Universal healthcare is indentured servitude and a weapon

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ScepticScot

They can when they choose too. And the government will provide you a lawy at the cost of the tax payer as defined by federal and state law. The law most is in the context the government cannot ramrod you into prison with no representation and without due process.

So please define right to vs universal right vs a right. Healthcare vs due process.

So the government can provide something when required that is a right.

Healthcare logically then can be a right even through it requires people to be paid.

When it’s set up as law. Can you state what law defines healthcare as a right?

There isn't one in the US. That however doesn't stop it, at least potentially, being a right.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ScepticScot

They can when they choose too. And the government will provide you a lawy at the cost of the tax payer as defined by federal and state law. The law most is in the context the government cannot ramrod you into prison with no representation and without due process.

So please define right to vs universal right vs a right. Healthcare vs due process.

So the government can provide something when required that is a right.

Healthcare logically then can be a right even through it requires people to be paid.

When it’s set up as law. Can you state what law defines healthcare as a right?

There isn't one in the US. That however doesn't stop it, at least potentially, being a right.

I agree you have the right to access healthcare. But you don’t have the right to demand individuals provide services without proper compensation. Is that false.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Questions you ignored


And I think the actual term is a lawyer will be provided to you. Please quote the actual law defining access to a lawyer


So please define right to vs universal right vs a right. Healthcare vs due process.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ScepticScot

They can when they choose too. And the government will provide you a lawy at the cost of the tax payer as defined by federal and state law. The law most is in the context the government cannot ramrod you into prison with no representation and without due process.

So please define right to vs universal right vs a right. Healthcare vs due process.

So the government can provide something when required that is a right.

Healthcare logically then can be a right even through it requires people to be paid.

When it’s set up as law. Can you state what law defines healthcare as a right?

There isn't one in the US. That however doesn't stop it, at least potentially, being a right.

I agree you have the right to access healthcare. But you don’t have the right to demand individuals provide services without proper compensation. Is that false.

Doctors tend to be well compensated even in countries with the right to Healthcare.

It's the idea that because someone needs paid it can't be a right that is false.

People can argue about what specific kind of right it is to their hearts content but it can still be a right.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ScepticScot

Questions you ignored


And I think the actual term is a lawyer will be provided to you. Please quote the actual law defining access to a lawyer


So please define right to vs universal right vs a right. Healthcare vs due process.

People have have the right to a lawyer. The actual mechanism can change as long as that right is protected. The UK uses a different system than the US to provide defence lawyers.

People can have the right to health care. Again the actual mechanism can vary. The UK and France both have a universal healthcare but use very different systems.

double

a reply to: ScepticScot

People can argue about what specific kind of right it is to their hearts content but it can still be a right.

Then state where it is a right by US law.

a reply to: ScepticScot

People can have the right to health care. Again the actual mechanism can vary. The UK and France both have a universal healthcare but use very different systems

As long as individuals agree to provide their services at the rate the government provides compensation.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ScepticScot

People can argue about what specific kind of right it is to their hearts content but it can still be a right.

Then state where it is a right by US law.

Already confirmed its in the US constitution. A quick Google search confirms that the current interpretation of right to free legal representation has been around since 1963 (Gideon v Wainwright)

I assume the actual mechanism is covered under various legislation at state and federal level. Not sure the relevance?

a reply to: panoz77

I don't care about "feels". I want the best and brightest operating on me regardless of their motivation.

Hmmm... I don't think you've thought that through.

What if you don't need any operation at all and the doctor's only motivation is to make more money? For that matter, for all you would know, he just cut you and sewed you back up and never actually removed or repaired anything, but charges you for an appendectomy for example....

Are you sure you want to be operated on by anyone for ANY reason???

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ScepticScot

People can have the right to health care. Again the actual mechanism can vary. The UK and France both have a universal healthcare but use very different systems

As long as individuals agree to provide their services at the rate the government provides compensation.

Just the same as governments pays lawyers ( and a whole lot of other things).

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Fools
And another thing, wasn't Obamacare supposed to make everything better? How did things get worse under Obamacare? I mean that should be impossible since it was mainly created to take care of those that are uninsured. I would imagine that would be the crew you are describing in this statistic. You better start going door to door and checking on these gals because I am pretty damn sure they are all potential Democratic voters.

Things did get better with the ACA, they would have gotten even better had Republicans not attempted to sabotage the system on multiple occasions.

The ACA also delivered on precisely what the people asked for (and asking government for anything is always a monkeys paw situation). People said they wanted health insurance and that's precisely what they got. What they should have asked for was access to health care.

The biggest revelation from the implementation of the ACA was that even though 47 million out of 298 million were officially uninsured in 2006 (15.7%), out of the 250 million or so who were insured, only about 80 million of those were actually properly insured. The remaining 170 million people had plans that were inadequate and only met the definition of insurance because there wasn't really any sort of rules on what could be called insurance as long as it had some sort of payout system. Most of those plans would have been better described as supplemental insurance, or prescription drug plans.

The ACA actually laid out the definitions of insurance and required it to be much more inclusive. This is where the biggest pushback came from, because when Obama said that if people liked their doctors/plans they could keep them, it was before anyone knew the actual scale of just how many people in the US were severely underinsured at the time. As such, costs increased in order to fix that so that people were paying for a product that had a real return, instead of paying for something that offered little to no benefit.

Additionally, the increase in the cost of health care went up at a rate lower than every single study predicted it would go up without the ACA. So, it was successful at both insuring people and lowering costs.

So your first concern of the US going down to 3rd world country rates for infant mortality and deaths during childbirth was going on before or after Obamacare was enacted? Did that get better or worse?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ScepticScot

People can have the right to health care. Again the actual mechanism can vary. The UK and France both have a universal healthcare but use very different systems

As long as individuals agree to provide their services at the rate the government provides compensation.

Just the same as governments pays lawyers ( and a whole lot of other things).

Again. By definition. Something that requires the skills and time of others is not really a universal right.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ScepticScot

People can have the right to health care. Again the actual mechanism can vary. The UK and France both have a universal healthcare but use very different systems

As long as individuals agree to provide their services at the rate the government provides compensation.

Just the same as governments pays lawyers ( and a whole lot of other things).

Again. By definition. Something that requires the skills and time of others is not really a universal right.

By your definition of a universal right perhaps. Others disagree.

Doesn't prevent it being a right just as people have the right to a lawyer.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Fools
I actually do realize that and the reasons have little to do with hospitals not attempting to take care of patients but patient stupidity. You have pending mothers in this country that are honestly so dumb that they do not see a doctor or nurse one single time before they go into labor. And that is - for a fact - the actual cause of that issue. It isn't the medical system, it is culture of stupidity.

And how many of them can afford it? Doctors visits cost hundreds or thousands of dollars PER VISIT when you don't have insurance, and if you can't afford insurance, how can you be expected to afford that?

Because, for people that exist in poverty, they can all get medical care for free. If they don't want to find out how to do that or care to do that then that means they are dumb, or at the very least ignorant. I know this because my grand daughters mother has no insurance and she works as a janitor (or something like that) and she has gotten more help for her pregnancy and my grandaughter through government programs than I previously wouldnt have imagined possible and she hasn't paid a cent.

Is she a magician? Or has she got in and worked with the government and found out all information she could to help her with her child?

Face it, some people are so dumb and lazy (of all colors in case you are thinking I am being "racist") that they just can't manage to even lift a finger to get FREE HELP. They can't see that their laziness and lack of concern has the potential to actually kill them. It's true, they exist, they are dumb and usually drunk or on drugs all the time, or as often as they can be. They are everywhere these days. It is a cultural problem.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ScepticScot

People can have the right to health care. Again the actual mechanism can vary. The UK and France both have a universal healthcare but use very different systems

As long as individuals agree to provide their services at the rate the government provides compensation.

Just the same as governments pays lawyers ( and a whole lot of other things).

Again. By definition. Something that requires the skills and time of others is not really a universal right.

By your definition of a universal right perhaps. Others disagree.

Doesn't prevent it being a right just as people have the right to a lawyer.

I know, very hypothetical. All doctors, EMTs, Nurses disappear this instant. What just happen to your universal right to healthcare?

Cancer doctor shortage 'puts care at risk'
By Nick Triggle
Health correspondent

A Royal College of Radiologists census of 62 major UK cancer centres found more than 7.5% of consultant posts were vacant, with services maintained only by large amounts of overtime.
It said this was unsustainable and would put treatments at risk.
But the NHS said plans were in place to increase doctor numbers.
Doctor training places are increasing, as is investment in the NHS.
But the college said this was not enough to cover the increases in demand for care, particularly given the number of doctors who are retiring.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Free markets can expand to meet demand. Government can only ration and raise taxes to fight an increase in demand. The problems with centralized healthcare.

a reply to: neutronflux

I know, very hypothetical. All doctors, EMTs, Nurses disappear this instant. What just happen to your universal right to healthcare?

I know! I know! We nurse and nurture ourselves with the bounty of the earth provided by nature and Nature's God to the greatest extent possible, and seek out the assistance and wisdom and experience of other consenting adults when we cannot do for ourselves.

Except that absolute inalienable right has been precluded by a government and medical industry that DEMANDS we seek and receive our healthcare from others.

And then we're told that we don't have a "right" to healthcare.

The rise in maternal deaths seems to have started about the same time as our hospitals began falling into the hands of Catholic groups and put under rules dictated be Catholic bishops.

But please tell me. If there is no right to healthcare, why are diabetics rationing their insulin because it is unaffordable while federal, state, and local taxes are sucked out of them to be used to to provide the insulin to another.
By providing it to another they seem to be exalting one persons right to live over that of the taxpayer who is risking a diabetic coma.
They have done very little to put pressure onto the insurance companies, drug companies, and providers to pressure them to keep the costs in check choosing instead to just suck more and more out of the taxpayers to not only ensure that they were provided with a steady flow of customers but also to provide the funding to research and develope new treatment and cures, install new and better equipment in the hospitals and clinics, and new drugs. All if which very few of us could afford if it wasn't for either an insurance company or govt program pooling funds from the many. And for that many more and more are finding the don't have the resources the would need to take advantage of the system they are propping up.
In case you can't see where this is heading I will clue you in. The masses will be paying a ton of money for a system that only the elect few and their pets will have access to.
Will you still be proclaiming healthcare is not a right then?

originally posted by: Aazadan

Things did get better with the ACA, they would have gotten even better had Republicans not attempted to sabotage the system on multiple occasions.

The ACA also delivered on precisely what the people asked for (and asking government for anything is always a monkeys paw situation). People said they wanted health insurance and that's precisely what they got. What they should have asked for was access to health care.

NO....things did NOT get better with ACA.
It sucked.....EVERYthing was out of pocket for me....PLUS the high--for me---premium. Less coverage for more money!!!!
I did not ask for this.....I had great healthcare through my employer.

Then got thrown under the bus by my employer and we had to get our own insurance.....unACA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AND.....my state is one of the backwards ones....we are NOT allowed to buy anything other than obummercare.