No. of Recommendations: 23
People on the left (and some on the right) claim that health care is a right. Think of the implications of this assertion. Let's suppose that no one was willing to be doctors, nurses, etc. If receiving health care is a right, then we have the right to force others to provide us with health care. You don't want to be a doctor? Too bad! I have a right!

The idea that health care is a right is equivalent to the idea that the enslavement of others is a right.

The fact is that we don't have a right to anything that must be provided by others.

Leonard Peikoff hit the nail on the head:
"...all legitimate rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people."
http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/index.php?news=5123
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
The fact is that we don't have a right to anything that must be provided by others.

I agree that "right" is one of the most overused words in the public square. I almost had a heart attack when the venerable WSJ opined in an editorial about our "right to safety." Just shows to go ya how ridiculous things can get, when arguably the most reliable institutional conservative voice in the press falls victim.

But since it isn't about to stop, I just ignore it and concentrate on my next martini.

Phil
Rule Your Retirement Home Fool
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 18
When advocates of "free" government health care simply state that a prosperous and compassionate society should want to provide for all of its people as a humanitarian basis for it, at least that's a matter of opinion.

When they say "health care is a right," I tune them out as they are blatantly wrong. A "right" is something people can exercise without taking the life, limb, liberty or property of others against their consent. Since "free" health care requires taking the tax money of others whether they want to participate in or contribute to such a program, I would contend it can't be a right.

Jefferson once referred to right to religious freedom as something which, when exercised by others, "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Using that test, "free" government health care falls well short.

#29
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Observe that all legitimate rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people. The American rights impose no obligations on other people, merely the negative obligation to leave you alone. The system guarantees you the chance to work for what you want--not to be given it without effort by somebody else.

The right to life, e.g., does not mean that your neighbors have to feed and clothe you; it means you have the right to earn your food and clothes yourself, if necessary by a hard struggle, and that no one can forcibly stop your struggle for these things or steal them from you if and when you have achieved them. In other words: you have the right to act, and to keep the results of your actions,
-------------------------------

Hooray! Phil has a right to his martini as long as he procures it himself and doesn't force someone else to produce it.

Er, isn't it a tad early for martinis?

arrete
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Phil has a right to his martini as long as he procures it himself and doesn't force someone else to produce it.

Although it's always nice when a kind soul offers to make one, with Hendricks and a tasteful slice of cucumber, no less.

Er, isn't it a tad early for martinis?

As my late Uncle Paul once observed, it's always 5:00 somewhere.

Phil
Rule Your Retirement Home Fool
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
John Mackey Whole Foods
"Many promoters of health-care reform believe that people have an intrinsic ethical right to health care—to equal access to doctors, medicines and hospitals. While all of us empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter?
Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That’s because there isn’t any. This “right” has never existed in America
Even in countries like Canada and the U.K., there is no intrinsic right to health care. Rather, citizens in these countries are told by government bureaucrats what health-care treatments they are eligible to receive and when they can receive them. All countries with socialized medicine ration health care by forcing their citizens to wait in lines to receive scarce treatments.
Although Canada has a population smaller than California, 830,000 Canadians are currently waiting to be admitted to a hospital or to get treatment, according to a report last month in Investor’s Business Daily. In England, the waiting list is 1.8 million."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
http://www.americanissuesproject.org/blogs/columns/archive/2...

That brings us to the notion of the “right” to health care. As human beings, we want to see people succeed to the point where they can feed, clothe, and care for themselves independently, as that establishes true personal freedom. However, none of us have the right to confiscate the services of a doctor or nurse without their consent, and without their ability to set a price for their time and expertise. We don't have the right to walk into a grocery story to demand apples when we're hungry, either, although we should have access to the market without bias when we can properly compensate its owner for the goods.

Arguing that we have a right to health-care goods and services disconnected from our individual ability to provide that compensation takes us down a much different path than that envisioned by the founders. It owes much more to schools of thought where private property rights have little or no meaning, where the individual gets subsumed by the society in which he lives, and where all property belongs to the people as a whole. We have seen massive experimentation with those systems in the 20th century, and they had several points in common: they resulted in a sharp decline in individual liberty, in production, and in standards of living.

The founders understood that property rights would secure liberty and the greatest good for the nation as a whole. That's why they declared the “pursuit of happiness” as an unalienable right, and not the end result of happiness itself. They knew that creating a government that respects private property and the innate rights of individuals over their government would create the best opportunities to achieve happiness for the largest amount of people. The 20th century proved them correct, for those who paid attention.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
http://investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=482327

A "Right" That's Wrong:
A "right," as we all know, has one key characteristic: It can't be taken away. Ever. That's exactly what the new Democrat-sponsored bill would ensure.
That second word — "responsibility" — is also key. The government will force you to take part in its plan, whether you want to or not. As it turns out, "responsibility" is code for "tax hikes" and "compulsory participation."
...But even those at lower or middle incomes will face higher taxes under both the House and Senate bills. Individuals who decline to take part will be hit with a penalty of up to 2.5% of what they earn.
By the way, among the "rights" that don't come with the new government-run plan are the "right" to treatment, the "right" to choose your own doctor, the "right" to see a doctor immediately and the "right" to a second opinion. Sorry.
This is more than just verbiage. It's quite similar, in fact, to what happened with Social Security and Medicare, the massive government-run health care program. They too are now considered by government and many Americans as "rights" (though the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that they are not).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 26
Whether or not it is a right is not really important.

The salient points are:-

- Disease is basically an inevitability as someone ages. Even if you can make it through your 20s, 30s, 40s and maybe 50s without ever seeing a doctor, your chances of that continuing forever are slim to nothing. You don't have to drive a car, you don't have to use a public library, but while your heart is still beating you need to breathe oxygen and process food. Unless you don't rule out suicide, they're not entirely voluntary activities. To keep doing both of them in a reasonable manner sometimes the intervention of a doctor is required.

- In the US, the costs of medical care are heavily juiced. Therefore, those without cover are sometimes faced with often ruinous choices when they do become sick. Far more commonly than in other OECD nations. Even comfortably middle-class people can be shattered financially by lack of coverage (sometimes due to factors outside of their control). This has a major impact on the economy for a whole variety of reasons.

- The indigent sick (although not all of them) will eventually get treated - late and very expensively.

So, rather than ask if it's a right - ask "is it sensible"? See above to help inform the answer.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
In the US, the costs of medical care are heavily juiced.
<SNIP>
So, rather than ask if it's a right - ask "is it sensible"?

ONLY if
A) we decimate the "juicing" of predatory litigation that unecessarily drives up the costs of American medical care (unlike virtually *any* liberal showcase countries) to line the pockets of the uniquely-American legal racket.
B) we put the purchasing control (pricing pressure) directly back in the hands of the actual health care consumer, at their own budget management (even if they'd really rather not have to deal with it.)

Both can easily be done (though not without a great deal of whining, doubtlessly.) Tort reform and expanded HSA accounts are obvious paths.

Without solving these two problems 1st however, forcing health care "reform" from above is economically futile.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 15
A "right" is something people can exercise without taking the life, limb, liberty or property of others against their consent.

It should be noted that this is not the only possible definition of a right, and indeed is not the definition that is used in American law. For example, one has a right to have a lawyer and a jury trial provided to them in a criminal prosecution - government cannot take away your liberties without giving you both a forum and a certain minimum means to contest the charges. Yet both require picking the pocket of the taxpayer, since neither can be provided for free.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 20
Whether or not it is a right is not really important.

This statement disgusts me. All of the biggest atrocities that we have seen throughout history (Soviet Union, Nazism, China, etc.) are based on your philosophy that individual rights are not important. Your philosophy is the philosophy of coercing people to sacrifice themselves for the common good. When a moral philosophy requires individuals to sacrifice themselves, there is no protection for the individual. Individuals then get sacrificed in large numbers. This is a moral issue that is *very* important.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
A "right" is something people can exercise without taking the life, limb, liberty or property of others against their consent.

