New U.S. Healthcare Reform, No New Business for Insurance Co

[Surote]

The Govt. is there to provide services and protect people's civil rights

[Muravyets]

If I throw a brick at your head the police are there to arrest me. Because I have violated your rights. The police exist to prevent me from doing that. Not that'd I ever do it, it's just an example.

And how did the cops get there? How do they have a job to be there when you need them? Who pays for them?

[The_pantless_hero]

No. By not providing healthcare, it is not violating anybody's rights.

Neither is not providing education, police, or military protection.

If I throw a brick at your head the police are there to arrest me. Because I have violated your rights. The police exist to prevent me from doing that. Not that'd I ever do it, it's just an example.

Really, what right of mine did you violate?
And how does the government no providing police violate my rights?

[United Dependencies]

The government exists to protect people's rights. The government CANNOT help anyone without hurting somebody else.

If true hurt the rich not the suffering

Good luck with that.

[Rhodmhire]

Maybe I'm the nut, but taking 15 million from someone with 30 million sounds a lot less painful than taking 15 thousand from someone with 30 thousand.

Well, maybe I'm a nut as well, I don't think it's very encouraging to people who wish to earn more to hear that half of their money will be taken. Honestly hearing that, I think the average person would rather not work harder and harder, if it only leads to getting more and more money taken away--more and more of their time wasted.

But I think I'm just as nuts as you are, maybe more nuts.

[Rhodmhire]

Really, what right of mine did you violate?
And how does the government no providing police violate my rights?

It depends. If he intended to kill you, that would infringe upon your right to life. In all honesty, government doesn't even have to get involved, because if your life is threatened, you have always had the right to threaten and/or take the threat's life in an act of self-defense.

Also, if it were only to harm/hurt you--you'd still have the right to self defense. Perhaps killing wouldn't be the best option in that case, but your right to defend yourself if you well-being is threatened still remains.

No police provision isn't really violating your rights, technically you're obligated to simply defend yourself if your'e able-bodied to do so, which I'm assuming you would be.

If you're unable to defend yourself, and government does nothing, I suppose that would be failure to protect your right to life and well-being/safety, two rights that--even if void in the Constitution--should be protected by any Democracy, Democratic-Republic, Republic, and so forth.

They're two basic rights, so basic, I honestly don't think anyone should think of them as irrelevant.

[Ashmoria]

Maybe I'm the nut, but taking 15 million from someone with 30 million sounds a lot less painful than taking 15 thousand from someone with 30 thousand.

Well, maybe I'm a nut as well, I don't think it's very encouraging to people who wish to earn more to hear that half of their money will be taken. Honestly hearing that, I think the average person would rather not work harder and harder, if it only leads to getting more and more money taken away--more and more of their time wasted.

But I think I'm just as nuts as you are, maybe more nuts.

the average person will never make $30million.

i prefer to worry about things that might actually affect me and leave the rich to take care of themselves. they have done an excellent job of it over the years.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Maybe I'm the nut, but taking 15 million from someone with 30 million sounds a lot less painful than taking 15 thousand from someone with 30 thousand.

Well, maybe I'm a nut as well, I don't think it's very encouraging to people who wish to earn more to hear that half of their money will be taken. Honestly hearing that, I think the average person would rather not work harder and harder, if it only leads to getting more and more money taken away--more and more of their time wasted.

But I think I'm just as nuts as you are, maybe more nuts.

Oh yeah? Well I'm nutty enough to think that excess ought to carry a steep price tag. Top that!

[Surote]

Time for this country to let the lower class people have something they need

[The_pantless_hero]

It depends. If he intended to kill you, that would infringe upon your right to life

There is no 'right to life.'

[Rhodmhire]

It depends. If he intended to kill you, that would infringe upon your right to life

There is no 'right to life.'

"...certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Even if they weren't mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, I still always assumed that everyone had and has the right to live.

So you're saying there's no natural sense that all life is sacred? That is until one who has life tries to take away another's for no rational reason.

No offense, but that seems like a bunch of bullshit to me.

[Muravyets]

It depends. If he intended to kill you, that would infringe upon your right to life

There is no 'right to life.'

"...certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Even if they weren't mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, I still always assumed that everyone had and has the right to live.

So you're saying there's no natural sense that all life is sacred? That is until one who has life tries to take away another's for no rational reason.

No offense, but that seems like a bunch of bullshit to me.

A) The DoI is not the law of the land.

B) No, there is no "natural sense" that "all life is sacred". Such an assertion is absurd on its face.

C) This line of argument is nothing but another deflection from the real topic. The original assertion was that the government does not violate anyone's rights by NOT providing health care. TPH asked if it would violate people's rights by not providing police either, apparently citing police as an example of the kinds of services the government normally provides. Sibirsky then began talking about how if someone tries to crack your skull that's a violation of your rights -- he made no effort to explain what that has to do with whether the government has to provide police in order to not violate people's rights.

D) Because of the above, any argument about whether there is a right to live or not is removed from the topic of the thread by a few degrees.

E) I did point out in another post that, according to the UN, of which the US is a member and whose conventions and resolutions are partially drafted by the US, access to basic medical care is a human right, so that blocking people's access to the same would in fact be a violation of rights. It is my argument that the current US private health care system is so corrupt, it effectively denies access to basic care to millions of Americans.

[Rhodmhire]

A) The DoI is not the law of the land.

Obviously, I used it to show the Framer's recognition of the right to life. It's like the right to property, or the right to self-defense, all basic. You don't need a piece of paper to tell you such basic things like, "Your property is yours, if your threatened you can defend yourself, and your life is sacred."

I never said the Declaration was the law of the land, I used it to show how the Framers recognized it.

B) No, there is no "natural sense" that "all life is sacred". Such an assertion is absurd on its face.

So let me get this straight, you're to tell me that if somebody's life was taken from them, that the accussed could very well use in defense that the person's life wasn't sacred? That the victim's life has no natural sense of worth?

Basically, life is worthless? Because there's no natural sense that life is supposed to be defended at all. Hell, let's not punish murderers at all, I mean it's not like the life or lives they took were meaningful at all, right?

C) This line of argument is nothing but another deflection from the real topic. The original assertion was that the government does not violate anyone's rights by NOT providing health care. TPH asked if it would violate people's rights by not providing police either, apparently citing police as an example of the kinds of services the government normally provides. Sibirsky then began talking about how if someone tries to crack your skull that's a violation of your rights -- he made no effort to explain what that has to do with whether the government has to provide police in order to not violate people's rights.

It shouldn't even be up to the police all the time. I say the police should be there to help when people can't defend themselves, or when the situation is out of the hands of the vitcim(s). Naturally, if your life is threatened, you yourself should be able to defend yourself, and take action for yourself, whether it's your owned property, safety, or life itself that is in jeopardy.

Government is supposed to protect people, sometimes that means providing. Providing a military for example. However, we have to consider if the government should provide healthcare. The real question isn't, "Is it a violation of rights if they don't," it's simply, "Can the government handle it?" Honestly, I don't believe our government can.

D) Because of the above, any argument about whether there is a right to live or not is removed from the topic of the thread by a few degrees.

You're saying the right to life isn't really in relationship to the reform on healthcare. You're right in the sense of that wasn't the main topic, and it's not really in any attachment to the topic of discussion. However, in a way it can be. In the argument that it's government's job to protect our natural unalienable rights, the right to life--a very unalienable right in my book--can be brought up, as it was. Therefore, it is loosely connected to healthcare reform, but again--loosely.

E) I did point out in another post that, according to the UN, of which the US is a member and whose conventions and resolutions are partially drafted by the US, access to basic medical care is a human right, so that blocking people's access to the same would in fact be a violation of rights. It is my argument that the current US private health care system is so corrupt, it effectively denies access to basic care to millions of Americans.

The UN...yeah I won't start with the UN.

Of course basic medical care is a right. I just don't believe the current system or the proposed system of healthcare are good.

Like many issues, I'm not on one side of the spectrum or the other.

I consider this argument done, since you're right in saying it distracts from the main topic of discussion:

Investor's business Daily put out an editorial on 15 July 09.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticle ... 8165656854
According to page 16 of the House Healt Care Reform Bill, after the date that this travesty is signed into law, the Insurance companies will no longer be allowed to sign up new health care insurance policies. This applies to people who have never had private insurance and people who want to change insurance carriers.

So I'll end it, respond if you wish, but I'd rather not drag this entire thread into a totally different topic. I'll end here, unless you insist on continuing, in that case I will.

[Muravyets]

Obviously, I used it to show the Framer's recognition of the right to life. It's like the right to property, or the right to self-defense, all basic. You don't need a piece of paper to tell you such basic things like, "Your property is yours, if your threatened you can defend yourself, and your life is sacred."

I never said the Declaration was the law of the land, I used it to show how the Framers recognized it.

Their personal opinion is not the law of the land either, and it is no more relevant to the discussion that your personal opinion is. And that's not even touching upon the fact that, just because ONE framer (Jefferson) used that wording, that doesn't automatically mean he was expressing a specific philosophical concept that all the framers agreed with, as opposed to just engaging in rhetoric. I would remind you that, when he wrote the DoI, Jefferson was not a "framer", since there was then no Continental Congress to sit down and frame a Constitution. How interesting that, when they did sit down to do that, Jefferson's right to life reference didn't make it in.

So let me get this straight, you're to tell me that if somebody's life was taken from them, that the accussed could very well use in defense that the person's life wasn't sacred? That the victim's life has no natural sense of worth?

A) Ah, moving the goalposts, are we? You said "ALL LIFE IS SACRED." Bacteria are alive. Plants are alive. Yogurt cultures are alive. By your absurd initial declaration, every lunch would be a mass murder and every medical prescription a contracted hit. I was trying to make you THINK about what you say. Silly of me, I know, but still.

B) "Natural sense of worth"? Let me answer that question by posing another -- if a tree falls in the forest but there's no one there to hear it, does it make a sound? Who is assessing this supposed "natural worth"? Who is quantifying it so that it can be accounted for in the law? Who is providing parameters of it so that the government can provide programs accordingly?

Nobody, that's who. You know why? Because the notion is nonsense. We are talking about the government providing health care in this thread, not about the dreams of poets.

[EDIT: Man I really hate the quoting system in this forum. I lost a paragraph here, sorry.]

False dichotomy + appeal to emotion = failed argument. In your zeal for drama, you missed your own point. The meaningfulness of any person's life is 100% relative to who you are asking about it, and it is not the reason murder is a crime.

Also, life is not "worthless." Life is "priceless." See American Express for an explanation of the difference.

It shouldn't even be up to the police all the time. I say the police should be there to help when people can't defend themselves, or when the situation is out of the hands of the vitcim(s). Naturally, if your life is threatened, you yourself should be able to defend yourself, and take action for yourself, whether it's your owned property, safety, or life itself that is in jeopardy.

You are free to say anything you like, but your personal preferences are neither relevant nor interesting to the extent they are not reality.

Government is supposed to protect people, sometimes that means providing. Providing a military for example. However, we have to consider if the government should provide healthcare. The real question isn't, "Is it a violation of rights if they don't," it's simply, "Can the government handle it?" Honestly, I don't believe our government can.

Well that's an entirely different question, but at least you have found your way back to the thread.

You're saying the right to life isn't really in relationship to the reform on healthcare. You're right in the sense of that wasn't the main topic, and it's not really in any attachment to the topic of discussion. However, in a way it can be. In the argument that it's government's job to protect our natural unalienable rights, the right to life--a very unalienable right in my book--can be brought up, as it was. Therefore, it is loosely connected to healthcare reform, but again--loosely.

Too loosely, but in that I am talking about my own personal opinion, so ignore it if you like.

The UN...yeah I won't start with the UN.

Regardless of what one thinks of the UN, the fact remains that the US was a major contributing author to those very conventions and resolutions, so it cannot now get away with a system that goes against the very principles it both drafted and agreed to be bound by. Rules of the game. That's why I brought it up. If the US (via the UN) says that access to basic care is a right, then Sibirsky's argument that the government does not violate rights by not providing health care is invalidated by the US government itself. And the US government's own actions are likewise invalidated by its own words.

Of course basic medical care is a right. I just don't believe the current system or the proposed system of healthcare are good.

Like many issues, I'm not on one side of the spectrum or the other.

Again, an entirely different issue. I, too, have no faith in any of the proposed plans. To me, they all sound like the same old shit being pushed with a different shovel (which is itself a used one). Unlike you, I do take a stand -- I want to give a nationalized system a try.

I consider this argument done, since you're right in saying it distracts from the main topic of discussion:

Investor's business Daily put out an editorial on 15 July 09.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticle ... 8165656854
According to page 16 of the House Healt Care Reform Bill, after the date that this travesty is signed into law, the Insurance companies will no longer be allowed to sign up new health care insurance policies. This applies to people who have never had private insurance and people who want to change insurance carriers.

So I'll end it, respond if you wish, but I'd rather not drag this entire thread into a totally different topic. I'll end here, unless you insist on continuing, in that case I will.

[/quote][/quote]
By all means, and PLEASE, let us drop that ridiculous "right to live" line of argument.

But as to the IBD editorial which is on topic, you should really try reading the thread. It has already been shown several times over that the claim about page 16 is nothing but a gross failure of some talking point generator's reading comprehension. The flagged paragraph does not say what IBD and other media/bloggers have been claiming. It is merely a definition of a term stating that a plan that is created for a person after the start of the new program cannot be considered a "grandfathered" plan in order to avoid certain requirements of the new program. Nothing whatsoever to do with the alarmist claims that have been made about it.

[Iniika]

Maybe I'm the nut, but taking 15 million from someone with 30 million sounds a lot less painful than taking 15 thousand from someone with 30 thousand.

Well, maybe I'm a nut as well, I don't think it's very encouraging to people who wish to earn more to hear that half of their money will be taken. Honestly hearing that, I think the average person would rather not work harder and harder, if it only leads to getting more and more money taken away--more and more of their time wasted.

But I think I'm just as nuts as you are, maybe more nuts.

Just so you know, every time I get a raise, my medical plan goes up... maybe $5. I can't recall ever even considering refusing a raise, just so that my medical won't go up. Considering that raise will earn me an extra $70 a month... even with the increase, that's an extra $65 I'm earning.

It's kind of silly to suggest that knowing you will be taxed higher if you make more money will deter people from wanting to make more money.

I mean... if -your- employer offered you $70 more a month, but $5 of it had to be put into the company pot for a monthly pizza lunch that might fall on a day you were working and might not... you're STILL getting an extra $65! And the chance for free pizza! Seems like a good deal to me >.>

[Surote]

Maybe I'm the nut, but taking 15 million from someone with 30 million sounds a lot less painful than taking 15 thousand from someone with 30 thousand.

Well, maybe I'm a nut as well, I don't think it's very encouraging to people who wish to earn more to hear that half of their money will be taken. Honestly hearing that, I think the average person would rather not work harder and harder, if it only leads to getting more and more money taken away--more and more of their time wasted.

But I think I'm just as nuts as you are, maybe more nuts.

Just so you know, every time I get a raise, my medical plan goes up... maybe $5. I can't recall ever even considering refusing a raise, just so that my medical won't go up. Considering that raise will earn me an extra $70 a month... even with the increase, that's an extra $65 I'm earning.

It's kind of silly to suggest that knowing you will be taxed higher if you make more money will deter people from wanting to make more money.

I mean... if -your- employer offered you $70 more a month, but $5 of it had to be put into the company pot for a monthly pizza lunch that might fall on a day you were working and might not... you're STILL getting an extra $65! And the chance for free pizza! Seems like a good deal to me >.>

Well they shouldn't pay less

[Sibirsky]

Really, what right of mine did you violate?
And how does the government no providing police violate my rights?

It depends. If he intended to kill you, that would infringe upon your right to life. In all honesty, government doesn't even have to get involved, because if your life is threatened, you have always had the right to threaten and/or take the threat's life in an act of self-defense.

Also, if it were only to harm/hurt you--you'd still have the right to self defense. Perhaps killing wouldn't be the best option in that case, but your right to defend yourself if you well-being is threatened still remains.

No police provision isn't really violating your rights, technically you're obligated to simply defend yourself if your'e able-bodied to do so, which I'm assuming you would be.

If you're unable to defend yourself, and government does nothing, I suppose that would be failure to protect your right to life and well-being/safety, two rights that--even if void in the Constitution--should be protected by any Democracy, Democratic-Republic, Republic, and so forth.

They're two basic rights, so basic, I honestly don't think anyone should think of them as irrelevant.

Thank you, that was phrased better than I would have. And as a side note, I would never throw a brick at anyone.

[Sibirsky]

If I throw a brick at your head the police are there to arrest me. Because I have violated your rights. The police exist to prevent me from doing that. Not that'd I ever do it, it's just an example.

And how did the cops get there? How do they have a job to be there when you need them? Who pays for them?

The cops are paid for by collecting property taxes from property in that jurisdiction.

[Sibirsky]

Maybe I'm the nut, but taking 15 million from someone with 30 million sounds a lot less painful than taking 15 thousand from someone with 30 thousand.

Well, maybe I'm a nut as well, I don't think it's very encouraging to people who wish to earn more to hear that half of their money will be taken. Honestly hearing that, I think the average person would rather not work harder and harder, if it only leads to getting more and more money taken away--more and more of their time wasted.

But I think I'm just as nuts as you are, maybe more nuts.

the average person will never make $30million.

i prefer to worry about things that might actually affect me and leave the rich to take care of themselves. they have done an excellent job of it over the years.

Yes we will. The way things are going will be millionaires in no time. Except we'll also be spending millions on things like bread and water.

[Muravyets]

If I throw a brick at your head the police are there to arrest me. Because I have violated your rights. The police exist to prevent me from doing that. Not that'd I ever do it, it's just an example.

And how did the cops get there? How do they have a job to be there when you need them? Who pays for them?

The cops are paid for by collecting property taxes from property in that jurisdiction.

You do know that's wrong, right?

No municipality can pay entirely for its own police force. The cost of equipment alone is too much. All municipalities get kickbacks from their states to either supplement or pay entirely for such public services. And those that are too small to get such aid, rely on county and/or state police and do without municipal ones. (Hint: It's the municipality that collects property taxes. Municipality = city/town/village.)

And states rely on kickbacks of federal taxes to supplement their tax revenue to pay for such public services, too.

So Officer McCopdude standing outside the Dunkin Donuts in Cowpatville, Ohio, is paid for, in part, by your and my federal income taxes PLUS the income taxes of the State of Ohio PLUS Cowpatville's property tax rolls.

Your simplistic notion of how public services works is not based on reality. Thus, it fails as an argument against nationalizing health care because it does not show a public service that is not paid for by the whole population paying taxes as a common fund for general services.

[Grave_n_idle]

Well, maybe I'm a nut as well, I don't think it's very encouraging to people who wish to earn more to hear that half of their money will be taken. Honestly hearing that, I think the average person would rather not work harder and harder, if it only leads to getting more and more money taken away--more and more of their time wasted.

But I think I'm just as nuts as you are, maybe more nuts.

the average person will never make $30million.

i prefer to worry about things that might actually affect me and leave the rich to take care of themselves. they have done an excellent job of it over the years.

Yes we will. The way things are going will be millionaires in no time. Except we'll also be spending millions on things like bread and water.

Ah. Picspam is worth a thousand words. Every. Single. Time.

[Muravyets]

<snip the usual Boo! Scary African Money song and dance>

Your Zimbabwe trick would ring less hollow if you spent less time showing how little you know about how public systems (of many kinds) actually work.

[Sibirsky]

<snip the usual Boo! Scary African Money song and dance>

Your Zimbabwe trick would ring less hollow if you spent less time showing how little you know about how public systems (of many kinds) actually work.

Because the government is NOT creating inflation....

[Treznor]

<snip the usual Boo! Scary African Money song and dance>

Your Zimbabwe trick would ring less hollow if you spent less time showing how little you know about how public systems (of many kinds) actually work.

Because the government is NOT creating inflation....

But no historical backing to suggest that this government has or will create the same problem as currently experienced in Zimbabwe. We have a long, long way to fall before we go that far. You're constructing an argument out of straw so you can knock it down, and it's not particularly convincing.

[Muravyets]

<snip the usual Boo! Scary African Money song and dance>

Your Zimbabwe trick would ring less hollow if you spent less time showing how little you know about how public systems (of many kinds) actually work.

Because the government is NOT creating inflation....

More evidence that you are making stuff up about things you don't understand. The Zimbabwe scare tactic fails because the US is nowhere near the track that nation was on. Everyone who is not intent on beating an ideological drum and instead prefers to focus on reality knows that -- hence the fail.