Philisophical question

[Jamie6.5]

Why do you feel health care is a privilege and not a right? If you are a person who has insurance are you privileged and deserve more access to the system versus someone who is equally in need but doesn't have the money?

I don't have medical insurance.
I can't afford it, and my employer doesn't provide it.

I also don't feel I am entitled to health care insurance, or even health care paid for by someone else. It's not my right, anymore than it is anyone's.

The medical field must continue to attract America's best and brightest. To do this it MUST offer financial incentives. No sane person is going to commit to 12 years of education (and the corresponding expense) and residency to reap the salary and "benefits" of a public servant.
Chemists, Bio-Chemists, physicians, nurses, imaging techs and the people that design/develop imaging technology, pharmacology, equipment and research shouldn't be hampered by the limitations that universal health care MUST place on them.

Should there be a mechanism that provides health care for the country's truly indigent? Yes, I believe there should be. But there is. It is called medicare/medicaid, and currently it is being abused.

Do you really think that all those power chairs/diabetic supplies/catheters/incontinence supplies etc. that you see advertised are really free? They're not.

Do you or anyone believe that people should be treated indefinitely/repeatedly for afflictions caused by repeated stupidities like drug addiction, alcoholism, gang banging etc, on the public dole?
I don't.

The American citizen seems to have little perception of consequences these days, providing universal health care would exacerbate that, or reduce our quality of care to the lowest common denominator, or both.
The other option would be for the medical funders (the government) to implement a "cradle-to-grave" list of options for lifestyle, diet, work options, transportation options etc.

Hardly the freedom(s) and liberties the founders envisioned.

You do have a right to health-care, every bit as much as you have the right to a great income. You just have to work at it, and The Constitution guarantees you the opportunity to do just that.
But you aren't entitled to have me, or anyone other than your employer, pay for either the income or the health care.

There will always be people that are "more fortunate," and people that are "less fortunate." The idea of the utopian "level playing field" of life's outcome is PURE folly.
Espousing otherwise may get you votes, but that doesn't make it true.
For you or anyone else.

 

[enjr4]

I have decided I want to be one of those 'give it to me' people. How do I go about it. I mean, I am getting tired of working for everything I have/get. I want to just relax and have it handed to me.

Until the last couple of years I didn't know you could do that. I thought you had to work for what you have. Is there some web site I can look at?

Ed

 

[Gunner3456]

I have decided I want to be one of those 'give it to me' people. How do I go about it. I mean, I am getting tired of working for everything I have/get. I want to just relax and have it handed to me.

Until the last couple of years I didn't know you could do that. I thought you had to work for what you have. Is there some web site I can look at?

Ed

<broken link removed>

 

[Burt Gummer]

You are a little late. The bird feeder is near empty. We are bankrupt and dying as far as Empires go (not the 1% of course). No more handouts available. In fact, people will finally get the message that Social Security, Medicare, and all the other funds that they paid into are also toast. The strategy to keep the Ponzi afloat by money printing out of thin air is on the brink of failure.

It matters not what puppet is put in place to pacify the slaves.

In the not too distance future the 44% that depend on some sort of government hand out are going to be entirely on their own. I am sure they will do just fine. I read somewhere that starving people will resort to all sorts of desperate measures to feed themselves. I am sure that isn't true.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I'm not interested in anyone's political perspective on this issue and I'd really like to have this thread not get closed because it became political. I am interested in your philosophical perspective as it relates to the following:

What is the difference between requiring a person who operates a vehicle (in essence exercising a priviledge) to have a minimum amount of insurance and requiring a person to have health insurance? Should a gun owner have to carry liability insurance similar to the minimum requirements for vehicle owners?

Neither should be required, IMO but neither should free medical be supplied, either

 

[Blitzkrieg]

You are a little late. The bird feeder is near empty. We are bankrupt and dying as far as Empires go (not the 1% of course). No more handouts available. In fact, people will finally get the message that Social Security, Medicare, and all the other funds that they paid into are also toast. The strategy to keep the Ponzi afloat by money printing out of thin air is on the brink of failure.

It matters not what puppet is put in place to pacify the slaves.

In the not too distance future the 44% that depend on some sort of government hand out are going to be entirely on their own. I am sure they will do just fine. I read somewhere that starving people will resort to all sorts of desperate measures to feed themselves. I am sure that isn't true.

This is one of if not your best post so far that I have read.. who woulda thought a cow could know so much?

 

[Blitzkrieg]

That is the difference between a Right and a privilege.

It's only considered a privilege because of one hideously erroneous SC decision. The Bill of Rights declares we have the right of free travel

 

[Gunner3456]

It's only considered a privilege because of one hideously erroneous SC decision. The Bill of Rights declares we have the right of free travel

I like free travel. May I borrow your car and credit card for a year?

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I like free travel. May I borrow your car and credit card for a year?

No, I like my car too much and I don't have a credit card and obongo and romnitwit hate me

Freedom of movement under United States law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know you are gonna hate me for this but here is my car

 

[rolandson]

What is the difference between requiring a person who operates a vehicle (in essence exercising a priviledge) to have a minimum amount of insurance and requiring a person to have health insurance? Should a gun owner have to carry liability insurance similar to the minimum requirements for vehicle owners?

To your first: None, there isn't any difference. The insurance industry will tell us that doing so protects / benefits us all and, as it is the insurance industry that brings us these gems of wisdom they will of course spin it as they see fit. I suppose that there is some logic to it, especially if one owns insurance industry stock.

To the second: No, the gun owner should carry much more than the minimum requirements of vehicle owners. The liability is that much greater. With guns, there are no accidents, only negligence. Put another way: You's pays your money and takes your chances!

 

[Gunner3456]

No, I like my car too much and I don't have a credit card and obongo and romnitwit hate me

Freedom of movement under United States law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know you are gonna hate me for this but here is my car

I don't hate anyone for having nice things. I don't belong to OWS, LOL. Nice car.

I don't know how people live without a credit card. We pay ours off every month, but I've been stuck where I needed it. Also, I can't rent a car without one. Also, I've been told that having some credit cards with high limits and zero balance improves a credit score? Also, I like the rewards. We pay nothing for the cards, but we get great rewards. Cash back on American Express, and I recently got a big screen TV with points on another card.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

My wife has one and she pays the pesky bills cause I hate that. I did have one the bank gave me but I never used it and that account is closed. Debit card? Yes, I hate debt and very soon we will have none at all including no mortgage if things go according to our plans

I don't care about my credit score and it's probably 200 LOL

 

[Gunner3456]

My wife has one and she pays the pesky bills cause I hate that. I did have one the bank gave me but I never used it and that account is closed. Debit card? Yes, I hate debt and very soon we will have none at all including no mortgage if things go according to our plans

I don't care about my credit score and it's probably 200 LOL

Good for you. Debt sucks.

I don't consider using a credit card as debt as long as I can easily pay it off every month. It's actually, for me, a way to use other people's money for free, and getting rewards to do it. It's also handy. I went out and spent $1,000 this morning getting ready for Spring around here, and it all went on the AMEX. It saved me writing checks and making entries, makes bank statement reconciliation easier, or saves me going to the bank for cash. We'll get a 2% cash back reward, or $20 on our account.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Don't feel too bad about the car, nothing personal just having fun with that post..no one but my mechanic and I have ever driven that car since I had it built, and that includes my wife. It's one of a kind and near 620 ft lbs of torque and 580 HP and more than slightly scary to drive and she prefers the passenger seat. I took me near 3,000 miles before I got comfortable with it and it only sees dry weather

 

[Gunner3456]

I'm glad you posted it. It's really nice. I used to have and love fast cars, but something happened along the way and I lost interest. Old age I guess, LOL. I had a 435 HP 66 Vette roadster - a real one - back in the day. Now I just want something that's nice, and ordinary. But I love looking at cars. I watched a lot of the auction last month.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I nearly bought a nice red 1966 fastback vette (427) at age 17 but the stupid FHA funded apartment complex took 1 year to pay me for the contracted work my older bro arranged to get me for a whole summer and the owner (friend of my dad's who bought it from dad many years before and had it in a barn) had to sell it. Probably a good thing in retrospect cause I would have driven it beyond it's limits and it might have been my casket, although I have survived being a biker all these years but these days my driving habits are pretty mellow. It's like the old~bold~pilot thing

 

[Kevatc]

You do have a right to health-care, every bit as much as you have the right to a great income. You just have to work at it, and The Constitution guarantees you the opportunity to do just that.
But you aren't entitled to have me, or anyone other than your employer, pay for either the income or the health care.

That's the irony of it all though. We all pay for others who don't have health insurance. Health costs are so high because providers charge insurances through the nose in order to try and make up the money lost on those who can't pay. About 3-4 months ago I saw a story on the Riverbend Hospital in Eugene. They wrote off $90 million worth of care and were on track to exceed $100 million for the next reporting period of time. I don't know how a business can continue to do this year in and year out. And it's only going to get worse considering the economy and that more and more people are living like you are: no healthcare insurance.

Having health insurance may not be a right but it sure in the heck is a necessity if you don't want to go through a bankruptcy (even at that bankruptcy due to medical bills is the most common reason for filling).

BTW, thans to everyone for your thoughts and keeping this apolitical for the most part and not getting the thread shut down. You gave me some things to ponder and I appreciate that.

 

[Misterbill]

Since it is actually statistically VERY likely that you will at least one time in your life cause damage to another while driving, AND that damage is not unlikely to be more than you could reasonably pay back, you can make a case for mandatory insurance because driving on a public road is PRIVILEGE.

