Not a right

[jrh72582]

Fair enough.

Health care is not a right.

Any dialogue on health care/insurance should be done at the state level.

Health care/insurance for all? Let's break that down:

All Illegal aliens? No.

All who can afford it but choose not to purchase it? No.

All who are otherwise eligible for an existing program but are not enrolled? No.

That just about covers the 46 million uninsured.

But your ideal plan would still leave all those with pre-existing conditions and lapses due to firings and/or lay-offs ineligible for any coverage. I still cannot fathom an 18 year old girl denied coverage for cervical cancer because her old policy was cancelled due to her father's job loss and her new policy denied covering the cancer because it was pre-existing. She's fucked. No where to turn. And there are many more like her.

Massive overhaul is needed. Everyone deserves coverage (it is a right). If it takes government intervention, then so be it. It sucks that it came to this, but blame it on the greed of private insurance companies. Had they seen this coming and decided to ward it off by bolstering their policies and treating people fairly, then the need never would have existed. Private insurance companies created a problem they refused to ameliorate and the government, as mandated by the people, decided to step in. You want to place blame - blame the insurance companies. They're so rife with inadequacy and hegemony that even the government had to step in.

It just sucks that both the private and public sectors are so corrupt. De-regulation leads to rampant private sector abuses and complete government regulation leads to the same. But the bottom line is that americans deserve treatment. They deserve to be free from the anal fucking perpetrated by private insurance.

 

[londonfog]

But your ideal plan would still leave all those with pre-existing conditions and lapses due to firings and/or lay-offs ineligible for any coverage. I still cannot fathom an 18 year old girl denied coverage for cervical cancer because her old policy was cancelled due to her father's job loss and her new policy denied covering the cancer because it was pre-existing. She's fucked. No where to turn. And there are many more like her.

Massive overhaul is needed. Everyone deserves coverage (it is a right). If it takes government intervention, then so be it. It sucks that it came to this, but blame it on the greed of private insurance companies. Had they seen this coming and decided to ward it off by bolstering their policies and treating people fairly, then the need never would have existed. Private insurance companies created a problem they refused to ameliorate and the government, as mandated by the people, decided to step in. You want to place blame - blame the insurance companies. They're so rife with inadequacy and hegemony that even the government had to step in.

It just sucks that both the private and public sectors are so corrupt. De-regulation leads to rampant private sector abuses and complete government regulation leads to the same. But the bottom line is that americans deserve treatment. They deserve to be free from the anal fucking perpetrated by private insurance.

Dude I had to stand and on that one...Excellent points

 

[Johnnyorganic]

But your ideal plan would still leave all those with pre-existing conditions and lapses due to firings and/or lay-offs ineligible for any coverage. I still cannot fathom an 18 year old girl denied coverage for cervical cancer because her old policy was cancelled due to her father's job loss and her new policy denied covering the cancer because it was pre-existing. She's fucked. No where to turn. And there are many more like her.

Massive overhaul is needed. Everyone deserves coverage (it is a right). If it takes government intervention, then so be it. It sucks that it came to this, but blame it on the greed of private insurance companies. Had they seen this coming and decided to ward it off by bolstering their policies and treating people fairly, then the need never would have existed. Private insurance companies created a problem they refused to ameliorate and the government, as mandated by the people, decided to step in. You want to place blame - blame the insurance companies. They're so rife with inadequacy and hegemony that even the government had to step in.

It just sucks that both the private and public sectors are so corrupt. De-regulation leads to rampant private sector abuses and complete government regulation leads to the same. But the bottom line is that americans deserve treatment. They deserve to be free from the anal fucking perpetrated by private insurance.

Amend the Constitution giving the federal government the authority to mandate health care.

Or failing that, amend the constitution enumerating health care as a right.

Get either of those added to the Constitution and I'll have no choice but to go along.

Until then, see the 10th Amendment.

 

[londonfog]

Amend the Constitution giving the federal government the authority to mandate health care.

Or failing that, amend the constitution enumerating health care as a right.

Get either of those added to the Constitution and I'll have no choice but to go along.

Until then, see the 10th Amendment.

Nope the constitution explicitly allows the federal government to help the "general welfare" of the people...HEALTH CARE is the welfare of the people...Bing Bang Boom

 

[Johnnyorganic]

Nope the constitution explicitly allows the federal government to help the "general welfare" of the people...HEALTH CARE is the welfare of the people...Bing Bang Boom

'Promote the general Welfare' has been used to rationalize all kinds of abuses under the umbrella of that phrase in the preamble of the Constitution, including that unholy abortion called Welfare.

Progressives have been beating that drum since FDR.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Nope, nothing explicit about health care as right. In fact, no mention of health care at all.

Nice try, though.

Bada boom, bada bing!

