Where do you get off?

[AMonger]

The bus, that is.

I read things written by those with fundamentally screwed-up positions--you know who you are--and I wonder, at what point do you depart from reason? So I figure maybe it would be useful to start with some basic principles and actually see at what point those individuals say, "Wait, here's where I get off the bus." I'd like to then figure out why that is and what the basis is for your alternate position.

I had a conversation with my leftist loon of a sister years ago, long before medicine was socialized to the degree it is. She insisted that medical care is a right, oblivious to the implications of her position, how it actually enslaves others. When pressed with opposition, her last position she could state was, "I disagree." She was unable to state any basis for her position. It causes me to wonder if leftists have any fundamental basis for their beliefs.

These are largely socio-political positions.

1. Limited government with only the powers enumerated in the Constitution;

2. The rule of law;

3. The Constitution, primarily the Bill of Rights, is the supreme law of the land;

4. No one, including elected officials, is above the law;

5. Rights are neither additive nor collective. Two people have no more rights than one, nor do a million;

6. The primacy of the individual over a collective;

7. Everybody is responsible for their own bills and expenses. Anything beyond that must be a voluntary exchange;

8. Capitalism is of the maximum benefit to the most people;

9. Debt is generally unethical and immoral;

10. Military weakness invites aggression from others;

11. Being elected to public orifice doesn't give one an infusion of morality, ethics, or intelligence. They remain as flawed as anyone else and may, fact, be more so.

12. Judeo-Christian morality and ethics are right in and of themselves; beyond that, they provide the best, most generally beneficial framework for society.

 

[AMonger]

Ok, so I've found nobody that objects to these principles. That means we're all conservatives against the welfare state, ObamaCare, etc?

 

[Turtle]

Finally, a question. The answer is no, we're not all conservatives against the welfare state, ObamaCare, etc. Beyond the obvious fact that there are many non-conservatives who welcome the welfare state, many of your axioms are simply wrong, as they are politically based rather than reality based.

For example, #3, where you think one part of the Constitution carries more weight than another. The reality is, the entire Constitution, as well as federal statutes, and all treaties, collectively make up "the supreme law of the land."

#8 and #9 are incompatible with each other as stated, since without debt, capitalism would crumble. Can't have one without the other. Plus, Capitalism is a system designed to extract labor and resources from many people for the benefit of a few people. It's always been that way, and it always will be. No getting around it. In addition, if you want a government that is free of debt, then you must implement policies which are exactly the opposite of political conservatives. There is only one major country that is debt-free or close to it, and that's China. There are actually five one hundred percent totally debt free countries: Macau, which has a gambling economy, population is 50% Buddhist; Brunei, not Judeo-Christian; the British Virgin Islands, Liechtenstein and Palau, all three Judeo-Christian. So 40% of debt-free nations do not employ Judeo-Christian morals and ethics, which calls #12 into question.

I just don't have the time, energy nor the inclination to deal with these or the others in more detail.

 

[cheri1122]

I'd add that #3 directly contradicts #6, being created for "We the people". We is a collective - and it's the foundation for a civilized and successful society.
#7 and #8 are generally true, but with exceptions.
#12, absolutely false.

Some of us are liberals in the same way as the Founding Fathers were: one for all, and all for one. As Ben Franklin said "Either we hang together, or we shall, most assuredly, hang separately".
What you call a "welfare state" is an artificial construct, created by the lack of restraint over capitalism's short term profit outlook vs the long term good of society, and yes, anyone with a functioning brain is opposed to it.
People require gainful employment to be fulfilled [ever hear of Maslow?] but when that employment fails to provide for a decent standard of living, [or an opportunity to be promoted to such within a reasonable timeframe], then society is not functioning as intended, and it won't end well.
Obamacare is a badly designed system to achieve a worthy goal - and please keep in mind, the goal was a conservative one before it was Obama's.

 

[Turtle]

Some of us are liberals in the same way as the Founding Fathers were: one for all, and all for one.

The Three Musketeers

As Ben Franklin said "Either we hang together, or we shall, most assuredly, hang separately".

Co-conspirators in an act of treason.

Obamacare is a badly designed system to achieve a worthy goal - and please keep in mind, the goal was a conservative one before it was Obama's.

Not even. Universal health care, or socialized medicine, has never been a conservative goal. Nor has it ever been implemented in conservative nations by conservative governments. And if you know the convoluted history of Romneycare, beginning with the Medicare waiver for Massachusetts expiring in 1997, you'll know that it was hardly a conservative initiative or goal.

 

[cheri1122]

I wasn't referring to socialized medicine, which Obamacare isn't, but universal access to health insurance. Obamacare just enlarged Romney's plan, and added preventive care to the free from copay portion, because preventive care is a long term cost saver.

