Where in the Constitution does it say the Fed gov should provide health care.

I am talking about emergency cases. Hospitals charge far more for emergency room visits than normal care. If you are having a heart attack, you go to the nearest hospitals. There is no choice. Hospitals know this and often set the prices or emergency care very high.

 

The unfair irony of national health care is that the same Replicants who don't want it have a low-cost version of it nearby already. Any sign of sickness, and they off they go to Walter Reed hospital nearby.

A synopsis of Congressional Healthcare coverage, which is most but not entirely covered by private insurance:

 

Then its high-time mentalities change in LaLaLand on the Potomac.

We have a two-party system by which governance shuttles back-and-forth between the vested-interests of one party or another. So, you have Obama who tries to make progress and Donald Dork who wants to rip it all down.

What the hell kinda "democracy" is that?

To answer my own question: Until there is a fundamental remake of the mistake Reckless Ronnie instituted in Upper-income Taxation, the economy (because of preferential upper-income taxation) is a Wealth-builder for only the 10% of the population.

The really poor just roadkill on the Highway of Life and the middle-class swimming daily to stay above water and avoid drowning ...

Wealth Inequality In America

 

SPECIOUS SPEECH

Nope, Health Care is Health Care and if you read how the study was conducted you'd realize its not about fruit but Health Care services.

Of course, if you wish to remain blind to the factual evidence, then that's your right. It's calle Freedom of Speech - even when the speech is specious ...

 

You are making statements. Not arguments.

This is a Debate Forum, not a Message Board.

Do you KNOW the difference ... ?

 

In American, yes!

Not in Europe, where it is a government provided service and costs are maintained because they are set by governments. (Which is appropriate when a service - due to its nature* - cannot possibly be delivered under normalized conditions of a "free market". Which is the case of healthcare in any developed country on earth.)

It's like setting speed-limits on highways because otherwise deadly crashes occur ...

*Defense of the nation is another that comes to mind.

 

THE LAND OF UNCLE SAM

One of the precepts of a "free market" (where nothing "marketed" is "free, gratis and for nothing") is that there is a fair balance between Supply and Demand - which most economists - I dare say - would think is reasonable.

Which is a nice thought, but not a market characteristic that happens all-by-itself.

In fact, as regards the worst offender, which is the US, the willingness of successive government to allow markets to"aggregate" (under the silly notion that Bigger Is Better) means that they have settled into quasi-oligopolies. Which are far, far, far from "reasonable market behaviour".

That is, where the market is concentrated into a handful of major companies and permits price-collusion. No, there is no inter-company meeting to "set prices". That's clearly illegal.

But, companies can apply what economists call "sticky pricing", which obviates any real competition as companies settle non-collusively into a competitive price structure that is "fixed". Iow, there is the price-leader and the rest are price-followers who never try to challenge the leader.

In fact, there is little price-competition and, as such, profits are virtually guaranteed in such markets. To the further good of stock-owners and the management receiving free "stock-options" that they inevitably cash-in at a handsome price.

That's how fortunes are made in this Brave New World of ours. So, who pays the price for the good fortune of a highly select group of individuals?

We, the "sheeple", because we obviously think that the above is perfectly normal in a Market-economy. Well, it is normal - in the land of Uncle Sam ...

 

Can *YOU* save up a large enough bank account to pay for breast cancer treatment if it happens? Can you save up a large enough bank account to rebuild your house should it burn down? Can you save up a large enough bank account to buy a new car if yours is totaled in a wreck?

It's not a competition. It's called shared risk. Insurance companies don't care if you insure yourself. Lots of people do. Primarily rich people. Insurance companies have a "large enough bank account" by pooling premiums into a capital reserve out of which losses are paid to the insured. I've paid premiums for home insurance for over 40 years but have never had to use it. The insurance company injects my premium payment into that capital reserve and uses it to pay out to people that *do* have claims on their insurance policy.

I have to ask again just how old you are. You seem to have some real holes in your life experience!

