The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says otherwise. Disagree all you want, but the consensus is not with you, and bald assertions to the contrary do not impress. Good thing for me that this isn't a matter of confiscating the labor of others, then. What we're discussing is the best way for society to set up a system to pay for the labor of healthcare workers so that everyone who needs their services can get them. The right to life implies that society has an obligation to see to it that everyone gets fed and clothed. Absent that, such a right exists only in a vacuous sense. Those two descriptions are not mutually exclusive.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights made a socialist assertion; what respect should I have for it now? You can call anything a right, doesn't mean it is. The Constitution, which, in case you forgot, governs the land, doesn't guarantee you a right to the labor of doctors. Sounds like what Hitler could have said. That's fine. I didn't say you couldn't do that; I'm only saying that it's not a right. No, it doesn't. Try getting a backbone and showing some personal responsibility. It's not my job to work for you: you can support yourself.
Does that same logic /POV hold for free public schools? Most without children of age to attend would opt out of paying taxes for school support.
I guess I'll take that as a compliment, coming as it is from a fascist. Regardless, Hitler is almost universally considered to have been a world-class orator, so I suppose the source shouldn't matter anyway. Now if you said something like "that's the sort of policy Hitler would have ordered" the story might be different. My interest in your theories of rights is nearing zero. Essentially none of us can support ourselves without the massive, continuing assistance of society. Narcissistic delusions to the contrary are just that. Not that I don't get the romantic appeal of thinking of yourself as some kind of Ayn Rand hero, or the dislike of paying taxes, but really. This is the stuff of teenage fantasy, not a serious basis for critiquing governance.
are you stupid? I have a right to health care which means insurance. they still get paid. Sorry you can't figure out that the right to life includes being able to stay the fuck alive.
Wait... did Obama sign that into law? HOLY SHIT.... Maybe you weren't updated that it was the same bill? That's not my problem but yours. And you don't understand the Reconciliation process... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Of course that same logic applies. Why should they pay for the public schools that they aren't using? And on top of that, private school tuition should be tax deductible. Did you not get the part about charity? You assume that the only way to help people is through big nanny gov't. Regardless, people need to make the choice; you don't get to push your morals onto others. I'm a libertarian. I only discuss fascism academically, as a political theory. Your theory of rights is not logically sound. How can a person have rights if the rights infringe on the rights of others, as rights to labor certainly do? Of course society functions...and that's fine, too. That's why wealth transfers. Don't you understand? People make money already because they provide something to society; that's what they provide. You seem to think that there is an additional, mystical debt on top of that contribution. We do interact and work together; that's exactly what capitalism is all about. The choice to put something of yours on the market, a skill or a creation, and trade and interact with others. And you can be charitable, too. No, you don't have a right to insurance. Insurance has to be provided by somebody, which means you don't have a right to the labor of others; you aren't entitled to something just because someone has it and you need it. Rights don't work that way. Your rights end when they infringe on the rights of others. Don't you understand?
Nanny state stuff. Your argument is that the market should decide the cost of education and government shouldn't be involved at all. No subsidies.
(1) But childless people do greatly benefit from free public school. For example, they want the people they employ to be able to read and write, do simple math, etc. Perhaps more than 100 years ago the US could get along with 3/4 ths of it population lacking education as then we were mainly a manual labor /agricultural society. Now we compete with our brains, not our brawn, and are not doing very well as the Japanese, Chinese, and many others provide better eduction to their populations, especially in areas where it counts, like math and sciences. If only the wealthy send their children to school, soon the US will revert to that manual /agricultural society of 100+ years ago. I.e. soon the US would become an agricultural colony of Asia. (I think the US will in about a generation because we are doing such a poor job providing good educations to all. - I.e. we already do have what you want to a large extent: The good schools exist only in the more wealthy neighborhoods, not for all as our main competitors mainly have via federal financing. I.e. in a generation we will be mainly an agricultural colony of Asia as we have local funding of our public schools.) (2) & (3) I completely agree that you have no right to the slave labor of others. If you want some service from someone else you must offer to pay for it at a wage that is attractive to the service provider. In most cases you gain these services via taxes paid to the government who pays for them, not by directly contracting for the service with the service provider. For example hospitals (just being their in case you need to go is a service provided), sewer & water services, public roads, school teachers, police men, mail delivery, safety control of drugs sold (FDA), fire departments, even the issue of currency for paying directly,* etc. Often when it is feasible the government will charge the users for these services, but rarely does the charge cover the full cost. (postage stamps, etc.) The remainder comes from general taxes** As Quadraphonics pointed out, you suffer from a naive, childish, romantic, no-functional, POV of the rugged individual, living by only his own efforts and paying directly for all services he needs from others: Quad said it well: "Essentially none of us can support ourselves without the massive, continuing assistance of society. Narcissistic delusions to the contrary are just that. Not that I don't get the romantic appeal of thinking of yourself as some kind of Ayn Rand hero, or the dislike of paying taxes, but really. This is the stuff of teenage fantasy, not a serious basis for critiquing governance. " I point out that this need of social (government in a general sense) support has a long history: Human are by nature social creature that have always lived together in societies with division of labors with redistribution VIA THEIR SOCIAL STRUCTURE of the individually produced fruits of those labors. E.g. all members of the tribe ate the meat the hunters brought back. etc. ------------------------ *To be true to your principles of avoiding dependence on the government providing services, you should never use dollars but only barter for the services you require. E.g. offer to cut the grass for two months in your dentist's yard for his cleaning your teeth. – Even you should be able to see with this example how silly “your avoid government provided services” POV is. **It is very much like your electric bill - you will pay something via your taxes just to have the service available even if you do not use it. For example, I may only use Email and never mail a letter, but must pay in taxes for the post office to exist in case I want to someday.
I don't dismiss all that charity has done. There are free community health clinics in some places. That's all well and good, but it's not enough. How can you increase charity without spending? Even a public campaign to increase charity will cost money, and you may as well spend that money directly on people.
But where are the death panels and euthanasia booths? Did fox news lie to us all? My prediction is in 10-20 years post 2014 if this programs is successful in reducing medical expenses and improving medical access for average citizens then republicans will deny they ever were against this, sort of like they claim they never were against Medicare of Social Security, and few if anyone will remember, considering the maximum political memory of people is a few years at best with only a handful of subjects. All this histrionic hullabaloo for nothing.
I have a question: Will the Amish people or any religious group,cult(whatever you call em) be exempt from having to pay in to this Healthcare Reform? What do you guys think will happen with this or what is your opinion & comments on it? Thanks!
Amish don't pay taxes that go to Social Security, unemployment, or welfare benefit and they don't take out these benefits. Amish to me should be respected and left to their own devices, if people choose to live separate they should be allowed, those that choose to be part of society should by function of the society be helped, but those that live outside society or in societies of their own should be pragmatically invisible to the larger society.
Good question. The Amish have a religious restriction prohibiting insurance, so I doubt they will. I believe that this bill requires proof of financial responsibility (like with car insurance). Most people prove financial responsibility by buying insurance, other people can do so by way of their outright wealth. Amish people accomplish this--with their buggies and probably with health insurance--by way of their community. When an Amish person gets into the rare accident where they owe money, or when they need advanced medical care (which they do seek), the community simply coughs up the money. Don't be fooled by their meek surroundings. I live in Amish country (or, used to until a few years ago: Ohio has TONS of Amish peeps), they have a lot more wealth than you think. ~String
