Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

American health care vs the world!

245678

Posts

  • Clown ShoesClown Shoes Registered User regular
    Buddha73 wrote: »
    when has the Communist Cuban government ever give their people rights?

    Their rights as specified in the constitution or as specified in Cuban law?
  • Clown ShoesClown Shoes Registered User regular
    dlinfiniti wrote: »
    V1m wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Buddha73 wrote: »
    and to the post that addressed my number three idea, no i don't think that healthcare cost would suddenly drop lower after one year, but i don't that the government should have to buy for healthcare the rest of your life.

    Then what do you do about people who have lifelong conditions that prevent them from working? A system that only covers short term illnesses is not a proper healthcare system.

    Also, short term illnesses are not what makes healthcare expensive.


    But yes, I'm going to agree with "Not a right enumerated in the Constitution, but it is a human right"

    IIRC, doesn't your constitution specifically have a "there are also other rights not listed here, this isn't the definitive list" clause?

    yup
    the right to party falls into this category

    If it was listed in the constitution then you wouldn't have to fight for it.
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    Buddha73 wrote: »
    lol funny Lawndart

    So you have no intention of an honest discussion then?

    Lawndart flat out disproved what you said.
  • Buddha73Buddha73 Registered User regular
    Buddha73 wrote: »
    when has the Communist Cuban government ever give their people rights?

    Their rights as specified in the constitution or as specified in Cuban law?
    OK you are right there but the Cuban people don't have a choice. the Cuban government runs nearly every things in that country. so in my option that's no good.

  • Buddha73Buddha73 Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Buddha73 wrote: »
    lol funny Lawndart

    So you have no intention of an honest discussion then?

    Lawndart flat out disproved what you said.
    he didn't disprove anything. he make a joke i thought it was funny. plain and simple. and i want a honest discussion. plus i seriously believe if you polled most of Americans they don't think taxes are lower then decades before.

  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    dlinfiniti wrote: »
    V1m wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Buddha73 wrote: »
    and to the post that addressed my number three idea, no i don't think that healthcare cost would suddenly drop lower after one year, but i don't that the government should have to buy for healthcare the rest of your life.

    Then what do you do about people who have lifelong conditions that prevent them from working? A system that only covers short term illnesses is not a proper healthcare system.

    Also, short term illnesses are not what makes healthcare expensive.


    But yes, I'm going to agree with "Not a right enumerated in the Constitution, but it is a human right"

    IIRC, doesn't your constitution specifically have a "there are also other rights not listed here, this isn't the definitive list" clause?

    yup
    the right to party falls into this category

    In specific, it's the 9th.
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Which I swear some people love to forget about when they argue about rights in the country
    SEGATA SANSHIRO! LIVE AGAIN!
    Lanz.gif
  • Clown ShoesClown Shoes Registered User regular
    Buddha73 wrote: »
    Buddha73 wrote: »
    when has the Communist Cuban government ever give their people rights?

    Their rights as specified in the constitution or as specified in Cuban law?
    OK you are right there but the Cuban people don't have a choice. the Cuban government runs nearly every things in that country. so in my option that's no good.

    You don't have a choice either. If you did, significant numbers of Americans would choose to have a right to healthcare.
  • HeirHeir Registered User regular
    Buddha73 wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Buddha73 wrote: »
    lol funny Lawndart

    So you have no intention of an honest discussion then?

    Lawndart flat out disproved what you said.
    he didn't disprove anything. he make a joke i thought it was funny. plain and simple. and i want a honest discussion. plus i seriously believe if you polled most of Americans they don't think taxes are lower then decades before.

    He did disprove what you said though. He gave you actual, quantifiable stats.

    Whether people *feel* like taxes are higher now than 10 years ago doesn't mean anything. I can say that I *felt* the world was flat tens years ago, but reality proves me incorrect.
    camo_sig2.png
  • Buddha73Buddha73 Registered User regular
    yes cause the IRS never lying about tax rates. jez... just listening the news and you'll know i mine.
  • Grunt's GhostsGrunt's Ghosts Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I certainly balk at calling health care a constitutional right, for more or less the reasons given in the OP.

    That said, legitimately accessible health care is probably a moral obligation, in much the same way I would say a rich dude sitting on a pile of food has a moral obligation to give some to the starving guy sitting across the way.

    Either way, though, it's pretty clear that the constitution does not bar the government from establishing some sort of UHC system, and further, I think it's easy to make a case that it would be the best and most affordable way to set up our system. So regardless of whether or not our nation must necessarily provide health care to everyone, it should, simply on pragmatic grounds.

    I believe it should on mortal grounds, but on an economic stand point where we are broke, trillions in debt, and trying to pick our asses up, UHC at the moment is really more of a strain on us. But I don't think healthcare should be a market either. Look at gas industry. Its so high right now and no one upstairs is trying to stop them atm.
  • Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    Buddha73 wrote: »
    just listening the news and you'll know i mine.

    I'm not sure of the relevance of your mineral extraction efforts.

    Not minerals...Bitcoins!

    That said, listening to the news is a fairly terrible way to get informed. You'll do better reading it...from multiple sources.
    sig-2699.jpg Iosif is friend. Come, visit friend.
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I certainly balk at calling health care a constitutional right, for more or less the reasons given in the OP.

    That said, legitimately accessible health care is probably a moral obligation, in much the same way I would say a rich dude sitting on a pile of food has a moral obligation to give some to the starving guy sitting across the way.

    Either way, though, it's pretty clear that the constitution does not bar the government from establishing some sort of UHC system, and further, I think it's easy to make a case that it would be the best and most affordable way to set up our system. So regardless of whether or not our nation must necessarily provide health care to everyone, it should, simply on pragmatic grounds.

    I believe it should on mortal grounds, but on an economic stand point where we are broke, trillions in debt, and trying to pick our asses up, UHC at the moment is really more of a strain on us. But I don't think healthcare should be a market either. Look at gas industry. Its so high right now and no one upstairs is trying to stop them atm.

    If UHC is a drag, how is UHC+8% profit for share holders less of one? Especially since the government already gets the shit end of the stick anyways-old people, lots of kids, those with chronic illnesses preventing work, etc.
  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited May 2013
    Buddha73 wrote: »
    yes cause the IRS never lying about tax rates. jez... just listening the news and you'll know i mine.

    You realize if the numbers they were giving were lies millions of people would be suing the pants off the IRS

    because you can sue the government

    You knew that right?

    Edit: wait the OP doesn't know what hyperlinks are? Really? Really? Smells like malarky
    override367 on
  • MortiousMortious Move to New Zealand Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    If you guys get UHC, it's going to be even harder for me to convince people to move to New Zealand.
  • ElldrenElldren Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I certainly balk at calling health care a constitutional right, for more or less the reasons given in the OP.

    That said, legitimately accessible health care is probably a moral obligation, in much the same way I would say a rich dude sitting on a pile of food has a moral obligation to give some to the starving guy sitting across the way.

    Either way, though, it's pretty clear that the constitution does not bar the government from establishing some sort of UHC system, and further, I think it's easy to make a case that it would be the best and most affordable way to set up our system. So regardless of whether or not our nation must necessarily provide health care to everyone, it should, simply on pragmatic grounds.

    I believe it should on mortal grounds, but on an economic stand point where we are broke, trillions in debt, and trying to pick our asses up, UHC at the moment is really more of a strain on us. But I don't think healthcare should be a market either. Look at gas industry. Its so high right now and no one upstairs is trying to stop them atm.

    The US Government isn't "broke" by any stretch of the imagination. In fact the cost of borrowing for the government has dropped considerably over the past decade. If anything the treasury needs to issue more debt, not less.
  • redxredx Dublin, CARegistered User regular
    Elldren wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I certainly balk at calling health care a constitutional right, for more or less the reasons given in the OP.

    That said, legitimately accessible health care is probably a moral obligation, in much the same way I would say a rich dude sitting on a pile of food has a moral obligation to give some to the starving guy sitting across the way.