 

[Turtle]

I wasn't referring to socialized medicine, which Obamacare isn't, but universal access to health insurance. Obamacare just enlarged Romney's plan, and added preventive care to the free from copay portion, because preventive care is a long term cost saver.

Preventative care isn't a long term cost saver, though. Free mammograms and diabetes tests and checkups for all, promise Democratic leaders. Prevention, they assure us, will not just make us healthier, it also "will save money." And "save lives." Healthcare Reform proponents repeat this like a mantra. Because it makes so much sense, and seems so intuitive, it has become conventional wisdom. But like most conventional wisdom, it is wrong. Overall, preventive care increases medical costs.

This little inconvenient truth comes from the CBO. In a letter to Rep. Nathan Deal, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf writes: "Researchers who have examined the effects of preventive care generally find that the added costs of widespread use of preventive services tend to exceed the savings from averted illness."

Every study of whether or not there are money savings to be found in preventative has found that such care raises overall spending. It is good for the individual in the few cases where early testing catches something, but considerably more expensive overall.

 

[cheri1122]

That really depends on what is included as 'preventive care', though, doesn't it? If the CBO is measuring the cost/benefit of tests, then sure, tests are ridiculously expensive. [Like the mammograms women can't get when Planned Parenthood is shut down!] Anyone who has ever had a CT scan or an MRI knows that, sigh.
But if you consider routine checkups and advice & counseling on diet, exercise, and simple things like meditation for some pain relief [rather than drugs], the cumulative savings add up to a lot more, I bet.

 

[Turtle]

That really depends on what is included as 'preventive care', though, doesn't it?

Yes it does. Fortunately, Obamacare is kind enough to give us a laundry list of mandated services which constitutes "preventative health services." The CBO and countless other studies included those very tests int he numbers.

If the CBO is measuring the cost/benefit of tests, then sure, tests are ridiculously expensive. [Like the mammograms women can't get when Planned Parenthood is shut down!] Anyone who has ever had a CT scan or an MRI knows that, sigh.

Planned Parenthood is hardly the sole location to get a mammogram. Most mammograms are unnecessary, anyway. I've never had a CT scan, but I have had an MRI 3 times, and I didn't have to go to Planned Parenthood once to have them done.

But if you consider routine checkups and advice & counseling on diet, exercise, and simple things like meditation for some pain relief [rather than drugs], the cumulative savings add up to a lot more, I bet.

None of the above is considered to be preventative health care in the context of costs versus savings.

 

[BobWolf]

Health care and Health Insurance are two different things. With that said Ill go on.

Good health care is a right, it what qualifies humans to be in what I refer to as upper level animal kingdom. Now I don't think we should pay for elective treatments like Botox and sex changes, and non essential medications like E.D. meds for those who don't contribute to society or at least take reasonable care of their bodies. In fact they should pay their own share the whole thing.

The real issue is being forced to buy health insurance and pay for other peoples healthcare.
Most Doctors will agree that the health insurance industry, Medicare / Medicaid, and the fact CEOs pulling in six plus digit incomes and not Medical Doctors are in charge of hospitals is what has destroyed the healthcare systeme.

Man, I wish people would actually first do some research stop spewing out sound bites they hear on the radio or T.V.

Bob Wolf.

 

[layoutshooter]

There is NO reason to be FORCED to buy insurance that does not suit the need, be mandated to pay for coverage we don't need and then pay FAR MORE for the policy that we don't want in the first place.

We had one that we COULD afford, covered what WE needed covered and nothing that we did NOT need. And yet, there are STILL those out there that thinks that is a GOOD idea, as the entire Obamacare system is going broke and the debt is piling up.

There is NO such thing as FREE HEALTH CARE and the MORE government gets involved, the MORE health care will cost and the LESS freedom we will have.

 

[BobWolf]

None of the above is considered to be preventative health care in the context of costs versus savings.[/QUOTE]

With the exception of vaccinations for the potentially deadly and disabling diseases total waste of my money.

Turtle hit the nail on the head.

Bob Wolf.

 

[cheri1122]

Of course Planned Parenthood isn't the only place to get a mammogram [which is no longer considered necessary, but it still reassures many women who fear breast cancer - thanks, Susan G Komen ], but it is the only neighborhood clinic with a sliding fee scale. It's a welcoming place, unlike many "low income" clinics, and it really makes me mad that some peoples' religious views are forcing it to disappear.
And if routine well person checkups [skipped by those who can't afford them] and the attention to diet & exercise and nondrug methods of pain control aren't considered in the cost/benefit analysis, then the results are inaccurate.
You have mentioned yourself how important diet & exercise are to preventing health problems - if more people hear that from a doctor more often, there would be less cardiac & obesity issues later on. That's what preventative medicine should be about.

 

[AMonger]

Health care and Health Insurance are two different things. With that said Ill go on.

