ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[WILLIAMS5232]

Just for arguments sake (I really do want to hear counter arguments to this)...

Do you all agree that we all use the system at some point in our lives... at the very least at birth and/or death (and often times in between)?

Should we be penalized (taxed) for not paying into this system that we use?

are you referring to the health system?
if so, it's basically a buisness, no? it's not govt run, only regulated. if it were operated by the govt it would suck, like the FDA, FEMA, FCC, USPS, pretty much anything that the govt tries to manage. heck, look at the forestry service.

so why should i be taxed on something that i really should just pay as needed. like gas for instance.
should there be a flat gas tax instead of a pay by the gallon? there's no need to answer that because everyone could probably agree that we don't. except for the people that use alot of gas, they would probably love for the people that don't use much to pay some of their share.

i prefer to handle things on a local level. if you live in a community, you know who you're helping. you see them...they see you. you can choose to live in a large community, and have a bunch of ways to help people out, or you can live in a smaller community that is a more tight knit group, and have more of a direct effect on your peers. but why is it anyones desire to think they must help everyone in the country at once. those people you think you are helping don't appreciate anything you are doing for them, and if they do appreciate it, they would have gotten help anyway. it's easy to know who deserves help and who doesn't in smaller groups and those are the people that get help first. i don't know if you've ever lived in a small town or not, but it's completely different than a large city. i live in houston now. i came from a town in mississippi with very few people in it. i see how the people here in houston act vs. those where i grew up. and it's a complete different attitude. if Houston wants universal health care for it's citizens, they should have the right to tax and put it in their budget to do so, and if you don't like that, then feel free to leave the city. if it's a good idea, and it works, then it will spread to other areas, when you use the whole country as a guinea pig, this seems to me to be a recipe for failure, you take away any sense of independance that can be afforded to those that want it. the federal govt should have no right to affect so many peoples lives ( good/or bad ) all at once on a 5/4 decision vote. that is ridiculous that anyone can even think that is a sensible thing.

i dont' give to charities, sue me. i do however have good relations with everyone i meet, and if i'm treated with respect, whatever i have, they have too. i'm a giving person, i just want to know that what i'm giving is needed and not wasted.

[PLAYER57832]

This year, more people are insured, thanks to the health care reform act.

Again, nope.

More American adults lacked health insurance coverage last year than in any year since Gallup and Healthways started tracking it in 2008. Groups that were already among the least likely to have coverage -- Hispanics, low-income Americans, and blacks -- have become even more likely to be uninsured.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152162/Ameri ... -2011.aspx

Further, this is the most recent data available as of this month, showing continuance of the year-end 2011 figures through July of 2012.

Now you say your information is "more recent". Quite different from your earlier claim that I gave no data and that my claims were therefore just spurious. But typical of you.

Besides, you ignore why that happened -- namely a lot of people lost their jobs and thus lost insurance, BEFORE the main provisions of the healthcare bill came into effect.

The provision to require insurers to provide coverage regardless of any pre-existing conditions did not kick in until Jan 2012. The Insurance exchanges and expansion of Medicaid, both of which will be major providers of those not covered by employer programs will kick in even later.


So, you prove nothing.

Good advice, but how can you counter her "I provided a source, it was derpaherp.com"? Or how about "I've got my facts straight, lemme just get back to you on those sources later, I think when my professor stops by, I'll ask"?

[/quote]
Because your not wanitng to bother reading or looking anything up is exactly the same as my not posting information.

[Phatscotty]

I am saying healthcare is not a basic human right. We have to do a definition check right from the start though. A right is something you do not need from someone else, it's not something material, you do not need permission.

In that case, Phatscotty, by your definition, we have ZERO basic human rights. There is NOTHING, no nothing, that fits your definition there. I'm sincerely sorry for you that you don't believe we have any basic human rights, but it would fit in very well with what appears to be your outlook toward your fellow man.

wrong. Please help yourself to a dictionary. Your definitions are all screwed up

I hope you find a fight soon, cuz you really are lookin for one. I've already done my fighting here, at times I've taken on everyone at once. You don't have anything to add but the usual garbage. Time to clean up

[GreecePwns]

The provision to require insurers to provide coverage regardless of any pre-existing conditions did not kick in until Jan 2012. The Insurance exchanges and expansion of Medicaid, both of which will be major providers of those not covered by employer programs will kick in even later.

Actually, the expansion of Medicaid was the one thing that was struck down by the Supreme Court. It is now optional for the states to decide. So now we have people who can't afford to pay insurance paying the fine without the option of turning to Medicaid. Hooray!

[PLAYER57832]

Just for arguments sake (I really do want to hear counter arguments to this)...

Do you all agree that we all use the system at some point in our lives... at the very least at birth and/or death (and often times in between)?

Should we be penalized (taxed) for not paying into this system that we use?

are you referring to the health system?
if so, it's basically a buisness, no? it's not govt run, only regulated. if it were operated by the govt it would suck, like the FDA, FEMA, FCC, USPS, pretty much anything that the govt tries to manage. heck, look at the forestry service.
.

Compared to what and by what measure?
Most of the people claiming these things "suck" feel so because these agencies "interfere" with their business or desired business. Most people who say otherwise are either looking at the real alternatives or considering the safety/protection aspects.

[PLAYER57832]

The provision to require insurers to provide coverage regardless of any pre-existing conditions did not kick in until Jan 2012. The Insurance exchanges and expansion of Medicaid, both of which will be major providers of those not covered by employer programs will kick in even later.

Actually, the expansion of Medicaid was the one thing that was struck down by the Supreme Court. It is now optional for the states to decide.

It wasn't really struck down, just the provision that states not wishing to expand would lose all Medicaid funding was struck down. Now there are essentially 2 Medicaid systems -- one more or less required for states to get funding, the other more optional.

So now we have people who can't afford to pay insurance paying the fine without the option of turning to Medicaid. Hooray!

No, low income people won't be assessed the fine. The amount of fine is based on your income. You actually have to have a pretty high income to be assessed any fine and even then, there is a question about its collection.

[Phatscotty]

I am saying healthcare is not a basic human right. We have to do a definition check right from the start though. A right is something you do not need from someone else, it's not something material, you do not need permission.

In that case, Phatscotty, by your definition, we have ZERO basic human rights. There is NOTHING, no nothing, that fits your definition there. I'm sincerely sorry for you that you don't believe we have any basic human rights, but it would fit in very well with what appears to be your outlook toward your fellow man.

A right, Woodruff, and you know this, is something that does not infringe upon another.

If you have a right to healthcare, then someone else must be compelled to deliver that care. That is not a right, it's something closer to theft. DUCY?

A right to free speech does not infringe upon anyone else. One may have a right to spout nonsense, but the person can't force anyone to listen or take not.

In the healthcare bill, those who cannot afford to purchase insurance on the exchange will then be eligible to get Medicaid, the government insurance plan for ole regular people. There are many doctors who will not accept new Medicaid patients because of the cuts in payments that Medicaid has been forced to do over the years.
I see no solutions in this bill that address that issue. Is the government going to make it illegal for doctors to do such a thing? To refuse new patients who have Medicaid? If so, is the government going to increase the Medicaid payments to doctors as Medicaid is the lowest paying of all insurance?

Obamacare is horrible. It's a convoluted mess at best.

The government GIVES YOU YOUR RIGHTS. That's the fact of the matter. Without the government's consent, you have no rights.

Oh my, you should know better than that. Government doesn't give rights, that is not the job of government. Government is designed to preserve and protect rights, not give and take them away.
Your understanding of what is a right is seriously flawed. Only the Central Planning Collectivist believes that nonsense you just spouted.

The government absolutely can tell you HOW TO SELL IT

Are you sure about that? Is it illegal for you to, say, sell your services not for money but for something else? Of course, it's the law, if someone wishes to pay you in currency, then you must accept it and along with that all the government rules since they control the currency.

But can you simply trade things? Is that illegal? Could you go to your neighbor and tell him that you will sell your service mowing his lawn in exchange for two meals cooked by your neighbor?

You can go into any store, and if the owner or whomever is selling will accept what it is you wish to purchase with, then it is quite legal. For instance, you can paint a picture, take it to the local grocery store, stock up some groceries and offer to trade that picture you painted in exchange for the groceries you wish to purchase. The owner can, by all means, accept that painted picture as payment and it's a perfectly legal sale.

Barter is not illegal. Of course, most people won't accept such payment, but it's certainly not illegal and the government can't stop people from doing such.


Contrary to popular belief, Government is not the end all supreme power nor is it entitled to a piece of everything.

The government should have no rights not strictly allowed individual citizens because government derives it power from consent of the people. The people cannot consent to give something it does not already have. You don't have the right to tell your neighbor he must buy this or that (unless the parties have entered into prior agreements stating such), nor should the government.
For instance, the individual has the right to defend themselves, their family and their property. Thus, you can see where the power to form a police department derives from, to protect individuals, their families and their property.

I have to agree with just about every single thing Patches said here, and vehemently disagree with Woodruff.

I think he's doing it on purpose

[Woodruff]

there is a difference between government "demanding that a product/service must be sold" and "demanding that a product/service must not be sold"

give us some other examples of the government demanding that a product/service must be sold?

If the government requires that certain safety standards be met, they are requiring that a certain product/service must be sold in that manner. It's just as much a case of what will be sold as what can't be sold.

Yup, if you want to sell something, you gotta take a few governmental restrictions.

and yet you both have still not given any examples

here's a hint: "ford must sell cars with seat belts" is NOT a valid example because ford could choose to not sell cars at all.

"ford must NOT sell cars without safety belts" is the correct way to phrase that, and it does not disprove my point.

so give me your best shot guys, and remember your grammar lesson

I did give you an example - safety standards (of whatever type). Just because you don't like the example because it doesn't fit the very narrow definition that you want to use doesn't make it an invalid example. You just don't like it because it destroys your argument. This law doesn't change WHAT the companies are selling (which is still health insurance), it simply changes HOW they can sell it. Just like safety standards do.

we were talking about religious hospitals being forced to offer contraceptives. that is different from safety standards because safety standards merely prohibit unsafe products from being sold. please keep up

This is PRECISELY like safety standards. Just because you don't like the example because it tears down your argument doesn't mean it's not a valid one.

[Woodruff]

The government cannot mandate what product a business provides, no matter what the business is.

That is simply a false statement, Night Strike. Demonstrably and easily false to the point that I must ask...do I really have to point out examples to you? Hell, what do you think that regulations requiring certain safety standards are? They're definitely mandating what product a business provides.

You're trying so hard to spin this your way that you're just turning yourself around.

there is a difference between government "demanding that a product/service must be sold" and "demanding that a product/service must not be sold"

give us some other examples of the government demanding that a product/service must be sold?

Woodruff is just looking for a fight

What I'm looking for is some rationality from the other side of this discussion, and I'm not finding very much of it.

[Woodruff]

First of all, I believe you're misunderstanding my point (which is to display the ridiculousness of Phatscotty and Night Strike's definition of a "basic human right"). But aside from that, perhaps you can point out the right we have that the government doesn't consent to? You can use our government here in the U.S., if you'd like...or Soviet Russia...or Brazil. I don't care. Point out the right we have that the government doesn't consent to. Then, once you've completed that, explain how it's a right if you don't get to exercise it.

Thanks!

what are you asking really and why? i have a right to breath, i have a right to pick my nose... i can go jump in a creek if i like. there are many things i can do that the govt has no real bearing on.

Good...now we're getting somewhere, finally. COULD the Government stop your right to breath, your right to pick your nose, your right to go jump in a creek? Sure, they could...and have (capital punishment, for the first).

Now, aside from the fact I've shown the government CAN restrict those things, does your right to free speech fit into that grouping? I'm pretty sure Phatscotty is trying to pigeon-hole it in there, but one simply has to look at other nations today to see that freedom of speech does fall under the purview of the government.

you don't need the govt to sleep do you?

Bradley Manning might disagree with that idea.

People like you that think govt is the only answer to everything

Wow, you REALLY don't understand my position in this, even though I've stated it as clearly as I could several times.

if you believe that health care is a right, we'll never agree.

I do believe that basic health care is a basic human right, yes. I'm honestly surprised that you don't.

in my opinion, a right is not something that is given. its something that is taken away. mainly by govt. and people like you that think they know whats best for me.

Again, you're clearly misunderstanding my position. It seems to me that you are agreeing with my point regarding the "what right do you have that the government can't infringe on" discussion.

i can't help the time i was born in no more than i can help what country i was born to, but whenever, wherever i was born, i have the same rights as i have now,.... minus the ones that govt has taken from me.

Why is it that you don't consider basic health care to be a basic human right? Aside from the Constitution and other forefather documents (I'll make that argument later)...just from a human standpoint. Why shouldn't basic health care be considered a basic human right?

Now, aside from that I'm honestly curious how it doesn't fall within "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" or "the general welfare", as far as the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution is concerned.

[Woodruff]

I am saying healthcare is not a basic human right. We have to do a definition check right from the start though. A right is something you do not need from someone else, it's not something material, you do not need permission.

In that case, Phatscotty, by your definition, we have ZERO basic human rights. There is NOTHING, no nothing, that fits your definition there. I'm sincerely sorry for you that you don't believe we have any basic human rights, but it would fit in very well with what appears to be your outlook toward your fellow man.

wrong. Please help yourself to a dictionary. Your definitions are all screwed up.

How could my definition be "all screwed up" when I'm using YOUR DEFINITION, Phatscotty? That's all I've done. Could it be that YOUR DEFINITION "is all screwed up", perhaps?

You still haven't shown me the right you have that the government can't take away. Shouldn't it be easy to do, if I'm so wrong?

[WILLIAMS5232]

Just for arguments sake (I really do want to hear counter arguments to this)...

Do you all agree that we all use the system at some point in our lives... at the very least at birth and/or death (and often times in between)?

Should we be penalized (taxed) for not paying into this system that we use?

are you referring to the health system?
if so, it's basically a buisness, no? it's not govt run, only regulated. if it were operated by the govt it would suck, like the FDA, FEMA, FCC, USPS, pretty much anything that the govt tries to manage. heck, look at the forestry service.
.

Compared to what and by what measure?
Most of the people claiming these things "suck" feel so because these agencies "interfere" with their business or desired business. Most people who say otherwise are either looking at the real alternatives or considering the safety/protection aspects.

i'm saying they are managed poorly, i know this because our govt is in debt. you get in debt usually by mismanaged finances, or purchasing outside of your budget. all of these agencies are in fact managed by the govt.
a private business that is managed poorly does not stay in business, so most private companies that are in business are profitable and well managed, i would have to think. now, when they get regulated by the govt to a point that they can no longer become profitable, then they go out of business. or either move to china. the basic reason to have a buisness is to make money. or at least let it pay for itself, but most often i would say it is to make money. none of these govt agencies do that. if they did, i'm sure we'd all know about it. until that day comes, it will just be a big secret as to how much money is really crammed into these programs and lost. if a program is needed, then it should be able to run on whatever income it is able to produce, if not, then it just isn't needed.

now, by reading other posts, i see that you are one that likes to see links to websites with all my sources, if you expect this from me it's best not to respond anymore, because i'm just not going to do it.

i never click on your links, because for every source you find that is in your favor, i can probably find 1 or more that is against it. so then we have to question which is right, and what is wrong. i just like to express my personal opinions on matters. not read through numerous amounts of misinformation.