It should be noted that this is not the only possible definition of a right, and indeed is not the definition that is used in American law. For example, one has a right to have a lawyer and a jury trial provided to them in a criminal prosecution - government cannot take away your liberties without giving you both a forum and a certain minimum means to contest the charges. Yet both require picking the pocket of the taxpayer, since neither can be provided for free.

Albaby


Those aren't true rights. True rights exist independent of government. It is government's job to protect those rights. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

Unfortunately, our form of government has become destructive of these ends.

For more on this concept, read:
The Purpose and Limits of Government
http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletters/cl-13.pdf
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Those aren't true rights. True rights exist independent of government

Property rights don't exist independent of government - if the government doesn't create them by law, they are not there. Intellectual property rights CERTAINLY don't exist independent of government.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Your philosophy is the philosophy of coercing people to sacrifice themselves for the common good.

No - my philosophy is pragmatic realism. As opposed to yours - which is histrionic, juvenile amateur dramatics.

Go picket a public library. You were COERCED AND FORCED to fund it! THE HORROR! THE HORROR!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Those aren't true rights. True rights exist independent of government

Property rights don't exist independent of government...


They don't? I disagree. I feel that governments merely protect property rights. Or actually, they are supposed to protect them, but they tend to violate them quite often.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Your philosophy is the philosophy of coercing people to sacrifice themselves for the common good.

No - my philosophy is pragmatic realism.


There is no such thing as a pragmatic realism that is based on ignoring reality.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
People on the left (and some on the right) claim that health care is a right
_______________________________________
It is, but only in civilized countries.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"This statement disgusts me."

That's because you don't understand it. The problem lies not with the statement, but with your lack of comprehension. ALL rights are defined by people working together trying to figure out how to make society better for everybody. Your disgust is the predictable result of your inability to understand what human rights are.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
People on the left (and some on the right) claim that health care is a right
_______________________________________
It is, but only in civilized countries.
----------------------------------
I never liked that argument. Not persuasive to me. What if the US went the "civilized" route and we stopped subsidizing all the socialist countries? It's just not convincing to me.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"Property rights don't exist independent of government...

MadC: "They don't? I disagree. I feel that governments merely protect property rights. Or actually, they are supposed to protect them, but they tend to violate them quite often.

I don't understand how a person can reach adulthood without understanding basic concepts. People come together and agree upon what property rights are. In 1500, tribes came together and defined property rights in a very different way than we define them.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The fact is that we don't have a right to anything that must be provided by others.


So by your logic, we shouldn't have a military.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"I never liked that argument. Not persuasive to me. What if the US went the "civilized" route and we stopped subsidizing all the socialist countries? It's just not convincing to me." - 2828


The United States Federal government is already up to its ying-yang interfering in health care. All the laws and regulations involved in health care artificially raise the cost of health care to the point where the average person can't afford it without health insurance.

Do away with ALL the laws regulating health care and I'll switch sides, otherwise I say "defecate or get off the pot!"

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Artie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
So by your logic, we shouldn't have a military.
-------------------------------------
"Provide for the common defense"......d'uh!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
"I don't understand how a person can reach adulthood without understanding basic concepts. People come together and agree upon what property rights are. In 1500, tribes came together and defined property rights in a very different way than we define them." - jgc123


I'll never forget the time I saw a video of Jane Goodall's Gombe Stream chimps going on patrol. A group of 5 large male chimps got it into their head that they were going to war and patrol the border of their territory. They were going to war. They came upon a lone young male chimp from a neighboring tribe on the fringes of their territory and jumped him and bit him and beat him till he was almost dead. The narrator of the video said he was sure that the young chimp crawled off in the bushes and died.

Might makes right. Whoever has the strongest army gets the territory. Without government we'd be just a bunch of small family tribes trying to defend our little patches of land. That is exactly what happens in primitive cultures to this day. The Yanomamo of the Amazon rain forest feel they've been slighted by their neighbors for some reason and they take their bows and arrows and go turn one of their neighbors into a pin cushion. The same thing happens in the highlands of New Guinea. They are in a constant state of war with their neighbors over their sweet potato patches and pig pens - accusing their neighbors of stealing one of their pigs.


Art
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Provide for the common defense"......d'uh!

"Promote the general welfare" D'OOOOOOH!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"Provide for the common defense"......d'uh!

"Promote the general welfare" D'OOOOOOH!
------------------------------------
Ahhhh, touche! but it was never meant in that overencompassing way that liberals have taken it.

2828
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
>> "Provide for the common defense"......d'uh! <<

I'm afraid you may have just stepped in it, based on what follows that clause.

The difference, of course, is that outside of a vague, fluffy preamble that merely lists the intentions of forming a government rather than giving specific powers, the requirement to maintain a military is rather clear in the meat of the document in its reference to an army and navy in Article II.

Don't see health care listed there.

#29
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3

A "right" is something people can exercise without taking the life, limb, liberty or property of others against their consent.


It should be noted that this is not the only possible definition of a right, and indeed is not the definition that is used in American law. For example, one has a right to have a lawyer and a jury trial provided to them in a criminal prosecution - government cannot take away your liberties without giving you both a forum and a certain minimum means to contest the charges. Yet both require picking the pocket of the taxpayer, since neither can be provided for free.
Albaby


The govt is acquiring the taxes to pay for the court costs by consent of the people; it is in no way involuntary pickpocketing as you suggest and is being done exclusively by consent of the governed. The govt will not utilize tax revenue without bound from the people to support any and all cases righteous or not. The people dictate how much they are willing to be taxed to pay for such things via the representatives they vote for. And if the people no longer wish to pay for it, then the only option for govt is the case just doesn't get brought to court and the accused goes free.

The govt doesn't have the right to make lawyers and judges work as indentured servants, nor does it have the right to subjugate the will of the people in this regard to further its own ends. So yes, people have a right to a lawyer and a jury trial within the construct of the society that the people allow to exist. And if the people do not wish to pay for it any more, the only option for the govt is to not bring the case in which one would have the right to a lawyer. That is how things are being decriminalized such as for example cases involving possession of pot.

justacog
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The govt is acquiring the taxes to pay for the court costs by consent of the people; it is in no way involuntary pickpocketing as you suggest...

I didn't consent to it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
So, rather than ask if it's a right - ask "is it sensible"? See above to help inform the answer.

Yes, health care is sensible. We as a nation should work to reduce costs to make it affordable. Changing who pays for it does nothing to reduce the actual cost. Changing who pays may well enable the costs to rise, as abuse is easier when paid for by someone else.

Keith
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The govt is acquiring the taxes to pay for the court costs by consent of the people; it is in no way involuntary pickpocketing as you suggest...

I didn't consent to it.


Once again MC, their justification boils down to organized mob rule.....if the democractic majority decided it to be so, therefore, it is "legal" and it is "OK." Legalized theft is permitted so long as 51% decides it to be the case. It's the will of the people. If 51% decides red heads should be taxed an additional 10%, so be it.

What they don't realize is that rights can not be morally voted away. The protection of rights can not be subject to mob mentality. Can it happen? Sure. Does it happen? All the time. Is it "legal"? Sure it is. Is it moral? No. It is the will of the majority subjugating the rights of the minority.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You are both confusing the concept of rights with the concept of enumerated powers. If you don't understand this then you aren't qualified to discuss serious issues with adults.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
People on the left (and some on the right) claim that health care is a right
_______________________________________
It is, but only in civilized countries.


How do "civilized" countries fulfill this right if nobody consents to practice medicine?

Two possible answers:

1) Slavery
2) It isn't a right after all
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"How do "civilized" countries fulfill this right if nobody consents to practice medicine?

