There Is No Right to Health Care
-
I agree with this completely. It's the real deal, those who support socialized, subsidized, highly regulated, bureaucratic nightmare healthcare are totally ignorant of the real consequences of those systems and only view it with the perspective that was taught to them through a lifetime a propaganda and dependency on government handouts and ridiculous laws. Ron Paul March 18, 2010 Statement before the United States House of Representatives, September 23, 2009 Government has been mismanaging medical care for more than 45 years; for every problem it has created it has responded by exponentially expanding the role of government. Points to consider: 1.) 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. 2.) If medical care is provided by government, this can only be achieved by an authoritarian government unconcerned about the rights of the individual. 3.) Economic fallacies accepted for more than 100 years in the United States has deceived policy makers into believing that quality medical care can only be achieved by government force, taxation, regulations, and bowing to a system of special interests that creates a system of corporatism. 4.) More dollars into any monopoly run by government never increases quality but it always results in higher costs and prices. 5.) Government does have an important role to play in facilitating the delivery of all goods and services in an ethical and efficient manner. 6.) First, government should do no harm. It should get out of the way and repeal all the laws that have contributed to the mess we have. 7.) The costs are obviously too high but in solving this problem one cannot ignore the debasement of the currency as a major factor. 8.) Bureaucrats and other third parties must never be allowed to interfere in the doctor/patient relationship. Laws dealing with bad outcomes and prohibiting doctors from entering into voluntary agreements with their patients must be repealed. Tort laws play a significant role in pushing costs higher, prompting unnecessary treatment and excessive testing. Patients deserve the compensation; the attorneys do not. 10.) Insurance sales should be legalized nationally across state lines to increase competition among the insurance companies.
So basically if your poor and/or ill then you would get no medical help and you accuse CG of eugenics yet support the withdrawal of health care from anyone who is not rich enough to afford the insurance - and as yu believe in pure capitalism then you accept that those companies can charge as much as they want and restrict who gets it
Smile and the world smiles withyou, laugh and they think you are a nutter
-
I agree with this completely. It's the real deal, those who support socialized, subsidized, highly regulated, bureaucratic nightmare healthcare are totally ignorant of the real consequences of those systems and only view it with the perspective that was taught to them through a lifetime a propaganda and dependency on government handouts and ridiculous laws. Ron Paul March 18, 2010 Statement before the United States House of Representatives, September 23, 2009 Government has been mismanaging medical care for more than 45 years; for every problem it has created it has responded by exponentially expanding the role of government. Points to consider: 1.) 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. 2.) If medical care is provided by government, this can only be achieved by an authoritarian government unconcerned about the rights of the individual. 3.) Economic fallacies accepted for more than 100 years in the United States has deceived policy makers into believing that quality medical care can only be achieved by government force, taxation, regulations, and bowing to a system of special interests that creates a system of corporatism. 4.) More dollars into any monopoly run by government never increases quality but it always results in higher costs and prices. 5.) Government does have an important role to play in facilitating the delivery of all goods and services in an ethical and efficient manner. 6.) First, government should do no harm. It should get out of the way and repeal all the laws that have contributed to the mess we have. 7.) The costs are obviously too high but in solving this problem one cannot ignore the debasement of the currency as a major factor. 8.) Bureaucrats and other third parties must never be allowed to interfere in the doctor/patient relationship. Laws dealing with bad outcomes and prohibiting doctors from entering into voluntary agreements with their patients must be repealed. Tort laws play a significant role in pushing costs higher, prompting unnecessary treatment and excessive testing. Patients deserve the compensation; the attorneys do not. 10.) Insurance sales should be legalized nationally across state lines to increase competition among the insurance companies.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I agree with this completely.
That means it's definitely not worth reading.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
There Is No Right to Health Care
True. Nor to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, either.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
-
I agree with this completely. It's the real deal, those who support socialized, subsidized, highly regulated, bureaucratic nightmare healthcare are totally ignorant of the real consequences of those systems and only view it with the perspective that was taught to them through a lifetime a propaganda and dependency on government handouts and ridiculous laws. Ron Paul March 18, 2010 Statement before the United States House of Representatives, September 23, 2009 Government has been mismanaging medical care for more than 45 years; for every problem it has created it has responded by exponentially expanding the role of government. Points to consider: 1.) 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. 2.) If medical care is provided by government, this can only be achieved by an authoritarian government unconcerned about the rights of the individual. 3.) Economic fallacies accepted for more than 100 years in the United States has deceived policy makers into believing that quality medical care can only be achieved by government force, taxation, regulations, and bowing to a system of special interests that creates a system of corporatism. 4.) More dollars into any monopoly run by government never increases quality but it always results in higher costs and prices. 5.) Government does have an important role to play in facilitating the delivery of all goods and services in an ethical and efficient manner. 6.) First, government should do no harm. It should get out of the way and repeal all the laws that have contributed to the mess we have. 7.) The costs are obviously too high but in solving this problem one cannot ignore the debasement of the currency as a major factor. 8.) Bureaucrats and other third parties must never be allowed to interfere in the doctor/patient relationship. Laws dealing with bad outcomes and prohibiting doctors from entering into voluntary agreements with their patients must be repealed. Tort laws play a significant role in pushing costs higher, prompting unnecessary treatment and excessive testing. Patients deserve the compensation; the attorneys do not. 10.) Insurance sales should be legalized nationally across state lines to increase competition among the insurance companies.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
socialized, subsidized,
These are the same thing. Do you oppose the idea of people having any form of health insurance ? That's what socialised health care is, one big compulsory insurance plan.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
highly regulated
The degree to which this is true ( which is limited ) is similar to the degree that the US system is broken due to lack of regulation. Drug companies selling drugs people don't need ( and probably harm them ) on TV ? Insanity.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
bureaucratic nightmare
This is propaganda and drivel.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
are totally ignorant of the real consequences of those systems
I take it my ignorance stems from my living under such a system my whole life ? Have you ever experienced it, or are you just buying in to an advertising campaign. You always say 'follow the money', do you think the health industry is trying to scare you because it is genuinely concerned for your welfare, or because it's scared of losing money ?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
a lifetime a propaganda
Is this his typo or yours ? What propaganda ? No-one tells me Medicare is good or bad, because there's no debate.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
dependency on government handouts
This is a furphy. I am not dependant on any government handouts. The government happens to run one of the two health insurance plans I am on. The size of the plan ( the entire Australian population ) introduces economies of scale which explain why, even when I was unemployed, I could see a GP for free if I needed to. What's bad about that ?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
ridiculous laws.
What laws do you mean ? Why are they ridiculous ?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
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.
So long as we're being clear, you agree that we're advocating that the poor just go off and die quietly ? Well, at least you're consistent in opposing
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Government has been mismanaging medical care for more than 45 years;
Wrong. Medicare is more effective at holding down cost than private insurance. Countries such as Canada, England, France, Germany, etc have government run health care and they produce equal or better outcomes than the US at 1/2 the cost.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
this can only be achieved by an authoritarian government unconcerned about the rights of the individual.
Your use of authoritarian leaves something to be desired since that would mean that the US, Canada and just about every European countries are authoritarian. Well, at least Somalia is not authoritarian.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Bureaucrats and other third parties must never be allowed to interfere in the doctor/patient relationship.
How do you plan to keep the insurance companies from interfering?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Tort laws play a significant role in pushing costs higher
They actually have very little impact.
Carbon12 wrote:
Well, at least Somalia is not authoritarian.
LOL - it must be a workers paradise then. Let's move there !!!
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
socialized, subsidized,
These are the same thing. Do you oppose the idea of people having any form of health insurance ? That's what socialised health care is, one big compulsory insurance plan.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
highly regulated
The degree to which this is true ( which is limited ) is similar to the degree that the US system is broken due to lack of regulation. Drug companies selling drugs people don't need ( and probably harm them ) on TV ? Insanity.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
bureaucratic nightmare
This is propaganda and drivel.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
are totally ignorant of the real consequences of those systems
I take it my ignorance stems from my living under such a system my whole life ? Have you ever experienced it, or are you just buying in to an advertising campaign. You always say 'follow the money', do you think the health industry is trying to scare you because it is genuinely concerned for your welfare, or because it's scared of losing money ?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
a lifetime a propaganda
Is this his typo or yours ? What propaganda ? No-one tells me Medicare is good or bad, because there's no debate.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
dependency on government handouts
This is a furphy. I am not dependant on any government handouts. The government happens to run one of the two health insurance plans I am on. The size of the plan ( the entire Australian population ) introduces economies of scale which explain why, even when I was unemployed, I could see a GP for free if I needed to. What's bad about that ?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
ridiculous laws.
What laws do you mean ? Why are they ridiculous ?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
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.
So long as we're being clear, you agree that we're advocating that the poor just go off and die quietly ? Well, at least you're consistent in opposing
Christian Graus wrote:
It looks to me like you're copying and pasting without discussing again.
Well of course he is[^]. It is pointless bothering to debate any subject with such an all-round ignoramus. The first paragraph is probably 'his', compiled from the moronic bleating of the anti-Healthcare sheeple.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
It looks to me like you're copying and pasting without discussing again.
Well of course he is[^]. It is pointless bothering to debate any subject with such an all-round ignoramus. The first paragraph is probably 'his', compiled from the moronic bleating of the anti-Healthcare sheeple.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
Bob Emmett wrote:
The first paragraph is probably 'his', compiled from the moronic bleating of the anti-Healthcare sheeple.
Well, I've told him, I don't care how much I disagree with his posts, but if he's going to copy and paste and not discuss, I'm deleting it. I'll give him an iteration to show he's capable of discussing it, this time, but if not, then I will moderate to make this a forum where people discuss ideas, not just copy and paste them from elsewhere. I noticed he didn't post this in his 'truthbox'.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Carbon12 wrote:
Well, at least Somalia is not authoritarian.
LOL - it must be a workers paradise then. Let's move there !!!
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Really, you have the freedom to do what ever you want, no taxes, no 'big government' keeping you down, why, I don't understand why it isn't exploding with economic growth right this second given the free availability of cheap labor. I almost choked on that, I was typing it and still almost choked.
-
I agree with this completely. It's the real deal, those who support socialized, subsidized, highly regulated, bureaucratic nightmare healthcare are totally ignorant of the real consequences of those systems and only view it with the perspective that was taught to them through a lifetime a propaganda and dependency on government handouts and ridiculous laws. Ron Paul March 18, 2010 Statement before the United States House of Representatives, September 23, 2009 Government has been mismanaging medical care for more than 45 years; for every problem it has created it has responded by exponentially expanding the role of government. Points to consider: 1.) 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. 2.) If medical care is provided by government, this can only be achieved by an authoritarian government unconcerned about the rights of the individual. 3.) Economic fallacies accepted for more than 100 years in the United States has deceived policy makers into believing that quality medical care can only be achieved by government force, taxation, regulations, and bowing to a system of special interests that creates a system of corporatism. 4.) More dollars into any monopoly run by government never increases quality but it always results in higher costs and prices. 5.) Government does have an important role to play in facilitating the delivery of all goods and services in an ethical and efficient manner. 6.) First, government should do no harm. It should get out of the way and repeal all the laws that have contributed to the mess we have. 7.) The costs are obviously too high but in solving this problem one cannot ignore the debasement of the currency as a major factor. 8.) Bureaucrats and other third parties must never be allowed to interfere in the doctor/patient relationship. Laws dealing with bad outcomes and prohibiting doctors from entering into voluntary agreements with their patients must be repealed. Tort laws play a significant role in pushing costs higher, prompting unnecessary treatment and excessive testing. Patients deserve the compensation; the attorneys do not. 10.) Insurance sales should be legalized nationally across state lines to increase competition among the insurance companies.
-
Really, you have the freedom to do what ever you want, no taxes, no 'big government' keeping you down, why, I don't understand why it isn't exploding with economic growth right this second given the free availability of cheap labor. I almost choked on that, I was typing it and still almost choked.
Oh, but it is. It's just that our media is controlled and doesn't tell us about it. The stuff you see on the news - there's slums in every country. That's just where lazy people live. You know, in a pure capitalist system, only lazy people are poor. Now I am choking....
