Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
No, you are an anarchist.
Why have people come to believe health care is a "right" when it actually isn't?
- Thread starter Little-Acorn
- Start date
No, you are an anarchist.
What? I'm not, but what does that have to do with my post?
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
The Ten Commandments come before the teachings based on them.
One of the Ten Commandments is against
COVETING the labor or servants of one's neighbors.
This happens to me all the time, so I have to explain it this way.
If you do not pay back a debt where someone else paid for you,
then you are relying on the labor or money of someone else to cover your expenses.
if this is VOLUNTARY then it is giving.
If it is NOT VOLUNTARY, if you are forcing them to work and not keep the benefits of their labor but use that time money or labor for your benefit when they did NOT agree to it.
That is either COVETING, STEALING, FRAUD OR INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.
COVETING AND THEFT ARE AGAINST THE MAIN PRINCIPLES IN THE BIBLE.
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE was outlawed by the 13th Amendment.
Taxation without representation is another close concept,
but I started arguing against INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE with people who don't get this.
Like people who are late on paying rent or paying back expenses they committed to,
so someone else has to cover in the meantime. That isn't free, it doesn't come from
nowhere.
Note: the only argument I've heard so far that even has any weight at all is arguing that people are going through the hospitals and ER to get free health care at taxpayers' expense ANYWAY, the cost is already being racked up and this health insurance was an attempt to redirect the help at some other point of service besides the ER. But the solution is NOT to go force OTHER people to pay the difference who DIDN'T abuse the system or commit any crime.
There was no DUE PROCESS to prove that the people being charged in forcing to buy insurance or pay penalties to govt are the ones committing the excess charges. If the point was to save money, this should be PROVEN FIRST or it is "faith based" where people did NOT agree and do NOT believe this will work or is Constitutional in the first place.
the problem was not agreeing what to change the system to.
one side sees public assistance as temporary and wants incentives to move people to independence not rewarding them for staying independent.
The other wants universal coverage in the most cost-effective way.
This can best be done VOLUNTARILY and not contradicting either church or state law by "coveting the labor or money of other people" or imposing a faith based system without consent, proof or consensus of the public since all people have equal right to representation, due process and protection of their beliefs under law.
those who believe in charity are free to practice that in the manner seen fit,
but no right to take church or religious based principles and impose them through the state.
Only if people AGREE on such policies, can they write a public law such as allowing for prayer or crosses etc. But this cannot be imposed. any conflict over religion must be resolved first or it is introducing a bias by government which is supposed to remain neutral and all inclusive so as not to discriminate, coerce or exclude by faith-based differences.
WHOA this is under CHURCH law which is different from STATE LAW.
Under the laws of charity, the more you give the more you receive.
"God loves a cheerful giver" this is supposed to be by free will, voluntarily
otherwise if it is forced by God it is not giving!
Note: by free exercise of religion, who is to dictate WHICH people and WHICH services should be donated? why is the state deciding that health insurance is more important
than someone donating to help a single mother get housing and food to raise a child?
The Prolife advocates have equal right to invest their DONATIONS from their SALARIES
to help prevent abortion. Equal to the singlepayer who want to cover medical costs.
Who is to say one case of charity is or is not exempted, and you will still have to pay an additional tax or fine? Why can't people be free to give in the way they are called to do?
The same argument I have seen prochoice people use to answer to prolife people, to do all their outreach "freely on their own" and keep it out of government policy, why doesn't that apply to ACA now?
One of the Ten Commandments is against
COVETING the labor or servants of one's neighbors.
This happens to me all the time, so I have to explain it this way.
If you do not pay back a debt where someone else paid for you,
then you are relying on the labor or money of someone else to cover your expenses.
if this is VOLUNTARY then it is giving.
If it is NOT VOLUNTARY, if you are forcing them to work and not keep the benefits of their labor but use that time money or labor for your benefit when they did NOT agree to it.