Two possible answers:

1) Slavery
2) It isn't a right after all" - warrl

-----------------------------


Witch doctors, shamans, and "dragon bone tea."

<grin!>

Artie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
There is no such thing as a pragmatic realism that is based on ignoring reality.

Yeah - silly me!

It's so unrealistic to acknowledge that the human animal is very likely to get sick at some point and that not all of them will be able to afford treatment for various reasons. If only I'd realise it - the more people who read Atlas Shrugged, the less ill the populace is!

I'd also forgotten that people are machine-gunned at hospital doors if they can't pay. I was under the insane impression that they get treated in emergency wards at a comparatively huge cost that ends up being paid out of the public purse anyhow and might have been avoided and/or the strain on the collective wallet lessened with an earlier intervention. Lucky I've got an ardent realist like you to set me straight.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
It should be noted that this is not the only possible definition of a right, and indeed is not the definition that is used in American law. For example, one has a right to have a lawyer and a jury trial provided to them in a criminal prosecution - government cannot take away your liberties without giving you both a forum and a certain minimum means to contest the charges. Yet both require picking the pocket of the taxpayer, since neither can be provided for free.

So a better definition of a right might be protection from government taking away your liberties.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
People on the left (and some on the right) claim that health care is a right. Think of the implications of this assertion. Let's suppose that no one was willing to be doctors, nurses, etc. If receiving health care is a right, then we have the right to force others to provide us with health care. You don't want to be a doctor? Too bad! I have a right!

I'm failing to comprehend this. ANY service job could be construed the same way. We have drafts for those who do not want to be a soldier in times of war - is that slavery as well? In some ways, I CERTAINLY think so, especially since it may be fully against someone's moral code.

What if no one wanted to be a police officer, a firefighter, a postal worker, etc.?

Due to the extremely loud commentary as of late regarding the firefighters who "allowed" the home of someone who did not pay their bill to burn to the ground, it seems as if quite a few people feel that they would be entitled to firefighting.

What if no one wanted to be a teacher? What if no one wanted to build or maintain any highways or infrastructure? What if, what if, what if???

However, that's not the case. There IS a shortage of nurses out there, and a lot of companies and causes have stepped up to provide scholarships to nursing schools, educate people about the careers, etc. To the best of my knowledge, no one has been drafted into being a medical professional.

Of the arguments out there, this one simply is a lot of noise and fury, signifying nothing, so far as I can see.

GSF
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 23
>> Of the arguments out there, this one simply is a lot of noise and fury, signifying nothing, so far as I can see. <<

One which could largely be avoided if people stopped making fallacious arguments like "health care is a right."

A public good? Sure? Something a wealthy and compassionate society has a moral obligation to provide for all? Arguable, but defensible. A right? Not even close.

#29
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
A public good? Sure? Something a wealthy and compassionate society has a moral obligation to provide for all? Arguable, but defensible. A right? Not even close..>>>> Somewhere it is written that we have he right to 'LIFE,LIBERTY and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS"....Q: Can we have "life" and "happiness" without good health?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
ziggy29; "[Is health care] a right? Not even close."

My understanding is that if you present at the Emergency Department with acute stomach pains, you will be treated. They are required to.

Does that mean you have a "right" to that treatment? Perhaps not. But that doesn't change that you will get treatment. Since you will get treatment, rather than getting tripped up over the semantics of whether that treatment is a "right" we should focus on how to make that treatment (and other necessary health care) as efficient and cost-effective as possible.

MotleyFooley
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Does that mean you have a "right" to that treatment? Perhaps not. But that doesn't change that you will get treatment. Since you will get treatment, rather than getting tripped up over the semantics of whether that treatment is a "right" we should focus on how to make that treatment (and other necessary health care) as efficient and cost-effective as possible." - MotleyFooley


The Federal government limits my access to health care. Their interference keeps me from being able to go to the pharmacy and buying any kind of pain relief, antibiotic, chemotherapy, etc. I want. Not only that but their intereference in who can and who can't become a doctor limits my access to doctors. If there weren't so much intereference through regulation and accreditation there would be a whole lot more doctors and I would have much more choice and going to a doctor would be much cheaper.

Humans feel pain, they have emotions and feelings and are biological creatures not machines. You can park a car if you can't afford to fix it, not so with the human body. You either fix it or die. If you are in excruciating pain and need medicine you need some kind of analgesic or antibiotic, etc. or you will die.

There is no comparison between fixing a car and fixing a human. Cars don't feel pain. If a car dies the grief or pain of separation is short or temporary. Not so with a human being. Losing someone we love is the worst experience of separation that there is. Nothing else comes close. Fifty years later you can still be mourning the loss of your mother, brother, sister, father, wife, etc.

Art
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Art, much of the interference that you claim limits your access to doctors is due to State governments, not the Feds
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Art, much of the interference that you claim limits your access to doctors is due to State governments, not the Feds - missah


Thank you, I'll accept that but my point still stands. The truth is that I am for a single payer system and think it makes sense. I realize that we can't just allow anyone to hang up a shingle and call themselves a doctor and sell anything they want.

However because life is like that and we live in a society with rules and regulations and humans have feelings and mourn those we love after they are gone I feel like society has the obligation to see after those who are less fortunate.

Doctors make gobs more money than regular folks. The most I ever made was $28,000/year. I'm pretty sure most doctors make well in excess of $100,000/year which sounds pretty hoiety-toiety to me!

So my point is that if doctors end up taking a pay cut because of a bit of socialized medicine well life is tough and I've been living on $900/month for the last few years so if I can do it so can they.

Artie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I've been living on $900/month for the last few years>>>>>>>>>>> Do you live in a tepee? More power to you; I just cannot imagine living on that monthly amount. I am a retired doctor, so I must be spoiled.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"Do you live in a tepee? More power to you; I just cannot imagine living on that monthly amount. I am a retired doctor, so I must be spoiled." - missah


My wife teaches at Belmont University. I mooch off her. I pay for stuff like food, gas, car insurance, tires, etc. dentist bills, doctor co-pays and deductibles, pharmacy stuff like simvastatin and lisinopril, etc. I get enough money to where I don't need to ask her for money for gas, but that is about it.

I told her when we moved her to be close to her parents that I didn't want to start over. I was 54 years old and have arthritis in my hips and back and the idea of trying to start over was terrifying. After being laid off at the UT Vet School after working there for 17 years I tried teaching and almost had an anxiety attack or nervous breakdown. I was a disaster as a teacher. I completely lacked control and my students took over the classroom. It was horrifying.

My boss at the Vet School told me she was running out of money but I'm thinking that it more had to do with my arthritis and she saw that I was wearing out. It was a sneaky way to not be responsible for someone who had gotten worn out from lifting incubators and freezers and dogs and cats, etc. When I was told I was being laid off I thought it would be an easy thing to transition to teaching but I was wrong.

After failing miserably at teaching I just gave up. I told my wife I didn't want to work anymore. She doesn't care because it doesn't really cost her anything to keep me around and she has someone to run errands for her, do the dishes, cook, go grocery shopping, vacuum, etc.

Okay, I'll stifle myself.

Artie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Settled: Health Care is NOT a right.

If you disagree, reach into your own pocket and help those whom you think need health insurance. Put YOUR money where your mouth is.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
A public good? Sure? Something a wealthy and compassionate society has a moral obligation to provide for all? Arguable, but defensible. A right? Not even close.


Freedom of speech was not a right until we declared it a right.
Freedom of religion was not a right until we declared it a right.
Continue on down the Bill of Rights...


Maybe health care isn't a right in our country, but it is in other countries, and it ought to be here.

2K10
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Declaring what has always been doesn't mean that they did not exist before the declaration. The rights mentioned were granted by the Creator and thus have always been. That they were declared was not for the purpose of now saying to all folks, "hey, the government now says that you have these rights which before today you did not have." Instead it was to say to the government, "these rights have always existed, were granted by the Creator, and they are not to be taken away by the government."