Then there is no justification for the existence of State Farm, Geico, Allstate, National, The General, or any other insurance company you can name. Do you know just how idiotic your claim is? All of these companies do the same thing health insurance companies do, just for different assets.

I've got news for you. You *are* going to die. The day will come that you aren't fixable, just like a car.

I thought you said above that there is no reason people can't save up to pay for their health care. Does that mean you are *not* saving money for your health care? Is that a responsible action for an adult?

In addition, this is just a deflection. I asked yo what the difference is between health care insurance and car insurance and you punted. I figured you would. That's because the answer would be too embarrassing considering the position you are trying to defend!

Huh? Your memory *is* failing, isn't it?

You said: "Nope. I believe that it's a burden on others. And I gave examples..."

Or is it that you just don't want to defend what you say?

Go look up the term "cognitive dissonance". It is *NOT* a made up term.

Did he deliver mail to your neighbors or just to you?

Self-defense is *NOT* a collective right, it is an individual right. National defense is a right exercised jointly, it is not a collective right.

My definitions are those that apply. Rights are individual rights, not collective rights. Individual rights exercised jointly are not collective rights, they are still individual rights.

Again, if you have to place a burden on others then it is an entitlement and not an individual right.


[qutoe]YES YOU DID! YES YOU DID! YES YOU DID!...

Here is an example



Now deny that you said it and show us just how dishonest Republicans can be. Or ignore it... same result. Or even, redefine words... "Enslave" "pay" "others".... those are good candidates to engage in one of your fantasy arbitrary-redefinition custom.

Anything, other than recognize you were wrong in this absurd notion that we want others to pay, and enslave others, so we would get it for free. Oh... maybe you can redefine "free" so it doesn't mean "others pay"[/QUOTE]

If others have to pay then how does that make it free? If you *don't* want others to pay then you want to pay for your own health care. If you want to pay for your own healthcare then what does single payer provide you?

 

You don't even know what the euphemism "apples and oranges" is about, do you?

I pointed out to you the specifics of why the statistics don't compare the same things. Those are the FACTS.

The only one being willfully ignorant seems to be you. You don't want to have to admit that the statistics don't compare the same things!

 

The staffing level in an emergency room is much higher than most other areas except perhaps intensive care and the birth center.

Individual rooms in the "emergency room" are equipped with a far higher level of equipment than standard rooms.

Rather than make regular patients pay for this overhead, hospitals *do* charge more for emergency room service.

Usually by the time the emergency personnel get to your side, the heart attack has killed you or you can be stabilized for transport. Two of the regional hospitals here are literally within 3 blocks of each other. Transport time is indistinguishable. The third hospital is no more than five minutes away. Again, indistinguishable.

For a gun shot wound, especially one that has impacted an artery, seconds can count. In that situation the EMT's may override your wishes. But how often are gun shot victims suffering from massive blood loss lucid enough to say what hospital they want to go to?

In real life you *can* specify where you want to go if you are lucid.

 

"General Welfare" is all about "coining money" and "Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas" ?

Well... I guess, if you really wanted (I don't), you could argue that Pirates in the high seas don't quite contribute to the General Welfare. But my argument is that neither does letting people die because they can't afford to pay for the profits of Insurance Corporations.

I still see no interest in inserting things like Pirates and coining money into a conversation about Healthcare.

 

Thank you. I am. But I don't need advice on how to carry out my civic duties from someone who places support for their leader before support for their country.

Oh no! You mean I won't be able to laugh at how those cuties on Fox try to justify Trump's idiocies?

 

If your proposal is to apply the principle indiscriminately to human life, I can only say that I don't think it would work.

However, the statement you respond to doesn't deal with establishing prices.

The cost of the experimental procedure that the paragraph refers to will be established by the provider according to their costs and the forces in the free market that you describe. The patient's doctor will evaluate the likelihood of success. The computation of those two elements will define if it's reasonable or not.

 

I shouldn't have to.. Life is a right. Regardless of whether or not I can save enough money or not.

