zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Yeah. Bernie will push hard in SC to get like mid 40s. If he can succeed in not being blown out in SC it will be a win for him. Clintons would be wise to send Bill to SC to run the ground game for the next 3 weeks.
2016 Presidential Primaries [ SUPER TUESDAY | 3-1-'16]
- Thread starter 57Brave
- Start date
Yeah. Bernie will push hard in SC to get like mid 40s. If he can succeed in not being blown out in SC it will be a win for him. Clintons would be wise to send Bill to SC to run the ground game for the next 3 weeks.
sturg33
I
How can health care be a right? You must have the skills, knowledge, money, and time of others (doctors, nurses, payers, etc.) to ensure it. If healthcare is a right, do you have to hold a gun to a doctor to provide it? Or do you have to hold a gun to the tax payer to pay for it? Someone loses their liberty in this scenario
bravesnumberone
Well-known member
Glad I chose the '85 Bears documentary from the sound of it.
bravesnumberone
Well-known member
Following a couple of Hillary people on Twitter. They've got so much venom for Bernie they sound like Trump supporters. Seriously.
It's a vast left-wing conspiracy....
It's a vast left-wing conspiracy....
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Just for the sake of argument:
It took a tremendous amount of money, knowledge, skills, and time to ensure that citizens in the West had clean water and electricity. Taxpayers payed for it. Were they—and the engineers and builders who contracted to design and build those systems—deprived of their liberty in the process of delivering that service to others?
If taxpayers paying for a public good are being deprived of their liberty, I'm not exactly sure how you think that the infrastructure that supports our economy—comprising goods, services, and ideas—was built.
sturg33
I
That's different than saying something is a "right." I.e., absolutely guaranteed from our government. I don't see how you can provide anybody a right to anything, if that requires the labor/knowledge/skills of someone to the provide
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Other nations don't seem to have this issue. Including many nations with better healthcare systems than ours.
sturg33
I
That has nothing to do with my point. I'm not saying you can't do it. I'm asking how can you call it a right? By definition, someone else has to be involved to make it acceptable.
I'm fine if the left wants to say that the public should fun healthcare for all because it's for the greater good. But I can't grasp how it is a "right" of people - as if it must be guaranteed by the public.
Fundamental philosophical difference
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Well the idea of a "right" is loose when used in politics.
According to John Locke everyone had a right to life, liberty, and property.
The idea of using it as a right is a selling point. It's the ideea that people should all be taken care of physically. I don't think it's outlandish and with the right work done we could do it without raising taxes almost all Americans.
Heck we probably could fund it by removing the payroll tax cap.
According to John Locke everyone had a right to life, liberty, and property.
The idea of using it as a right is a selling point. It's the ideea that people should all be taken care of physically. I don't think it's outlandish and with the right work done we could do it without raising taxes almost all Americans.
Heck we probably could fund it by removing the payroll tax cap.
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
you forgot the talking point of "slavery" from the Paul playbook
Runnin
Well-known member
That idea of alpha male strength is so 19th century. Bernie was caught off-guard but he did the right thing by backing away and letting them make fools of themselves for that crowd. Bernie looked like the only reasonable person on the stage. I'm glad his judgement of how to deal with the situation was strong enough not to have to assert his male authority at that moment.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Well, gosh. We don't provide the rights that are referenced in our founding documents, but we certainly do you provide a system that allows citizens to enjoy those rights. Are property rights enforceable on a national and international scale without law-enforcement, the legal system, and even the military?
Those things all require labor, knowledge, and skills.
sturg33
I
I think you're being obtuse just for the sake of argument... bc I know you're a bright guy.
There is a distinct difference between law enforcement of rights, and forcing someone else to learn difficult skills (8+ years of expensive medical training) and then be forced to require that. What happens if the state goes bankrupt and can no longer afford to pay the doctors? Since it is a right, the doctors would be forced to work for free - or as goldy and 57 are always whining about - slave labor. And then of course, you're denying that person a right to their liberty.
