Healthcare is not a right!?

[aldante]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=aldante][quote=urbanrealtor]The teabaggers are just complaining that they lost an election and that the current elected legislators are doing things they don’t like.[/quote]

Not my reason for going to the tea party events……sorry to be outside your understanding.

The only difference between Bush and Obama is in how many zero’s they add to the deficit. The tea party movement (at least the people I know) disagree with either president’s right to govern in the manner that they are governing. One small example is being in war for eight years without a declaration of war. Or being able to invade citizens privacy (‘Patriot Act”) without changing the Constitution. Or how about letting a group of secret elitist (the Fed) throw this economy into fits and starts which has demolished this countrys middle class.[/quote]
How does this fit outside my understanding?

You are complaining about what the people you elected are doing.

BFD

I respect your rights on this but it still is just a complaint.

You still have the right to vote and complain about who gets elected and what they do.

Not exactly the makings of a revolution.

If you start declaring independence from the US I might change my opinion.[/quote]

Urban,
I am pretty bad at explaining can I try again?

I think a big part of the tea party movement believes opposite of what you are asserting. Since there is not a dogma there are many people in the movement – we all do not protest the same thing. People like me did not lose an election – we believe that our country is being lost. Unfortunately, reading this thread makes me think that is already gone: healthcare a right? the constitution a relic? Then what do we stand for mob rule? Do you realize that after WWII we helped rebuild Europe for $5billion? We gave one company $300 billion and another company $160 billion?

WE are being robbed by the governing class who are giving fat paydays to their buddies from the Ivy League. Healthcare is the “cake” that the population “gets as a Christmas gift”.

Who here gives a christmas gift to someone then tells the reciepient they have to pay for it now and the present comes 4 years later???????

Declare independence? Why? Its our country. The country is being stolen by a group of oligarchs who view themselves as better then you or I. This is specifically why the Constitution is not only relevant but the document we should look too for hope. That document is worth fighting for.

Revolution? I hope not. Changing the “cake”mentality God I hope so. The state does not have the right to our property. We give our property to the state to justly protect our rights.

[Arraya]

Obama made an argument in 2008 when he said he was AGAINST the individual mandate. He joked, “We could solve the homeless problem by requiring that everybody buy a house.” That was Candidate Obama.

The really absurd thing about this is that for years it was the REPUBLICANS who favored the individual mandate – everybody being forced to buy private health insurance – this was their big “reform” idea going back to the 90s. Now all of a sudden the Dems have adopted it, and the Repubs don’t support it anymore.

Bush got everything he wanted and Obama is getting nothing (although he has to pretend to want what he gets to maintain the illusion that he is powerful). The right yells that he is a tyrant, yet the right is getting their way. Politics is too funny.

[Arraya]

Obama made an argument in 2008 when he said he was AGAINST the individual mandate. He joked, “We could solve the homeless problem by requiring that everybody buy a house.” That was Candidate Obama.

The really absurd thing about this is that for years it was the REPUBLICANS who favored the individual mandate – everybody being forced to buy private health insurance – this was their big “reform” idea going back to the 90s. Now all of a sudden the Dems have adopted it, and the Repubs don’t support it anymore.

Bush got everything he wanted and Obama is getting nothing (although he has to pretend to want what he gets to maintain the illusion that he is powerful). The right yells that he is a tyrant, yet the right is getting their way. Politics is too funny.

[Arraya]

Obama made an argument in 2008 when he said he was AGAINST the individual mandate. He joked, “We could solve the homeless problem by requiring that everybody buy a house.” That was Candidate Obama.

The really absurd thing about this is that for years it was the REPUBLICANS who favored the individual mandate – everybody being forced to buy private health insurance – this was their big “reform” idea going back to the 90s. Now all of a sudden the Dems have adopted it, and the Repubs don’t support it anymore.

Bush got everything he wanted and Obama is getting nothing (although he has to pretend to want what he gets to maintain the illusion that he is powerful). The right yells that he is a tyrant, yet the right is getting their way. Politics is too funny.

[Arraya]

Obama made an argument in 2008 when he said he was AGAINST the individual mandate. He joked, “We could solve the homeless problem by requiring that everybody buy a house.” That was Candidate Obama.

The really absurd thing about this is that for years it was the REPUBLICANS who favored the individual mandate – everybody being forced to buy private health insurance – this was their big “reform” idea going back to the 90s. Now all of a sudden the Dems have adopted it, and the Repubs don’t support it anymore.

Bush got everything he wanted and Obama is getting nothing (although he has to pretend to want what he gets to maintain the illusion that he is powerful). The right yells that he is a tyrant, yet the right is getting their way. Politics is too funny.

[Arraya]

Obama made an argument in 2008 when he said he was AGAINST the individual mandate. He joked, “We could solve the homeless problem by requiring that everybody buy a house.” That was Candidate Obama.