That is either COVETING, STEALING, FRAUD OR INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.
COVETING AND THEFT ARE AGAINST THE MAIN PRINCIPLES IN THE BIBLE.
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE was outlawed by the 13th Amendment.
Taxation without representation is another close concept,
but I started arguing against INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE with people who don't get this.
Like people who are late on paying rent or paying back expenses they committed to,
so someone else has to cover in the meantime. That isn't free, it doesn't come from
nowhere.
Note: the only argument I've heard so far that even has any weight at all is arguing that people are going through the hospitals and ER to get free health care at taxpayers' expense ANYWAY, the cost is already being racked up and this health insurance was an attempt to redirect the help at some other point of service besides the ER. But the solution is NOT to go force OTHER people to pay the difference who DIDN'T abuse the system or commit any crime.
There was no DUE PROCESS to prove that the people being charged in forcing to buy insurance or pay penalties to govt are the ones committing the excess charges. If the point was to save money, this should be PROVEN FIRST or it is "faith based" where people did NOT agree and do NOT believe this will work or is Constitutional in the first place.
the problem was not agreeing what to change the system to.
one side sees public assistance as temporary and wants incentives to move people to independence not rewarding them for staying independent.
The other wants universal coverage in the most cost-effective way.
This can best be done VOLUNTARILY and not contradicting either church or state law by "coveting the labor or money of other people" or imposing a faith based system without consent, proof or consensus of the public since all people have equal right to representation, due process and protection of their beliefs under law.
those who believe in charity are free to practice that in the manner seen fit,
but no right to take church or religious based principles and impose them through the state.
Only if people AGREE on such policies, can they write a public law such as allowing for prayer or crosses etc. But this cannot be imposed. any conflict over religion must be resolved first or it is introducing a bias by government which is supposed to remain neutral and all inclusive so as not to discriminate, coerce or exclude by faith-based differences.
WHOA this is under CHURCH law which is different from STATE LAW.
Under the laws of charity, the more you give the more you receive.
"God loves a cheerful giver" this is supposed to be by free will, voluntarily
otherwise if it is forced by God it is not giving!
Note: by free exercise of religion, who is to dictate WHICH people and WHICH services should be donated? why is the state deciding that health insurance is more important
than someone donating to help a single mother get housing and food to raise a child?
The Prolife advocates have equal right to invest their DONATIONS from their SALARIES
to help prevent abortion. Equal to the singlepayer who want to cover medical costs.
Who is to say one case of charity is or is not exempted, and you will still have to pay an additional tax or fine? Why can't people be free to give in the way they are called to do?
The same argument I have seen prochoice people use to answer to prolife people, to do all their outreach "freely on their own" and keep it out of government policy, why doesn't that apply to ACA now?
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
You also remind me of Obama, who changed his mind FREELY about gay marriage, decided he supported it ON HIS OWN WITHOUT FORCE OF GOVT.
Then proceeded to push politically to make this the policy for everyone.
Do you see the difference?
Many Christians and others believe in God, and this is freely chosen without laws forcing us to. But try to even allow one Cross on a building or a nativity scene on public property,
and people protest.
So please be consistent.
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
What is it YOU don't understand about it?
Oh, right, it's you, so the answer would be (as always) "not a damned thing".
Let me see if I can simple this up for the simpletons in the audience: if I give you $5 because I feel sorry for you, that's charity. If you take $5 from me, that's robbery.
Just because I choose to give you that $5 because I'm a good person doesn't mean you have a right to that $5.
Let me know if you still don't get it, and I'll break out the Crayolas and draw you a picture.
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
And you're a fuckwit, with about as much relevance trying to teach people about being Christians as a fish has trying to teach birds to fly.
If you can't even understand Mathew 25:40, then you have no business using it in any post, son.
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
What is the object of government? To you right wing turds it is clearing the deck so insurance cartels and corporations can swindle and feed on We, the People.
