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

Forums - General - Question about what Obama just said.

The_vagabond7 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
The_vagabond7 said:

Just as a hypothetical, would you be against universal healthcare coverage if somebody came up with a fantastic plan that didn't have any of the supposed major flaws of other UHC plans? If it could be set up that the government had very efficient, cost effective method of offering healthcare to everyone with little to no wait time funded by a small tax on some common products (hypothetical here, not realistic), would you be against it on ideological grounds? Would you deny people healthcare if they didn't "earn" it? Simply as a hypothetical, not as a "well that's not realistic, that would never happen" ect ect. If there was great, effecient, cheap universal healthcare for everyone in america would you be angry about it because deadbeats could have get great health care the same as factory workers who could have it the same as highly educated hedge fund owners?

 

I am all for stepping in and fixing healthcare. And if what you say could be done, I would not be against it.

It would be against my ideology, but if what you painted could be done, I would not argue against it.

But there has never been an example of government running anything well. I would be much more for government reform then I would the government taking over.


 

So then it's not that you think Healthcare shouldn't be a right, but that you don't think the government is capable of doing it. Earlier you said that the government can remove a right, which shows the subjectivity of rights. Really man has no "rights" so to speak, except that which his group provides him. We can say that we have "The right to live a life where others do no harm to you" but that's only a right because a government says so. If James Madison said healthcare was a basic human right (hypothetically of course), would you think it was? Or would you think it's still a matter of entitlement, only for the people that can afford it? I only ask because I want to understand your mindset in these discussions.

 

The government only doing what Madison wanted was lost a long time ago.

Paved roads are not a right, but I don't mind government running the roads.

A healthcare system with little requirement from the people would be against my ideology, as I think it's the government doing something it has no business doing. But if they did it well, I would just let it go, and not fight it.



Around the Network
The_vagabond7 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:
TheRealMafoo said:

 

I am all for stepping in and fixing healthcare. And if what you say could be done, I would not be against it.

It would be against my ideology, but if what you painted could be done, I would not argue against it.

But there has never been an example of government running anything well. I would be much more for government reform then I would the government taking over.

So should we let the private sector run the military? Or the police?

 

 

No, because it's our counties responsibly to protect us from others (domestic and foreign).

If they were run privately however, they would run a lot more efficiently (it's why we have contractors, they do things a lot cheeper).

It's the governments job to protect you, not to provide for you. In a free society, there is no way for the government to provide for you, as they have no assets to provide. Anything they have, they must take from someone first. Taking from an individual to provide for another, is against there sole purpose of existing... to protect you.


But they shouldn't protect you from disease? They should only protect you from Jihadist? That's a narrow definition of "protect". And they have to take from one to protect another. There is very little chance of a terrorist attack where I am. Should I be angry I'm paying to protect new york? If I am paying to protect new york from terrorist attacks and be fine with it, why should I be angry if I pay to protect new york from diabetes or cancer?


Exactly. Well put

TheRealMafoo said:
The_vagabond7 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
The_vagabond7 said:

Just as a hypothetical, would you be against universal healthcare coverage if somebody came up with a fantastic plan that didn't have any of the supposed major flaws of other UHC plans? If it could be set up that the government had very efficient, cost effective method of offering healthcare to everyone with little to no wait time funded by a small tax on some common products (hypothetical here, not realistic), would you be against it on ideological grounds? Would you deny people healthcare if they didn't "earn" it? Simply as a hypothetical, not as a "well that's not realistic, that would never happen" ect ect. If there was great, effecient, cheap universal healthcare for everyone in america would you be angry about it because deadbeats could have get great health care the same as factory workers who could have it the same as highly educated hedge fund owners?

 

I am all for stepping in and fixing healthcare. And if what you say could be done, I would not be against it.

It would be against my ideology, but if what you painted could be done, I would not argue against it.

But there has never been an example of government running anything well. I would be much more for government reform then I would the government taking over.


 

So then it's not that you think Healthcare shouldn't be a right, but that you don't think the government is capable of doing it. Earlier you said that the government can remove a right, which shows the subjectivity of rights. Really man has no "rights" so to speak, except that which his group provides him. We can say that we have "The right to live a life where others do no harm to you" but that's only a right because a government says so. If James Madison said healthcare was a basic human right (hypothetically of course), would you think it was? Or would you think it's still a matter of entitlement, only for the people that can afford it? I only ask because I want to understand your mindset in these discussions.

 

The government only doing what Madison wanted was lost a long time ago.

Paved roads are not a right, but I don't mind government running the roads.

A healthcare system with little requirement from the people would be against my ideology, as I think it's the government doing something it has no business doing. But if they did it well, I would just let it go, and not fight it.


So why don't you mind the government running the roads? Couldn't private industry do it better? And it's not a right either. So why are government owned roads ok, but government run hospitals bad?



You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.

The_vagabond7 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:
TheRealMafoo said:

 

I am all for stepping in and fixing healthcare. And if what you say could be done, I would not be against it.

It would be against my ideology, but if what you painted could be done, I would not argue against it.

But there has never been an example of government running anything well. I would be much more for government reform then I would the government taking over.

So should we let the private sector run the military? Or the police?

 

 

No, because it's our counties responsibly to protect us from others (domestic and foreign).

If they were run privately however, they would run a lot more efficiently (it's why we have contractors, they do things a lot cheeper).

It's the governments job to protect you, not to provide for you. In a free society, there is no way for the government to provide for you, as they have no assets to provide. Anything they have, they must take from someone first. Taking from an individual to provide for another, is against there sole purpose of existing... to protect you.


But they shouldn't protect you from disease? They should only protect you from Jihadist? That's a narrow definition of "protect". And they have to take from one to protect another. There is very little chance of a terrorist attack where I am. Should I be angry I'm paying to protect new york? If I am paying to protect new york from terrorist attacks and be fine with it, why should I be angry if I pay to protect new york from diabetes or cancer?

 

They should protect you from disease. The FDA is a good example of that. They should not provide for you if you contract it.

So, if it's to cold, I will freeze to death. Should the government provide me with a house to keep me out of the cold? should they provide me with heat?



SciFiBoy said:
Snesboy said:
You guys speak of health care as a right and not a privilege. What about Roe v. Wade? What about abortion?

You expect me to believe health care is a right when many children don't even get a shot at life? Pathetic.

 

a fetus is not alive and therefore does not yet have any rights, the mother carrying it does have rights, so she takes precedence

 

Your argument is flawed. Not alive? So it's body doesn't start functioning until it is born? Really?


Precedence? No, no human has the right to take away another's life. Be it a fetus or an adult human.



Around the Network
Snesboy said:
You guys speak of health care as a right and not a privilege. What about Roe v. Wade? What about abortion?

You expect me to believe health care is a right when many children don't even get a shot at life? Pathetic.

You raise a valid point.  But, setting aside the issue of whether or not abortion is murder, why should society be able to tell a woman how to manage her own life?  Many people who are pro-life are also against the government getting involved in telling people how to raise their children.

The same constitutional right that the Supreme Court recognizes as protecting a woman's right to have an aborition (Due Process in the 14th and the 9th) has other rights tied to it. 

Where do we draw the line when limiting those rights?  Should we limit people's choices whether or not to use contraception (protected by this right)?  Should we limit people's ability to choose where to send their children to public or private school?  Should we limit people's ability to teach their children whatever religion they want?  When you start talking about taking away those rights, those provisions in the Constitution don't sound so bad after all.

The problem is that when you start taking away rights, the constitutional basis for those rights is less broad.  And then you risk losing even more rights.  You can't look at the rights just as individual rights.  They are all connected.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

TheRealMafoo said:
The_vagabond7 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:
TheRealMafoo said:

 

I am all for stepping in and fixing healthcare. And if what you say could be done, I would not be against it.

It would be against my ideology, but if what you painted could be done, I would not argue against it.

But there has never been an example of government running anything well. I would be much more for government reform then I would the government taking over.

So should we let the private sector run the military? Or the police?

 

 

No, because it's our counties responsibly to protect us from others (domestic and foreign).

If they were run privately however, they would run a lot more efficiently (it's why we have contractors, they do things a lot cheeper).

It's the governments job to protect you, not to provide for you. In a free society, there is no way for the government to provide for you, as they have no assets to provide. Anything they have, they must take from someone first. Taking from an individual to provide for another, is against there sole purpose of existing... to protect you.


But they shouldn't protect you from disease? They should only protect you from Jihadist? That's a narrow definition of "protect". And they have to take from one to protect another. There is very little chance of a terrorist attack where I am. Should I be angry I'm paying to protect new york? If I am paying to protect new york from terrorist attacks and be fine with it, why should I be angry if I pay to protect new york from diabetes or cancer?

 

They should protect you from disease. The FDA is a good example of that. They should not provide for you if you contract it.

So, if it's to cold, I will freeze to death. Should the government provide me with a house to keep me out of the cold? should they provide me with heat?

your are insane, what your talking about would cause the death rate to sky rocket! now youre saying that people shouldnt have shelter?

 



The_vagabond7 said:


So why don't you mind the government running the roads? Couldn't private industry do it better? And it's not a right either. So why are government owned roads ok, but government run hospitals bad?

 

Your right, thank you.

I do care. Government should not run the roads.



SciFiBoy said:

your are insane, what your talking about would cause the death rate to sky rocket! now youre saying that people shouldnt have shelter

 

I am saying it's the governments responsibility to make sure nothing stands in your way of obtaining shelter (without stepping on someone else's rights of course). It's not the governments job to provide it for you.



TheRealMafoo said:
The_vagabond7 said:


So why don't you mind the government running the roads? Couldn't private industry do it better? And it's not a right either. So why are government owned roads ok, but government run hospitals bad?

 

Your right, thank you.

I do care. Government should not run the roads.

oh good, let everything fall to disrepair, let all the non-rich people die on the decrepid streets?

btw whos gonna do all the low paid jobs when the working class are too ill to do them?