The really absurd thing about this is that for years it was the REPUBLICANS who favored the individual mandate – everybody being forced to buy private health insurance – this was their big “reform” idea going back to the 90s. Now all of a sudden the Dems have adopted it, and the Repubs don’t support it anymore.

Bush got everything he wanted and Obama is getting nothing (although he has to pretend to want what he gets to maintain the illusion that he is powerful). The right yells that he is a tyrant, yet the right is getting their way. Politics is too funny.

[davelj]

An anecdote to make an observation on the health care issue:

My parents both died of very rare (completely unrelated) cancers (that fortunately do not get passed on through the genes so far as anyone can tell). My father died of a glioblastoma brain tumor (like Ted Kennedy) and my mother of pancreatic cancer (like Patrick Swayze).

Forty years ago, they would have been diagnosed and been dead within a few months. There were no surgeries that had been developed yet to buy more time. So, the total cost of these two diseases to The System was fairly low. Diagnosis, some drugs, hospice, and you die after a few months.

Fast forward to the 00s and both my mom and dad had one surgery each that probably extended their lives by about a year in each case. I don’t know what my father’s care cost, but my mom told me she sat down and added up the various bills one time (she was covered by Medicare) and it was in excess of $280,000. I’ve gotta believe that my father’s care cost at least that much given the nature of his surgeries, etc. So, all told, $600,000 probably added a year each to two peoples’ lives.

Now, as a son, I’m glad they each got that extra year. But from a societal standpoint, this is a waste of money. In extremis. So, until someone decides when too much is too much, technology will march forward and costs will continue to escalate.

85%+ of our population could live their entire lives with 1970s-quality medical care. At 1970s prices. But that fraction of the population that has problems that were essentially uncureable 40 years ago account for the vast majority of the escalation in overall health care costs. Between Medicare and the Insurance Complex, we’ve lost the ability to say, “no.”

No one wants to acknowledge that until we decide what kind of high-end care will be rationed (as in the case of my parents), then NOTHING will change. In Canada and the UK, care is rationed – it’s that simple. My mother’s surgery would not have been done in Canada. My father’s would have because he would have had private insurance outside the system. But, my point is… again… that there’s no free lunch. No one wants to say the obvious: Costs will escalate until care is rationed at the high (cost) end.

[davelj]

An anecdote to make an observation on the health care issue:

My parents both died of very rare (completely unrelated) cancers (that fortunately do not get passed on through the genes so far as anyone can tell). My father died of a glioblastoma brain tumor (like Ted Kennedy) and my mother of pancreatic cancer (like Patrick Swayze).

Forty years ago, they would have been diagnosed and been dead within a few months. There were no surgeries that had been developed yet to buy more time. So, the total cost of these two diseases to The System was fairly low. Diagnosis, some drugs, hospice, and you die after a few months.

Fast forward to the 00s and both my mom and dad had one surgery each that probably extended their lives by about a year in each case. I don’t know what my father’s care cost, but my mom told me she sat down and added up the various bills one time (she was covered by Medicare) and it was in excess of $280,000. I’ve gotta believe that my father’s care cost at least that much given the nature of his surgeries, etc. So, all told, $600,000 probably added a year each to two peoples’ lives.

Now, as a son, I’m glad they each got that extra year. But from a societal standpoint, this is a waste of money. In extremis. So, until someone decides when too much is too much, technology will march forward and costs will continue to escalate.

85%+ of our population could live their entire lives with 1970s-quality medical care. At 1970s prices. But that fraction of the population that has problems that were essentially uncureable 40 years ago account for the vast majority of the escalation in overall health care costs. Between Medicare and the Insurance Complex, we’ve lost the ability to say, “no.”

No one wants to acknowledge that until we decide what kind of high-end care will be rationed (as in the case of my parents), then NOTHING will change. In Canada and the UK, care is rationed – it’s that simple. My mother’s surgery would not have been done in Canada. My father’s would have because he would have had private insurance outside the system. But, my point is… again… that there’s no free lunch. No one wants to say the obvious: Costs will escalate until care is rationed at the high (cost) end.

[davelj]

An anecdote to make an observation on the health care issue:

My parents both died of very rare (completely unrelated) cancers (that fortunately do not get passed on through the genes so far as anyone can tell). My father died of a glioblastoma brain tumor (like Ted Kennedy) and my mother of pancreatic cancer (like Patrick Swayze).

Forty years ago, they would have been diagnosed and been dead within a few months. There were no surgeries that had been developed yet to buy more time. So, the total cost of these two diseases to The System was fairly low. Diagnosis, some drugs, hospice, and you die after a few months.

Fast forward to the 00s and both my mom and dad had one surgery each that probably extended their lives by about a year in each case. I don’t know what my father’s care cost, but my mom told me she sat down and added up the various bills one time (she was covered by Medicare) and it was in excess of $280,000. I’ve gotta believe that my father’s care cost at least that much given the nature of his surgeries, etc. So, all told, $600,000 probably added a year each to two peoples’ lives.