You have no duty to protect others from the medical debts you may incur because OTHER PEOPLE choose to treat you when you can't afford it. -That's the whole idea of requiring everyone to have insurance, making sure everyone is paying in because everyone has to, by law, be treated in at least emergent situations, regardless of ability to pay.

you are statistically EXTREMELY unlikely to injure anyone else unlawfully with your lawfully owned gun. Gun accidents that injure innocents, considering the roughly 300 million legally owned guns (THAT WE KNOW ABOUT) are rare as hen's teeth. why would you require insurance like that and not require earthquake insurance from people in NYC?

It's about the right to be left alone.

When you CHOOSE to drive a motor vehicle on the public roads, you assume certain responsibilities and restrictions on your freedom. You don't HAVE to drive. Lots of people manage without it. But it's not your private road. It's a publicly supplied road.

Owning a gun, or carrying a gun, poses not 1/1000th of the risk. It's like buying EQ insurance in NYC. Yes, it's possible an earthquake could happen. requiring you to insure against it would be silly. Also, owning a gun is a RIGHT, not a privilege. -Big difference.

You have a right to be left the F alone. that includes dying if you don't have health insurance.

If we're going to have publically funded healthcare, then have PUBLICALLY funded healthcare. Tax everyone for it, and supply the service, whether or not people choose to use it. That's well within constitutional limits. Requiring citizens to buy a product from a private company is not at ALL the same thing. And clearly goes well beyond what even a very broad reading of the constitution could justify. -But hey, what do you expect from Mitt Romney and the Heritage Foundation? -Who championed this long before BHO was ever heard of.

 

[Gunner3456]

If we're going to have publically funded healthcare, then have PUBLICALLY funded healthcare. Tax everyone for it, and supply the service, whether or not people choose to use it. That's well within constitutional limits. Requiring citizens to buy a product from a private company is not at ALL the same thing. And clearly goes well beyond what even a very broad reading of the constitution could justify. -But hey, what do you expect from Mitt Romney and the Heritage Foundation? -Who championed this long before BHO was ever heard of.

That would be an outright endorsement of socialism which is already breaking us and Europe. Canada is struggling mightily with its publicly funded health care. They have long waiting lists for major procedures which effectively amount to rationing. They have even recently allowed private clinics to open, to be paid by the users who can afford it. That takes some expense off the government.

The wealthy in countries with socialized medicine come to the US for treatment. Remember the "scandal" when the Head of one of the Canadian provinces came here for heart surgery, maybe a year or so ago?

As for treatment for those who can't pay, a hospital's only obligation is to stabilize someone. That might include ER and even hospitalization, but non-payers don't get hip replacements for instance, and they don't get meds beyond when they are given in the hospital. They can't take extras home. They are released with prescriptions for them to buy as soon as they are stable.

Yes, all of this costs hospitals a lot of money, but the user owes the bill. They may not wind up paying the bill, but even if the bill is written off it screws up their credit.

Yes, those of us who have insurance or who can afford to pay, pay more because of this. Whether all of this should happen is problematic. (For those who don't know, "problematic" means debatable, not that it's "a problem.")

So, the uninsured are not "entitled" to more than a cast or a shot or some stitches or even emergency life saving surgery. The moment they are stable, they are released and no follow up doctor's visits are provided unless the treatment goes bad. Then they are only fixed and re-stabilized.

I don't believe I owe anyone anything out of my hard earned money.

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." &#8211; - Thomas Jefferson

 

[Jamie6.5]

And it's only going to get worse considering the economy and that more and more people are living like you are: no healthcare insurance.

The current economy is definitely a factor in my situation.
And the current admin knew it when they took over. They promised it wouldn't happen, they promised their TARP plan would prevent it.
Then they proceeded to pursue their pet projects like the healthcare legislation, green energy giveaways and cap and trade.
Instead of concentrating on the economy, so that employers would return to production and keep employees.

Because of that, we have millions more unemployed. Millions more like me, that are under-employed, and millions more yet that have stopped participating in the job market altogether.
Yet they continue with press releases like this morning's, claiming that unemployment has dropped, and that their "plan" is working. (even though Americans are not)

Newsflash!


You leftists and your pets in the news media can claim all the successes you want, but that doesn't make it true.
Note the graph above, and please take note that at NO TIME in the last 50+ years has the current situation/trend existed.
The ratio of workers has dropped precipitously yet the number of workers participating is also dropping at a rate previously unheard of.
Yet they claim unemployment is dropping.
Lies, Damned LIES and (spun) statistics.

And yet you seem to think that the healthcare mandate is something to defend, while the country's workforce circles the drain.

NEWSFLASH!!
A healthy economy means people are working, and can afford their own health care, and/or insurance for same.
"The rising tide lifts ALL boats."