Universal Healthcare= Slavery (Libertarians Are Trolling Us)

[Phatscotty]

you are so f'n confused

[BigBallinStalin]

Were people in here seriously arguing that a state-mandated minimum price for labor is a right?

It is as much a right as your right to make a profit from a business.
That is, not a right, but something as part of our governmental system.

Private property rights (retaining one's own money earned) fundamentally differ from legally mandated price controls like minimum wage.

Who defines "earning" money as money you plop down to get interest and money received for doing labor "not earned [unless the employer decides to pay]"?

Not so long ago the first would be called "usery" and the second "work".
If you hire someone fulltime, you pay them enough to live on or it is abuse.
But anyway, in a technical sense, neither is a right. However, you keep insisting that owning a business, taking whatever profit you have is a "right". I say if that is a "right", then getting at least a livable wage for work is also a right.

The labor was the act of taking one's own money and investing it.

Profit is not just earned by a business owner. It's also earned from workers--depending on how wisely they use their funds.

Simply because a business owner has a right to his own property (i.e. money earned), does not mean that a "livable wage" can be considered a right. A mandated "livable wage" requires a minimum wage, which is a price control--not a right.

I bet you were a Communist back in the day. Or maybe you unwittingly supported national socialism. You just hate businesses, you hate someone's right to reap what they sow i.e. business owners/entrepreneurs, you ignore the profits reaped by workers, and you frequentely advocate state intervention.

I'm disgusted with your views and your system of arbitrarily meting out your justice while ignoring inconvenient unintended consequences.

[GreecePwns]

Let's talk about earning money for a second.

For one, two people who have the same "net worth" (nothing infuriates me more than judging a person's worth solely by assets) have not worked the same amount to acquire such a net worth. We'll say one person was a rags-to-riches story while the other inherits a large estate. Therefore, they do not earn the same amount. Assuming all people only earn their money, not inherit it, only works when all are given equal opportunity to succeed.

There is no problem with earning your money and keeping property one has earned, so long as one person's inherited opportunity is not the same. I am all for all the freedoms in the world, so long as a freedom for one person to do something doesn't directly diminish another person's opportunity to succeed. Your parent's income should not have a part in your success, with one notable exception being college.

As for the above by BBS, it was good until the communism/national socialism part.

[Baron Von PWN]

Right doctors don't turn down requests for care if you don't have the money,this is why the homeless never die due to treatable ailments. very amusing tell me another.

The homeless are dying due to treatable ailments because doctors are turning down their request for healthcare? I've heard this before but have yet to see any data on this. If you could please provide, that would be helpful.

Oh so you can show up at a us hospital and get cancer treatments without paying a dime?

1 and 3 are luxuries, not necessary for life. I would say there is some acknowledgement by the state for 2, well for a home. a detached house is a luxury, a home is not. this is why you see social housing projects. these kinds of projects can often save money for local communities as the costs of dealing with the homeless is higher than simply giving them a home. A few municipalities in the us did a project where they gave homeless people apartments.

There were recent Congressional hearings regarding high oil prices and how the oil companies were making too much money. I'm not sure if you were aware, but comments were made to the effect of "WAAH, OIL COSTS TOO MUCH AND YOU'RE MAKING TOO MUCH MONEY... WE DESERVE CHEAPER OIL!"

That's great, they're morons. What's this have to do with healthcare?

[GreecePwns]

TGD's brush could be a bit broader. It's the same if I took everything Night Strike said and used it to characterize all of conservatism. Obviously that is wrong. Now can we stay on a topic, let alone universal healthcare?

[BigBallinStalin]

Let's talk about earning money for a second.

For one, two people who have the same "net worth" (nothing infuriates me more than judging a person's worth solely by assets) have not worked the same amount to acquire such a net worth. We'll say one person was a rags-to-riches story while the other inherits a large estate. Therefore, they do not earn the same amount. Assuming all people only earn their money, not inherit it, only works when all are given equal opportunity to succeed.

There is no problem with earning your money and keeping property one has earned, so long as one person's inherited opportunity is not the same. I am all for all the freedoms in the world, so long as a freedom for one person to do something doesn't directly diminish another person's opportunity to succeed. Your parent's income should not have a part in your success, with one notable exception being college.

As for the above by BBS, it was good until the communism/national socialism part.

What's so great about redefining commonly understood terms like "earn" in order to justify the confiscation of someone's own property?


