"No one has a right to medical care"

Sure they do, if we decide so. We don't have a right to own land either, only because we've all agreed that it ought to be a right. White people don't have that right in Zimbabwe for instance, but that's only because the people there accept Mugabe's claim that they should not own anything.

Laws are not immutable, they follow a cultural zeitgeist. Rights are decided, not given. Morality is not absolute, it is relative.

His points on homeopathy are both right and wrong. People ought to have the right to choose their potential cure, even if it doesn't work, but as long as the state pays for it, I think that we, as the state, have to be able to demand at least possible results. Homeopathy offers none.

>> ^gwiz665:
"No one has a right to medical care"
Sure they do, if we decide so. We don't have a right to own land either, only because we've all agreed that it ought to be a right. White people don't have that right in Zimbabwe for instance, but that's only because the people there accept Mugabe's claim that they should not own anything.
Laws are not immutable, they follow a cultural zeitgeist. Rights are decided, not given. Morality is not absolute, it is relative.


Seems like a pretty knee-jerk response to moral philosophy to me. Just because morality is messy, doesn't mean it's relative.

>> ^gwiz665:
Rights are decided, not given.


Natural rights are neither decided upon nor given. Legal rights are decided upon, and cannot infringed upon our natural rights.

What is a "natural right"? If one is referring to Declarationism, then I don't see why medical care is considered such a stretch from the rights to "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness".

Furthermore, if one is referring to unalienable human rights, which is the other popular understanding of "natural rights", then medical care is deeply integrated in the UN Universal Declaration Of Human Rights (Article 25), which is the foremost document we've ever produced on that front, too.

Indeed, I never gave this any thought - but does Ron Paul actually support UDHR?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights

"natural rights are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity."

It's a stretch to believe the right to life means the government guarantees medical care. And, just because the Constitution or Declaration says you have a right to something doesn't mean the government has carte blanche to make it so; it means the government must protect that right, not enforce it*.

*[edit] On second thought, I don't want to say that, because I'm sure people will crucify me through a technicality. Sure, the courts can enforce laws, etc etc, but what I mean is that the Federal government shouldn't be in the business of seeking out every instance where life can be protected and then acting on it, such is the case of abortion. I think of the government being more reactive than proactive. I'll belay it only because I'm sure it will take us on a tangent.

Canadians do.

>> ^Crake:
>> ^gwiz665:
"No one has a right to medical care"
Sure they do, if we decide so. We don't have a right to own land either, only because we've all agreed that it ought to be a right. White people don't have that right in Zimbabwe for instance, but that's only because the people there accept Mugabe's claim that they should not own anything.
Laws are not immutable, they follow a cultural zeitgeist. Rights are decided, not given. Morality is not absolute, it is relative.

Seems like a pretty knee-jerk response to moral philosophy to me. Just because morality is messy, doesn't mean it's relative.


My morality is better than your morality.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Canadians do.


Then I suppose that's that.

bf: What do you think about states vs. federal government? I'm interested, because in Europe our Countries are roughly like your states, but with more sovereignty. Who should make decisions?

Is it the smaller parts the better? I would think that's the libertarian end-point, since in the end every person has his own complete freedom.

>> ^Crake:
>> ^gwiz665:
"No one has a right to medical care"
Sure they do, if we decide so. We don't have a right to own land either, only because we've all agreed that it ought to be a right. White people don't have that right in Zimbabwe for instance, but that's only because the people there accept Mugabe's claim that they should not own anything.
Laws are not immutable, they follow a cultural zeitgeist. Rights are decided, not given. Morality is not absolute, it is relative.

Seems like a pretty knee-jerk response to moral philosophy to me. Just because morality is messy, doesn't mean it's relative.


Nor the other way around. There are no "natural rights", we may want to think there are, such as freedom to live, but really they only exist because we evolved such that we like to think that - the good of the tribe. Some of these feelings are pretty hard-wired, but many are not, and are taught through our upbringing. (Nature/nurture all over again.) Still, even if they are hard-wired and ingrained in us, that does not mean they are in-alienable and that they are objectively, absolutely right.

There is no Morality Scale that we can measure ourselves to.

F**k Ron Paul.

