Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

J-Roc77 wrote:

Phanatik wrote:

Johnny-Crass wrote:I hope it sicks honestly but I am just the angry angsty youth.

Also the day we start charging people to come into the hospital is the day I leave this country.

Try these out:

The day we start charging people that come into McDonald's is the day I leave this country.
Mcdonalds is not a need, there are other options if you are hungry like make your own food.
The day we start charging people that come into a car dealership is the day I leave this country.
You can walk, buy a bike, or take a bus. It is not likely to die from not having a car now is it?
The day we start charging people that come into the airport ...
You do not need to travel to live. You can also drive, take a ship or train.
The day we start charging people that come into <insert business or industry here>...

Doesn't really sound right, does it?

Obamacare should be struck down completely (though I believe they are only considering the mandate att). I'm certain that even people that only won popularity contests (politicians) can understand that this is unconstitutional. It's simply a powergrab.

"I'm leaving the country" is a response to the government taking over every aspect of our lives.

Regards,

Obviously red is mine in the above. None of the comparisons you drew are decent there. Lets say I have pulmonary embolism, my choices are healthcare through a hospital followed by medication or likely death (possible in the hospital as well, just lesser chance with proper medications). Hospitals provide a different kind off service than Mcdonalds or the other options you posted, and to say they are comparable is a stretch. They make money and that is where it ends. You are comparing a luxury (haha mcdonalds a luxury) with a possible life saving need. To be clear I am not saying we should not pay for these services, just that your comparison is poor.

Actually, no.
We are supposed to be a free market capitalist Republic of Republics.
Healthcare, automobiles, and hamburgers are all equally commodities.
It should be for the individual to decide which is more important in their life. Neither the government nor you should decide for me.

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Healthcare is important, but being important doesn't make it a Right.

Best,

Frazzled wrote:McDonalds...hospital and pending death...is there a relationship?

Absolutely. Eat too much of the former and the latter happens.

I'm in the camp that says Congress can't force people into the market so that they can be regulated. Universal health care sounds nice, but not this way.

How do the Swiss do it?

Phanatik wrote:
Actually, no.
We are supposed to be a free market capitalist Republic of Republics.

The Constitution stipulates that the US economy should be predicated on a free market?

Why wasn't I told!

Phanatik wrote:
Healthcare, automobiles, and hamburgers are all equally commodities.

Sure, they're all commodities, but they don't all have equal value. Food is a necessity provided you want to not die, automobiles are not. Healthcare, similarly, is often a necessity if you want to not die, and more often a necessity if you want to work in order to buy food for the purpose of not dying.

Phanatik wrote:
Healthcare is important, but being important doesn't make it a Right.

Actually, whether or not something is important is pretty much how rights are determined, or at least the protection of them if you want to base you decision on the Supreme Court's opinion.

Frazzled wrote:How do the Swiss do it?

Its almost exactly like Obamacare.

Well I'm sure that last statement is not correct, unless the Swiss allow regions to opt out depending on if they supported the relevant legislation...

Frazzled wrote:Well I'm sure that last statement is not correct, unless the Swiss allow regions to opt out depending on if they supported the relevant legislation...

States can opt out, but not really as they still need to adhere to Obamacare standards. That clause is just political chicanery.

But basic premise of requiring the purchase of a certain level of coverage is the foundation of the Swiss system.

Right but thats just a facet. how is the Swiss system actually run? probably topic for another thread.

Frazzled wrote:Right but thats just a facet. how is the Swiss system actually run? probably topic for another thread.

This is a pretty good primer.

I find Obamacare kind of scary personally, I am unhappy with the government mandating what we purchase. I can also however see the otherside of the issue as well, since I sold life and health insurance for a number of years. Certain conditions seriously affect your premium, so people who needed it could not afford it.

As a healthcare provider, albeit an alternative healthcare provider, I truly hope we do not all end up on medicare. Medicare is very rough on providers and not very profitable. Most DCs only accept it because they care about the elderly, many healthcare providers see it as a loss.

For those of you who are not healthcare providers, you should be aware that the insurance industry seems to be in a panic about the whole process. They are altering their fee schedules significantly in prep for a change. Several of my patients are medical doctors and they are also losing income due to the changes going on in the insurance industry. This case is very important.

Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:medical doctors and they are also losing income due to the changes going on in the insurance industry

My god, they may have to by last years BMW new instead of this years.


All joking aside, doctors will be well paid either way. It isn't as if Doctors in the UK or Switzerland are hobos, working at an office and sleeping in a cardboard box. Of course there are going to be changes.

Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:Several of my patients are medical doctors and they are also losing income due to the changes going on in the insurance industry. This case is very important.

Their income isn't terribly important outside the parallel issues of inflated higher education costs.

Good argument today from Roberts.

Chief Justice Roberts said “the concern is that the secretary (of Health and Human Services) has the total and complete say because the secretary has the authority under this provision to say you lose everything (all federal Medicaid funds). No one's suggested in the normal course that will happen, but so long as the Federal government has that power, it seems to be a significant intrusion on the sovereign interests of the State.”

But Roberts also suggested that the states were mostly to blame for letting themselves reliant on federal funds.

“Isn't that a consequence of how willing they have been since the New Deal to take the Federal government's money?” he asked. “And it seems to me that they have compromised their status as independent sovereigns because they are so dependent on what the Federal government has done, they should not be surprised” at the federal government exercising control over them.
The states, Roberts said, “tied the strings, they shouldn't be surprised if the Federal government isn't going to start pulling them.”

I know several Governors (Rick Perry springs to mind) have claimed it (as well as the recent medicare change) should be invalidated as an encroachment on states rights. I don't think it's unreasonable for the feds to have a say in how you spend federal dollars, not when they are handing you 18 billion dollars a year for medicaid alone (Texas 2010). You always have the right to turn it down if you want to be all bootstrappy.

Ouze wrote:Good argument today from Roberts.

Chief Justice Roberts said “the concern is that the secretary (of Health and Human Services) has the total and complete say because the secretary has the authority under this provision to say you lose everything (all federal Medicaid funds). No one's suggested in the normal course that will happen, but so long as the Federal government has that power, it seems to be a significant intrusion on the sovereign interests of the State.”

But Roberts also suggested that the states were mostly to blame for letting themselves reliant on federal funds.

“Isn't that a consequence of how willing they have been since the New Deal to take the Federal government's money?” he asked. “And it seems to me that they have compromised their status as independent sovereigns because they are so dependent on what the Federal government has done, they should not be surprised” at the federal government exercising control over them.
The states, Roberts said, “tied the strings, they shouldn't be surprised if the Federal government isn't going to start pulling them.”

I know several Governors (Rick Perry springs to mind) have claimed it (as well as the recent medicare change) should be invalidated as an encroachment on states rights. I don't think it's unreasonable for the feds to have a say in how you spend federal dollars, not when they are handing you 18 billion dollars a year for medicaid alone (Texas 2010). You always have the right to turn it down if you want to be all bootstrappy.

So, the federal government forces states to participate in medicaid, and should then use extortion to force states to kowtow to the Imperial Will without brooking complaint?
<grimace>

To those who stated that the income of medical doctors is not important need to look at it long term. Becoming a medical doctor (MD) is extremely difficult and requires considerable sacrifice by the individual. Definitely more than most occupations. The reward for that dedication and acceptance of risk (i.e. malpractice suits) is that BMW you spoke of.

If the field loses its highter income benefit, then who will go through the b.s. to become one? Certainly not the best minds. . .

Also I do not think these measures take into account the cost of malpractice insurance at all. With medicare paying pennies on the dollar for healthcare, if all citizens become part of medicare it is likely that many hospitals and medical centers will fall apart. So if we go national healthcare, I hope it is not on the medicare model.

Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:To those who stated that the income of medical doctors is not important need to look at it long term. Becoming a medical doctor (MD) is extremely difficult and requires considerable sacrifice by the individual. Definitely more than most occupations. The reward for that dedication and acceptance of risk (i.e. malpractice suits) is that BMW you spoke of.

If the field loses its highter income benefit, then who will go through the b.s. to become one? Certainly not the best minds. . .

Also I do not think these measures take into account the cost of malpractice insurance at all. With medicare paying pennies on the dollar for healthcare, if all citizens become part of medicare it is likely that many hospitals and medical centers will fall apart. So if we go national healthcare, I hope it is not on the medicare model.