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
If you can't even understand Mathew 25:40, then you have no business using it in any post, son.
Ok, then explain it to me 'daddy'
And it was 1/10 as expensive.
I'm glad you're asking the question, because that's the real source of our disagreement. The purpose of government, in my view, is to protect individual liberty. I want a government that preserves the freedom of each of us to pursue our own unique vision of the good life, not one that decides for us what that vision must be.
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
And how is 'government' stopping that?
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
Seems like to you, its purpose is to be worshipped . . . oh, and give you a chance to blither about whatever insane fantasy you're currently trying to project onto conservatives.
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
I don't have to project anything "onto conservatives", you right wing cretins profess your barbarism on every thread.
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
Riiiight . . . just like the Bible professes that you have a right to sit on your dead ass and suck off of other people. I'm sure that all of us are VERY impressed with your "insightful" assessments.
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
WOW, thank you for parroting a perfect example...
Now, don't you know that troll is a legend in his own mind? All he really has is hate and name calling. His "arguments" boil down to ad hominem attack and ridiculous abstractions that are thread killing deflections and are better ignored.
Just my opinion.
When it's functioning properly it isn't. It's necessary to protect it. It's when we expand the role of government beyond protecting freedom that we run into problems.
The primary function of government is to enforce conformity. Some of that is necessary to make a free society viable. Sometimes, everyone doing their own thing is intolerable, so we pass laws that require everyone to follow the same norms of behavior. But, if our goal is a free society, we must recognize that as a loss of freedom, and indulge it only when truly necessary.
When we enlist government to solve problems that we can otherwise solve ourselves, we're trading freedom for convenience and we should stop to ask ourselves whether it's truly worth it. When the consensus is very high, and the cost relatively low, it's often worth it to go for the convenience. (Even most ardent libertartians are ok with stop signs, for example, even though one might argue we could get by without them.) But when there is not a strong consensus, or the cost, either in loss of liberty or finances, is high, we should resist the urge to give up our freedom for expedience.
Yes! Government does some things very well. However, when we allow government to move into areas it is not intended to do, it becomes a yoke on us all!
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
And whether you will admit or not, health care was screaming for government intervention. Every other industrial nation sees health care as a basic human right and most have government run single payer systems that work very well. America has double the health care costs and we are at the bottom in may outcome areas.
As a liberal, I would have preferred single payer or at least a public option, but liberals no longer have power in this country or even power in the Democratic Party.
Healthcare costs destroyed the Bush economy
David Frum: A former economic speechwriter for President George W. Bush
Posted: September 15, 2009, 4:30 PM by NP Editor
Ron Brownstein ably sums up the Census BureauÂ’s final report on the Bush economy.
Bottom line: not good.
On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during BushÂ’s two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked.
What went wrong?
In a word: healthcare.
Over the years from 2000 to 2007, the price that employers paid for labor rose by an average of 25% per hour. But the wages received by workers were worth less in 2007 than seven years before. All that extra money paid by employers disappeared into the healthcare system: between 2000 and 2007, the cost of the average insurance policy for a family of four doubled.
Exploding health costs vacuumed up worker incomes. Frustrated workers began telling pollsters the country was on the “wrong track” as early as 2004 – the year that George W. Bush won re-election by the narrowest margin of any re-elected president in U.S. history.
Slowing the growth of health costs is essential to raising wages – and by the way restoring Americans’ faith in the fairness of a free-market economy.
Explaining the impact of health costs on wages is essential to protecting the economic reputation of the last Republican administration and Congress.
If Republicans stick to the line that the US healthcare system works well as is – that it has no important problems that cannot be solved by tort reform – then George W. Bush and the Congresses of 2001-2007 will join Jimmy Carter and Herbert Hoover in the American memory’s hall of economic failures. Recovery from that stigma will demand more than a tea party.
Read more: David Frum: Healthcare costs destroyed the Bush economy - Full Comment
Similar threads
- Locked