Corporations only have their stockholders in mind. The only reason they help consumers is to elevate their brand and vicariously gain approval of their stockholders.

Government run programs have no such incentive, their not out to make a profit. Gov programs are there for one purpose, to improve the lives of the citizens. I support government run health care and disagree with Ron Paul on this issue.

I've been exhausted as of late so i dont feel like elaborating more.

Upvote for the interesting comment-thread.

I may not agree with Representative Paul's ideas, but at least he's bringing intelligent insight/input to the table.

>> ^gwiz665:
Morality is not absolute, it is relative.


Aw man, I was right there with you until you threw that big bunch of bullshit in there. There are still people that believe morality is relative? Fascinating.

It's a question. Do you care about the elderly widow downtown who can't afford health insurance and is in pain? Or do you care about the children with no health insurance so they contract easily curable diseases and die young? Do you care is the question, that's it. Cuba seems to care, which is why despite being tortured through economic strangleholds by the US for 60 years it still gives Health Care to it's people, and sends doctors all over the world during crises or even just to help other countries out.

It's natural to care for other people, it's natural to want to help other people. So that has to be BEATEN out of us, it's an extraordinary accomplishment by the media and corporations to destroy this implicit belief we have about community and helping others. It's not an accident, it's designed because it won't make people money, and it'll give the wrong people Power.

I want a healthy Community, a healthy workforce, and a healthy country overall. Single Payer is what is wanted by the majority of Americans, and it's not even discussed in the mainstream. This is our democracy, let's make the decisions.

>> ^Xax:
>> ^gwiz665:
Morality is not absolute, it is relative.

Aw man, I was right there with you until you threw that big bunch of bullshit in there. There are still people that believe morality is relative? Fascinating.


You don't? Do you have a guide that tells us all the morals we should follow? No, you don't. The universe doesn't care about us, there is no absolute moral code that binds everything. Morality is absolutely relative.

(BTW if you say the Bible, or any other holy book, is the source and guide of morals then you've already failed).

With regards to Ron Paul's speech, many of his points have been repeatedly disproven by the countries that already have government-run healthcare.

> F**k Ron Paul.

Ask Bruno about this.

> "No One Has A Right To Medical Care"

Says the 70+ year old DOCTOR with lifetime health benefits signed and sealed.

No one has a right to medical care. If one assumes such a right it endorses the notion that some individuals have a right to someone else's life and property. This totally contradicts the principles of liberty.

No one has a right to an education. If one assumes such a right it endorses the notion that some individuals have a right to someone else's life and property. This totally contradicts the principles of liberty.

No one has a right to a lawyer. If one assumes such a right it endorses the notion that some individuals have a right to someone else's life and property. This totally contradicts the principles of liberty.

In other news, Ron Paul also doubts evolution and global warming like an idiot.

Ahh, Ron Paul, so many people think you're some kind of god... and yet you spew forth shit like this.

* This bizarre notion that people who get health care are somehow depriving others of property or wealth is such a weird concept. This thing of 'What I make I own, f*ck off everyone else' is SUCH a selfish enclosed view of the world popularized by those who have already made it, or those that are still under the dissolution that they can become rich if they just 'work hard enough'

* To try to equate : Government that provides basic 'rights' like health care, education, basic essentials with an 'authoritarian unconcerned about the rights of the individual'. WHAT? What utter bullshit. Really... You're saying it's someone's RIGHT to die because they can't afford to buy healthcare as compared to being able to live. I would say it's a government that CARES about the individual's rights to provide these basic services.

* Public provided healthcare FUCKING WORKS you dipshit. There are PLENTY of countries (mine included) that show this. PLENTY. How the F*CK do people like Ron here just put on blinkers? How do they NOT SEE that it's a GOOD THING to not have to worry about cost if you or a loved one has to have life saving care? Why should it be even on the agenda for a necessary procedure? Elective... sure, pay through the bum... if you want a pair of big tits, go right ahead and pay that out of your own pocket. But to have heart surgery to prevent you from dying, you shouldn't only be able to get that if you, or your family have amassed enough wealth to cover the expense.