Bass ackwards.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
A public good? Sure? Something a wealthy and compassionate society has a moral obligation to provide for all? Arguable, but defensible. A right? Not even close.

Freedom of speech was not a right until we declared it a right.
Freedom of religion was not a right until we declared it a right.
Continue on down the Bill of Rights...


Yep, and electrons didn't exist until they were discovered.

The fact is that this country was created on the principle that we *did* have these rights before they were declared. They are "unalienable rights" that exist independent of government. Either the government protects our rights, or it doesn't. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect our rights. Government doesn't create rights. That is what the Declaration of Independence was based on:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..." - http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

If you wish to educate yourself a little more on the nature of rights (and I doubt that you do), then read this:
The Purpose and Limits of Government - http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletters/cl-13.pdf
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Maybe health care isn't a right in our country, but it is in other countries, and it ought to be here." - 2K10


Government interference in healthcare limits our access to it; and then when we tell them that we can't afford it because of their intereference they don't have any answers as to how lower middle class people and those without access to health insurance in their jobs can afford it.

About the only people in this country who have really secure good health insurance are those with government jobs. So I guess the answer is to play the game by their rules or "if life gives you lemons make lemonade."

Yes, someone making $100,000 a year can afford health insurance but someone working in a service industry job making $8 to $10/hour will not be able to afford health insurance after paying rent, food, car insurance, repairs, etc.

Artie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"Declaring what has always been doesn't mean that they did not exist before the declaration. The rights mentioned were granted by the Creator and thus have always been." - JoshRandall


Without government you don't even have the right to breath. A pack of your fellow apes can come in and beat the crap out of you and kill you just because they don't want you stepping over into their territory. Who is to say they can't if there is no government to stop them?

That's natures way and that's the way it worked for millions of years until homo sapiens finally invented government to make rules and regulations. The only rights we have are the ones that our government says we have. Other than that the only right that is guaranteed is death.

Artie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"The rights mentioned were granted by the Creator and thus have always been." - JoshRandall


A large percentage of people don't believe in a Creator. They believe in Darwin and natural selection and nature red in tooth and claw. If you got something I want I'll take it unless someone can stop me from taking it. There are no inherent rights separate and apart from government. There is only chaos and blood and pain.

Artie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
When advocates of "free" government health care simply state that a prosperous and compassionate society should want to provide for all of its people as a humanitarian basis for it, at least that's a matter of opinion.

A prosperous and compassionate society should want to provide for the "less fortunate". Its called charity. Providing for another via the barrel of a gun is NOT charity.

JLC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Your disgust is the predictable result of your inability to understand what human rights are.

I sometimes find it easier to "substitute" objects during an argument. Can take away the "emotional factor" of a position. Can look at things a little more objectively.

So from now one, instead of "the right to health care" we should substitute "the right to a 60 inch LCD HDTV". I mean, every one deserves such access. It is a basic necessity isn't it.

So if we as a society deem this to be a "right" it would be OK then?

JLC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 16
Somewhere it is written that we have he right to 'LIFE,LIBERTY and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS"....Q: Can we have "life" and "happiness" without good health?


I remember someone explaining "free speech" to me this way. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

Your "right to good health" ends at forcing me to take care of you.

JLC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 12
Doctors make gobs more money than regular folks. The most I ever made was $28,000/year. I'm pretty sure most doctors make well in excess of $100,000/year which sounds pretty hoiety-toiety to me!

As soon as they limit LeBron James, Oprah, and Leanardo DiCaprio to $100k/year then we'll talk.

I put myself through 4 years college, 4 years medical school, and 4 years of residency training. Every day (almost every patient) I make life altering if not life and death decisions. How much do you think that is worth?

JLC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"So from now one, instead of "the right to health care" we should substitute "the right to a 60 inch LCD HDTV". I mean, every one deserves such access. It is a basic necessity isn't it. So if we as a society deem this to be a "right" it would be OK then?" - JLC


No it's not. Someone without a television doesn't suffer pain and discomfort. Someone without healthcare can suffer excruciating pain and discomfort and end up dead. No one dies if they don't have a television.

And because our government limits access to pain alleviating drugs and require us to see a physician before obtaining said drugs they have an obligation to provide us with access to a physician so we can obtain those pain alleviating drugs.

Art
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"I put myself through 4 years college, 4 years medical school, and 4 years of residency training. Every day (almost every patient) I make life altering if not life and death decisions. How much do you think that is worth?" - JLC
----------


$100,000/year. No one needs to make more money than that to have a good life.

Art
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Art, please, get real.....do you have a clue what a medical school education costs these days? It's in the ballpark of $200,000+....
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
There is a proper and legitimate role for the federal government to protect our rights and the founding fathers wrote documents explaining this, for which we should all be willing to pay taxes. Milton Friedman explains the 3 primary roles:

“Fundamentally, there are only two ways of coordinating the economic activities of millions. One is central direction involving the use of coercion. The other is voluntary cooperation of individuals.”“Government has three primary functions. It should provide for military defense of the nation. It should enforce contracts between individuals. It should protect citizens against crimes against themselves or their property.”“When government tries to rearrange the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests, the costs come in inefficiency, lack of innovation and loss of freedom. Government should be a referee, not an active player.”“[G]overnmental measures taken with good intentions and for good purposes often, if not typically, go astray and do harm instead of good. There are many causes for the loss of freedom, but surely a major cause has been the growth of government.”“The most unresolved problem of the day is precisely the problem that concerned the founders of this nation--how to limit the scope and power of government. Tyranny, restrictions on human freedom, come primarily from governmental restrictions that we ourselves have set up.”"
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
Doctors make gobs more money than regular folks. The most I ever made was $28,000/year. I'm pretty sure most doctors make well in excess of $100,000/year which sounds pretty hoiety-toiety to me!

So my point is that if doctors end up taking a pay cut because of a bit of socialized medicine well life is tough and I've been living on $900/month for the last few years so if I can do it so can they.

Artie

------------------------------

But you could have applied yourself and spent several years going to medical school and been able to make more than $28K. Why would you think it is acceptable to force someone who worked their butts off to take a pay cut just because others weren't willing to work hard?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"No it's not. Someone without a television doesn't suffer pain and discomfort. "


Ha...try talking to a teenager after you take away his iPhone, video game, PC, gaming system. It's the end of the world.

Kids can't function without their electronic devices. They go into depression and withdrawal......agony.

Surely you wouldn't deny them the basics?

Heck, in many states, you qualify for a 'free cellphone' if you are indigent. It's a 'necessity'.

----

"$100,000/year. No one needs to make more money than that to have a good life. "

When Obama agrees to only have $100,000 income between he and his wife, and not make more than that ever after leaving office, and donate all the extra proceeds immediately to the US treasury ($100,000 limit, no deductions, and 100% tax on everything above that)...

I'll believe they are serious.

Until then, when docs have $500,000 debt to get out of medical school, have foregone 12 years of salary to become a doc...... then they deserve to be well paid

I'm not sure those neurosurgeons raking in $3 million or 8 million a year though are necessarily 'worth it'....but if they can manage it,...as 'the best' in the country'...well, no one should stop them if folks are willing to pay for them. Heck, folks pay 300 million for a painting. You don't need one of those to stay alive.


t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
No one needs to make more money than that to have a good life.

That's really none of your business or the business of the government to cap salaries or to claim to know how much someone needs. You sound like a Marxist and socialist hungry to steal other people's money so that you can give it to those whom YOU think should have it. You certainly sound like 0bama and his minions - spread the wealth.

Spread your own wealth and mind your own business when it comes to other people.