[Phatscotty]

I am saying healthcare is not a basic human right. We have to do a definition check right from the start though. A right is something you do not need from someone else, it's not something material, you do not need permission.

In that case, Phatscotty, by your definition, we have ZERO basic human rights. There is NOTHING, no nothing, that fits your definition there. I'm sincerely sorry for you that you don't believe we have any basic human rights, but it would fit in very well with what appears to be your outlook toward your fellow man.

wrong. Please help yourself to a dictionary. Your definitions are all screwed up.

How could my definition be "all screwed up" when I'm using YOUR DEFINITION, Phatscotty? That's all I've done. Could it be that YOUR DEFINITION "is all screwed up", perhaps?

You still haven't shown me the right you have that the government can't take away. Shouldn't it be easy to do, if I'm so wrong?

No.

It's just you. doing what you do. That post was for JJ, in the context that JJ and I were going through. Not for you.

doobie doo

[john9blue]

A right, Woodruff, and you know this, is something that does not infringe upon another.

If you have a right to healthcare, then someone else must be compelled to deliver that care. That is not a right, it's something closer to theft. DUCY?

A right to free speech does not infringe upon anyone else. One may have a right to spout nonsense, but the person can't force anyone to listen or take not.

If the government does not allow you the right to speak freely (i.e. "you do need permission"), then you do not have a right to free speech. This is made clear many times throughout history.

so what natural rights do you believe that we have? or do you believe that rights are actually given to us by the government just because they can take them away? does conquer club give us the right to free speech because they can ban us for saying things that they don't like?

and yet you both have still not given any examples

here's a hint: "ford must sell cars with seat belts" is NOT a valid example because ford could choose to not sell cars at all.

"ford must NOT sell cars without safety belts" is the correct way to phrase that, and it does not disprove my point.

so give me your best shot guys, and remember your grammar lesson

I did give you an example - safety standards (of whatever type). Just because you don't like the example because it doesn't fit the very narrow definition that you want to use doesn't make it an invalid example. You just don't like it because it destroys your argument. This law doesn't change WHAT the companies are selling (which is still health insurance), it simply changes HOW they can sell it. Just like safety standards do.

we were talking about religious hospitals being forced to offer contraceptives. that is different from safety standards because safety standards merely prohibit unsafe products from being sold. please keep up

This is PRECISELY like safety standards. Just because you don't like the example because it tears down your argument doesn't mean it's not a valid one.

holy shit dude.

give me an example of a SPECIFIC PRODUCT (other than contraceptives in religious hospitals) that the US government has ever required a business to sell.

and none of your hand-wavey bullshit about how "safety standards tear down my argument". give me a specific product.

[WILLIAMS5232]

Good...now we're getting somewhere, finally. COULD the Government stop your right to breath, your right to pick your nose, your right to go jump in a creek? Sure, they could...and have (capital punishment, for the first).

Now, aside from the fact I've shown the government CAN restrict those things, does your right to free speech fit into that grouping? I'm pretty sure Phatscotty is trying to pigeon-hole it in there, but one simply has to look at other nations today to see that freedom of speech does fall under the purview of the government.

if i'm not mistaken, you are saying the govt gives us rights, i'm saying they protect our rights, so without going around in circles time and time again, could you clarify if this is not our disagreement,

Bradley Manning might disagree with that idea.

i don't know bradley manning, but if he pays a tax to sleep then he's an idiot.

Wow, you REALLY don't understand my position in this, even though I've stated it as clearly as I could several times.

could you expain your position again, as clearly as possible, please remember i'm not a lawyer and i may need some help with some of your big words.

I do believe that basic health care is a basic human right, yes. I'm honestly surprised that you don't.

this goes back to the origianal point of "what is a right?" i think everyone has an opportunity to receive health care, it's up to them to make that happen. just by being born you don't earn a key to the city.

Again, you're clearly misunderstanding my position. It seems to me that you are agreeing with my point regarding the "what right do you have that the government can't infringe on" discussion.