    Either way, though, it's pretty clear that the constitution does not bar the government from establishing some sort of UHC system, and further, I think it's easy to make a case that it would be the best and most affordable way to set up our system. So regardless of whether or not our nation must necessarily provide health care to everyone, it should, simply on pragmatic grounds.

    I believe it should on mortal grounds, but on an economic stand point where we are broke, trillions in debt, and trying to pick our asses up, UHC at the moment is really more of a strain on us. But I don't think healthcare should be a market either. Look at gas industry. Its so high right now and no one upstairs is trying to stop them atm.

    The US Government isn't "broke" by any stretch of the imagination. In fact the cost of borrowing for the government has dropped considerably over the past decade. If anything the treasury needs to issue more debt, not less.

    But, isn't that going to cause inflation? I mean, I don't have any cash, I do have a bunch of debt and we are still somewhat in a liquidity trap, but government debt causes dollars to be worth less. Debt and inflation are bad, right?

    Bah. Of course, given wage stagnation for 95% or so of workers, inflation really is kinda shitty. Not really sure what to do to encourage the red!str*b*t!#n of w#*lth.
    RedX is taking a stab a moving out west, and will be near San Francisco from May 14 till June 29.
    Click here for a horrible H/A thread with details.
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    What would a new amendment to make healthcare a constitutional right look like? What would be the wording?
    FrenchCat2.jpg
  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited May 2013
    redx wrote: »
    Elldren wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I certainly balk at calling health care a constitutional right, for more or less the reasons given in the OP.

    That said, legitimately accessible health care is probably a moral obligation, in much the same way I would say a rich dude sitting on a pile of food has a moral obligation to give some to the starving guy sitting across the way.

    Either way, though, it's pretty clear that the constitution does not bar the government from establishing some sort of UHC system, and further, I think it's easy to make a case that it would be the best and most affordable way to set up our system. So regardless of whether or not our nation must necessarily provide health care to everyone, it should, simply on pragmatic grounds.

    I believe it should on mortal grounds, but on an economic stand point where we are broke, trillions in debt, and trying to pick our asses up, UHC at the moment is really more of a strain on us. But I don't think healthcare should be a market either. Look at gas industry. Its so high right now and no one upstairs is trying to stop them atm.

    The US Government isn't "broke" by any stretch of the imagination. In fact the cost of borrowing for the government has dropped considerably over the past decade. If anything the treasury needs to issue more debt, not less.

    But, isn't that going to cause inflation? I mean, I don't have any cash, I do have a bunch of debt and we are still somewhat in a liquidity trap, but government debt causes dollars to be worth less. Debt and inflation are bad, right?

    Bah. Of course, given wage stagnation for 95% or so of workers, inflation really is kinda shitty. Not really sure what to do to encourage the red!str*b*t!#n of w#*lth.

    at this point I'm not convinced inflation would necessarily be bad for the majority of citizens

    we need something to get those corps with piles of cash to spend
    emnmnme wrote: »
    What would a new amendment to make healthcare a constitutional right look like? What would be the wording?

    No citizen of the United States, or person in the borders thereof, shall be denied reasonable care for infirmities, illness, or injuries, by any medical institution or emergency service within the United States of America or its territories.

    or something, I aint no lawyer

    then you follow it with 5000 pages defining reasonable
    override367 on
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. Risk is our business.Registered User regular
    You don't need to put every little thing in the constitution. Nothing in it makes providing healthcare illegal so a new amendment is unnecessary.
    Lh96QHG.png
  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    Doesn't mean it wouldn't be nice

    Or one explicitly banning torture
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. Risk is our business.Registered User regular
    Yes it does, actually. Because 1.) it accepts the idiot premise of anti-UHCers that government sponsored healthcare is somehow unamerican and 2.) it cheapens the amendment process.

    Not every law needs to be in the constitution, nor does every right need to be explicit. That's a relatively new and novel invention.

