The U.S. Promotes Universal Health Care, but Only in Other Countries

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by JetPotato

Terrifying. Absolutely terrifying.

How the hell did we get here?

By pretending that every freedom is one worth having.

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by Warfish

We get the Government we deserve, yes. We also get the Government the People want, right or wrong to you or I.

And the reality is that two centuries of almost universal success and geographical isolation (i.e. no local millitary threats) has led, in my view, to a devaluation of personal freedom and liberty, a devaluation of personal responsabillity and acdcountabillity, and a focus on collectivism and universal benefits, i.e. Euro-Style Social Welfareism.

Just as I never bought the various "Massive Right Wing Conspiracy" ideas even now bandied about almost daily on the left, I also do not believe there is some grandiose left-wing conspiracy either. Dioshonesty, yes, but conspiracy, no. There is simply a considerably large number of Americans who believe more in a hybrid German/UK/Soviet type system than believe in the traditional American "Rugged Individualism" Capitalist system.

So we will get what we deserve, and what we (as a whole) want. IMO that will be a continued move away from my ideals, towards those of Safety. More collectivism, more socialism (Govt. owning the means of production of certain industries), and less Freedom and liberty across the board. as Safety so clearly displays, they don't believe it's a cost, not now, and not the next time, or the next time, or the next time. As long as his side controls things, and they will given they're the party of "give to the majority, take from the minority", he is fine with a trade of freedoms for collective comforts.

It's easy to rant against it, but it's bigger tham any of us here, it's our culture as a whole. Endless amounts of success (where our worst times still dwarf the ebst of most other nations in history) combined with almost no actual external threats to our security, and you get, predictably, this even-onward movement towards collectivism at the cost of freedom, IMO.

If I were being honest, tater, I'd say the battle on this is already lost. The ideals and idealism of the founders was more then 200 years ago, we're a different Nation and a VERY different people now. It's why I need to remind myself from time to time that there really is no gain in debating here with Safety or the various Union folks. They've already won the War, even if they may lose an occasion battle. The only thing the individual can do is make the best of the system that will be thrust upon him.

Yes, because embracing the German or Canadian healthcare system means I wish to limit your freedom everywhere.

What a joke.

[JetPotato]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

By pretending that every freedom is one worth having.

I don't know what to say to you any more.

Other than enjoy your 4th and a Happy Dependence Day to you and yours, I guess.

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by JetPotato

Sad, isn't it?

We've created a culture in which many take for granted the blessings we have been given and instead look for more, without a single regard for the consequences. So much so that almost half the nation can read those posts and not see the severe, yet obvious flaw in the line of thinking just expressed.

We get what we deserve I suppose.

Regard for consequences? The consequences of socialized medicine in this country would be an improved healthcare system; one that costs us less and covers more.

Again, in many cases, limiting freedom is better for society AND the individual.

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by JetPotato

I don't know what to say to you any more.

Other than enjoy your 4th and a Happy Dependence Day to you and yours, I guess.

And I bet we're both happy that Americans don't have the freedom to drink and drive this July 4th.

Tyranny.

[JetPotato]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

Regard for consequences? The consequences of socialized medicine in this country would be an improved healthcare system; one that costs us less and covers more.

Again, in many cases, limiting freedom is better for society AND the individual.

You're proving one thing - some people have no regards for consequences, some consider only a fraction of them, and still others have no understanding of them at all. Whether that is result of being lied to, or just plain ignorance varies on the individual.

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by JetPotato

You're proving one thing - some people have no regards for consequences, some consider only a fraction of them, and still others have no understanding of them at all. Whether that is result of being lied to, or just plain ignorance varies on the individual.

Enlighten me, Jetpotato.

How does the above apply to me?

[JetPotato]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

And I bet we're both happy that Americans don't have the freedom to drink and drive this July 4th.

Tyranny.

And here you further prove that you don't understand the enormous difference between laws that protect rights, and laws that reduce rights. You may believe you're up against anarchists, but you are sorely mistaken.

This is quite simply an analogy that misses the target by miles.

[JetPotato]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

Enlighten me, Jetpotato.

How does the above apply to me?

As clearly expressed already several times already here, there really is no point.

You're going to believe what you want to believe. I'm not going to waste any more time talking to a brick wall.

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by JetPotato

And here you further prove that you don't understand the enormous difference between laws that protect rights, and laws that reduce rights. You may believe you're up against anarchists, but you are sorely mistaken.

This is quite simply an analogy that misses the target by miles.

I'm saying healthcare should be a right. Just like it's your right to drive on safe roads.

[MnJetFan]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

Regard for consequences? The consequences of socialized medicine in this country would be an improved healthcare system; one that costs us less and covers more.

Again, in many cases, limiting freedom is better for society AND the individual.

Cost us less, The price of insurance has doubled since this Obama Could Careless Law came into being. You will get less and pay more.

[JetPotato]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

I'm saying healthcare should be a right. Just like it's your right to drive on safe roads.

If you want health care to be a right, pass an Amendment to the Constitution that says so. Until you do otherwise, it is not. At least for anyone who has respect for the laws of this land.

Drunk driving is not a federal law. So that is Fail 1 of umpteen on this analogy. Fail 2 is that the Constitution does currently explicitly guarantee my right to not have my life taken from me by another. Therefore, when states enact laws designed to protect me from having my life taken away from me directly by another individual, those laws are not deemed unconstitutional. Common sense.

Now, let's say you get your Amendment passed, and you define health care as a right of all American citizens. Ok, now health care is right there on the list with say, an American citizen's right to bare arms. That one is already on the books.

Now I ask you, is there a federal law enacted by Congress that says that because it is the right of everyone to bare arms, that we all are FORCED to do so? And because there are those in this nation that don't have the desire or the means to, that we must now pay even more for ours, so that they can have their guns for free?

The government exists to protect your rights. Rights that you can exercise if you have the desire and the means. It is not the federal government's job to provide it for you at the cost of another man's rights if you can not.

But this is just the tip of the iceburg in this debate. We haven't even scratched the surface on the Pandora's box we're opening. But as I said, this all does seem like a waste of time, and I've already wasted way too many keystrokes on this.

[cr726]

Originally Posted by JetPotato

And here you further prove that you don't understand the enormous difference between laws that protect rights, and laws that reduce rights. You may believe you're up against anarchists, but you are sorely mistaken.

This is quite simply an analogy that misses the target by miles.

What laws are you referring to that have reduced rights?

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by MnJetFan

Cost us less, The price of insurance has doubled since this Obama Could Careless Law came into being. You will get less and pay more.

When I say socialized medicine, it is understood I'm not talking about Obamacare, because Obamacare is not socialism.

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by JetPotato

As clearly expressed already several times already here, there really is no point.

You're going to believe what you want to believe. I'm not going to waste any more time talking to a brick wall.

Expressed several times, by you and Warfish? Canada and Germany aren't free because everyone is guaranteed healthcare in there countries?

Originally Posted by JetPotato

If you want health care to be a right, pass an Amendment to the Constitution that says so. Until you do otherwise, it is not. At least for anyone who has respect for the laws of this land.

Drunk driving is not a federal law. So that is Fail 1 of umpteen on this analogy. Fail 2 is that the Constitution does currently explicitly guarantee my right to not have my life taken from me by another. Therefore, when states enact laws designed to protect me from having my life taken away from me directly by another individual, those laws are not deemed unconstitutional. Common sense.

Now, let's say you get your Amendment passed, and you define health care as a right of all American citizens. Ok, now health care is right there on the list with say, an American citizen's right to bare arms. That one is already on the books.

Now I ask you, is there a federal law enacted by Congress that says that because it is the right of everyone to bare arms, that we all are FORCED to do so? And because there are those in this nation that don't have the desire or the means to, that we must now pay even more for ours, so that they can have their guns for free?

The government exists to protect your rights. Rights that you can exercise if you have the desire and the means. It is not the federal government's job to provide it for you at the cost of another man's rights if you can not.

But this is just the tip of the iceburg in this debate. We haven't even scratched the surface on the Pandora's box we're opening. But as I said, this all does seem like a waste of time, and I've already wasted way too many keystrokes on this.

The government taxes you and provides a service - i.e. health insurance, that's how it's constitutional.

And as to the whole wasted keystroke argument - you're right, you're not going to convince me that a free market system is better than a socialized one - because I have the facts on my side and you don't.

[JetPotato]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

Expressed several times, by you and Warfish? Canada and Germany aren't free because everyone is guaranteed healthcare in there countries?



The government taxes you and provides a service - i.e. health insurance, that's how it's constitutional.

And as to the whole wasted keystroke argument - you're right, you're not going to convince me that a free market system is better than a socialized one - because I have the facts on my side and you don't.

LOL.

Facts.

LOL.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

I'm saying healthcare should be a right. Just like it's your right to drive on safe roads.

There is no right to drive, nor to drive on safe roads.

Not only are there many unsafe roads in the United States (statisticly), the concept of a "right" is that it cannot be taken away by the Government, and Govt. in compelled to protect it for you from others taking it away. Obviously, "driving on safe roads" can and routinely is taken away, via contrstuction zones (less afe than normal), poor maintenance (which creates a less safe road), poor design (which crates an unsafe road or bridge or intersection), and of course the State can and does routinely take away the right to drive fromt he citizens every day, in every state.

There is also no right to healthcare or health insurance. If there was a right, it would be illegal for a Medical Doctor to not treat anyone who asked, as do so would be a violation of the rights to that heathcare.

This is more than simply a quibble over terminology. You support a National Universal Healthcare System. Fine, we disagree. But even such a system is not a "right" as the system itself can and will deny certain treatements. If healthcare was a right, they would not be able to do so.

I'm fine with debate over these issues, pointless though it may be between views as widely spaced as your and my own. But I'm less tolerant of an abject misrepresentation of an issue.

As Tater says, if you want Healthcare to truly be a right, or "driving on safe roads" to be a right, you have exactly one recourse to getting that. Amend the Constitution to say that.

Do that, and while I would still disagree with the idea and ideology behind it, it would definitely be a right in the United States. Anything less, it's not a right in any form, it's a temporal Govt. policy or law.

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by JetPotato

LOL.

Facts.

LOL.

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

Read it. All of it.

[OCCH]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

I'm saying healthcare should be a right. Just like it's your right to drive on safe roads.

Can you enlighten me as to why someone's "right to health care" isn't covered by Medicare, Medicaid, free clinics, etc?

It appears you think people have a right to MORE health care, and if so I'm curious just how much health care you deem appropriate?

[JetPotato]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

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

Read it. All of it.

You telling me to read is irony at its finest.

The "facts" that you and others like you tend to stand on are nothing more than a selective, cherry picked portion of any story. You'll gladly repeat over and over the 1% of the story that sheds your picture as the one. You fail miserably in assessing risk vs. reward. It's obvious, for whatever myriad of reasons, you're only able to grasp perceived pros and either willingly ignorei or can not grasp the cons.