Why is it that you don't consider basic health care to be a basic human right? Aside from the Constitution and other forefather documents (I'll make that argument later)...just from a human standpoint. Why shouldn't basic health care be considered a basic human right?

Now, aside from that I'm honestly curious how it doesn't fall within "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" or "the general welfare", as far as the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution is concerned.

it is not a right, it's a service, that cost money, and for the govt to supply it to eveyone, even those that can't afford it, then they will have to pony up some money. as we all know healthcare does not grow on trees, and since the govt is not in the making money buisness, they have to get it from their main source of income, taxpayers and the like. so you have to pull money from other funds, or raise the funds coming in. which in both instances, you're taking money from someone/something else. now, i'd be all for it if you shriveled up a nonesense organization that we have going now, or cut off crazy handouts that we give to other nations. but none of that seems to be happening.

[Woodruff]

I am saying healthcare is not a basic human right. We have to do a definition check right from the start though. A right is something you do not need from someone else, it's not something material, you do not need permission.

In that case, Phatscotty, by your definition, we have ZERO basic human rights. There is NOTHING, no nothing, that fits your definition there. I'm sincerely sorry for you that you don't believe we have any basic human rights, but it would fit in very well with what appears to be your outlook toward your fellow man.

wrong. Please help yourself to a dictionary. Your definitions are all screwed up.

How could my definition be "all screwed up" when I'm using YOUR DEFINITION, Phatscotty? That's all I've done. Could it be that YOUR DEFINITION "is all screwed up", perhaps?

You still haven't shown me the right you have that the government can't take away. Shouldn't it be easy to do, if I'm so wrong?

No.
It's just you. doing what you do. That post was for JJ, in the context that JJ and I were going through. Not for you.
doobie doo

Right...once again, you made a statement that you realize doesn't stand up to scrutiny, so you're running from it. How like you.

[Phatscotty]

That is for the person to whom I was speaking to decide.

[Symmetry]

That is for the person to whom I was speaking to decide.

Not really how public forums work, Scotty, if you don't want people to read and judge your carefully crafted statements, try the PM system.

[Woodruff]

A right, Woodruff, and you know this, is something that does not infringe upon another.

If you have a right to healthcare, then someone else must be compelled to deliver that care. That is not a right, it's something closer to theft. DUCY?

A right to free speech does not infringe upon anyone else. One may have a right to spout nonsense, but the person can't force anyone to listen or take not.

If the government does not allow you the right to speak freely (i.e. "you do need permission"), then you do not have a right to free speech. This is made clear many times throughout history.

so what natural rights do you believe that we have?

Many. I believe we have a natural right to life. I believe we have a natural right to freedom of choice as long as those choices don't negatively impact others. I believe we have a natural right to be able to speak our mind. Those are just off the top of my head.

or do you believe that rights are actually given to us by the government just because they can take them
away?

Surely you recognize that my statements regarding the government's ability to take rights away was in direct response to Phatscotty's illogical definition of what a "right" is? Do you disagree that the government can take those rights away?

does conquer club give us the right to free speech because they can ban us for saying things that they don't like?

That question doesn't make sense...did you mistype something there?

and yet you both have still not given any examples

here's a hint: "ford must sell cars with seat belts" is NOT a valid example because ford could choose to not sell cars at all.

"ford must NOT sell cars without safety belts" is the correct way to phrase that, and it does not disprove my point.

so give me your best shot guys, and remember your grammar lesson

I did give you an example - safety standards (of whatever type). Just because you don't like the example because it doesn't fit the very narrow definition that you want to use doesn't make it an invalid example. You just don't like it because it destroys your argument. This law doesn't change WHAT the companies are selling (which is still health insurance), it simply changes HOW they can sell it. Just like safety standards do.

we were talking about religious hospitals being forced to offer contraceptives. that is different from safety standards because safety standards merely prohibit unsafe products from being sold. please keep up

This is PRECISELY like safety standards. Just because you don't like the example because it tears down your argument doesn't mean it's not a valid one.

holy shit dude.
give me an example of a SPECIFIC PRODUCT (other than contraceptives in religious hospitals) that the US government has ever required a business to sell.
and none of your hand-wavey bullshit about how "safety standards tear down my argument". give me a specific product.

The product is "health care", as that is what hospitals do. So I will give you a specific product such as automobiles. Just as health care providers must provide contraceptives, automobile manufacturers must provide seatbelts.

[Symmetry]

But surely seatbelts are an evil thing that prohibit the basic American FREEDOM to be propelled through a windscreen at high speed during a car crash.

[Woodruff]

Good...now we're getting somewhere, finally. COULD the Government stop your right to breath, your right to pick your nose, your right to go jump in a creek? Sure, they could...and have (capital punishment, for the first).

Now, aside from the fact I've shown the government CAN restrict those things, does your right to free speech fit into that grouping? I'm pretty sure Phatscotty is trying to pigeon-hole it in there, but one simply has to look at other nations today to see that freedom of speech does fall under the purview of the government.

if i'm not mistaken, you are saying the govt gives us rights, i'm saying they protect our rights, so without going around in circles time and time again, could you clarify if this is not our disagreement

The whole bit about the government in this conversation has come up because of Phatscotty's ludicrous "definition" about what a right is. THAT is the only reason I was pointing out that the government absolutely can take away any right, if they choose...thus, by his definition, there is no such thing as a natural human right.

Bradley Manning might disagree with that idea.

i don't know bradley manning, but if he pays a tax to sleep then he's an idiot.

He was put in prison under conditions that would be considered torture, to include sleep deprivation.

Wow, you REALLY don't understand my position in this, even though I've stated it as clearly as I could several times.

could you expain your position again, as clearly as possible, please remember i'm not a lawyer and i may need some help with some of your big words.

I am absolutely not of the opinion that the government is all-wonderful (in fact, I tend to the opposite view). I do, however, recognize that there are instances in which government intervention is necessary to correct a social ill. I am not a fan of ObamaCare, because I consider it to be a crippled program hacked together to try to appease the Republicans in Congress. I think that if a REAL social healthcare program were put into place, it could be highly effective and also cost-effective. Unfortunately, our politicians don't have the will to do so, and our populace is too willing to fall in line against anything that certain politicians can cry "SOCIALISM!" about.

I do believe that basic health care is a basic human right, yes. I'm honestly surprised that you don't.

this goes back to the origianal point of "what is a right?" i think everyone has an opportunity to receive health care, it's up to them to make that happen. just by being born you don't earn a key to the city.

I think it's arguable whether everyone has an opportunity to receive health care or not. However, putting that aside for the moment, our current system of doing so is exceptionally ineffective and highly costly. It can and should be fixed.

Why is it that you don't consider basic health care to be a basic human right? Aside from the Constitution and other forefather documents (I'll make that argument later)...just from a human standpoint. Why shouldn't basic health care be considered a basic human right?

Now, aside from that I'm honestly curious how it doesn't fall within "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" or "the general welfare", as far as the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution is concerned.

it is not a right, it's a service

That is your opinion, of course...just as the opposite is mine. I believe that it does indeed fall under the general welfare clause, but I do recognize that it is not specifically outlined (note that it does not have to be, per the Constitution).

[Woodruff]

That is for the person to whom I was speaking to decide.

You are an intellectual coward.

[Phatscotty]

That is for the person to whom I was speaking to decide.

You are an intellectual coward.

Maybe if you were more fun or even just tolerable to talk to, people would join you in conversation more often.

[Woodruff]

That is for the person to whom I was speaking to decide.

You are an intellectual coward.

Maybe if you were more fun or even just tolerable to talk to, people would join you in conversation more often.

But that wouldn't make any difference to you, when you practically run from contrasting information, regardless of how it is presented.

[Phatscotty]

I'm just waiting for a response from the person I was talking to. We have 3 branches to cover, and are just touching up on finished the first one.