A liberal is someone who will give you the shirt off of someone else' back.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
ariechert: "If there weren't so much intereference through regulation and accreditation there would be a whole lot more doctors and I would have much more choice and going to a doctor would be much cheaper."

You may be right. However, I would think that, other things being equal, you'd want to go to a doctor who has been accredited by a school with proper training, and certified that they at least know technical information about the human body (even if they don't have an appropriate bedside manner), compared to an "open market" where any quack can tout his "miracle cure" to the most vulnerable. The government does the same thing with lots of professions - like engineers, so that the bridge you're riding across to get to the doctor's office doesn't collapse. That doesn't mean there are no quacks or incompetent professionals. But some accreditation (regulation) of those kinds of things can be a good thing.

As you note, there is tremendous pain when we lose loved ones. Poor medical facilities, complications, lack of knowledgeable staff, etc., can all play a role. I'd certainly feel more comfortable hiring a board-certified, highly-trained and regulated physician than have to "comparison shop" to find a physician with a medical school diploma before they treat my mom while she's in excruciating pain. "I know it hurts, but this guy has a big ad in the Yellow Pages, ma -- lemme just make one more call and ask him if he went to Harvard or Hollywood Upstairs Medical School......."

I agree that some red tape, and other things could be reduced. And I suppose that there are some people who want to pay $1000 less for an appendectomy done by a DVM versus an MD (I'm not one of them; I doubt you are either). Further, even if the government didn't "regulate" the medical profession, you can be assured that other entities would come into being to perform the same function, perhaps with profit motives or other things that might not be in your best interest. The amount and form of regulation should be scrutinized. But in my view, regulation, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing.

MotleyFooley
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"I'm pretty sure most doctors make well in excess of $100,000/year which sounds pretty hoiety-toiety to me!"

Art, I didn't realize you were a closet librul socialist!.....with horrendous wealth envy.


Heck, next you'll be ranting about tele's PRius and Malibu....and his driving all over the country ...spending money to stimulate the economy.


Only libruls want to bring everyone down to the same common denominator...like in Cuba...... or communist Russia...... (of course the elites are always exempt)...... the race to the bottom.

We, too, can be just like North Korea, where folks have hardly anything, including food.

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
“Fundamentally, there are only two ways of coordinating the economic activities of millions. One is central direction involving the use of coercion. The other is voluntary cooperation of individuals.”“Government has three primary functions. It should provide for military defense of the nation. It should enforce contracts between individuals. It should protect citizens against crimes against themselves or their property.”“When government tries to rearrange the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests, the costs come in inefficiency, lack of innovation and loss of freedom."


And if government weren't involved in healthcare there would be 10 times as many doctors, with one on every corner. You could go in Wal-Mart and see the doctor for $5.00 and get a prescription. People with terminal cancer could stay at home and shoot up heroin and stay high as a kite while slowing dying of cancer until their cancer got too advanced at which point they or one of their family could give them an extra large dose and put them to sleep forever. Without government healthcare would be cheap. There would be different levels and one could choose what level of doctor to go see.

And my point is that you can't have your cake and eat it too. This half @$$ involvement in healthcare is fine for engineers, lawyers, doctors, computer programmers, and government workers with Mercedes Benz policies but the poor shlub that is barely getting by in life, for whatever reason, it's a choice between paying his rent or buying health insurance.

Urban Dictionary: shlub
Working class man who is taken advantage of by management.


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=shlub


Artie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"But you could have applied yourself and spent several years going to medical school and been able to make more than $28K. Why would you think it is acceptable to force someone who worked their butts off to take a pay cut just because others weren't willing to work hard?' - guppy
----------


No I couldn't have. I wasn't smart enough. I rose to my level of incompetence. Ambition, motivation, dedication, etc. are all genetically controlled. There is no little man inside our brain that exists separate and apart from the machinery of our brain. Our thoughts are produced by our brain and our brains are biochemical organs dependent on the DNA we inherited from our parents.

That little voice inside our heads is generated by our brains. It doesn't exist separate and apart from our physical bodies. It is a product of our brains which means that our consciousness is dependent on the biochemistry our physical brain.

Capisce?

Art


"A wise man doesn't know how it feels to be thick as a brick."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"You sound like a Marxist and socialist hungry to steal other people's money so that you can give it to those whom YOU think should have it." - JoshRandall


Drive, ambition, motivation are all genetically controlled. They don't exist separate and apart from the physical brain. We are who we are and become what we become because of chance, a long line of accidents. The only reason one person is more successful than another is chance, like being dealt a hand of cards.

A little bit of socialism is an attempt to rectify some of the unfairness of life. Rights don't exist separate and apart from government. Might makes right. The only rights a person has are the ones that exist because the government protects them.

In a troop of gorillas the Alpha male holds on to his harem as long as he is able but eventually when a stronger more powerful male comes in and usurps his position it drives him off and then it kills all the babies forcing the females to come into estrus and he breeds them so they will bear his offspring. That is the kind of fairness that life without government gives us.

Artie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"I agree that some red tape, and other things could be reduced. And I suppose that there are some people who want to pay $1000 less for an appendectomy done by a DVM versus an MD (I'm not one of them; I doubt you are either). Further, even if the government didn't "regulate" the medical profession, you can be assured that other entities would come into being to perform the same function, perhaps with profit motives or other things that might not be in your best interest. The amount and form of regulation should be scrutinized. But in my view, regulation, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing." - MotleyFooley


My point was that is what one gets without government. They want their cake and eat it too. They are all for government as long as it benefits them but as soon as government is seen to be benefiting someone other than the ruling elite they raise holy hell. They want government that protects their position in society but doesn't do anything to benefit anybody but themselves.

"I got mine everyone else can go fornicate with themselves."

Artie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Art, I didn't realize you were a closet librul socialist!.....with horrendous wealth envy." - tele


I've always resented people who make more money than me and the inherent unfairness of life. Even though I realize that duality and separation are inherent and inescapable properties of the physical universe that doesn't mean I have to like it. I know there is no escaping it but I still resent it.

I suppose it's that way for a reason. The more emotional the experience the more powerful and long lasting the memory it creates so by me experiencing some emotion because of "wealth envy" it's just one more lesson in separation. The only thing that I can take comfort in is that the "duality and separation" that we experience on this side won't exist in the next.

and yes, it's a holographic universe thing.

Artie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
I've always resented people who make more money than me and the inherent unfairness of life. Even though I realize that duality and separation are inherent and inescapable properties of the physical universe that doesn't mean I have to like it. I know there is no escaping it but I still resent it.

art


Whenever I've resented folks for what they have, it's because I feel less than in some way, that I'm not good enough, or I don't have the brainpower, strength, personality, whatever to accomplish or to have what they have. So if I'm feeling resentful, it's not them really, it's my own stuff I need to work through and either make a choice to do something different or be grateful for what I do have and to stop obsessing about others.

LD
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Someone without a television doesn't suffer pain and discomfort

Talk to me when I can't see my beloved LSU Tigers. It is excrutiating. There ought to be a law. I should be able to see my team play when ever, where ever.

Your papercut is my gaping wound.

JLC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
$100,000/year. No one needs to make more money than that to have a good life.

Art


Then start with George Soros, Bill Gates, et al, and as soon as you can get them to earn only $100k/year then come talk to me.

JLC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Then start with George Soros, Bill Gates, et al, and as soon as you can get them to earn only $100k/year then come talk to me."

When you convince everyone in Congress to take a $70K paycut immediately, with no 'allowances' for anything, you have some hope of getting others to support you.


Of course, half the administrators in TN would have to be fired or their salaries cut, including likely the Pres of the University where Bonnie works.....

Then we'll start with Obama...and MS Obama....and everyone in Hollywood. Say all the movie actors? Starting with ARHNold, Brittany Spears..... Lady Gaga...no wait, she's British....well, there are thousands more.

THen we move to CNN, CNBC, and MSNBC...no one there can make more than 100K...period.....


Next, you'll be confiscating wealth just like a typical 'progressive' out to have 'social justice'. Of course, since you have extra bedrooms, we'll move in a homeless person to your spare bedroom and you can feed him, or her, too....

Yep, we too can be just like North Korea...

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
When advocates of "free" government health care simply state that a prosperous and compassionate society should want to provide for all of its people as a humanitarian basis for it, at least that's a matter of opinion.

A prosperous and compassionate society should want to provide for the "less fortunate". Its called charity. Providing for another via the barrel of a gun is NOT charity.
--------------------

I must say, I'm a bit confused. There are already a plethora of health care programs for those who truly cannot afford to pay - Medicaid, state and county clinics with very low cost or free vaccines, etc. and probably a bunch of other free or low cost programs that I don't know about. Then there are low cost meds at WallMart, Walgreens and others. And there are lots of free or low cost access to high cost meds if you contact the maker of the med. Cancer meds and such.

If I really needed help, I'd trot along what I call Church Row in my neighborhood, and ask for help from the various churchs. I bet I'd get it.

Example of county-based assistance:
http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/hd/health1a.htm

arrete
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
A public good? Sure? Something a wealthy and compassionate society has a moral obligation to provide for all? Arguable, but defensible. A right? Not even close.


Freedom of speech was not a right until we declared it a right.
Freedom of religion was not a right until we declared it a right.
Continue on down the Bill of Rights...


Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are not rights created by the US Constitution.

They are rights that the Constitution recognizes as previously existing.

I'd also be interested in your explanation of how a person didn't have a right to pick up a stick to fight off an attacking wolf with, until we had a document declaring he had that right. Considering that people were making pretty good weapons out of sticks long before they were writing.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"The rights mentioned were granted by the Creator and thus have always been." - JoshRandall


A large percentage of people don't believe in a Creator. They believe in Darwin and natural selection and nature red in tooth and claw.


Then they believe nature is their creator.

No contradiction.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If I really needed help, I'd trot along what I call Church Row in my neighborhood, and ask for help from the various churchs. I bet I'd get it.

_______


As long as you are able to do for yourself, or rely on others to help you - today's brand of liberalism will be there to try ot make that impossible.

It really is a sickness that those people have. They want the government to control everything, and helplessness and hopelessness are their only tools to get there.

I have yet to figure out why they want what they want, for it seems to make no real sense, But it is clear that is what they want and how they plan to go about it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
to MotleyFooley--Thank you thank you thank you...why everyone denigrates regulation like it doesn't serve some good purpose, I cannot fathom. Is there sometimes too much regulation or too much red tape to get the job done? Yes, I believe no gov't whether it is local, state, federal is without imperfections. But after the near collapse of our financial system you would be hard pressed to find a REPUTABLE economist who wouldn't attribute much of what happened to deregulation starting with the Reagan administration. That means it was not Republican or Democratic led failure, but a combined assault on weakening the banking checks and balances. Decades of a system put in place after the depression were thrown out the window...and guess what? It could all happen again.

Oh, and re: regulation of doctors and health care system...I'm glad they have regulations or else someone like Michael Jackson's or Anna Nicole Smith's doctors would be the norm rather than the exception. I would like to think my doctor went into the profession to help mankind and uphold the hippocratic oath rather than just to make money. Am I naive?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Oh, and re: regulation of doctors and health care system...I'm glad they have regulations or else someone like Michael Jackson's or Anna Nicole Smith's doctors would be the norm rather than the exception. I would like to think my doctor went into the profession to help mankind and uphold the hippocratic oath rather than just to make money. Am I naive? "

A good percentage of docs will happily over prescribe these days.

Got a kid who is the least bit ansy...well, he probably has ADD or this or that, so give him this med and that one and that one and this one...

and for his helicopter parents....well, they need some Prozac, and probably some viagra to spice up their life, and then maybe this or that.

Folks also expect that for every ailment, symptom, allergy, there is a magic pill that will help them, and demand it.

Watch TV, and all the ailments....got his? Ask your doc about this or that drug. Got this? Got that? hours a day of 'ask your doctor about XXXX' new drug.

Of course, you also have a lot of other adds...'Did you or a loved one ever take the drug XXXX? You may be entitled to a big settlement and damages'...


Fat pills...fat burners.diet pills...more diet pills......wrinkle pills.....botox......you name it...

t
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
to MotleyFooley--Thank you thank you thank you...why everyone denigrates regulation like it doesn't serve some good purpose, I cannot fathom.

It's really not hard to fathom. Some of us judge regulation based on results instead of intentions.

Oh, and re: regulation of doctors and health care system...I'm glad they have regulations or else someone like Michael Jackson's or Anna Nicole Smith's doctors would be the norm rather than the exception. I would like to think my doctor went into the profession to help mankind and uphold the hippocratic oath rather than just to make money. Am I naive?

So are you one of those people who thinks businesses have no financial incentive to please customers?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"Whenever I've resented folks for what they have, it's because I feel less than in some way, that I'm not good enough, or I don't have the brainpower, strength, personality, whatever to accomplish or to have what they have. So if I'm feeling resentful, it's not them really, it's my own stuff I need to work through and either make a choice to do something different or be grateful for what I do have and to stop obsessing about others." - LD
-----------------


It's not like I go around thinking about it all the time. About the only time I think about it is when I'm on this board and ya'll are talking about politics and how you are so worried about poor people getting their hands on some of your money.

Most of the time what I'm thinking about is what am I going to eat, grocery shopping, making love, watching TV, doing dishes, and reading a chapter in whatever book I'm currently wading through.

Right now I'm eating a delicious balogna and american cheese sandwich on multi-grain bread with miracle whip and fancy garden greens. It's amazing how good a balogna and cheese can taste when everything is fresh!

Artie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"Then start with George Soros, Bill Gates, et al, and as soon as you can get them to earn only $100k/year then come talk to me." - JLC


I know life is unfair but that doesn't mean I have to like it. I also know it isn't ever going to be fair and perhaps it's that way for a reason, but if so and I ever get the chance I fully intend to complain to the Creator about it.

Artie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"Of course, half the administrators in TN would have to be fired or their salaries cut, including likely the Pres of the University where Bonnie works.....

Then we'll start with Obama...and MS Obama....and everyone in Hollywood. Say all the movie actors? Starting with ARHNold, Brittany Spears..... Lady Gaga...no wait, she's British....well, there are thousands more.

THen we move to CNN, CNBC, and MSNBC...no one there can make more than 100K...period....." -tele

-----------------------------


Look it, I know it's never going to happen. But that doesn't mean I have to like and enjoy the unfairness of life, where you got one guy who is a billionaire and another that is struggling through life. I know it's all just more duality and separation.

And the truth is that I don't even think about it until I get on this board and ya'll act like poor people are the enemy and it sort of galls me. It's not like anyone chooses to be poor. No one wakes up one morning and thinks, "you know I think I'm going to be a dumb@$$ and make stupid choices in life and mess up my life." When they make the decisions that cause that downward spiral it's because of a whole bunch of reasons.

Most of the time I'm thinking about real mundane things like food, sex, sleep, TV, etc. I never watch politics on TV and don't think about stuff like that at all. When I am thinking about loftier things it's about questions like "why are we here?" "Is there life after death?" etc.

Mostly I could care less about political stuff because to me it's all so temporary. We are only here for a little while. In the blink of an eye we will all be on the other side and the pain and suffering and unfairness of this life will be behind us forever.

Artie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I would like to think my doctor went into the profession to help mankind and uphold the hippocratic oath rather than just to make money. Am I naive?

99.9% of physicians go into medicine for altruistic reasons. However, after you finish your training, you quickly realise its a business and you have to make a living like everyone else.