* Government should get out of the way? Oh Fucking please... yeah, because private industry does the best job at providing healthcare. What a steaming load of shit. Healthcare should be about making sick people better and keeping healthy people healthy, it SHOULD NOT be about making profit. And that's what the private industry does. Somehow giving private industry FREE REIGN on healthcare is going to suddenly make it all cheap and quality? Buuuuuulllll shiiiit.

* Bureaucrats shouldn't be allowed to get between doctor/patient relationship... um, what about the current private healthcare system you have at the moment which makes the provider STOP before providing care to QUESTION the bureaucrats at the insurance company as to whether you're covered for a given procedure... THAT is insane. Here I walk into the hospital, get the care for me or my child, and walk out. No one asks if I can afford it, no one charges me anything, I just get the care, and I go home...

* WHAT? Is he seriously suggesting that LICENSING of medical practitioners be abolished? And is he actually trying to say that homeopathy be treated like real medicine? FUCK me he is more of a fucking tool than I ever thought. He has no idea what he is talking about. To say that there is room for other treatments other than just purely medicinal is ok, but you can't just let everything in. You can say that someone swaying a stone over your stomach to cure your ills should be covered, because there is nothing to ever say that it works... kinda like homeopathy.

I love seeing stuff like this, this is a 5 minute segment that I can always point to when anyone tries to say that Ron Paul is some soothsayer. I can point at this and say, "Nope, he doesn't know what he's talking about, he is a right wing, me me mine type of personality who believes EVERYTHING is solved through competition somehow". "Oh, and he thinks that homeopathy is real medicine... how cute"



I upvote, because I want more people to find out what a fool he really is and to stop treating him like some kind of capitalistic messiah

I gotta agree with Ron on this, but it's nice to see some real back and forth. I just wish we could get some real debate instead of some 5 min talking points roundtable on Larry King or something. Interesting notes I've heard but never see discussed:

* Given a single payer system: How will preventative medicine work in principal? If person A begins smoking and gets lung cancer, does that person get the same deal as everyone else? Or more likely, if person A is obese and as a result has to have more treatments for a particular problem, does that give the government or the people paying the right to decide what he can and can't eat? Just thinking. (Following along with the ban of Trans-fats, and the talk about a soda tax)

* With the close ties of the healthcare cos and the government now, what incentive would they have to sever the relationship? A million in campaign funds pre-single payer is the same as a million post-single payer. This is what I've heard some people refer to as the rise of Medical Industrial Complex(An obvious play off the old Military Industrial Complex term).

* Why isn't closer examination given to US healthcare pre-HMOs? I might be missing something, but this didn't seem to be a hot button issue in the 10's, 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's?

* Why is the term 'insurance' used so incorrectly? If I used the term fire insurance the way some are using health insurance, people would start looking at me funny. The catastrophic-centric part seems neglected and now it covers everything from a skinned knee to a tumor. Can we give it a new name or something to differentiate? Maybe just use health care?

* Assuming the GAO's analysis that the US government is effectively broke, and social security is essentially a ponzi scheme, how does that factor in to the debate? Or put generally, given the last 8 years of Bush (including a Patriot Act, 9/11 & Katrina), what evidence is there that any major new system will be run any better and cost any less?

* Following along with the post about laws changing to define rights: If we have a framework to change the laws, and the right to healthcare is HUGE change, why isn't an official constitutional amendment being put forth that makes the responsibilities clear? Seems that if we could draft something as dumb as 'no alcohol', something can be proposed in regards to healthcare.

Just thinking out loud here. I have lots more questions (including the role of States) if anybody is still awake at this point

* Given a single payer system: How will preventative medicine work in principal? If person A begins smoking and gets lung cancer, does that person get the same deal as everyone else? Or more likely, if person A is obese and as a result has to have more treatments for a particular problem, does that give the government or the people paying the right to decide what he can and can't eat? Just thinking. (Following along with the ban of Trans-fats, and the talk about a soda tax)

You never deny people the right to smoke, or to eat shit foods, you just take money from the purchase of things that are proven bad for you (like cigarettes) and give that to the pool of money for health care (such as we do in Australia, cigarettes are HUGELY taxed here such that if you smoke at least you're putting a fair chunk of change aside for your eventual health care requirements).