What's so great about communism and national socialism? In case you didn't mean it that way, then here's my explanation regarding that part: PLAYER is apparently a communist, national socialist, or a hardcore socialist that favors state intervention. I'll keep saying that until she shows me that she isn't by answering a simple question about her stance on private property rights.

[PLAYER57832]

Were people in here seriously arguing that a state-mandated minimum price for labor is a right?

It is as much a right as your right to make a profit from a business.
That is, not a right, but something as part of our governmental system.

Private property rights (retaining one's own money earned) fundamentally differ from legally mandated price controls like minimum wage.

Who defines "earning" money as money you plop down to get interest and money received for doing labor "not earned [unless the employer decides to pay]"?

Not so long ago the first would be called "usery" and the second "work".
If you hire someone fulltime, you pay them enough to live on or it is abuse.
But anyway, in a technical sense, neither is a right. However, you keep insisting that owning a business, taking whatever profit you have is a "right". I say if that is a "right", then getting at least a livable wage for work is also a right.

The labor was the act of taking one's own money and investing it.

Except, by many classical definitions, that is not work at all.

Profit is not just earned by a business owner. It's also earned from workers--depending on how wisely they use their funds.

No according to you what they earn is solely up to the owner. Bad owners can and do pay nothing or very little. According you to, that is OK.

Simply because a business owner has a right to his own property (i.e. money earned), does not mean that a "livable wage" can be considered a right. A mandated "livable wage" requires a minimum wage, which is a price control--not a right.

First establish that the business owner has a right to own the property. (not saying you are wrong). Why?

When you explain that, you get closer to understanding why the second is true. Now, by living wage, I do not necessarily mean what is commonly defined as the living wage. My definition is as I stated, "minimum to survive".. buy food, clothing, food, healthcare, and a little left over.
Also, it does not have to be a straight wage. Providing housing is perfectly OK, as long as it is reasonable housing.

I bet you were a Communist back in the day. Or maybe you unwittingly supported national socialism. You just hate businesses, you hate someone's right to reap what they sow i.e. business owners/entrepreneurs, you ignore the profits reaped by workers, and you frequentely advocate state intervention.

LOL
No, I hate BAD business and too many of todays policies support inefficient and destructive businesses. And how do you get that I am ignoring the profits gained by workers? The argument is about those businesses that do not pay a reasonable wage.

I'm disgusted with your views and your system of arbitrarily meting out your justice while ignoring inconvenient unintended consequences.

LOL

Nice try, but what you object to is that I don't think as you and agree with what you say.

[PLAYER57832]

What's so great about communism and national socialism? In case you didn't mean it that way, then here's my explanation regarding that part: PLAYER is apparently a communist, national socialist, or a hardcore socialist that favors state intervention. I'll keep saying that until she shows me that she isn't by answering a simple question about her stance on private property rights.

for you to say that shows you know nothing of socialism or communism.

I am in favor of the free market, but a real free market that does not depend on heavy taxpayer supports for big busineses so a few people can get wealthy. That is what our system has become, and it is getting worse.

[radiojake]

What's so great about redefining commonly understood terms like "earn" in order to justify the confiscation of someone's own property?

Private property is a form of systemic violence -

[PLAYER57832]

Right doctors don't turn down requests for care if you don't have the money,this is why the homeless never die due to treatable ailments. very amusing tell me another.

The homeless are dying due to treatable ailments because doctors are turning down their request for healthcare? I've heard this before but have yet to see any data on this. If you could please provide, that would be helpful.

Oh so you can show up at a us hospital and get cancer treatments without paying a dime?

No, but that even misses the point. Someone who is homeless is unlikely to have enough access to a doctor to get diagnosed with cancer before it becomes truly life-threatening. At that point, it is too late.

There are exceptions. Some big cities do have decent free clinics, etc. However, a worse situation in some ways are the huge numbers of working people without insurance or who have "insurance" that covers nothing. My friend, for example, pays over $700 a month for his diabetes stuff and not a dime is counted toward his $3000 deductable ( for out of network.. $1500 PPO, but with a $500 with a label I cannot remember now). This is in addition to his monthly insurance premium, of course.

A policy for my husband and I was going to cost over $1300 a month. Our total combined incomes are around $2000 right now. (gross, not net... teh take home is more like $1700).

[GreecePwns]

Were people in here seriously arguing that a state-mandated minimum price for labor is a right?

It is as much a right as your right to make a profit from a business.
That is, not a right, but something as part of our governmental system.

Private property rights (retaining one's own money earned) fundamentally differ from legally mandated price controls like minimum wage.