You'd end up with an industry full of "army doctors"... those of you in a military branch (I'd feel fairly safe including most 1st world countries here), you will know what I'm talking about... Typically, these are the bottom of the barrel, barely finished med school, and need a job that pays for their education... You get what amounts to cut-rate docs who don't inspire ANY confidence in your care. Additionally, especially in our system for the military, IF I see a "real" doctor, I get maybe a few minutes with the actual doc, not much time for real care right? Honestly, THIS is what I see coming for America, if the mandated healthcare is upheld as law, because we frankly don't know anything other than medicare, or military style healthcare.

One problem in American society, is of course our Sue Happy environment. A doctor makes an honest mistake, and suddenly a patient needs to sue the guy for doing his job??? I've never understood it. I mean, sure, leaving a pair of scissors in a dude's gut after surgery would be seen as a "sue-able offense" but diagnosing a cold as allergies should not be.

Frazzled wrote:
Well you have to understand. The US government is not especially good at...well anything. Private anything in comparison may still suck, but its world's better. Take the actual law. Its thousands of pages of stuff that no one actually looked at, a byzantine monster of bureaucracies, specifal benies and forvoritsm to favored entities and states. It screams bad.

Maybe if we had the Swiss government. WOuld they mind if we stole their bureaucrats? They could have New Mexico if they wanted.

No, there's one thing the US Gov is very good at: Obstructing. If you need something stonewalled, they're very good at that.

This does have it's advantages: National parks still exist, despite numerous requests to clear cut them/use them as toxic waste dumps/otherwise despoil them in the name of profit, which have been percolating through the system for the last century, and may eventually make their way through the bureaucracy sometime in the next 3700 years.

And we don't need to steal Switzerland's politicians, we just need to make lobbying ours a capital crime, punishable by death by keelhauling. Or maybe having molten gold poured over them. Something nice and ironic. Oh, and making political campaign ads illegal. Just have them debate each other on TV and give each candidate equal coverage. Mind you, this would require burning everyone at Fox News and MSNBC at the stake, but I can get behind that too...

I think most of us can get behind taht to some extent, BaronIveagh.

And we don't need to steal Switzerland's politicians, we just need to make lobbying ours a capital crime, punishable by death by keelhauling. Or maybe having molten gold poured over them. Something nice and ironic. Oh, and making political campaign ads illegal. Just have them debate each other on TV and give each candidate equal coverage. Mind you, this would require burning everyone at Fox News and MSNBC at the stake, but I can get behind that too...

I propose we use an American classic: We beat them with a hickory cane

Phanatik wrote:So, the federal government forces states to participate in medicaid, and should then use extortion to force states to kowtow to the Imperial Will without brooking complaint?
<grimace>

Hardly. States can opt out of medicaid, if they so desire.

The problem with Obama care isn't the scope it's HOW they go about doing it. If the government wants to provide universal healthcare they need to control the INFRASTRUCTURE, not insurance. If you thought Obamacare was expensive the cost of instiuting state run health care would be staggering, but that's really how you provide people with universal health care. Don't outlaw private health care, or insurance; but don't mandate the purchase of health care. Force private medical care to compete with public medical care, and make public health care available for taxpayers as a part of thier public entitlements rather than publically funded health insurance in the private field.
Performing medicine is an ages old trade, before the modern era very few doctors were rich, or wealthy. Well paid and respected but not rich. If you think that the only way to get competent medical care is by paying doctors exhorbiant rates you have another thing coming. Medicine has always and will always be a respected field tha will allow you to feed your family in comfort. It does not have to put you in a palace.

Easy E wrote:Do conservatives really want to abandon the plan they created in the 90's to just have to eventually lose the Healthcare battle over Single payer instead? Seems kind of stupid to me, but I don't understand politics.

Sounds like you understand this really well. I think the trick is to understand that a lot of the time there's really very little thought given to the end game in politics, it's just about winning this week's battle. The Republicans were looking at woeful numbers in the wake of the Bush presidency, and needed something to reinvigorate their core support.

Obama attempted healthcare reform, and the Republicans knew they had something they could get people fired up over. It didn't really matter that the bill was something they used to think was good and needed reform.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grakmar wrote:Yes. If someone chooses not to get health insurance when easily affordable options are out there, they are saying "I will pay for anything I need myself". As such, they should have to pay for anything they need. If they can't, then they aren't treated. (And, I'd consider it a form of suicide, so life insurance policies don't pay out.)

The problem is that society simply isn't going to refuse to treat someone who can be saved. We will always be charitable to someone in a life or death situation. Any healthcare system proposed needs to recoginise that and account for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phanatik wrote:Try these out:

The day we start charging people that come into McDonald's is the day I leave this country.
The day we start charging people that come into a car dealership is the day I leave this country.
The day we start charging people that come into the airport ...
The day we start charging people that come into <insert business or industry here>...

Pretending the healthcare works like other industries is stupid. It plainly, obviously doesn't, and so any attempt to structure it like other industry is doomed to failure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phanatik wrote:Actually, no.
We are supposed to be a free market capitalist Republic of Republics.

No, not really. You're supposed to be whatever you democratically decide you're supposed to be.

Healthcare, automobiles, and hamburgers are all equally commodities.
It should be for the individual to decide which is more important in their life. Neither the government nor you should decide for me.

Choice is wonderful thing. Choice is a great thing when a person decides whether they want to cook for themselves, get a take out or go out for dinner. And the impact of everyone's individual choice, working with pricing mechanisms and individual suppliers making their own choices to supply certain products, is collectively called the market and if certain conditions it's works as a wonderful mechanism for reaching, more or less, optimum conditions, provided certain conditions are met.

The issue is that even the briefest study of economics will show you that those conditions aren't met with healthcare. Markets rely on diminishing returns, that is to say going out to dinner once a month is wonderful treat and worth a lot to the consumer, but the more you go out each month the less special each ocassion is. Healthcare doesn't have that model, instead you have a situation where people are either healthy, and have absolutely no utility to be gained from healthcare, or they're sick, and healthcare will stop them from dying. This kind of system completely screws with traditional economic models, and makes their application to healthcare a complete and utter nonsense. And that's without getting into issues of imperfect information, and entry barriers.

Of course, that doesn't champions of the free market from calling for them anyway, because free market champions are rarely, if ever, actual students of economics, so it wouldn't even occur to them to study market conditions to see if they apply to the industry in question.

Which is really the big problem with so much of the libertarian ends of politics. They have absolute, undying commitment to economic solutions they never bothered to learn anything about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:To those who stated that the income of medical doctors is not important need to look at it long term. Becoming a medical doctor (MD) is extremely difficult and requires considerable sacrifice by the individual. Definitely more than most occupations. The reward for that dedication and acceptance of risk (i.e. malpractice suits) is that BMW you spoke of.

Thing is, in other developed countries doctors are still driving BMWs, unless their taste runs higher and they want Audis or whatever. Nothing says government run healthcare has to pay woefully.

I agree that Medicare in the US is underfunded and that one result is underpaying doctors, but a driving factor in that is the amount of federal health funds that get diverted into propping up other sections of an overall failing healthcare system. Seriously, when 18% of your economy is dedicated to health, which is about double what it is in any other developed country, you should be able to pay doctors enough for everyone of them to drive gold plated BMWs, and deliver the best standard of healthcare in the world. But they aren't paid that well, and the standard of health is mid-tier at best, because so much money gets sunk into inefficiency.

Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:To those who stated that the income of medical doctors is not important need to look at it long term. Becoming a medical doctor (MD) is extremely difficult and requires considerable sacrifice by the individual. Definitely more than most occupations. The reward for that dedication and acceptance of risk (i.e. malpractice suits) is that BMW you spoke of.

If the field loses its highter income benefit, then who will go through the b.s. to become one? Certainly not the best minds. . .

Also I do not think these measures take into account the cost of malpractice insurance at all. With medicare paying pennies on the dollar for healthcare, if all citizens become part of medicare it is likely that many hospitals and medical centers will fall apart. So if we go national healthcare, I hope it is not on the medicare model.

Please go back and reread what was written. No one, especially not I, stated that doctors pay was unimportant. In fact I stated that doctors will still make more than average even with these changes. Do you think doctors in the UK make the same as GW manager at a retail store? Of course not.

There are a myriad of reasons that people go into medicince and not all of them are financially motivated, and many of those are at the top of their field. Not everyone goes to med school just for the pay, so I don't find that a compelling argument: pay isn't based on 'best minds'. If it were, Snooki wouldn't make more than most physicists.

The BMW bit was a joke and was even specifically stated as such. It was there becuase of the "I couldn't live on less than four million a year*" kind of attitude being presented.




*I have heard someone say that said before.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:You'd end up with an industry full of "army doctors"... those of you in a military branch (I'd feel fairly safe including most 1st world countries here), you will know what I'm talking about... Typically, these are the bottom of the barrel, barely finished med school, and need a job that pays for their education... You get what amounts to cut-rate docs who don't inspire ANY confidence in your care. Additionally, especially in our system for the military, IF I see a "real" doctor, I get maybe a few minutes with the actual doc, not much time for real care right? Honestly, THIS is what I see coming for America, if the mandated healthcare is upheld as law, because we frankly don't know anything other than medicare, or military style healthcare.

I think you need to learn about healthcare elsewhere in the world. We have public healthcare broadly available, and yet we aren't full of "army doctors". The real world is in direct opposition to what you're claiming.

One problem in American society, is of course our Sue Happy environment. A doctor makes an honest mistake, and suddenly a patient needs to sue the guy for doing his job??? I've never understood it. I mean, sure, leaving a pair of scissors in a dude's gut after surgery would be seen as a "sue-able offense" but diagnosing a cold as allergies should not be.

Malpractice reform has been estimated as representing likely cost savings of 2-3% by the Congressional Budget Office. Which is a nice saving, but nothing like the scale of reform needed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:The problem with Obama care isn't the scope it's HOW they go about doing it. If the government wants to provide universal healthcare they need to control the INFRASTRUCTURE, not insurance. If you thought Obamacare was expensive the cost of instiuting state run health care would be staggering, but that's really how you provide people with universal health care. Don't outlaw private health care, or insurance; but don't mandate the purchase of health care.

That last sentence is the key. Have a base level of care available, which then makes private insurers work at being something people want, and not something they have to put up with because being uninsured is disastrous.

One of the things to me about Obamacare is that it should be seen as one step along a long line of steps to reform healthcare, to bring costs under control and restore sanity to the sector. Unfortunately you've got the politics you've got, and that makes progressive reform impossible. Maybe in another generation, when you have a healthier political climate.

Performing medicine is an ages old trade, before the modern era very few doctors were rich, or wealthy. Well paid and respected but not rich. If you think that the only way to get competent medical care is by paying doctors exhorbiant rates you have another thing coming. Medicine has always and will always be a respected field tha will allow you to feed your family in comfort. It does not have to put you in a palace.

Most of that is because for most of history wealth was based on land ownership, which was heriditary. There were very few people who's own skill was enough to command a healthy wage.

Doctors ought to be paid a health wage, because you don't want your best and brightest young people deciding they'd rather be merchant bankers because it pays so much more.

Grakmar wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

My personal stance: People should be allowed to opt out. But, once you opt out, you can never, ever get insurance. And, hospitals won't be obligated to treat you unless you can pay, up front, for any procedures.

That's a little extreme. What do we do? Tell the dying guy "Sorry you opted out of the opportunity that allows us to save you"?

Yes. If someone chooses not to get health insurance when easily affordable options are out there, they are saying "I will pay for anything I need myself". As such, they should have to pay for anything they need. If they can't, then they aren't treated. (And, I'd consider it a form of suicide, so life insurance policies don't pay out.)

Where your stance turns asinine is when you give them ONE opportunity to get insurance. Peoples' needs and wants change over time. My 20 something son's needs are a lot different than my 60 something father's needs. If my son doesn't want to fork over money for something he does not want right now, no reason he shouldn't be able to decide at a later date he wants it. He goes into that decision knowing prices and coverage differ, but hey, that is a valid choice for him to make, and he should be allowed to make it.

As for paying up front for any services, why shouldn't a hospital (or other health service provider) not be able to accept credit/payment terms. If a hospital believes they can can offer some type of payment program (and many do) why the heck should they not be allowed to do so? Conversely, if they choose NOT to do so and want payment up front, that is a business decision they should be allowed to make.

sebster wrote:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:You'd end up with an industry full of "army doctors"... those of you in a military branch (I'd feel fairly safe including most 1st world countries here), you will know what I'm talking about... Typically, these are the bottom of the barrel, barely finished med school, and need a job that pays for their education... You get what amounts to cut-rate docs who don't inspire ANY confidence in your care. Additionally, especially in our system for the military, IF I see a "real" doctor, I get maybe a few minutes with the actual doc, not much time for real care right? Honestly, THIS is what I see coming for America, if the mandated healthcare is upheld as law, because we frankly don't know anything other than medicare, or military style healthcare.

I think you need to learn about healthcare elsewhere in the world. We have public healthcare broadly available, and yet we aren't full of "army doctors". The real world is in direct opposition to what you're claiming.

One problem in American society, is of course our Sue Happy environment. A doctor makes an honest mistake, and suddenly a patient needs to sue the guy for doing his job??? I've never understood it. I mean, sure, leaving a pair of scissors in a dude's gut after surgery would be seen as a "sue-able offense" but diagnosing a cold as allergies should not be.

Malpractice reform has been estimated as representing likely cost savings of 2-3% by the Congressional Budget Office. Which is a nice saving, but nothing like the scale of reform needed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:The problem with Obama care isn't the scope it's HOW they go about doing it. If the government wants to provide universal healthcare they need to control the INFRASTRUCTURE, not insurance. If you thought Obamacare was expensive the cost of instiuting state run health care would be staggering, but that's really how you provide people with universal health care. Don't outlaw private health care, or insurance; but don't mandate the purchase of health care.

That last sentence is the key. Have a base level of care available, which then makes private insurers work at being something people want, and not something they have to put up with because being uninsured is disastrous.

One of the things to me about Obamacare is that it should be seen as one step along a long line of steps to reform healthcare, to bring costs under control and restore sanity to the sector. Unfortunately you've got the politics you've got, and that makes progressive reform impossible. Maybe in another generation, when you have a healthier political climate.

Performing medicine is an ages old trade, before the modern era very few doctors were rich, or wealthy. Well paid and respected but not rich. If you think that the only way to get competent medical care is by paying doctors exhorbiant rates you have another thing coming. Medicine has always and will always be a respected field tha will allow you to feed your family in comfort. It does not have to put you in a palace.

Most of that is because for most of history wealth was based on land ownership, which was heriditary. There were very few people who's own skill was enough to command a healthy wage.

Doctors ought to be paid a health wage, because you don't want your best and brightest young people deciding they'd rather be merchant bankers because it pays so much more.

I really hope that people that think like you do that you can "structure" society/economies from the top down have an increasingly diminishing influence over decision-making processes.

I say stick your one-size-fits-all top-down models where the sun doesn't shine. We somehow managed to survive for decades without keynesians mucking stuff up with their we-know-better-than-everyone-else attitudes.

Only true believers in an unrealistic way of thinking that brought us social security, medicare and medicaid would want to quadruple down to bring us government healthcare as well.

I say go away!

Regards,

So if the individual mandate goes, then the whole funding mechanism is gone from the bill. I wonder if the SC will take it all down, or still leave some of the ideas around pre-existing conditions, coverage revisions, electronic records, etc.

If they leave some of these ideas in the bill, how will they get paid for.

IF the SC decides to strike down the mandate, I personally would hope they scrap the whole thing. It will make it easier in the coming battles to start from scratch.

If we have some hybrid law, then it will be a frankenstein's monster to piece together new legislation.

Phanatik wrote:I really hope that people that think like you do that you can "structure" society/economies from the top down have an increasingly diminishing influence over decision-making processes.

It's a very European philosophy; that the Great and Good of enlightened intellectuals know what is best for the masses.

To be fair, America has generally accepted a fair amount of economic meddling, but much of the hullabaloo in the past few years is the degree to which the Executive office has tried to shift us socially further left.

I need some help understanding something.

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Healthcare is important, but being important doesn't make it a Right.

Now, I apologize. I am -extremely- stupid, in fact I'm really not sure how I breathe on a regular basis. So, this particular comment is probably just going over my head.

Now see you've stated here that people have a right to life but not a right to health care. That... that confuses me. Again, probably because as I've mentioned already: I'm stupid. So.....

If one has the right to life, and I'm assuming here you mean "The right to their life" or to put it another way "Generally speaking, the right to be alive". You know, breathing, heart beating, brain.. braining... that kind stuff.

Does this mean for example that one has the right not to be say, shot with a gun? As that typically has a chance of impinging on ones right to life. Exceptions of course if you're say waving your gun at people threatening to take away their right to life. You know pow, pow, pow blammo! I just mean generally, do people have the right to not be shot is what I'm asking?

If they have the right to not be shot, I think I follow that from the whole... right to life thing that you stated. Now if they don't could please explain how one has the right to life without the right to not-be-shot-by-a-gun? Break it down very simply into steps on how being shot with a gun (with intent to kill) is not impinging on your right to life. Just explain that for me please.

Now, let's say one DOES have the the right to not be shot with a gun, generally speaking of course. Let's say despite having this right someone shoots with a gun, like boom pow right in gut. Ouch! (Gunshots are painful)

Let us say: That is a thing that happened. Someone got with a gun. Ok Follow? Bullet in their torso. Now, they are still alive and still have a right to that life (per your previous statement about the rights people have). See now if the bullet wound remains untreated they will in fact die (I checked with a doctor on this, trust me gaping holes in torso - fatal). When they die they lose that life you've said they had a right to. Now, if the bullet wound is treated they'll live and have a kick-ass scar as well. In this case the reciving the health care will allow them to live, thus keeping the life they have right to.

So in mind, in this scenario... the health care has become equivalent with life, therefore right to life has become equivalent with right to health care. Therefore I don't really understand your statement.

If you could break it down for me, I'm really dumb. So like, make sure you break it down for me step by step, so I can really grasp it fully.

Secondary Question: Can the Kool-Aid man dance.

Chongara wrote:
Secondary Question: Can the Kool-Aid man dance.

I don;t know about all that other stuff, because it doesn;t make any sense to me. You see, I'm ALSO incredibly stupid.

However, the Kool-Aid man can dance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NuWw5nTfd8

Chongara wrote:I need some help understanding something.

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Healthcare is important, but being important doesn't make it a Right.

Now, I apologize. I am -extremely- stupid, in fact I'm really not sure how I breathe on a regular basis. So, this particular comment is probably just going over my head.

Now see you've stated here that people have a right to life but not a right to health care. That... that confuses me. Again, probably because as I've mentioned already: I'm stupid. So.....

If one has the right to life, and I'm assuming here you mean "The right to their life" or to put it another way "Generally speaking, the right to be alive". You know, breathing, heart beating, brain.. braining... that kind stuff.

Does this mean for example that one has the right not to be say, shot with a gun? As that typically has a chance of impinging on ones right to life. Exceptions of course if you're say waving your gun at people threatening to take away their right to life. You know pow, pow, pow blammo! I just mean generally, do people have the right to not be shot is what I'm asking?

If they have the right to not be shot, I think I follow that from the whole... right to life thing that you stated. Now if they don't could please explain how one has the right to life without the right to not-be-shot-by-a-gun? Break it down very simply into steps on how being shot with a gun (with intent to kill) is not impinging on your right to life. Just explain that for me please.

Now, let's say one DOES have the the right to not be shot with a gun, generally speaking of course. Let's say despite having this right someone shoots with a gun, like boom pow right in gut. Ouch! (Gunshots are painful)

Let us say: That is a thing that happened. Someone got with a gun. Ok Follow? Bullet in their torso. Now, they are still alive and still have a right to that life (per your previous statement about the rights people have). See now if the bullet wound remains untreated they will in fact die (I checked with a doctor on this, trust me gaping holes in torso - fatal). When they die they lose that life you've said they had a right to. Now, if the bullet wound is treated they'll live and have a kick-ass scar as well. In this case the reciving the health care will allow them to live, thus keeping the life they have right to.

So in mind, in this scenario... the health care has become equivalent with life, therefore right to life has become equivalent with right to health care. Therefore I don't really understand your statement.

If you could break it down for me, I'm really dumb. So like, make sure you break it down for me step by step, so I can really grasp it fully.

Secondary Question: Can the Kool-Aid man dance.

Thats the Declaration of Independence not the US Constitution. You're right you need to read more if you are going to be successful in future trolling endeavors.