I delete the rest because it's irrelevant. Why do you insist on changing the subject? I am talking about Health insurance.

Of course they don't care. Because you can't!

Only rich people can do it in a way to cover any issue that could be reasonably expected.

Look... I know how Insurance companies work. You're wasting your time. They add nothing to the system. The government also has a big bank account. With several advantages: It's not for-profit. We can vote it out. They are rerquired to keep public records (unless Trump has his way). We have a "say" in it's decisions....

So Insurance companies are unnecessary. If the government denies somebody coverage for a treatment,, we know exactly why. And we can protest, demand our representatives to change it, vote them out, ... When Insurance companies deny such coverage, we don't have any of that.

But none in my arguments, as yours do. Funny thing about ad-hominems like this is that they tend to have a "boomerang" effect. For example: how does it feel to be out-argumented by somebody who has "holes" in their life-experience?

It is idiotic, but it's not mine. You are the one who just made it. Not me. Want me to prove it to you with a quote? I'm talking about Healthcare insurance. You, finding no counter-arguments, keep trying to change the subject. Won't work...

Does that fact nullify my right to life?

Nope! There are lots of reasons why people wouldn't be able to save up to pay for their health-care. To your ad-hominem, not that it's any of your business, or that it has anything to do with this discussion, but I do have my HSA. I shouldn't have to. Because that gives me more right to life than the homeless guy who lives by the river. But that's what we need to correct.

No I didn't. I answered saying that if you don't have car insurance, your car could die. If you don't have health insurance, you die. Your memory seems to be acting up on ya.

I also said (about 10 times) that I am talking about healthcare insurance only. I don't know and don't care what point it is you want to make citing others. Not interested... Focus!

"Others" is not "me". You keep saying (I'm quoting. So to any casual reader: please excuse the lack of taste) "*YOU*". It's not about "me"

I will either defend what I say, or I will correct it, or retract it. Will you? (obviously not... you just delete it when you run out of arguments... still waiting for a response to how "reasonable" your 500 mile example was) Won't defend anything I didn't say, though. What do you want me to defend that quote from? What is your counter-argument? I already defended it and, as I said, gave examples.

Cool... glad you learned how to use Wikipedia. You might want to practice your new-found skills by looking up "Psychological projection"

No idea if he delivered it to other individuals or not.

This talk about "collective" or "individual" rights is absurd and pointless. I was just trying to show you what the terms really mean in the real world (as opposed to that vocabulary that you made up in your head) But it really doesn't matter enough to keep at it. This is about healthcare. There is an individual right to healthcare because there is an individual right to life. All individuals have a right to healthcare, as all individuals have a right to live. The collective of individual in the world have a right to healthcare because the collective of individuals in the world have a right to life. You pick whichever you like. I don't care. The point is that if people don't receive healthcare, they die. And if they don't receive preventive health care, they tend to get sick and die quicker. And if they don't receive healthcare when they have an infectious disease, they may infect others, some of which may have healthcare... but some of these diseases may make them die.

And don't give me any nonsense about "people die anyway". They have a right to not die sooner because they don't receive healthcare. So apply that to anything I have said in the past, and anything I say in the future.

Of course they apply. You made them up so they would apply to your pre-established conclusion. As I said, if I were to define the word "Republican' to mean 'a bad person'" And I were to conclude from there that all Republicans are bad persons, my definition would certainly apply. But it doesn't make it any more rational or less arbitrary.

Ideological B.S. False but, more importantly, B.S. I say that because what you are trying to do here again is to deviate the discussion from the real world to an ethereal "ideological" world with no basis in the real world.

It doesn't. Only "enslaving others".would i.e. Buy and sell people as slaves in order to force them to work. Not whatever absurd definition of "enslaving" you want to arbitrarily insert.

 

No it isn't, as I've explained. It doesn't work better in a free market, as evidenced by every other first world country that has single payer, and pays less for better care.

It, by definition, is not.

Yea, if we ignore every other first world country, with single payer, that's pays a fraction of what we do, you would be correct. Lol

 

Lol, no

 

Nonsense. You can shop around for commodities. Price shop and compare. You can't with healthcare. You have a heart attack, you go to the hospital EMS takes you to. You are charged whatever the hospital wants to charge you, because you have no choice. Other than to die.

 

Huh? General welfare is in the constitution.

 

I don't need to. The health of the citizenry is undeniably a national interest, and the governments responsibility to promote. As it is general welfare.

 

Again, if the government doesn't have to defend a right then it isn't a right. "Reasonable" doesn't come into play.

Where your logic falls down is that if the government has to provide something then it isn't a right, it is an entitlement. Rights must be protected by government regardless of cost. Entitlements don't. That is why the police in Berkeley refusing to protect the free speech rights of a conservative speaker was *so* disappointing to those who believe in the right to free speech.

Again, if the government has to provide it, if you can't exercise it yourself, then it is *not* a RIGHT, it is an entitlement. Entitlements are given by government, rights are not.

You are just digging yourself an ever deeper whole. If government has to provide it and can decide if it is reasonable or not then it *IS* an entitlement and not a right. Rights are those things you can exercise without putting a burden on others. Anything that requires you to put a burden on others, such as building a hospital and forcing staffers to move to an isolated spot in Alaska, IS AN ENTITLEMENT.

Entitlements can be taken away by government just as easily as they can be given. If government decides it is unreasonable to do something then that means it is an *entitlement* and not a right.

Sorry, you are deflecting. Slavery has always mean forced labor at its base. You are trying to say that chattel slavery is the only form of slavery. And, as usual, you have it wrong. Chattel slavery is *NOT* the only kind of slavery there is.

When you use government force to make me pay for your health care you are using me as forced labor by appropriating the fruits of my labor for *your* purposes, not mine.

And will people be able to opt out of the FICA taxes paying for the nationalized system if they want to buy private insurance or just pay their own way? Or will they be forced to be slaves as well in order to pay for your healthcare?

I almost have to assume that English is not your first language. If you do not understand the idiom "where is it written" then there is not much hope for showing you the light either.

Fasicsm is government control of business and capital. Fascism is highly dependent on central planning of the economy, where winners and losers are decided by government, where the government decides what is to be made, who is to make it, what the prices will be.

It is not a "marriage" of government and business. It is the DOMINATION of business by government. It is the phase of Marxism that eases the transition into Socialism.

Obama didn't invent it? What other private products are people forced to buy by our government?

There are three phases of Marxism. Each facilitates the transition into the next.

1. fascism - government control of business and capital
2. socialism - government ownership of business and capital
3. communism - collective ownership of business and capital

I understand the words I use just fine. This is just one more use of the argumentative fallacy of Argument by Dismissal by you because you can't refute what I say or you are uncomfortable with what the answer *has* to be so you refuse to give it!

 

I forgot. You think everyone else should pay for you. You don't need to save anything up!

And I will point out again that you are deflecting. You simply cannot admit that there is no difference between health insurance, car insurance, and house insurance. Admitting they are all the same would ruin your assertion that health care is a right and everyone else should pay for you!


[quoote]Of course they don't care. Because you can't![/quote]

Then why did Obamacare allow for that option?

I thought you said only government could do it?

If you know how insurance companies work then you should be able to tell us how car insurance companies, home insurance companies, and health insurance companies all work in the same manner, right?

Really? So we can do without car insurance companies and home insurance companies and title insurance companies and etc?

If you can't see the box you have put yourself in then you are blind!

The problem is that you haven't out-argued anyone. You've had to resort to the claims that there are "collective" rights and that insurance companies aren't needed while also stating that no one can afford to self-insure themselves!

You just keep digging your hole deeper and deeper!

Yeah, I want you to prove that it is *MY* claim with a quote. Insurance is insurance. It all works the same way.

It means you don't have a right to enslave others to pay for your wants!


[quuote]Nope! There are lots of reasons why people wouldn't be able to save up to pay for their health-care. To your ad-hominem, not that it's any of your business, or that it has anything to do with this discussion, but I do have my HSA. I shouldn't have to. Because that gives me more right to life than the homeless guy who lives by the river. But that's what we need to correct.[/quote]

You didn't say this: "Why prevent people from having large savings accounts? You are paying a private corporation for keeping you from having a large savings account. And if you don't pay them, and instead do save your money, you are their competition."?

Wait a minute! Now we are getting back into the Marxist meme of "from each according to ability and to each according to need"!

I thought you said you weren't a Marxist? You *are* arguing that everyone should have equal outcomes.

Not having health insurance doesn't mean you die! You can always go to the emergency room! I think what you are saying is that *you* won't get the level of health care you think you deserve (i.e. the same as a rich man) unless you can force everyone to pay for your health care. Which means you are ignoring the fact that under a nationalized system with rationing you *still* won't get the same care as a rich man!

And you keep using that as a dodge to keep from having to explain how health insurance is different than car insurance and home insurance because it would force you to admit they are all the same!

ROFL! You said you didn't think forcing others to pay for your health care was a burden on them. And now you are doing a dance trying to explain that you didn't say just that!
It's what happens when your arguments are not internally consistent!

I think you are lost in the thread forest. I *idd* answer you about the 500 mile example. Again, the government can only refuse to uphold your rights if it is really an entitlement instead of a right. There is no "reasonable" when it comes to rights, only when it is an entitlement the government has given you! If the government makes you qualify for a benefit then it isn't a right, it is an entitlement!

Cool... glad you learned how to use Wikipedia. You might want to practice your new-found skills by looking up "Psychological projection"[/quote]

Perhaps *YOU* should go look it up. You gave no examples of it. Meaning you probably don't know what it is.

Oh, now we get the Play Dumb argumentative fallacy. Trust me, his bag had mail for lots of other people besides you. That's because it is an example of "general welfare", not individual welfare. The Post Office benefits everyone generally, not individually.

No, it isn't absurd and pointless. That's just one more use of the argumentative fallacy of Argument by Dismissal!

I told you what the difference is in the real world between collective rights and jointly exercised individual rights. And you can't refute my assertion. So you just dismiss it -- AS USUAL!

If the right to life includes a right to health care then does it also include the right to food and and a right to shelter? Both of these are necessary to maintain life just as much as health care. Should the government be providing food and shelter to every citizen of America since they are also rights using your logic?

I asked you this once before and you punted on it too. Never once answering! Try again.

They have a right to the healthcare they can provide for themselves, nothing more. No one has a right to enslave others in order to exercise a want. And it is quite obvious that you want more healthcare than you can provide for yourself. So you are tying yourself in knots trying to rationalize to yourself that it is ok for you to enslave others!

There is no "collective" right to heatlhcare. There is no "collective" right to life. The Creator endows each INDIVIDUAL with rights, not collectives!

If people don't get food they starve. If they don't get shelter they die from exposure. Should the government give every citizen in America all the food they need and a house to live in?

People *do* die everyday. They die whether they have health insurance or not. If people want health insurance then why shouldn't they work for it just like they work for food and shelter?

I made up nothing. The fact that they are uncomfortable for you to accept is *YOUR* problem, not mine.

It may be an inconvenient truth for you to acknowledge but it is still the truth. Rights are those things you can exercise without placing a burden on others. If you must place a burden on someone else to exercise something then it is an entitlement and not a right. Defending rights can't be judged by a reasonable/unreasonable standard, only entitlements can. If you have to qualify for a benefit then it is an entitlement and not a right.

You are only considering "chattel slavery". Go look it up. There are several other different kinds of slavery that are purely forced labor without "ownership".

 

You have never explained that it is not a commodity you merely state the baseless assertion that it is not. You are wrong it is.

Those nations have inferior care and do not prove your point.

By definition it is

 

Yes quite