Also, you can/could (I don't know how much this may be done already here or elsewhere) provide discounts in the usual medicare levy you pay in your taxes if you are doing proactive things of taking care of yourself. If you are a gym user or swim center user or whatever, you should be able to get some money back on your health levy... although I guess this is hard to quantify... how would I prove that I walk to the train station every day instead of driving? Not sure...

>> ^spoco2:
Ahh, Ron Paul, so many people think you're some kind of god... and yet you spew forth shit like this.
This bizarre notion that people who get health care are somehow depriving others of property or wealth is such a weird concept. This thing of 'What I make I own, f ck off everyone else' is SUCH a selfish enclosed view of the world popularized by those who have already made it, or those that are still under the dissolution that they can become rich if they just 'work hard enough'
To try to equate : Government that provides basic 'rights' like health care, education, basic essentials with an 'authoritarian unconcerned about the rights of the individual'. WHAT? What utter bullshit. Really... You're saying it's someone's RIGHT to die because they can't afford to buy healthcare as compared to being able to live. I would say it's a government that CARES about the individual's rights to provide these basic services.
Public provided healthcare FUCKING WORKS you dipshit. There are PLENTY of countries (mine included) that show this. PLENTY. How the F CK do people like Ron here just put on blinkers? How do they NOT SEE that it's a GOOD THING to not have to worry about cost if you or a loved one has to have life saving care? Why should it be even on the agenda for a necessary procedure? Elective... sure, pay through the bum... if you want a pair of big tits, go right ahead and pay that out of your own pocket. But to have heart surgery to prevent you from dying, you shouldn't only be able to get that if you, or your family have amassed enough wealth to cover the expense.
Government should get out of the way? Oh Fucking please... yeah, because private industry does the best job at providing healthcare. What a steaming load of shit. Healthcare should be about making sick people better and keeping healthy people healthy, it SHOULD NOT be about making profit. And that's what the private industry does. Somehow giving private industry FREE REIGN on healthcare is going to suddenly make it all cheap and quality? Buuuuuulllll shiiiit.
Bureaucrats shouldn't be allowed to get between doctor/patient relationship... um, what about the current private healthcare system you have at the moment which makes the provider STOP before providing care to QUESTION the bureaucrats at the insurance company as to whether you're covered for a given procedure... THAT is insane. Here I walk into the hospital, get the care for me or my child, and walk out. No one asks if I can afford it, no one charges me anything, I just get the care, and I go home...
WHAT? Is he seriously suggesting that LICENSING of medical practitioners be abolished? And is he actually trying to say that homeopathy be treated like real medicine? FUCK me he is more of a fucking tool than I ever thought. He has no idea what he is talking about. To say that there is room for other treatments other than just purely medicinal is ok, but you can't just let everything in. You can say that someone swaying a stone over your stomach to cure your ills should be covered, because there is nothing to ever say that it works... kinda like homeopathy.
I love seeing stuff like this, this is a 5 minute segment that I can always point to when anyone tries to say that Ron Paul is some soothsayer. I can point at this and say, "Nope, he doesn't know what he's talking about, he is a right wing, me me mine type of personality who believes EVERYTHING is solved through competition somehow". "Oh, and he thinks that homeopathy is real medicine... how cute"

I upvote, because I want more people to find out what a fool he really is and to stop treating him like some kind of capitalistic messiah


Standing Ovation!

I'll say this about Ron Paul, I agree with him on some points and disagree on others, but unlike most politicians, he's damn consistent. I admire that.

DFT and gwiz665 have a too-similar background color, confusing my feeble earthling brain. And that's the most useful thing I can contribute to this debate.

WHAT A DICK!

healthcare is not a right nor a privaledge. its an obligation we have as a society to provide for us all. republicans need to look up the phrase e pluribus unum.

>> ^JiggaJonson:
Corporations only have their stockholders in mind. The only reason they help consumers is to elevate their brand and vicariously gain approval of their stockholders.
Government run programs have no such incentive, their not out to make a profit. Gov programs are there for one purpose, to improve the lives of the citizens.


Yeah, you have a good point that many people can appreciate.

A lot of what people object to about healthcare reform, though, is just that they don't want more income redistribution. Keep in mind, 70% of healthcare costs are 'diseases of choice' (resulting from choice of lifestyle), and only 8% of the population lives a healthy lifestyle.