JLC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
Somewhere it is written that we have he right to 'LIFE,LIBERTY and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS"....Q: Can we have "life" and "happiness" without good health?

You have the "right" to take action to ensure your own good health. You have *NO* right to enslave part of the population to either pay for your boondoggle or serve you as slaves to provide the care you want.

Liberals belong to the only still existing political party that supported slavery. IMO liberals are showing their true selves with this legislation. They intend to live upon the backs of others.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 32
>> Somewhere it is written that we have he right to 'LIFE,LIBERTY and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS"....Q: Can we have "life" and "happiness" without good health? <<

The right to pursue happiness is not the same as a government which guarantees it will be given to you.

And if you think about it, a system which would take resources from other people in order to make you happy kind of negates the "liberty" part, doesn't it?

#29
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
A public good? Sure? Something a wealthy and compassionate society has a moral obligation to provide for all? Arguable, but defensible. A right? Not even close..>>>> Somewhere it is written that we have he right to 'LIFE,LIBERTY and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS"....Q: Can we have "life" and "happiness" without good health?

Yes, it was written in the Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson. One need only read other quotes by Jefferson to know that he clearly did not intend this to mean that we are entitled to be provided life, liberty, and happiness by the government (I'll ignore the glaring contradiction between liberty and the sacrifice of liberty that would be required to allow a government to provide "life" and "happiness").

Here are some Jefferson quotes for you:

http://boards.fool.com/quotes-of-the-day-thomas-jefferson-28...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
>> Somewhere it is written that we have he right to 'LIFE,LIBERTY and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS"....Q: Can we have "life" and "happiness" without good health? <<

The right to pursue happiness is not the same as a government which guarantees it will be given to you.

And if you think about it, a system which would take resources from other people in order to make you happy kind of negates the "liberty" part, doesn't it?

#29




It's amazing how such a simple concept of rights has to be repeated over and over again. Many people who lean towards gov't can't seem to get this simple premise into their heads. You know, it's always, "Well XX and XY and ZZ are "too important" not to be provided by gov't. And you can't have happiness or freedom unless one is guaranteed XX, YY and ZZ. And never do they realize how contradictory they are in asserting the need for gov't to intrude all the while asserting the right to happiness and freedom.


Ultimately, what one has the right to is freedom from coercion. You have the right to be left alone. And with this freedom, one can pursue happiness, material trade, friends, wealth, a filet mignon wrapped in bacon, and saying "Bush sucks" or "Obama blows" etc.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
lindytoes - You're welcome you're welcome you're welcome!

Much of what I see on the Boards these days is, unfortunately, emphasizing the extremes. I don't see as many far-left as appears to my eye as far-right, but there are quite a few who favor "small government" and similar notions.

A more sensible notion to me would be "better" government. Sometimes small is better, sometimes large is necessary. We need to be more judicious about the red-tape and regulation you mentioned, and keep the 80/20 rule in mind, namely let's regulate things so that we catch/prevent/improve the vast majority of the issues. We would be naive to think we can catch *all* the problems, and do so in a reasonable way without huge amounts of bureaucratic paperwork and inefficiency at which point the bad apples would find loopholes around anyway.

The doctor examples you cited still went through medical school and may have been "certified" to provide good care. Even they would be the "exception" in a world where anyone could call themselves a "doctor" and "treat" those who are sick using bathtub tonics and tinctures they make at home, some of which might do more harm than good.

But no one wants to talk about "better" government and say that sometimes small is better, and sometimes large is better because the sound bite played in the opposing camp would be that Politician X advocates "big" government or wants to "take away" your big government program. It's frustrating that what drives TV ratings and conversations isn't the 80% I think the people of this country agree upon but the 20% we don't. Or am *I* the one being naive?

MotleyFooley
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
MadCapitalist: "Some of us judge regulation based on results instead of intentions. So are you one of those people who thinks businesses have no financial incentive to please customers?"

Some businesses do a good job of pleasing customers. Some customers are thrilled that they can get goods cheaply. Those same customers are horrified that the goods they get contain lead paint and chemicals and bacteria.

Having alienated their customers, the customers may stop buying their products (producing losses to the company) and win millions from the company in lawsuits. Those that get sick lose wages (and perhaps lives) and are not as productive as they might have been because they're in court fighting with the company to be compensated for their losses and the problems the company's products caused.

Would it have been better for us, as society, to put regulations in place to prevent those things from happening in the first place? There are costs either way - after the fact, or up front. And in my experience, it is much easier to calculate the up front costs than the after the fact ones, perhaps minimizing them and making it seem that regulations are too costly. But much like the "health care" topic that started this thread, I think the old adage is right -- "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure", especially when the "pound" is really perhaps a "ton" when all costs across society and our environment are considered.

You're absolutely right MadCapitalist - the results of regulation are what's important. I don't think any sane person would advocate regulation *for the sake of regulation*. Instead, both sides should focus more on not whether to regulate and that any kind of regulation is bad, but instead to focus on *how* the right regulation can benefit us all and create the kind of society we and others want to live in.

MotleyFooley
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
JLC--As a matter of fact, there must be dozens of professions besides doctor that take a lot less education with more immediate results and the same or more monetary reward. Banker or financial adviser/stock broker come to mind.

I had an appendectomy about 6 years ago and was so glad it went so well. About a year or two ago a well known politician in Pennsylvania died because of the same surgery so I feel lucky. I have had some great doctors in my area and I don't really live in a big population area. In fact, my GP is a female born in India and MD educated here. She is a fantastic doctor and I am really going to miss her when I move.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The doctor examples you cited still went through medical school and may have been "certified" to provide good care. Even they would be the "exception" in a world where anyone could call themselves a "doctor" and "treat" those who are sick using bathtub tonics and tinctures they make at home, some of which might do more harm than good. --MotleyFooley

I was not implying that they are not trained but rather because of regulation they can be fined, or jailed, or whatever. Same thing with mining regulations or oil drilling or whatever. I have been watching the news this evening and it's all about the rescue of the Chilean miners. One analyst said that their regulations are not as stiff as ours and we enjoy a much lower death rate because of our regulation.

But no one wants to talk about "better" government and say that sometimes small is better, and sometimes large is better because the sound bite played in the opposing camp would be that Politician X advocates "big" government or wants to "take away" your big government program. It's frustrating that what drives TV ratings and conversations isn't the 80% I think the people of this country agree upon but the 20% we don't. Or am *I* the one being naive?

You are right and I don't think you are naive, but I don't hold up much hope for politicians fixing anything, especially in this toxic political environment. I don't care what conservatives say, Obama really thought he could make a change in the way gov't was run in DC and bring about bipartisanship...Now there is one naive man.

MotleyFooley
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Somewhere it is written that we have he right to 'LIFE,LIBERTY and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS"....Q: Can we have "life" and "happiness" without good health?

You can have life just like a parasite can stay alive when it sucks the life out of its host.

Can you have life and happiness without a car to get to work? Do I (and millions of other Americans who you don't even know)owe you a car so you can be happy and live?

Liberals just don't get it. Take some personal responsibility for your own life and happiness and quit demanding and expecting others to do it for you. Start contributing to society and quit being (and enabling others) a burden to society.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Something a wealthy and compassionate society has a moral obligation to provide for all?

Milton Freidman said "You are free to do as much good as you want...with your own money".
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I'm not sure if the analogy of a right to healthcare with a right to legal counsel really holds, because there is a clear textual basis for the right to legal counsel in the U.S. Constitution, I believe the 6th Amendment. Of course the Supreme Court had to interpret that to require government to pay for legal aid for the poor.

The implication of this analogy is that if there is a right to health care similar to the right to legal counsel, then government should set up free medical clinics for the poor. I believe Medicaid already covers this, and obviously a right to health care, of whatever minimal level, if it exists, doesn't imply the right of government to completely take over the private health care and health insurance areas.

