By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - If medical coverage is not a necessity, what is it?

SlayerRondo on 24 September 2013
richardhutnik said:
SlayerRondo said:
prayformojo said:
It SHOULD be a basic human RIGHT. Anything less isn't good enough for me.


Who the hell doesnt have the right to receive medical care?

Do you mean its a basic human right that other people pay for your medical care?

If that's you're point I disagree with you as I believe it's immoral to forsably take one's person's money for the benefit of another.

If you are willing to give the money to help others, then it isn't forceably taken.  So, one can argue the problem isn't the fact the money exchanges hands, but you lack of willingness to give it up.  In this, it isn't theft either.  So, I would then question why you don't want to give up money to help other people.  Why is that?

One could go onto other aspects of what is really your stuff anyhow, but that is a different issue.

You are presuming people I am not willing to contribute money to helping the unfortunate and that is simply untrue. I say that if i want to sacrifice my own earnings for the benefit of another then it should be MY CHOICE as to how much I give, how i give it and to whom i give it to.  The government should not be in the business taking money from one group for another as it has been for both people and business for far to long. Government elections have essentialy become auctions in stolen money where governments buy votes with other people's money.

And yes the problem can be seen as people being unwilling to give their money to the government willingly because they receive no benefit from doing so. If the transaction between two parties lacks willingness on one side who receives no benefit from providing the money how is that not theft?

I would say that on the opinion on what is someone's property is anything they paid for in a consential transaction between two parties. If someone earns money they did so by transacting voluntarily with other individuals then why is 100% of that money not theirs? While I conceed that we currently have to pay some taxes for mutually beneficial services like roads and military spending people are paying taxes for these services and the government does not just get money out of thin air.

And thus all government employee are employee's of the private citizens who pay tax. Government employee's may appear to pay taxes but that is mearly an illusion as they are paying taxes with taxes in a meaningless gesture. 



This is the Game of Thrones

Where you either win

or you DIE

Around the Network
SlayerRondo on 24 September 2013
richardhutnik said:
snyps said:
richardhutnik said:
So, I would then question why you don't want to give up money to help other people.  Why is that?

 



Because medical coverage under the health insurance system is WAY too expensive to afford for yourself let alone pay for someone else's

My entire post was pointed an individuals who claim coersion and theft as reasons for not having government assistance.  I was arguing turning it on its head to get someone arguing coersion and theft to come out and say why they wouldn't give to help others.


So people now have to say why they don't want the government to take their money? 

If someone does not want to have their property taken by force they dont have to justify why, its THEIR MONEY.

Kindness should be voluntary not forced.



This is the Game of Thrones

Where you either win

or you DIE

snyps on 24 September 2013
Cubedramirez said:
I received a letter stating the policy I was currently enrolled in which was a low deductible family coverage plan is no longer an option. However they stated I can pick a new plan modeled after the affordable care act which cost more and offered a higher deductible and less coverage. I was comfortable playing 495 a month, it covered everything and for my entire family I had a 8k deductible with zero out of pocket once it was met for a family of four as well as zero charges for preemptive care, speciality visits, 5-10 dollar prescriptions, etc.

Now I can't even get the same coverage without paying much more out of pocket for my wife and sons medications and speciality doctor visits. I loath government and their phoney altruism.



that's so messed up. $6000 a year is already outrageous.



richardhutnik on 24 September 2013
snyps said:
richardhutnik said:
snyps said:
richardhutnik said:
So, I would then question why you don't want to give up money to help other people.  Why is that?

 



Because medical coverage under the health insurance system is WAY too expensive to afford for yourself let alone pay for someone else's

My entire post was pointed an individuals who claim coersion and theft as reasons for not having government assistance.  I was arguing turning it on its head to get someone arguing coersion and theft to come out and say why they wouldn't give to help others.



you mean you were using sarcasm? i don't think your post is legible.

In response to the coersion comment, I wrote this:

If you are willing to give the money to help others, then it isn't forceably taken.  So, one can argue the problem isn't the fact the money exchanges hands, but you lack of willingness to give it up.  In this, it isn't theft either.  So, I would then question why you don't want to give up money to help other people.  Why is that?

One could go onto other aspects of what is really your stuff anyhow, but that is a different issue.

 

It wasn't sarcasm, but pointing out that the coersion (cousin to the "it is theft") argument goes away if a person willfully gives money.  So, I then asked, why the person wouldn't want to willfully give to help others?



richardhutnik on 24 September 2013
SlayerRondo said:
richardhutnik said:
snyps said:
richardhutnik said:
So, I would then question why you don't want to give up money to help other people.  Why is that?

 



Because medical coverage under the health insurance system is WAY too expensive to afford for yourself let alone pay for someone else's

My entire post was pointed an individuals who claim coersion and theft as reasons for not having government assistance.  I was arguing turning it on its head to get someone arguing coersion and theft to come out and say why they wouldn't give to help others.


So people now have to say why they don't want the government to take their money? 

If someone does not want to have their property taken by force they dont have to justify why, its THEIR MONEY.

Kindness should be voluntary not forced.

If a person agrees with doing it, then it isn't coerced/forced.  So, a person who voluntarily pays taxes isn't the subject to coersion or force or theft.

And yes, I have every right to question this, and why someone doesn't want to pay taxes if they live in a society, PARTICULARLY if the money in question goes to help the poor and those in need.  I can also question exactly what the level of kindness of a person is, when they don't want the money to be there.

In America, to argue anything about welfare being theft is seriously pushing it, because one engage in enough donations to charity that they pay no income taxes, through the use of deductions.  So, I am more than willing to ask exactly how charitable the person in question is, if they don't give enough to reduce their taxes to nothing.  And, with such said said individuals, if you didn't have social programs there, and gave the money back to them in lower taxes, exactly how much help would those in need get?

With the last statement: Kindness should be voluntary, not forced, that is very good.  So, would you agree then that individuals should be giving voluntarily and not holding back, so it isn't forced?



Around the Network
Zappykins on 24 September 2013
richardhutnik said:

In the discussion of what the government should or shouldn't do, medical coverage is said to not be a necessity.  If it isn't a necessity, what is it?  

Cato Instutite argues that necessity is futile:

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2001/7/morreim.pdf

This will pop up from time to time.  And comes up when people say stuff like, "Why you complaining, you have an emergency room!"

 

The Cato Instutuide is just a front for the Koch brothers. They would be about as credible as McDonalds recomending nutrition.



 

Really not sure I see any point of Consol over PC's since Kinect, Wii and other alternative ways to play have been abandoned. 

Top 50 'most fun' game list coming soon!

 

Tell me a funny joke!
SlayerRondo on 24 September 2013
richardhutnik said:
snyps said:
richardhutnik said:
snyps said:
richardhutnik said:
So, I would then question why you don't want to give up money to help other people.  Why is that?

 



Because medical coverage under the health insurance system is WAY too expensive to afford for yourself let alone pay for someone else's

My entire post was pointed an individuals who claim coersion and theft as reasons for not having government assistance.  I was arguing turning it on its head to get someone arguing coersion and theft to come out and say why they wouldn't give to help others.



you mean you were using sarcasm? i don't think your post is legible.

In response to the coersion comment, I wrote this:

If you are willing to give the money to help others, then it isn't forceably taken.  So, one can argue the problem isn't the fact the money exchanges hands, but you lack of willingness to give it up.  In this, it isn't theft either.  So, I would then question why you don't want to give up money to help other people.  Why is that?

One could go onto other aspects of what is really your stuff anyhow, but that is a different issue.

 

It wasn't sarcasm, but pointing out that the coersion (cousin to the "it is theft") argument goes away if a person willfully gives money.  So, I then asked, why the person wouldn't want to willfully give to help others?


How is the person's willingness or lack of the problem. Is the problem with a thief stealing a car the lack of willingness on the part of the owner to give him the car?

Should it not be if you're willing you pay and receive government medical care and if you're not you can abstain from paying for it?

Why do you support the model of forcing people to take part in something then make them willing rather than let the willing take part?

Forcing someone into something then trying to convince them that it's right seems backwards to me.



This is the Game of Thrones

Where you either win

or you DIE

richardhutnik on 24 September 2013
Zappykins said:
richardhutnik said:

In the discussion of what the government should or shouldn't do, medical coverage is said to not be a necessity.  If it isn't a necessity, what is it?  

Cato Instutite argues that necessity is futile:

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2001/7/morreim.pdf

This will pop up from time to time.  And comes up when people say stuff like, "Why you complaining, you have an emergency room!"

 

The Cato Instutuide is just a front for the Koch brothers. They would be about as credible as McDonalds recomending nutrition.

Not quite, but Cato and the Koch brothers have similar beliefs, and Koch does fund them.  



snyps on 24 September 2013
richardhutnik said:

So, I then asked, why the person wouldn't want to willfully give to help others?

That's why I said,  People don't want to "willfully" pay for someone else's medical insurance because:  it's devilishly expensive.



SlayerRondo on 24 September 2013
richardhutnik said:
SlayerRondo said:
richardhutnik said:
snyps said:
richardhutnik said:
So, I would then question why you don't want to give up money to help other people.  Why is that?

 



Because medical coverage under the health insurance system is WAY too expensive to afford for yourself let alone pay for someone else's

My entire post was pointed an individuals who claim coersion and theft as reasons for not having government assistance.  I was arguing turning it on its head to get someone arguing coersion and theft to come out and say why they wouldn't give to help others.


So people now have to say why they don't want the government to take their money? 

If someone does not want to have their property taken by force they dont have to justify why, its THEIR MONEY.

Kindness should be voluntary not forced.

If a person agrees with doing it, then it isn't coerced/forced.  So, a person who voluntarily pays taxes isn't the subject to coersion or force or theft.

Yes but people are not given a choice on paying for and receiving medical care and welfare from the government. Therefore they are coerced as they are given no choice.

And yes, I have every right to question this, and why someone doesn't want to pay taxes if they live in a society, PARTICULARLY if the money in question goes to help the poor and those in need.  I can also question exactly what the level of kindness of a person is, when they don't want the money to be there.

You can question the kindness of a person all you like but taking their property and giving it to someone else without their consent is theft and an immoral action. Not donating money, however unkind you may deem the person, does not harm other people.

In America, to argue anything about welfare being theft is seriously pushing it, because one engage in enough donations to charity that they pay no income taxes, through the use of deductions.  So, I am more than willing to ask exactly how charitable the person in question is, if they don't give enough to reduce their taxes to nothing.  And, with such said said individuals, if you didn't have social programs there, and gave the money back to them in lower taxes, exactly how much help would those in need get?

Theft is the taking of someone's property without their consent which is exactly how welfare operates. Those in need would get as much as those with surplus would be willing to provide and if you think they need more campaign for people to give more not higher taxes for welfare which is theft. And chariatable donations only reduce tax threshholds not taxes directly making them more expensive as to avoid all taxes you would have to donate nearly all your income. 

With the last statement: Kindness should be voluntary, not forced, that is very good.  So, would you agree then that individuals should be giving voluntarily and not holding back, so it isn't forced?

I think that there are some things where its kind and helpfull to help others to give and other times i dont. Nearly everyone else will has disagreements about how to give and what to give and can makes their own choices accordingly. I think that giving to someone else kind but i dont think it should be legal to force them to do so.





This is the Game of Thrones

Where you either win

or you DIE