Good health care is a right, it what qualifies humans to be in what I refer to as upper level animal kingdom. Now I don't think we should pay for elective treatments like Botox and sex changes, and non essential medications like E.D. meds for those who don't contribute to society or at least take reasonable care of their bodies. In fact they should pay their own share the whole thing.

The real issue is being forced to buy health insurance and pay for other peoples healthcare.
Most Doctors will agree that the health insurance industry, Medicare / Medicaid, and the fact CEOs pulling in six plus digit incomes and not Medical Doctors are in charge of hospitals is what has destroyed the healthcare systeme.

Man, I wish people would actually first do some research stop spewing out sound bites they hear on the radio or T.V.

Bob Wolf.

Health care, good, bad, or otherwise, is NOT a right. If it is, someone HAS TO provide it. If you can't find a doctor willing to provide it, do you frog-march him in the treatment room and force him at gunpoint to do so?

What's destroying free-market health care is interference in the free market. Flooding the system with money, divorcing treatment from direct cost drives up the price. That, plus our litigious society, and regulations make it unattainable for some.

 

[layoutshooter]

Outlaw heath insurance and the cost would really come down. It's time people start taking responsibility for themselves. They also have to get rid of the idea that they are "OWED". They are only owed what they EARNED.

 

[AMonger]

Outlaw heath insurance and the cost would really come down. It's time people start taking responsibility for themselves. They also have to get rid of the idea that they are "OWED". They are only owed what they EARNED.

Yep. BUT I'd maybe keep catastrophic coverage. And eliminate the prohibition on buying across state lines. The cost would plummet. Same with auto insurance. You're liable for any damages you cause, no matter what you have to do to pay off your debt. insurance would be a wise choice, and it'd be cheaper.

 

[Turtle]

Health care, good, bad, or otherwise, is NOT a right. If it is, someone HAS TO provide it. If you can't find a doctor willing to provide it, do you frog-march him in the treatment room and force him at gunpoint to do so?

As ridiculous as it sounds, it turns out that healthcare is, indeed a right. The Declaration of Human Rights says it is. Some people go as far as to state that healthcare is an inalienable right (natural right, not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated), which is absurd since healthcare is an invention of man using science and technology. The more liberal of the liberals say that it's an inalienable, natural right, and will stomp their feet and scream it, not because it is, but because they want it really, really badly, therefore it should be, therefore it is, so there. But if you look at it objectively, intelligently and with reason, the right to healthcare is a civil right.

Civil rights are what we call those claims necessary to secure free and equal citizenship, secondary to the natural, basic rights. For example, we don’t have a natural right to vote - we have the right to vote because society is ordered in a way that makes voting both possible and essential to our free and full participation in society. Voting is a civil right. So is the right of equal protection under the law, and the earned right to operate a motor vehicle.

Healthcare is a civil right because society is ordered in such a way as to make it both possible and essential to the free and full participation of the sick, injured and disabled in society. Lack of health care makes it impossible to participate freely and fully in society. If you can disregard people simply because they need healthcare, then you can disregard people people in society for any reason, which makes it extraordinarily simple to discriminate for any reason, or no reason.

The obvious objection to healthcare being a civil right, as is stated above, is that nobody is entitled to claim a health provider's labor as a right. But there are many other professions which are subject to civil rights claims: teachers, firefighters, lawyers, to name a few. But most importantly, physicians and other providers are able to do their job effectively in the first place in no small part due to public and societal investment in research and technology.

So, it didn't used to be a right, but society has evolved to the point where it really is. Again, as ridiculous as it sounds at face value. But the right to healthcare isn't a right to any and all health services, medications and procedures. It's the right to a minimum standard of healthcare - standards which are set by society.

 

[AMonger]

Rights can not be manufactured in this way--absent an agreement. Firefighting, for example, is only almost a right because the city and firefighters have referred into an agreement with the citizenry. If a doctor enters into such an agreement, then unless he abrogates, he'd better get in there and do some stitching.
No, unquestionably not a right. You have the right to seek healthcare, that's all.
As PJ O'Rourke points out, "There's only one fundamental right: the right to do as you **** well please."

 

[Turtle]

You can stomp your feet just as hard as the inalienable crowd, but you won't get your way either. I never said firefighting was a civil right, I said firefighters are subject to civil rights claims. They can't refuse to fight a fire at your house simply because you are black, or Muslim, or gay.

 

[AMonger]

As can you. But rights can't be created. They are or they aren't. You may call it an entitlement, which has been created, but that's still not a right.

You have the right to seek healthcare. That's where it stops. No one, absent an agreement, has to provide it.

That, btw, is probably where the next incursion against freedom will come; the State will claim that medical licenses obligate doctors and nurses to provide care under circumstances the State dictates. And then they'll wonder why medical school enrollments plummet.