The liberal mythology of healthcare being a right

[Listening]

What you are saying is that everyone should be denied the right of access to the AHA because you don't want to exercise yours? Who the **** are you to decide that?

I just want the right not to have to pay for your health care. Who are you to expect me to pay for you?

So you support the individual mandate.

Pathetic extrapolation.

The right to healthcare also means the right to not buy insurance.

You don't need insurance to obtain healthcare.

 

[Dr Grump]

You have to realise with most conservative and liberatarians - especially on the far right - it's all about me, me, me....my freedom, my dime, my rights....(well, except if you're gay or want an abortion)...

A. It's a gross overgeneralization.

B. It isn't about mine...it's about consistency and not making it up as you go. What "seems" good today...isn't good tomorrow but if the government is doing it, you likely won't change it.

C. The constitution was written to protect my rights, my freedom, my personal property (dimes). You gotta problem with that ?

1) No it is not. Note I say far right...not conservatives in general...
2) That is an ongoing part of any society any where
3) Go live on an island...

 

[Dr Grump]

^^^
Another one who can't discuss the topic of the nature of rights, so he needs to try and change the subject.

So predictable it's become boring.

Actually I was discussing the nature of rights....I was trying to figure out who decides what a right is....

It appears that anything YOU want is right. Anything that anybody else wants but doesn't agree with your Utopian ideal is not....

 

[Dr Grump]

You have to realise with most conservative and liberatarians - especially on the far right - it's all about me, me, me....my freedom, my dime, my rights....(well, except if you're gay or want an abortion)...

With turds like you it's "gimmee, gimmee, gimmee."

Um, yeah, right....
Just exactly what has been 'given' to me?

 

[Dr Grump]

^^^
Another one who can't discuss the topic of the nature of rights, so he needs to try and change the subject.

So predictable it's become boring.

Yep, whenever they're losing a debate, the personal attacks are sure to commence. The history of liberalism is a series of the most offensive personal attacks imaginable.

Going by that logic, you lost the debate already...see your post 275 on this thread. The first insult thrown in our conversation....

 

[Bfgrn]

In a Catholic Hospital, they'd have funded the cost from the Church. But apparently, that's not acceptable for the liberals. They don't want the Church to help Americans, or save people's lives... it's their way or no way.

Conservatives always drag out the polarized black or white argument. What you are really saying with that tactic is what you accuse liberals of; it's your way or no way.

I never criticize charity, charitable people or groups. But we tried a charity only society, it failed. So besides charity, there needs to be government programs to protect the least among us.

When JFK's brother-in law Sargent Shriver accepted LBJ's challenge and took on the 'War on Poverty' (a JFK program) the first thing he discovered was rather startling and disturbing. Half of the Americans living in poverty were children. Another large segment were elderly and another segment were mentally and/or physically disabled. So a HUGE segment of the poor fit the TRUE definition of a dependent. So there is an obligation as a civil society to make sure those real dependents are not trampled on or extinguished.


We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
President John F. Kennedy

Yep, it sure would be nice if you libs would live in the spirit of charity with YOUR OWN money, instead of trying to be charitable with someone else's... Why is it that you libs give less by half or more than conservatives do? Your creed of charity should begin out of your OWN pocket.

Try it, it'll make you feel better...

SO, conservatives have gone from the polarized argument to GROSS exaggeration.

I'm sure you're referring to the Arthur Brooks study

Arthur Brooks writes: "When it comes to giving or not giving, conservatives and liberals look a lot alike. Conservative people are a percentage point or two more likely to give money each year than liberal people, but a percentage point or so less likely to volunteer [citing the 2002 General Social Survey (GSS) and the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS)]". (pp. 21-22)

So, according to THE Arthur Brooks study: conservatives believe in the giving of mammon (money) and liberals believe in the giving of themselves.

 

[bripat9643]

Conservatives always drag out the polarized black or white argument. What you are really saying with that tactic is what you accuse liberals of; it's your way or no way.

What is the "black or white" argument?

I never criticize charity, charitable people or groups. But we tried a charity only society, it failed. So besides charity, there needs to be government programs to protect the least among us.

Horseshit. According to what standard did it fail? If heard libturds spout this nonsense numerous times, but they never want to clarify how or when this "failure" occured.

When JFK's brother-in law Sargent Shriver accepted LBJ's challenge and took on the 'War on Poverty' (a JFK program) the first thing he discovered was rather startling and disturbing. Half of the Americans living in poverty were children.

And they still are.

Another large segment were elderly and another segment were mentally and/or physically disabled. So a HUGE segment of the poor fit the TRUE definition of a dependent. So there is an obligation as a civil society to make sure those real dependents are not trampled on or extinguished.

Whether society has an obligation is one thing. Whether government has an obligation is another. Government was create to be a charity. It exists to protect you from predators, foreign and domestic. Anytime it steps beyond those responsibilities, it becomes the predator.