 

[jrh72582]

Nope the constitution explicitly allows the federal government to help the "general welfare" of the people...HEALTH CARE is the welfare of the people...Bing Bang Boom

He's absolutely right. The "general welfare" clause, even when translated strictly and literally, easily justifies welfare programs and universal healthcare. The founding fathers put that phrase in there for a reason. Gotta take care of the people, plain and simple. You must protect them from evil, greedy, profit-driven corporations - esp. ones that kill people.

 

[undertheice]

The founding fathers put that phrase in there for a reason. Gotta take care of the people, plain and simple.

not quite so plain and simple. the phrase used was "promote the general welfare" not provide for the general welfare. that's promote as in aid, help or encourage. the idea that government is there to provide us with anything but fair access to such things as health care is a concept forwarded by the proponents of the nanny state. the original message was one of a government constrained from interfering in the lives of the people in all but the most dire of circumstances and a people encouraged to provide for themselves and given the freedom to do so.

 

[londonfog]

I use to love singing the preamble with Schoolhouse Rock on Saturday mornings when I was a kid..Maybe some don't know it


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

 

[jrh72582]

not quite so plain and simple. the phrase used was "promote the general welfare" not provide for the general welfare. that's promote as in aid, help or encourage. the idea that government is there to provide us with anything but fair access to such things as health care is a concept forwarded by the proponents of the nanny state. the original message was one of a government constrained from interfering in the lives of the people in all but the most dire of circumstances and a people encouraged to provide for themselves and given the freedom to do so.

Yeah, "promote general welfare". You're exactly fuckin' right! The private corporations, aided by complete deregulation, have strangled the people of America. These private companies are hindering Americans from having any sense of welfare - eliminating our chance of welfare on a massive scale They are hegemonically keeping us down. The government is stepping in to reassure that we again have a chance at ever attaining any semblance of welfare. The government is promoting general welfare, which has been lacking for a good 10 years now! They are promoting welfare by providing an environment in which welfare is no longer denied by private corporations. Simple.

 

[londonfog]

Promote - To contribute to the progress or growth of; further.

Alice promoted the growth of her "White Widow" by feeding it foxfarm big bloom..

Maybe that sentence will help you understand the word promote

Heres another one using the base of the word

Alice got a promotion at work..


what did Alice get...A promotion ...what was she given..a promotion...the word means to give:add too, to further

 

[londonfog]

Obama will promote the general welfare of America by giving you Healthcare for all..

 

[Rob Roy]

He's absolutely right. The "general welfare" clause, even when translated strictly and literally, easily justifies welfare programs and universal healthcare. The founding fathers put that phrase in there for a reason. Gotta take care of the people, plain and simple. You must protect them from evil, greedy, profit-driven corporations - esp. ones that kill people.

So we have no "right" not to participate?

 

[jrh72582]

So we have no "right" not to participate?

Sure you have the right. You have the right not to do anything, but there are consequences. As always.

 

[Rob Roy]

Sure you have the right. You have the right not to do anything, but there are consequences. As always.

Should there be consequences when a person is harming nobody?

 

[jrh72582]

Should there be consequences when a person is harming nobody?

Why wouldn't anyone want insurance? This I don't understand. You wouldn't have to use it. Having insurance is quite a dormant activity. It cannot be the principle, can it?

 

[londonfog]

Should there be consequences when a person is harming nobody?

what are you talking about

 

[Rob Roy]

Why wouldn't anyone want insurance? This I don't understand. You wouldn't have to use it. Having insurance is quite a dormant activity. It cannot be the principle, can it?

Why would anyone want the freedom to choose and not be dictated to by government? My life is mine, nobody elses. I harm nobody. Why should I permit anyone to make my choices?

 

[jrh72582]

Why would anyone want the freedom to choose and not be dictated to by government? My life is mine, nobody elses. I harm nobody. Why should I permit anyone to make my choices?

Ah, so you are making an argument of principle. Interesting.......

Slippery slope.
.
.
.

You ultimately have free will and are solely responsible for every decision you make. Universal healthcare in no way impinges upon your freedom. If you don't like it, you can always leave or fend for yourself. Move to the woods, become sustainable, and live. But if you make money here and benefit from this government protected land, then you must pay taxes. No one will force universal healthcare on you, so this isn't even an issue.

I cannot believe how many people adopt this line of reasoning. Trying to deny that you have free will is quite tenuous.

 

[Rob Roy]

what are you talking about

jrh mentioned there would be consequences for not participating in mandatory healthcare.

I raised the morality question...should government force a peaceful person to participate in a program or inflict "consequences" upon a person that harms nobody? If you believe they should
logically you would then endorse violence...albeit "legal government violence".

 

[hom36rown]

Free will is an illusion