Another way of looking at it is to examine the kind of free health care that incarcerated felons get. That's government provided health care, provided as of legally determined right to it (pursuant to various court cases). It seems to me that the general populace who cannot afford their own health care has a reasonable argument that the government should provide it to them at at least the level that convicts get while in jail.

I think the government should set up health clinics for the general public that are attached to prisons. Anyone who wants free medical care and financially qualifies for it can get their needs taken care of at the local jail. This would be very efficient because quite often they will be visiting their baby daddies, mommas, and other assorted convicted relatives from time to time anyway. Killing two birds with one stone, you might say.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Another way of looking at it is to examine the kind of free health care that incarcerated felons get. That's government provided health care, provided as of legally determined right to it (pursuant to various court cases). It seems to me that the general populace who cannot afford their own health care has a reasonable argument that the government should provide it to them at at least the level that convicts get while in jail.

Why stop there with that line of reasoning? Why not free room and board? Free meals? Free clothes?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Why stop there with that line of reasoning? Why not free room and board? Free meals? Free clothes?

Free ponies
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Just let me know when we are all entitled to everything - food, car, healthcare, clothes, house. I'll quit working and get in line with everyone else. Man I love America!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Another way of looking at it is to examine the kind of free health care that incarcerated felons get. That's government provided health care, provided as of legally determined right to it (pursuant to various court cases). It seems to me that the general populace who cannot afford their own health care has a reasonable argument that the government should provide it to them at at least the level that convicts get while in jail."

Why stop there with that line of reasoning? Why not free room and board? Free meals? Free clothes?


My point is, that apparently there have been legal cases and so forth determining that convicted felons have certain minimal rights to things such as medical care. It seems to me there is a logical argument of some kind that can be made, that people who are not convicted felons are entitled to at least the same level of care. I'm not actually making such an argument, I'm just speculating that it probably can be made.

As far as free meals and free clothes, convicts get that too. So, there's an argument to be made that society has an obligation to provide a minimal level of food and clothing to poor folk. Which in fact it already does of course.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So, there's an argument to be made that society has an obligation to provide a minimal level of food and clothing to poor folk.

Society is not a living breathing being. But since you think of yourself as a member of society, I take it that you are personally providing on a regular basis a minimal leverl of food and clothing to poor folk? And sending in extra money to your god, government, so that it can do it as well? After all, you ARE obligated right?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Society is not a living breathing being.

True but completely irrelevant. Organizations and groups of people can be thought of as having goals/objectives/obligations. The entire purpose of organization in a society or otherwise is to further a common objective or set of objectives. The fact that there may be differences of opinion about those common objectives does not change the fact that pursuing common objectives of some kind is the purpose of an organized society.



But since you think of yourself as a member of society, I take it that you are personally providing on a regular basis a minimal level of food and clothing to poor folk?

Of course I am, since I pay taxes, and obviously a portion of my taxes are being used by society to feed and clothe the poor.


And sending in extra money to your god, government, so that it can do it as well? After all, you ARE obligated right?

So do you. You pay taxes (if you earn income and adhere to applicable income taxation laws.)

You need to learn how to analyze and argue logically not simply treat everything as some kind of an attack on your perceived notions.

I'm not sure why you're taking issue with the basic notion that there is some minimal level of services government should provide to those who do not have the ability to do for themselves. Even if you completely disagree with this it's the way it is and none of your foot stamping is going to change that.

You can, if you like, fume on the Internet all day long and try to make the argument that no, prisons should not provide any government-paid-for basic food, clothing, and medical care to incarcerated felons. I never said government should or shouldn't, I said it DOES, and if it DOES provide these things to incarcerated felons, a logical argument probably CAN be made that NON felons who cannot afford to do so for themselves, should have an opportunity to receive at least that level of services as well. (I didn't actually MAKE the argument, I simply suggested that it could be made.)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Just because you chose not to develop your abilities to command more than $28,000 a year in the marketplace doesn't mean other people should forgo the fruits of their labor.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Nice cop-out to blame your inadequacies on external factors. Was it predetermined that you had to stop working when you did? No you just chose to be lazy and had a wife who would put up with it.

Grow up and take responsibility for your own life.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Why stop there with that line of reasoning? Why not free room and board? Free meals? Free clothes?

Free ponies


Free blind mice.

(said in the voice of a free-year-old)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
"Provide for the common defense"......d'uh!

"Promote the general welfare" D'OOOOOOH!


Liberals like to pretend that gov't health care is promoting the general welfare. It is no such thing. It's a promotion of specific welfare, the welfare of a minority of individuals at the expense of everyone else who would be better off under a private system. How is the "general welfare" promoted when the health care of a majority of the population deteriorates in quality while growing more expensive, so that a small minority can have free care that it currently doesn't have?

Exactly, it isn't.

--fleg
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America." James Madison

Our tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans, that Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. (Thomas Jefferson,)
If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions. (James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792 Madison 1865, I, page 546)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions. (James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792 Madison 1865, I, page 546)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
oops, double post
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Congress voted to appropriate $20,000 for victims who had their homes destroyed. Davy Crockett voted for it but was scolded by one of his constituents (Horatio Bunce) for using other people’s money as charity. He challenged Crockett to find where in the constitution Congress was allowed to do this and Crockett admitted he could not find it. Crocket said:
“Mr. Speaker, I have as much…sympathy as…any man in the House, but Congress has no power to appropriate money [for] charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of public money….Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.” The bill was defeated, but none of the Congressmen took Crockett up on his offer.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
-Thomas Jefferson
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
“…[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
-James Madison
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
James Madison, when asked if the "general welfare" clause was a grant of power, replied in 1792, in a letter to Henry Lee,
If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once. [6] [p.257]

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, noted that the clause had a narrow meaning. Madison wrote, "With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
“…[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
-James Madison
------------------------------------------------------------
I think this is the point they make the founding fathers white, elitist, slave owners only looking out for their own self interests <g>.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Wow, that's a dumb response. These are goals, not powers. The goal of providing a common defense is implemented in the Constitution by the appointment of a Commander in Chief and the power to raise armies and a navy. Where is the enumerated power that allows the government a predominant role in health care. Nowhere, that's where.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Nice cop-out to blame your inadequacies on external factors. Was it predetermined that you had to stop working when you did? No you just chose to be lazy and had a wife who would put up with it.

Grow up and take responsibility for your own life.




Whoa!! True dat.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Wow, that's a dumb response. These are goals, not powers. The goal of providing a common defense is implemented in the Constitution by the appointment of a Commander in Chief and the power to raise armies and a navy. Where is the enumerated power that allows the government a predominant role in health care. Nowhere, that's where.


The goal of providing common defense is NOT implemented by the appointment of a Commander in Chief. You may have this logic backwards.

Such power is granted by the enumerated powers in Article 3 Section 8 I believe.....which the liberals never talk about or ever touch with a 10 ft pole.

OK, please do not talk about the "providing for the common welfare." This phrase is nothing more than a rhetorical encapsultion of the Constitution. It's not a opening, gaping hole through which you can drive your liberal, socialist agendas through!! The SPECIFIC POWERS given to the Fed Gov's is already outlined in the enumerated powers.

Oh god, I'm having a stroke. It's useless.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Wow, that's a dumb response.

Wow and golly gee. If someone with half a brain had said that to me, I'd be really insulted.

But morons like just get the plonk. TA TA!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
??

Read all of what I wrote I said that the appointment of a Commander in Chief ***and** the power to raise armies and a navy. Which are among those enumerated powers you are having a stroke about.

"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;"
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
In other word you had no response to make and tucked your tail between your legs and ran. See I know this because you didn't quote the part of the post in which I demolished that dumb statement. You might have a future as a host on The View, as they also flee when they are over-matched.
Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement