

[dblack]

Secondary services, like the post office, minting money, education, etc... aren't rights in the same sense, and should only be taken up as government services when the cost is minimal (both in terms of finances and loss of liberty) and the consensus is very broad. That's why they should be implemented as Constitutional amendments that clearly establish them as new functions of government.

Establishing post offices and minting money are powers given to congress in Article I, yet education isn't. Is the provision of education any less of a right than post offices and money?

I'd consider none of those "rights". Post offices and minting money are legitimate (constitutionally authorized) services of the federal government. Education is not.

 

[georgephillip]

Nothing more than those of paying more into the system to fund those paying less into it then getting the same thing. Sorry, not interested in socialism.

Does for-profit insurance appeal more to you? You seem completely ignorant of how Medicare for All would reduce US medical costs by more than $400 billion a year despite a massive expansion of medical care to those currently under served by capitalism. Like a classic conservative you can't put aside your selfish contempt for those who earn less than you do even when the changes they support will work to your economic advantage as well as theirs.

 

[BlackSand]

Does for-profit insurance appeal more to you? You seem completely ignorant of how Medicare for All would reduce US medical costs by more than $400 billion a year despite a massive expansion of medical care to those currently under served by capitalism. Like a classic conservative you can't put aside your selfish contempt for those who earn less than you do even when the changes they support will work to your economic advantage as well as theirs.

Since when is it the responsibility of for-profit insurance companies to make medical costs cheaper for anyone? Are you suggesting for-profit companies like paying high medical costs?

If you mean adding a 40% tax to insurance policies the rich can afford is reducing their medical costs ... You are fricken stoned.

.