If healthcare is important, shouldn't it be bi-partisan?

a reply to: Mach2

Your anger should not be directed at the insurance companies.

Yes they take a small profit - but that is not the real problem with our medical system - Not even close. The profit they take is no different then the waste a government system would inevitably have baked into it.

The problem is 95% the cost of treatment / medical devices / drugs.

Why are the prices so high - mainly because there the entire system is monopolistic, and there is no competition involved at all. A lot of the reason for that is the government is allowing it - or supporting it.

One example - licensing for MRI testing is usually controlled by the large hospital chains in the area as they sit on the board handing out the licenses. They deny licenses to competitors for profit.

The fact that hospitals are not required to list their prices - and are allowed to have many different prices depending on who is paying is literally criminal.

Then you have to factor in medical malpractice / our legal system on our costs, and the fact our doctors make FOUR times as high a salary of those in socialized systems.

Politicians will not talk about or actually try to solve this problem because these are incredibly strong lobbies - it is more than 20% of our economy.

A large problem with solving the cost problem - is by definition doing this will drop our GDP by near 10%.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

An innate right can not rely on someone else to provide something for you.

Equality is the innate right, in this case. Equality must be agreed upon by the society in order for that right to be respected. The government provides laws and enforcement of laws to ensure your right of equality and equal access by forcing those who might not see each other as equal to act lawfully and behave as if they do, regardless of their opinion.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

If equality worked how you claim it does then private schools would be illegal.

Now stop dodging my questions and please answer both, since you are for equality, since some people in America are allowed access to machine guns, we all should, right?

If one child gets $100k of medical treatment then my child should also get $100k of medical treatment, right?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

If equality worked how you claim it does then private schools would be illegal.

I can see that being the case in some societies, like Communism where the people own everything equally. But our system merely provides for the basics. The government makes sure public roads are maintained and regulated, water is clean by some percentage, food is inspected to a degree of contamination. You can purchase water filters, if you want your food cleaner, you can pay extra for grass fed beef and organic vegetables, you can pay for more convenient fast lanes and toll roads.

Basic health insurance is provided to our poor and elderly, employer based health insurance is usually part of an employee compensation package, where you have the right to choose from basic, on up.

Now stop dodging my question, since you are for equality, since some people in America are allowed access to machine guns, we all should, right?

I think people should have equal access to these things. But, I think society also has the right to limit access for people who have proven themselves to be irresponsible, and have been found to have violated others' rights with these tools.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You have the right to defend yourself which is what the 2nd is all about. Notice that it does not guarantee you weapon as if it provides you a gun. It only guarantees you your right to keep and bear arms without that right being infringed on.

No one has provided me with any firearm. I don't own one, but similarly, I have the right to go out and procure one for myself whenever I might desire to do so. I also have the unalienable right to defend my person and property which is why the 2nd exists. Guns aren't the only means of defense, but against a well-armed government, they are the most effective one.

Again, no one is being forced to build or provide roads. But then again, no one has declared roads to be a human right either. If you have a human right to a road, what if a road doesn't exist to where you want to go? How would you propose that one suddenly be put there? Are you going to build it? How would the material for it be procured for you? Or would you demand that others do it? If it's your right, can they refuse? I mean, they would now be violating your human right to have that road. Pretty silly.

Public education was never mentioned anywhere in the COTUS. It is merely a public good that we provide as a society and do a piss poor job of providing if current examples are any evidence.

Public servants aren't slaves currently in that they voluntarily seek their jobs. However, make the goods and services they provide into human rights, and suddenly, someone *has* to become a public servant even if no one wants to be one because we have a whole bunch of folks who now have a right to those goods and services. Imagine is health care were a human right and no one wanted to be a doctor anymore. What do you do then? Do you simply let everyone go on and become a massive human right violator in favor of upholding personal liberty where no one chooses to be a doctor anymore? Or do you compel people to learn health care?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

So unless you are advocating getting rid of the Constitution and innate rights and moving to Communism and government given rights your points are .. well, pointless.

I love how you keep ignoring my question about machine guns which YOU actually brought up. Since we have the right to arms, and the right to equal access, my right to have equal access to machine guns is being violated, right?

a reply to: ketsuko

You have the right to defend yourself which is what the 2nd is all about. Notice that it does not guarantee you weapon as if it provides you a gun. It only guarantees you your right to keep and bear arms without that right being infringed on.

The law provides you equal access to these weapons, not an issuance. The law also provides you the right to defend yourself by any means. You have the right to upgrade you line of defense, train your fists and/or purchase an AK47! Some people's fists are registered as lethal weapons.

Again, no one is being forced to build or provide roads.

You are, through your tax dollars, some of which are appropriated for roads and their maintenance and regulation.

Public servants aren't slaves currently in that they voluntarily seek their jobs.

I'm not the one conflating public works and public servants with usury and slavery. These things are paid for with tax dollars.

No one is suggesting that medical workers should work for free, but that tax dollars be appropriated to pay for basic care.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

my right to have equal access to machine guns is being violated, right?

I don't know. Why can't you get one? Are they illegal where you live? I'm not against you having one.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha and/or purchase an AK47!

So any weapon there is, I should have access to it, right?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Fully automatic weapons have been illegal since 1986. I am glad you agree it is Unconstitutional.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The law doesn't give me jack. I have the right to defend myself simply because I'm a freakin' human being. All the COTUS does is re-affirm that along with other unalienable rights. Making a law that tries to tell me I can't is imply attempting to oppress something I already have and have had since I become a human being.

I suppose if you hold that the law is what giveth and taketh, then you agree that slavery is perfectly legit if we should choose to codify it into law again?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Well, you should have "equal" access. I really don't know much about gun stuff. I just think all things society offers to the public, including weapons, should be equally accessible. I also think a "well regulated militia" insinuates that weapons should be somehow regulated, but that's my opinion.


It's up to us to fight for our rights, individually, because there's always somebody trying to take your rights away. I speak to what's important to me. You speak to what rights are important to you. If you don't have access to weapons that you think you have the right own, then you should fight for that right. I'm not here to take rights away from you. I'm here to speak to the rights that are important to me, basic health care being the current topic.

a reply to: ketsuko

The law doesn't give me jack.

That's not true. The law provides you with innumerable protections. You're able to post because of the law that provides you equal access to the internet.

I have the right to defend myself simply because I'm a freakin' human being. All the COTUS does is re-affirm that along with other unalienable rights.

As I have stated, The Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights acknowledge your inalienable rights. The Constitution outlines when and how the government can violate those rights, as exemplified in the 4th and the 13th Amendments, among others.

I suppose if you hold that the law is what giveth and taketh, then you agree that slavery is perfectly legit if we should choose to codify it into law again?

Slavery is codified into the Constitution in the 13th Amendment.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: jacobe001

Is that the average of all products including the ones that fail and never see the market?

I don't know, ask Martin Shrekil who went from hedge fund manager to drug salesman, patenting a drug that has been on the market for years to 1000% the original price.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I see. So you think then that all we need to do is write a law to make slavery legal again. So much for unalienable rights.

This is what you don't understand and why you are a perfect sheep for the government:

Unalienable rights are yours regardless of what the law says, yea or nay. The law can say whatever it wants, but so long as you believe your unalienable rights are yours, then no one and nothing can take them from you; they can only be oppressed.

I may speak, practice my religion, defend myself and hold my property. I have the right to my person and my liberty. All of these things are things I might have anyway absent all other human society. All natural unalienable rights are like this. All others can do, including government and the law, is seek to take them from me through force. In the end, it is still my choice if I will surrender those things or allow restrictions on them or not.

You think that you only have those things because some lawmaker from on high has given them you. I fully expect that if you were marooned on a desert island somewhere, you would die waiting for permission to take up your unalienable rights in a bid for survival. After all, no one out there can tell you if the overlords of that place would allow you to seek out food and build shelter or take up a sharp stick to fend off a wolf.

originally posted by: ketsuko
they can only be oppressed.

That pretty much dismantles your rant.

a reply to: ketsuko

I see. So you think then that all we need to do is write a law to make slavery legal again. So much for unalienable rights.

Are the medical workers in Canada, England and Australia slaves?