    Also torture is already illegal. The way to stop that is to stop voting for people who do it.
    Lh96QHG.png
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Doesn't mean it wouldn't be nice

    Or one explicitly banning torture

    That would be the 8th Amendment.
    My cousin made this game: Gem Pop. It's legitimately fun, particularly for people who enjoy Bejewled, Dr. Mario, Tetris, etc. kinds of games. Only two bucks! If you try it out, PM me with what you think of it.
  • ElldrenElldren Registered User regular
    SammyF wrote: »
    ...so should we infer that the only person who wholeheartedly agreed with the OP here was his own Alt account? Because that's awesome.

    Sockpuppets

    avface
  • ElldrenElldren Registered User regular
    redx wrote: »
    Elldren wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I certainly balk at calling health care a constitutional right, for more or less the reasons given in the OP.

    That said, legitimately accessible health care is probably a moral obligation, in much the same way I would say a rich dude sitting on a pile of food has a moral obligation to give some to the starving guy sitting across the way.

    Either way, though, it's pretty clear that the constitution does not bar the government from establishing some sort of UHC system, and further, I think it's easy to make a case that it would be the best and most affordable way to set up our system. So regardless of whether or not our nation must necessarily provide health care to everyone, it should, simply on pragmatic grounds.

    I believe it should on mortal grounds, but on an economic stand point where we are broke, trillions in debt, and trying to pick our asses up, UHC at the moment is really more of a strain on us. But I don't think healthcare should be a market either. Look at gas industry. Its so high right now and no one upstairs is trying to stop them atm.

    The US Government isn't "broke" by any stretch of the imagination. In fact the cost of borrowing for the government has dropped considerably over the past decade. If anything the treasury needs to issue more debt, not less.

    But, isn't that going to cause inflation? I mean, I don't have any cash, I do have a bunch of debt and we are still somewhat in a liquidity trap, but government debt causes dollars to be worth less. Debt and inflation are bad, right?

    Bah. Of course, given wage stagnation for 95% or so of workers, inflation really is kinda shitty. Not really sure what to do to encourage the red!str*b*t!#n of w#*lth.

    Inflation is at something ridiculously low like 1.5% pa right now

    We're actually at risk of mild deflation
  • HachfaceHachface Registered User regular
    This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

    As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

    We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

    In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

    Among these are:

    The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

    The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

    The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

    The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

    The right of every family to a decent home;

    The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

    The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

    The right to a good education.

    All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

    America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.
    Listen to History Lessons With Caleb, Mike & Terry, a podcast for the ill-informed.
  • tsmvengytsmvengy Registered User regular
    Hachface wrote: »
    This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

    As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

    We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

    In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

    Among these are:

    The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

    The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

    The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

    The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

    The right of every family to a decent home;

    The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

    The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

    The right to a good education.

    All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

    America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.

    Who was this guy, some kind of fucking communist?

    Also, gotta laugh at the OP and his alt.
    steam_sig.png
  • JoshmviiJoshmvii Registered User regular
    I work for one of the biggest health care providers in the US, and I still think the government should provide universal health care. Medicare for everybody, as it were. It wouldn't kill the private sector, because the private sector would still do a better job than the government can at providing coverage, but it would mean people who can't afford private insurance don't have to. The cost of healthcare in the US is rising at an incredible rate, and average people can't afford coverage any more.

    When medical costs are driving most bankruptcies in middle America, we have a problem. The costs themselves are a complex issue, because the biggest drivers are related directly to the obesity epidemic we have here, but caring for sick people has to happen either way.
  • Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    I put health car in the same category as education. Not a constitutional right, possibly, like education, not a right in a legal sense, but viewed by many as a right in the moral sense (i.e. the people have a right to it because society has a moral obligation to provide it).
    sig-2699.jpg Iosif is friend. Come, visit friend.
  • Clown ShoesClown Shoes Registered User regular
    Joshmvii wrote: »
    because the private sector would still do a better job than the government can at providing coverage

    I'd love to see some evidence for that.
  • Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    Joshmvii wrote: »
    because the private sector would still do a better job than the government can at providing coverage

    I'd love to see some evidence for that.
    I believe it is founded in the practice of excluding high risk cases and preexisting conditions; you can provide excellent coverage if you don't have to "waste" your money spending more than you receive from your subscribers.
    sig-2699.jpg Iosif is friend. Come, visit friend.
Sign In or Register to comment.