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
So let's say in theory, that the lack of health care was to interfere with someone's right to life, and their pursuit of happiness. Does this still mean they have no right to it? Or do you only have those rights if you can afford them?
Well, to be fair, the right to a pursuit of happiness doesn't mean the government has to buy me a car. The difference is, the government is not blindly paying for people's health care, or giving people what they want on a whim, they are providing for the basic needs of their citizens, which is what government does, and they do it by creating an insurance scheme that operates on the largest possible economy of scale, is cheap because it is not for profit, and which gives government an incentive to NOT bend over for drug companies, because they are the ones balancing the books on the cost of drugs, etc.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Government has been mismanaging medical care for more than 45 years;
Wrong. Medicare is more effective at holding down cost than private insurance. Countries such as Canada, England, France, Germany, etc have government run health care and they produce equal or better outcomes than the US at 1/2 the cost.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
this can only be achieved by an authoritarian government unconcerned about the rights of the individual.
Your use of authoritarian leaves something to be desired since that would mean that the US, Canada and just about every European countries are authoritarian. Well, at least Somalia is not authoritarian.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Bureaucrats and other third parties must never be allowed to interfere in the doctor/patient relationship.
How do you plan to keep the insurance companies from interfering?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Tort laws play a significant role in pushing costs higher
They actually have very little impact.
Carbon12 wrote:
England, France, Germany, etc have government run health care and they produce equal or better outcomes than the US at 1/2 the cost.
Absolute rubbish, the cost of the NHS has more than doubled in the last twelve years. And the standard of care has fallen. Come and live here and see for yourself.
txtspeak is the realm of 9 year old children, not developers. Christian Graus
-
I agree with this completely. It's the real deal, those who support socialized, subsidized, highly regulated, bureaucratic nightmare healthcare are totally ignorant of the real consequences of those systems and only view it with the perspective that was taught to them through a lifetime a propaganda and dependency on government handouts and ridiculous laws. Ron Paul March 18, 2010 Statement before the United States House of Representatives, September 23, 2009 Government has been mismanaging medical care for more than 45 years; for every problem it has created it has responded by exponentially expanding the role of government. Points to consider: 1.) 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. 2.) If medical care is provided by government, this can only be achieved by an authoritarian government unconcerned about the rights of the individual. 3.) Economic fallacies accepted for more than 100 years in the United States has deceived policy makers into believing that quality medical care can only be achieved by government force, taxation, regulations, and bowing to a system of special interests that creates a system of corporatism. 4.) More dollars into any monopoly run by government never increases quality but it always results in higher costs and prices. 5.) Government does have an important role to play in facilitating the delivery of all goods and services in an ethical and efficient manner. 6.) First, government should do no harm. It should get out of the way and repeal all the laws that have contributed to the mess we have. 7.) The costs are obviously too high but in solving this problem one cannot ignore the debasement of the currency as a major factor. 8.) Bureaucrats and other third parties must never be allowed to interfere in the doctor/patient relationship. Laws dealing with bad outcomes and prohibiting doctors from entering into voluntary agreements with their patients must be repealed. Tort laws play a significant role in pushing costs higher, prompting unnecessary treatment and excessive testing. Patients deserve the compensation; the attorneys do not. 10.) Insurance sales should be legalized nationally across state lines to increase competition among the insurance companies.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
2.) If medical care is provided by government, this can only be achieved by an authoritarian government unconcerned about the rights of the individual.
Not true, the government could instead include a public insurance option which uses the features of government(including not operated for profit, and massive scale) to reduce per-person costs considerably, while operating the system effectively at cost. Social Security worked fairly well that way until people started living longer and it was raided like a piggy bank.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
4.) More dollars into any monopoly run by government never increases quality but it always results in higher costs and prices.
Do me a favor, send a letter by UPS and let me know how much less it cost you than USPS.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
7.) The costs are obviously too high but in solving this problem one cannot ignore the debasement of the currency as a major factor.
Actually you can. Not like doctors are demanding payment in gold, it's not like their services are anywhere near the normal inflation rate.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
8.) Bureaucrats and other third parties must never be allowed to interfere in the doctor/patient relationship.
Quick! Someone call my insurance agency and tell them to stop asking for any justification of my doctor's decisions.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
10.) Insurance sales should be legalized nationally across state lines to increase competition among the insurance companies.
I'm not entirely sure why it's not legal, but very little stops companies from simply incorporating within the states they wish to compete in. Problem is the laws within states occasionally keep competition out as they don't want to bother.
-
So let's say in theory, that the lack of health care was to interfere with someone's right to life, and their pursuit of happiness. Does this still mean they have no right to it? Or do you only have those rights if you can afford them?
You have the right to pursue happiness, not the right to direct happiness. If you were given everything, you wouldn't value anything given to you. Why do people say "thank you" when given something they need, such as healthcare, or food on the street? because they know the value of it. If you are just given it blind without working for anything, you wouldn't value it, and it wouldn't contribute to your state of happiness.
-
I agree with this completely. It's the real deal, those who support socialized, subsidized, highly regulated, bureaucratic nightmare healthcare are totally ignorant of the real consequences of those systems and only view it with the perspective that was taught to them through a lifetime a propaganda and dependency on government handouts and ridiculous laws. Ron Paul March 18, 2010 Statement before the United States House of Representatives, September 23, 2009 Government has been mismanaging medical care for more than 45 years; for every problem it has created it has responded by exponentially expanding the role of government. Points to consider: 1.) 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. 2.) If medical care is provided by government, this can only be achieved by an authoritarian government unconcerned about the rights of the individual. 3.) Economic fallacies accepted for more than 100 years in the United States has deceived policy makers into believing that quality medical care can only be achieved by government force, taxation, regulations, and bowing to a system of special interests that creates a system of corporatism. 4.) More dollars into any monopoly run by government never increases quality but it always results in higher costs and prices. 5.) Government does have an important role to play in facilitating the delivery of all goods and services in an ethical and efficient manner. 6.) First, government should do no harm. It should get out of the way and repeal all the laws that have contributed to the mess we have. 7.) The costs are obviously too high but in solving this problem one cannot ignore the debasement of the currency as a major factor. 8.) Bureaucrats and other third parties must never be allowed to interfere in the doctor/patient relationship. Laws dealing with bad outcomes and prohibiting doctors from entering into voluntary agreements with their patients must be repealed. Tort laws play a significant role in pushing costs higher, prompting unnecessary treatment and excessive testing. Patients deserve the compensation; the attorneys do not. 10.) Insurance sales should be legalized nationally across state lines to increase competition among the insurance companies.
-
Carbon12 wrote:
England, France, Germany, etc have government run health care and they produce equal or better outcomes than the US at 1/2 the cost.
Absolute rubbish, the cost of the NHS has more than doubled in the last twelve years. And the standard of care has fallen. Come and live here and see for yourself.
txtspeak is the realm of 9 year old children, not developers. Christian Graus
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwJQHfy8kdg[^] This is what I said on the subject back in January.
You are God ? "You don't have the right to someone else's work" This is a furphy. Do you have health insurance ? If you're not morally opposed to the doctor being paid by your insurance, why would it matter if the insurance company is the government ? I don't really understand the thought process behind claims like this, it's like you guys have no idea what a national health care system is, or what it means. Do you have any idea how places like Canada and Australia impliment it ? Do you realise our doctors get paid ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Carbon12 wrote:
England, France, Germany, etc have government run health care and they produce equal or better outcomes than the US at 1/2 the cost.
Absolute rubbish, the cost of the NHS has more than doubled in the last twelve years. And the standard of care has fallen. Come and live here and see for yourself.
txtspeak is the realm of 9 year old children, not developers. Christian Graus
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
Absolute rubbish, the cost of the NHS has more than doubled in the last twelve years.
That's not a relative measure, which is what was offered.
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
And the standard of care has fallen
Perhaps. I don't think the standard of care in Australia is changing. The issue I see the UK having, is too many people on welfare, not enough people putting money into the system. We're not far behind, I admit, but I am not sure we're as bad. But, that's still not a measure relative to the US, which is what was being offered. The person who said it may be wrong, but I don't think you've refuted him.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
You are God ? "You don't have the right to someone else's work" This is a furphy. Do you have health insurance ? If you're not morally opposed to the doctor being paid by your insurance, why would it matter if the insurance company is the government ? I don't really understand the thought process behind claims like this, it's like you guys have no idea what a national health care system is, or what it means. Do you have any idea how places like Canada and Australia impliment it ? Do you realise our doctors get paid ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
You are God ?
Are you joking? I hope so.
Christian Graus wrote:
Do you have health insurance ? If you're not morally opposed to the doctor being paid by your insurance, why would it matter if the insurance company is the government ?
Very big difference. If you have insurance from a company, you're not forcefully put into it, unless the government tells you that you must buy insurance. Let's say it's upon you to decide to buy insurance or not. This is a good approach; because if you feel the need to get insurance, you can if you wish. Otherwise, you can save your time and money, and not chip into a system and save on your own. Insurance is meant to be a combined effort of people chipping into a system to be used infrequently for accidents and things that crop up once in a blue moon, not to go to the emergency room every time you have a cough. So, with that, I submit that if I were not forcefully told to buy insurance, thanks to Massachusetts state law, I would have opted out of insurance, because I'm young and can save my money for other purposes, such as getting out of debt. But if I'm told to buy into it by the government, and use my tax money, yes, I'd have insurance. But that would also make expenses rise for everyone, because of the overhead of the government, and because they would cover as much as they can "to protect you". I'm forced into something, otherwise if I do not pay that tax, I'm going to jail, whether I need the insurance or not.
Christian Graus wrote:
Do you have any idea how places like Canada and Australia impliment it ? Do you realise our doctors get paid ?
Of course they get paid. It doesn't matter though, it's without my consent. I'd rather pay out of pocket at my early age. How much do you want to bet that they have no idea how much it costs to do their daily work? Someone has to pay them for their work. Because nobody has the right to make someone a slave. So the government pays for it. But with my money. I'll never see a cent of that money ever again.
-
You are God ? "You don't have the right to someone else's work" This is a furphy. Do you have health insurance ? If you're not morally opposed to the doctor being paid by your insurance, why would it matter if the insurance company is the government ? I don't really understand the thought process behind claims like this, it's like you guys have no idea what a national health care system is, or what it means. Do you have any idea how places like Canada and Australia impliment it ? Do you realise our doctors get paid ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I agree with this completely. It's the real deal, those who support socialized, subsidized, highly regulated, bureaucratic nightmare healthcare are totally ignorant of the real consequences of those systems and only view it with the perspective that was taught to them through a lifetime a propaganda and dependency on government handouts and ridiculous laws. Ron Paul March 18, 2010 Statement before the United States House of Representatives, September 23, 2009 Government has been mismanaging medical care for more than 45 years; for every problem it has created it has responded by exponentially expanding the role of government. Points to consider: 1.) 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. 2.) If medical care is provided by government, this can only be achieved by an authoritarian government unconcerned about the rights of the individual. 3.) Economic fallacies accepted for more than 100 years in the United States has deceived policy makers into believing that quality medical care can only be achieved by government force, taxation, regulations, and bowing to a system of special interests that creates a system of corporatism. 4.) More dollars into any monopoly run by government never increases quality but it always results in higher costs and prices. 5.) Government does have an important role to play in facilitating the delivery of all goods and services in an ethical and efficient manner. 6.) First, government should do no harm. It should get out of the way and repeal all the laws that have contributed to the mess we have. 7.) The costs are obviously too high but in solving this problem one cannot ignore the debasement of the currency as a major factor. 8.) Bureaucrats and other third parties must never be allowed to interfere in the doctor/patient relationship. Laws dealing with bad outcomes and prohibiting doctors from entering into voluntary agreements with their patients must be repealed. Tort laws play a significant role in pushing costs higher, prompting unnecessary treatment and excessive testing. Patients deserve the compensation; the attorneys do not. 10.) Insurance sales should be legalized nationally across state lines to increase competition among the insurance companies.
I've read Christian's warning. Your a spammer, discuss or face the consequences. Christian go ahead and moderate.