We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
President John F. Kennedy

You'll forgive me if I don't run my life based on the musings of Dante. Voting to force someone else to pay the expense of the underprivileged doesn't make you "warm-hearted." I makes you a thug. Welfare is not charity. It's theft.

 

[bripat9643]

^^^
Another one who can't discuss the topic of the nature of rights, so he needs to try and change the subject.

So predictable it's become boring.

Yep, whenever they're losing a debate, the personal attacks are sure to commence. The history of liberalism is a series of the most offensive personal attacks imaginable.

Going by that logic, you lost the debate already...see your post 275 on this thread. The first insult thrown in our conversation....

ROFL! The depth of your depravity is demonstrated by the fact that you don't believe your post was insulting. You implied that anyone who believes in natural rights is a moron and a hick redneck. All I did was point out what a rude, insulting dick you are.

 

[Bfgrn]

Conservatives always drag out the polarized black or white argument. What you are really saying with that tactic is what you accuse liberals of; it's your way or no way.

What is the "black or white" argument?

I never criticize charity, charitable people or groups. But we tried a charity only society, it failed. So besides charity, there needs to be government programs to protect the least among us.

Horseshit. According to what standard did it fail? If heard libturds spout this nonsense numerous times, but they never want to clarify how or when this "failure" occured.



And they still are.

Another large segment were elderly and another segment were mentally and/or physically disabled. So a HUGE segment of the poor fit the TRUE definition of a dependent. So there is an obligation as a civil society to make sure those real dependents are not trampled on or extinguished.

Whether society has an obligation is one thing. Whether government has an obligation is another. Government was create to be a charity. It exists to protect you from predators, foreign and domestic. Anytime it steps beyond those responsibilities, it becomes the predator.

We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
President John F. Kennedy

You'll forgive me if I don't run my life based on the musings of Dante. Voting to force someone else to pay the expense of the underprivileged doesn't make you "warm-hearted." I makes you a thug. Welfare is not charity. It's theft.

You know, I have seen you post on numerous threads. You have yet to show one civil, social or human redeeming quality. You really are a cretin.

 

[Listening]

You have to realise with most conservative and liberatarians - especially on the far right - it's all about me, me, me....my freedom, my dime, my rights....(well, except if you're gay or want an abortion)...

A. It's a gross overgeneralization.

B. It isn't about mine...it's about consistency and not making it up as you go. What "seems" good today...isn't good tomorrow but if the government is doing it, you likely won't change it.

C. The constitution was written to protect my rights, my freedom, my personal property (dimes). You gotta problem with that ?

1) No it is not. Note I say far right...not conservatives in general...
2) That is an ongoing part of any society any where
3) Go live on an island...

Sorry, but I'll live where I want. Unless you plan to legislate that out of existence too.

At which point, there will be no government.

 

[Listening]

You know, I have seen you post on numerous threads. You have yet to show one civil, social or human redeeming quality. You really are a cretin.

First, you only need to say this because you are tired and sore from getting your ass handed to you.

Second, how are they related ?

Who is the cretin ?

 

[Dr Grump]

A. It's a gross overgeneralization.

B. It isn't about mine...it's about consistency and not making it up as you go. What "seems" good today...isn't good tomorrow but if the government is doing it, you likely won't change it.

C. The constitution was written to protect my rights, my freedom, my personal property (dimes). You gotta problem with that ?

1) No it is not. Note I say far right...not conservatives in general...
2) That is an ongoing part of any society any where
3) Go live on an island...

Sorry, but I'll live where I want. Unless you plan to legislate that out of existence too.

At which point, there will be no government.

That was not my point. If you want me to spell it out for you, I am more than willing to do so..

 

[Listening]

1) No it is not. Note I say far right...not conservatives in general...
2) That is an ongoing part of any society any where
3) Go live on an island...

Sorry, but I'll live where I want. Unless you plan to legislate that out of existence too.

At which point, there will be no government.

That was not my point. If you want me to spell it out for you, I am more than willing to do so..

Oh, I know just what you meant. And you seemed to miss the subtle point of my reply.

Your statement speaks to the stupid claim that the only way a society can take care of its needs is through government...when, in fact, government has shown (and only Chris seems to stupid to realize this) that government can't do much very well.

Why would I want them running my health care system ?

 

[Oddball]

Sorry, but I'll live where I want. Unless you plan to legislate that out of existence too.

At which point, there will be no government.

That was not my point. If you want me to spell it out for you, I am more than willing to do so..

Oh, I know just what you meant. And you seemed to miss the subtle point of my reply.

Your statement speaks to the stupid claim that the only way a society can take care of its needs is through government...when, in fact, government has shown (and only Chris seems to stupid to realize this) that government can't do much very well.

Why would I want them running my health care system ?

Go live on an island!

 

[Dr Grump]

Sorry, but I'll live where I want. Unless you plan to legislate that out of existence too.

At which point, there will be no government.

That was not my point. If you want me to spell it out for you, I am more than willing to do so..

Oh, I know just what you meant. And you seemed to miss the subtle point of my reply.

Your statement speaks to the stupid claim that the only way a society can take care of its needs is through government...when, in fact, government has shown (and only Chris seems to stupid to realize this) that government can't do much very well.

Why would I want them running my health care system ?

Your second paragraph belies your first because I don't mean that. I believe you need a mixture of both - govt and free enterprise.

It never ceases to amaze me that uber conservatives and libertarians don't see any good in government, when clearly there are some very good aspects to the institution. Sure, there are some pretty ordinary aspects to it, too.

I come from a country where there is little private health care and mainly run by the government, and while it has its moments as far as making mistakes etc, there is definitely not the amount of whining and whinging that goes on on these boards by Americans about their health system.

At the end of the day, your health system suffers from the same thing that seems endemic in your society: anything that 'appears' to infringe on your 'personal freedoms' is bad - even if it's good for you.

 

[dblack]

At the end of the day, your health system suffers from the same thing that seems endemic in your society: anything that 'appears' to infringe on your 'personal freedoms' is bad - even if it's good for you.

Maybe that's because what's "good for you" is a subject evaluation. What's wrong with letting people decide for themselves what's good for them. Does it need to be dictated?

 

[Oddball]

It never ceases to amaze me that uber conservatives and libertarians don't see any good in government...

Bullshit ignorant strawman argument.

Gubmint, by its very nature, is coercion and naked force...Period....There is no kindness, compassion or hairy-fairy wonder in proactive compulsion of your neighbor.

There are times where such force is a good thing and others where it is not....Initiating force on the premise that you are somehow kinder, gentler, smarter, more compassionate, or whatever, than the next guy down the line is the root of sheer unadulterated hubris.

 

[Dr Grump]

At the end of the day, your health system suffers from the same thing that seems endemic in your society: anything that 'appears' to infringe on your 'personal freedoms' is bad - even if it's good for you.

Maybe that's because what's "good for you" is a subject evaluation. What's wrong with letting people decide for themselves what's good for them. Does it need to be dictated?

But to me, the logical conclusion is, Anarchy. You do need some structure to society, and there lies the rub...What structure and on whose terms?

As I mentioned in another thread, back home we all pay taxes knowing that one day we will need health care, thus the slow uptake on private health care. As far as we are concerned it's long term health insurance. That is why I laugh when people say "I'm paying for your health care." No you're not, I'm paying for my own with all the taxes I've paid for over the years.

Health premiums are the same....really. If you pay $1000 a month from 20 to 30 and you have a car accident that breaks both your legs and an arm, and gives you brain damage, do you think you're premiums are paying for it? Nope...you've covered some of your health care, but other people's money is paying for your care...

 

[Listening]

That was not my point. If you want me to spell it out for you, I am more than willing to do so..

Oh, I know just what you meant. And you seemed to miss the subtle point of my reply.

Your statement speaks to the stupid claim that the only way a society can take care of its needs is through government...when, in fact, government has shown (and only Chris seems to stupid to realize this) that government can't do much very well.

Why would I want them running my health care system ?

Your second paragraph belies your first because I don't mean that. I believe you need a mixture of both - govt and free enterprise.

It never ceases to amaze me that uber conservatives and libertarians don't see any good in government, when clearly there are some very good aspects to the institution. Sure, there are some pretty ordinary aspects to it, too.

I come from a country where there is little private health care and mainly run by the government, and while it has its moments as far as making mistakes etc, there is definitely not the amount of whining and whinging that goes on on these boards by Americans about their health system.

At the end of the day, your health system suffers from the same thing that seems endemic in your society: anything that 'appears' to infringe on your 'personal freedoms' is bad - even if it's good for you.

I don't know what country you come from, but we are literally a collection of 50 little countries. All of which have the power to create health care systems. That is what the U.S. was founded upon.

We have many states bigger than Denmark or Scottland and several that are even larger than Norway. We have one that could probably kick Canada's rear in war all by itself.

And if one of them wants to run a health care system....like Mass...let them do it. But our federal system is all to well practiced at fleecing us with little or no accountability. That is why it is in such a mess right now. There are way to many conflicting agendas. At the state level it is much more simple.

So before you make those gross overgeneralizations about what we do and what we don't do, make sure you understand the context in which it is said.

 

[Dr Grump]

It never ceases to amaze me that uber conservatives and libertarians don't see any good in government...

Bullshit ignorant strawman argument.

Gubmint, by its very nature, is coercion and naked force...Period....There is no kindness, compassion or hairy-fairy wonder in proactive compulsion of your neighbor.

There are times where such force is a good thing and others where it is not....Initiating force on the premise that you are somehow kinder, gentler, smarter, more compassionate, or whatever, than the next guy down the line is the root of sheer unadulterated hubris.

Christ, I'd hate to live life with your attitude. Did you get dumped at the Prom or something?