Healthcare as a right implies medical care is guaranteed to you... which means someone - be it the tax payer, or the medical care provider, is losing individual liberty.Originally Posted by jpx7
You can't grant a right that reduces another right
Healthcare as a right implies medical care is guaranteed to you... which means someone - be it the tax payer, or the medical care provider, is losing individual liberty.
You can't grant a right that reduces another right
You can; indeed, you're advocating for it. Increasing individual economic liberty, to the detriment of society-wide quality of life, does just that.
"For all his tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal."
"society-wide quality of life" is not a right
"everyone is a Libertarian until their house is 10' feet under water."
Charley Patton said that
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
I disagree. Furthermore, I think it's a more important right to protect and promote than "individual economic liberty".
Last edited by jpx7; 10-03-2016 at 09:32 PM.
"For all his tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal."
goldfly (10-03-2016)
Bill Clinton added that ObamaCare "works fine" for people with "modest" incomes eligible for government subsidies but that "the people that are getting killed in this deal are small business people and individuals who make just a little too much to get any of these subsidies," the Daily Caller reported.*
“You’ve got this crazy system where all of a sudden 25 million more people have health care and then the people are out there busting it, sometimes 60 hours a week, wind up with their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half,” Clinton said. “It’s the craziest thing in the world.”*
The problem with the Affordable Care Act is precisely that it isn't socialized medicine; it's just a mandate to participate in the broken insurance system that was already failing prior to the ACA's implementation, with just a few important but relatively minor regulatory tweaks to said system.
"For all his tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal."
bravesnumberone (10-04-2016), cajunrevenge (10-04-2016), goldfly (10-03-2016), Hawk (10-03-2016), Julio3000 (10-04-2016)
There's nothing stopping people from setting up their own socialized Healthcare group. Well except the fact that it only works if they use violence to force people who don't want it or need it to join as well.
"Donald Trump will serve a second term as president of the United States.
It’s over."
Little Thethe Nov 19, 2020.
FreemanFan (11-03-2016), sturg33 (10-04-2016)
The only way to accomplish what you want is by force.
It's been absolutely brutal and as the premiums rise, they are a growing financial strain on my family. I'm one of the many Bill Clinton is talking about.
Sturg, stop me if I've asked you this one before. It's rare that I get to chat with a real, live libertarian in any meaningful way.
Are environmental regulations a deprivation of individual liberty?
I'm not convinced of that, at least depending on what you mean by "force".
"For all his tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal."
The back and forth over health care I found interesting.
Trump stopped at 71% - rest assured - Trump being Trump - had he felt comfortable with the 78% number bandied about this forum ...
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
Which one of these people is 57?
The last girl is like a caricature of a college aged Bernie supporter.
Ahhh... now they're doubling the penalty to make "Obamacare work better"
So everyone will pay more. Another victory for government intervention. keep em coming!
FreemanFan (11-03-2016)
But 57 told us that premiums won't go up?
It's not really working, but what would work? I see Trump talking up Health Savings Accounts, but if you don't have money to put in one, what good are they? Tax incentives? Again, if you're poor and paying little in the way of taxes, what would that accomplish?
A Republican friend of mine and I were talking and he suggested that the feds/state come up with a plan to pay for 100% of catastrophic costs over a certain threshold, but one would still have to pay for the cost under the threshold. I suppose if the government were picking up catastrophic costs, the cost of premiums would go down because less would need to be covered.
I can only say as someone who views the whole health care system as a mess (and a costly mess at that), I was hoping for the ACA to do more positive besides lowering the number of uninsured. Granted, if insurers can't make money, they won't participate and the less competition, they higher the costs.
http://kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/...rature-review/
//////////
To my mind the purpose of ACA was to get the uninsured access to care.
and yeah, Yuppies will have to pitch in for something that helps the greater rather than
Put on your big boy pants and help figure this out
Last edited by 57Brave; 10-29-2016 at 07:01 PM.
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
Oh... so you're no longer denying that costs are going up?
Congrats on spending all this money to get the insured americans rate from 85% to 90%... well done
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote