Do you have an entitlement to Health Care? (USA)

I haven't painted any pictures. I simply corrected your misapplication of the term "capitalism" to describe an economic system which is CLEARLY convoluted state socialism.

Our central banking system is the most glaring example of state socialism and central planning in our economy. And even if it's not technically "socialism", it sure as HELL isn't "capitalism".

 

I'm telling you about REALITY... and you are painting pictures from a textbook definition. (A bit like reading about what sex is like, but never having experienced it; reading a musical symphony from a page, and not hearing it.)

 

I'm well aware of what the reality of our systems is, and it has nothing to do with "capitalism".

 

Everything is not consistent; certainly not human beings. And Conservatives are just as HUMAN as anyone.

You and I are human beings. We all fail. Sometimes we are "consistent", other times we are not (this applies to "Conservatives" as well as "Liberals").

You have your moral values and I have mine. We can agree to NOT beat on one another about the same.

 

I noticed you never addressed the post I made to you:

Do you have any rebuttal?
__________________

 

I disagree.

 

Speak for yourself. I maintain a perfectly consistent ideology.

I am NOT a conservative.

How about we agree not to initiate violence against each other or against any peaceful individual instead?

 

That's because you do not know what capitalism is; that, or you are totally ignorant of how our economic system is constituted. Either way, you're wrong.

 

Okay; you believe you do.

You are a human being.

I didn't suggest or threaten any violence; what are you talking about?

 

You think capitalism is only what YOU perceive it to be. It is far more than what you've described here so far.

 

I'm aware that I'm a human being, thanks.

Of course you did. Your entire ideology is predicated upon force or the threat of force to ensure compliance with your personal morality, otherwise, how would you get people to pay for this "universal healthcare"? By asking them nicely? No, you would send agents of the state with guns to either kill or imprison anyone who did not comply.

 

No, I think capitalism is what it's been defined as for hundreds of years by the economists who established the construct initially and subsequently. A very narrow definition would be the private ownership of the means of production, and in that regard, our system does not qualify as "capitalist".

Since I haven't actually "described" capitalism, I'm not sure how you could make such a dishonest claim.

 

Well, we may disagree on what capitalism is; perhaps because there are various forms and aspects to consider.

But where it comes to "healthcare", I don't accept that capitalism is best (as opposed to a somewhat more socialist approach).

I think the "motive" behind capitalism does NOT support the necessary moral imperatives which are required to form and maintain a healthcare system that is truly sufficient in regards to serving American society.

I know we will disagree about that; but you can check my commentary anywhere on this site, and you will see that I am "consistent" in my views.

Capitalism (to include the various types) has its advantages and purposes; but I think America's healthcare system would be improved by taking on a more socialistic role within this society.

 

Let me ask you a question then. If the government monopolized the production and sale of cars, would you consider that "capitalist"?

Our healthcare system is already socialistic. We have massive healthcare entitlement programs that cover the poor, children, and the elderly.

 

and how is Obamacare doing?

Oh yippe

and people losing their existing coverage

Isn't that hope and change wonderful? Are you entitled to Obamacare or would you rather have coverage PERIOD?

 

No, you are incorrect. That is not what my "entire ideology is predicated upon"; that is an assumption on your part. Though I suppose we might disagree upon the moral efficacy of capitalism itself.

I think by offering people a product, deal or opportunity superior to what is only motivated by sheer "profit".

You assume too much, and border upon attacking my very character. I'm a soldier, but not a violent man.

Even so, I have seen enough to know that implementing a more Universal Healthcare System in America, would likely lead to better outcomes than the for-profit model we have toyed-with for the last few decades.

I say, UHC NOW!!

 

What should happen to me if I don't want to pay for your Universal Health Care plan? Will you just ask nicely and then leave me alone?

 

UHC is COMPULSORY. That means its existence is predicated upon force and the threat of force. Anyone who refused to finance it would be either killed or imprisoned. That's what governments do, they ensure compliance with force or the threat of force. No amount of intellectual gymnastics is going to change this.

 

Considering the disposition of certain people, I'd suggest that they be allowed to OPT OUT of the system. (They could either purchase insurance privately or have no insurance at all.)

Anyone wanting to be a part of the UHC system would pay for that accordingly.

 

It does not have to be. I think we could give certain people the option of not being in the system. Their healthcare would be their sole responsibility, garnered via private channels or not.

 

Gee what did we have before Obamacare?

 

___Crap.___

America needs UHC NOW!!

 

Higher corporate fat cat profit, larger CEO bonuses, more personal bankruptcies due to health care costs.

 

Sorry, the USSC will strike Obamacare down as it should

 

and now we have fer people with coverage and those with coverage are paying more

all thanks to Obamacare

Don't you just love that hope and change?