Who defines "earning" money as money you plop down to get interest and money received for doing labor "not earned [unless the employer decides to pay]"?

Not so long ago the first would be called "usery" and the second "work".
If you hire someone fulltime, you pay them enough to live on or it is abuse.
But anyway, in a technical sense, neither is a right. However, you keep insisting that owning a business, taking whatever profit you have is a "right". I say if that is a "right", then getting at least a livable wage for work is also a right.

The labor was the act of taking one's own money and investing it.

You called Weber unreasonable?

[Woodruff]

But anyway, in a technical sense, neither is a right. However, you keep insisting that owning a business, taking whatever profit you have is a "right". I say if that is a "right", then getting at least a livable wage for work is also a right.

The labor was the act of taking one's own money and investing it.

I am afraid that I will have to disagree with you regarding that being defined as "labor". I recognize that this is a rather esoteric tangent on the conversation, and what is happening there definitely is not necessarily a bad thing so please don't misunderstand...but that isn't really labor. It supports labor, and even provides for labor to happen, but it is not labor. It is financing. It is risk. It is not labor.

[Nobunaga]

What's so great about redefining commonly understood terms like "earn" in order to justify the confiscation of someone's own property?

Private property is a form of systemic violence -

... Cool. Give me your car. I promise I'll share it. Your wallet, too.

...

[Timminz]

What's so great about redefining commonly understood terms like "earn" in order to justify the confiscation of someone's own property?

Private property is a form of systemic violence -

... Cool. Give me your car. I promise I'll share it. Your wallet, too.

...

Yeah, right... he owns a car...

[Night Strike]

I am not ignoring you. I disagree on a fundamental level.

Except that your fundamental level is inherently wrong. If health care was a right secured by the federal government, then it would be included in the Constitution. If you think the Founding Fathers weren't smart enough to put it into the Constitution, then make an amendment to the Constitution (which would obviously fail since more than half the states are currently suing the federal government).

[GreecePwns]

I am not ignoring you. I disagree on a fundamental level.

Except that your fundamental level is inherently wrong. If health care was a right secured by the federal government, then it would be included in the Constitution. If you think the Founding Fathers weren't smart enough to put it into the Constitution, then make an amendment to the Constitution (which would obviously fail since more than half the states are currently suing the federal government).

So the Founding Fathers of America were perfect and any philosopher who has ever discussed this or any notion of a social contract is wrong.

And I think PLAYER is talking about universal public health care. The ACA is not universal public health care. It is corporate welfare.

[radiojake]

I am not ignoring you. I disagree on a fundamental level.

Except that your fundamental level is inherently wrong. If health care was a right secured by the federal government, then it would be included in the Constitution. If you think the Founding Fathers weren't smart enough to put it into the Constitution, then make an amendment to the Constitution (which would obviously fail since more than half the states are currently suing the federal government).

You guys love your (holy) books and scriptures of doctrine over there in the states

[Night Strike]

I am not ignoring you. I disagree on a fundamental level.

Except that your fundamental level is inherently wrong. If health care was a right secured by the federal government, then it would be included in the Constitution. If you think the Founding Fathers weren't smart enough to put it into the Constitution, then make an amendment to the Constitution (which would obviously fail since more than half the states are currently suing the federal government).

So the Founding Fathers of America were perfect and any philosopher who has ever discussed this or any notion of a social contract is wrong.

And I think PLAYER is talking about universal public health care. The ACA is not universal public health care. It is corporate welfare.

No, I'm saying that if health care is a right that is supposed to be secured by our federal government, then it must be put into the Constitution as without explicit permission, the federal government does not have the power to force one person to take actions to provide for the rights to another person. It doesn't matter if other philosophers think health care is a right; our Constitution does not provide for the federal government to force that right on its doctors and providers. Of course, since the Constitution is supposed to give all other powers to the states, then the states have virtually free reign to implement this new "right" of health care.

[Night Strike]

I am not ignoring you. I disagree on a fundamental level.

Except that your fundamental level is inherently wrong. If health care was a right secured by the federal government, then it would be included in the Constitution. If you think the Founding Fathers weren't smart enough to put it into the Constitution, then make an amendment to the Constitution (which would obviously fail since more than half the states are currently suing the federal government).

You guys love your (holy) books and scriptures of doctrine over there in the states

Sorry, but we actually have a Constitution that set up our federal government that the federal government is supposed to abide by. I'm sorry if your country doesn't know how to follow its own laws.

[radiojake]

You guys love your (holy) books and scriptures of doctrine over there in the states

Sorry, but we actually have a Constitution that set up our federal government that the federal government is supposed to abide by. I'm sorry if your country doesn't know how to follow its own laws.

You pretty much just confirmed my statement, but yet somehow found away to make it sound like your point contradicted mine. I know all about your beloved constitution because you all follow it like it a bible - and seeing how many of you like that book, I came to the conclusion that you are all seduced easily by texts that self proclaim virtue.

[thegreekdog]

Right doctors don't turn down requests for care if you don't have the money,this is why the homeless never die due to treatable ailments. very amusing tell me another.

The homeless are dying due to treatable ailments because doctors are turning down their request for healthcare? I've heard this before but have yet to see any data on this. If you could please provide, that would be helpful.

Oh so you can show up at a us hospital and get cancer treatments without paying a dime?

Well, I can't because I have money and health insurance. Someone without money and health insurance can most assuredly show up at a United States hospital and get cancer treatments without paying a dime.

1 and 3 are luxuries, not necessary for life. I would say there is some acknowledgement by the state for 2, well for a home. a detached house is a luxury, a home is not. this is why you see social housing projects. these kinds of projects can often save money for local communities as the costs of dealing with the homeless is higher than simply giving them a home. A few municipalities in the us did a project where they gave homeless people apartments.

There were recent Congressional hearings regarding high oil prices and how the oil companies were making too much money. I'm not sure if you were aware, but comments were made to the effect of "WAAH, OIL COSTS TOO MUCH AND YOU'RE MAKING TOO MUCH MONEY... WE DESERVE CHEAPER OIL!"

That's great, they're morons. What's this have to do with healthcare?

Ten years ago, healthcare was not a right. Now it is. Right now oil is not a right (according to most). At the pace we're going, ten years from now it will be.

[Phatscotty]

I have a right to Freedom, and you can not take that away.

[PLAYER57832]

I am not ignoring you. I disagree on a fundamental level.

Except that your fundamental level is inherently wrong. If health care was a right secured by the federal government, then it would be included in the Constitution.

I said it was a HUMAN right, a moral right, not a right given by the constitution.

If you think the Founding Fathers weren't smart enough to put it into the Constitution, then make an amendment to the Constitution (which would obviously fail since more than half the states are currently suing the federal government).

The suit and success or failure have to do with who currently controls the Supreme Court. There was a time when the Supreme court ruled that blacks were not equal. Did that mean it was really so? Of course not!

We today, in medicine face issues in medicine that the founding fathers NEVER considered. Ironically, you, in your supreme show of hypocrisy, come out contrary to your above position one issue that actually DID exist and about which the founding fathers made no rule.. namely abortion. You can argue that back then that procedure was a near death sentence, but the same was true for many medical procedures.

You argue that we don't have a right to the most basic of healthcare, yet you have no problem at all forcing parents to care for children who need EXTREME measures to merely survive, no matter if it violates their ethics and morals. You are disgusting!

[PLAYER57832]

Right doctors don't turn down requests for care if you don't have the money,this is why the homeless never die due to treatable ailments. very amusing tell me another.

The homeless are dying due to treatable ailments because doctors are turning down their request for healthcare? I've heard this before but have yet to see any data on this. If you could please provide, that would be helpful.

Oh so you can show up at a us hospital and get cancer treatments without paying a dime?

Well, I can't because I have money and health insurance. Someone without money and health insurance can most assuredly show up at a United States hospital and get cancer treatments without paying a dime.

A child on Medicaid.. yes. A homeless person has a hard time getting Medicaid, because they have no address. Also, because of all that is involved with cancer treatments, it is questionable whether a homeless person could sustain the care needed post treatment.

Ten years ago, healthcare was not a right. Now it is. Right now oil is not a right (according to most). At the pace we're going, ten years from now it will be.

Well, flash back a bit..... And if we don't stop this communist plague it will spread like dominoes falling. (paraphrased a tad, cannot find the original quote).

Anyway, greekdog, that is argument (or similar ones) have been used to justify the most horrific acts throughout history. i thought you were smarter than that.

Plus, the evidence shows the risk is not people demanding too much, it is the corporations stifling and taking more and more for the bigwig's pockets to our detriment.

[radiojake]

I have a right to Freedomly participate in a market economy, and you can not take that away.

Edited for accuracy. You can not claim that being a slave to an economic system is freedom, you can freely participate within it, but that isn't what I would call freedom (meanwhile, enjoy your priviliged position -not everyone can be so lucky)