I just get sick of hearing Bernie and his ilk talk about health care as a right. It's not. It never will be. Nor should it be.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
That's fine. That's a point of view, and I certainly understand and to some degree sympathize with it.
I just don't see how you can argue it from this denial-of-liberty point of view.
You often argue, in the context of income inequality discussions, that no one is forced to do anything in the labor market. That if they are unsatisfied with their lot in life, they can acquire more skills and find a better job. Why do you all of the sudden assume that if some service were guaranteed by the government, individuals would have to be forced to fill those positions? Sanitation service is often provided by the government. It's unappealing work to some, but those jobs seem to get filled, don't they?
An attorney might be able to make more money in private practice, yet some of them choose positions in public service, as prosecutors or judges. Are they being compelled to do that, just because the services pertain to rights guaranteed by the state? If a basic standard of healthcare were guaranteed, do you not imagine that there would still be incentive for skilled practitioners and specialists to practice? Is it also not logical to assume that if the government were to mandate such a standard, it would also provide support and assistance for individuals to acquire the necessary skills and training to deliver it?
In short, I don't think I'm the one being obtuse.
sturg33
I
I think we're arguing semantics. My suggestion is that calling something a right means that it is guaranteed by the federal government. That means they would have to find the people to do the job. OK - that's very doable. But becoming a doctor is hard. My girlfriend is in medical school right now. She's in 3rd year, has another year to go... then an intern year, then 4 years of residency. She'll be 33 before she starts making real doctor money, and she will have gone in at least $200K in debt to get there. She insists she is doing it to help people, but I can guarantee you she wouldn't do it if the financial reward was a teacher's salary
So now you're saying the government has to incentivize people to do this. Well that means they have to pay for it. And by they, I mean everyone. So since this is a "right" the tax payer has no say in the matter, they have to pay up (lost liberty there). Then, let's say there's another depression... where is the money going to come from? But since this is a "right" the doctors will have to perform their services anyway, and may have to do so for far less than their compensation requirements - thus the doctors losing their liberty.
Like I said, I'm fine if you want to say everyone should chip in to finance healthcare for all... Fine, but when you guarantee it to the public, then liberty is lost. And I of course, don't support that.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Sure, it's semantics. But the rights that we are enjoy are purely academic unless they're somehow guaranteed, and given society X they're guaranteed through legislation, which, in your construction, necessarily denies liberty. So the semantic difference would seem to me to be not inconsequential.
Your right to pursue happiness is infringed by somebody beating you up and taking your stuff or locking you in their basement against your will. The laws that protect you from that may deny you some liberty, but, on balance, wouldn't you agree that it's the lesser of two "evils"?
So when you're talking about the potential of healthcare being guaranteed by the government, how was it different than any other law? I'm not up to date with the current thinking about socialized medicine, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't include doctors being forcibly compelled to provide any service to the public, free of charge.
I guess if you accept that we're governed by laws, and that those laws are enforced through monies raised by taxation, but you believe that both of those things deny you liberty, you're kinda stuck. You can argue about the wisdom or proportionality of those laws, but it seems to me like you're arguing the concept itself. That's what I'm addressing.
Your right to pursue happiness is infringed by somebody beating you up and taking your stuff or locking you in their basement against your will. The laws that protect you from that may deny you some liberty, but, on balance, wouldn't you agree that it's the lesser of two "evils"?
So when you're talking about the potential of healthcare being guaranteed by the government, how was it different than any other law? I'm not up to date with the current thinking about socialized medicine, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't include doctors being forcibly compelled to provide any service to the public, free of charge.
I guess if you accept that we're governed by laws, and that those laws are enforced through monies raised by taxation, but you believe that both of those things deny you liberty, you're kinda stuck. You can argue about the wisdom or proportionality of those laws, but it seems to me like you're arguing the concept itself. That's what I'm addressing.
weso1
<B>Clique Leader</B>
I have to be honest and I hope this doesn't offend anyone. But at times last night it looked as if Hillary was debating a mentally challenged person. That was my take away from the debate.