If we removed the 'you pay for mine and I won't pay for yours' out of the healthcare reform effort, it would have already passed by now (which would have been good for everybody).

The current system already suffers from that exact problem chilaxe. If you are a subscriber to a medical plan, you are paying huge premiums that are most being used to pay for the care and coverage of a small portion of the membership (and you're also padding the stockholders pockets to boot.)

^Yeah, I think you and JiggaJonson have a good point that there's no reason to have the extra costs associated with for-profit healthcare. It seems pretty well established that government healthcare is much more efficient overall.

Insurance prices, though, are tailored according to the risk for each individual, so in theory customers subsidizing the costs of other customers would be kept to a minimum.

I understand universal healthcare is probably in the best economic self-interest of everyone, even with the income redistribution it represents, but if we make it part of a larger philosophical push toward making people subsidize others' consumption, it creates many unnecessary battles that have to be fought, as we're seeing now on the national stage.

Income redistribution? Maybe I fell into that "Work Hard" and get some where group of people. But some how I still feel that what I worked hard for, you don't deserve any of it.

I don't want anyone living off of me, not even the IRS. Public health care isn't it about time? I think so, but I'll be damned if it's taken it out of my paycheck.

Income redistribution proposes that you take some sweat off the hard working backs of the lower middle, upper middle, and the middle classes. That proposes that some will be living off of the work put in by some one else?

With all due haste, fuck that.

You want health care? Call your congressmen and tell them to support bills that cut military spending but defense spending, trim the fat of the beltway, and cut taxes. If they cut the income tax down by a bit, and then instead of spending it on Military spent it on this health care reform I wouldn't be so pissed about it.

i cant tell if your being sarcastic or not. but if your not,well public healthcare is already being taken from your paycheck. look at your medicare taxes. also your paying for the uninsured already. with your premiums. uninsured have healthcare(its called the emergency room ) they just dont pay for it. what this reform does is to get those people to pay. isnt that a good thing?? see, do you get it now? thats what mandates mean.

"I understand universal healthcare is probably in the best economic self-interest of everyone, even with the income redistribution it represents, but if we make it part of a larger philosophical push toward making people subsidize others' consumption, it creates many unnecessary battles that have to be fought, as we're seeing now on the national stage."

That is exactly what I mean, the money is already there its a matter of finding it.

Apparently The bailouts only prolonged the problem. I bet you could find a lot of money in there.

The way the world works is, if you want an omelet you have to break some eggs. Hard decisions have to be made, simple let the companies die and there it is all the money we needed for health care 700 billion dollars of it.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
Maybe I fell into that "Work Hard" and get some where group of people. But some how I still feel that what I worked hard for, you don't deserve any of it.


The people who came before you and made it possible for you to "get somewhere" gave up a lot for what you now "have".

I "gave" up a lot of dick to your mom last night so she could "get somewhere" on her knees.

....

....

....

....




....

...


..

Sorry, that's best I can do.


....
....


....

....


Ahem.

....

....

....


....


I'll just leave now.

[backs out of room]

>> ^Yogi:
... This is our democracy, let's make the decisions.


You're young yet...give it a few decades and you'll learn better. In fact, this is the democracy of the wealthy. It's a damned rare decision that goes opposite the way the money flows.

>> ^gwiz665:
I'll say this about Ron Paul, I agree with him on some points and disagree on others, but unlike most politicians, he's damn consistent. I admire that.


The problem is that consistency, by itself, is utterly worthless. Bush was incredibly consistent...but virtually always on the wrong side. Paul, like Bush, is an ideologue (different ideologies, but still)...the important thing to him is the ideology, not whether or not it actually works.

To my way of thinking, he's only one small step short of being a total nutcase conspiracy theorist. And consistently being so, isn't a good thing.

>> ^volumptuous:
>> ^NordlichReiter:
Maybe I fell into that "Work Hard" and get some where group of people. But some how I still feel that what I worked hard for, you don't deserve any of it.

The people who came before you and made it possible for you to "get somewhere" gave up a lot for what you now "have".


Did they? I mean did they really? To get where I am, if anywhere at all, I had to play the game.

I'm still playing the game. You want to get some where you have to sweet talk the princess.

Feed the trolls!