Now, as a son, I’m glad they each got that extra year. But from a societal standpoint, this is a waste of money. In extremis. So, until someone decides when too much is too much, technology will march forward and costs will continue to escalate.

85%+ of our population could live their entire lives with 1970s-quality medical care. At 1970s prices. But that fraction of the population that has problems that were essentially uncureable 40 years ago account for the vast majority of the escalation in overall health care costs. Between Medicare and the Insurance Complex, we’ve lost the ability to say, “no.”

No one wants to acknowledge that until we decide what kind of high-end care will be rationed (as in the case of my parents), then NOTHING will change. In Canada and the UK, care is rationed – it’s that simple. My mother’s surgery would not have been done in Canada. My father’s would have because he would have had private insurance outside the system. But, my point is… again… that there’s no free lunch. No one wants to say the obvious: Costs will escalate until care is rationed at the high (cost) end.

[davelj]

An anecdote to make an observation on the health care issue:

My parents both died of very rare (completely unrelated) cancers (that fortunately do not get passed on through the genes so far as anyone can tell). My father died of a glioblastoma brain tumor (like Ted Kennedy) and my mother of pancreatic cancer (like Patrick Swayze).

Forty years ago, they would have been diagnosed and been dead within a few months. There were no surgeries that had been developed yet to buy more time. So, the total cost of these two diseases to The System was fairly low. Diagnosis, some drugs, hospice, and you die after a few months.

Fast forward to the 00s and both my mom and dad had one surgery each that probably extended their lives by about a year in each case. I don’t know what my father’s care cost, but my mom told me she sat down and added up the various bills one time (she was covered by Medicare) and it was in excess of $280,000. I’ve gotta believe that my father’s care cost at least that much given the nature of his surgeries, etc. So, all told, $600,000 probably added a year each to two peoples’ lives.

Now, as a son, I’m glad they each got that extra year. But from a societal standpoint, this is a waste of money. In extremis. So, until someone decides when too much is too much, technology will march forward and costs will continue to escalate.

85%+ of our population could live their entire lives with 1970s-quality medical care. At 1970s prices. But that fraction of the population that has problems that were essentially uncureable 40 years ago account for the vast majority of the escalation in overall health care costs. Between Medicare and the Insurance Complex, we’ve lost the ability to say, “no.”

No one wants to acknowledge that until we decide what kind of high-end care will be rationed (as in the case of my parents), then NOTHING will change. In Canada and the UK, care is rationed – it’s that simple. My mother’s surgery would not have been done in Canada. My father’s would have because he would have had private insurance outside the system. But, my point is… again… that there’s no free lunch. No one wants to say the obvious: Costs will escalate until care is rationed at the high (cost) end.

[davelj]

An anecdote to make an observation on the health care issue:

My parents both died of very rare (completely unrelated) cancers (that fortunately do not get passed on through the genes so far as anyone can tell). My father died of a glioblastoma brain tumor (like Ted Kennedy) and my mother of pancreatic cancer (like Patrick Swayze).

Forty years ago, they would have been diagnosed and been dead within a few months. There were no surgeries that had been developed yet to buy more time. So, the total cost of these two diseases to The System was fairly low. Diagnosis, some drugs, hospice, and you die after a few months.

Fast forward to the 00s and both my mom and dad had one surgery each that probably extended their lives by about a year in each case. I don’t know what my father’s care cost, but my mom told me she sat down and added up the various bills one time (she was covered by Medicare) and it was in excess of $280,000. I’ve gotta believe that my father’s care cost at least that much given the nature of his surgeries, etc. So, all told, $600,000 probably added a year each to two peoples’ lives.

Now, as a son, I’m glad they each got that extra year. But from a societal standpoint, this is a waste of money. In extremis. So, until someone decides when too much is too much, technology will march forward and costs will continue to escalate.

85%+ of our population could live their entire lives with 1970s-quality medical care. At 1970s prices. But that fraction of the population that has problems that were essentially uncureable 40 years ago account for the vast majority of the escalation in overall health care costs. Between Medicare and the Insurance Complex, we’ve lost the ability to say, “no.”

No one wants to acknowledge that until we decide what kind of high-end care will be rationed (as in the case of my parents), then NOTHING will change. In Canada and the UK, care is rationed – it’s that simple. My mother’s surgery would not have been done in Canada. My father’s would have because he would have had private insurance outside the system. But, my point is… again… that there’s no free lunch. No one wants to say the obvious: Costs will escalate until care is rationed at the high (cost) end.

[afx114]

Among the list of those pesky “unalienable rights” listed in the Declaration of Independence is “life,” which of course is preserved via healthcare. Yes, I know, slippery slope and all that. Certainly flat screen TVs are necessary for life, so why doesn’t the government give me one of those?!

Lets us also not forget that the pre-amble to the Constitution expresses a desire to “promote the general welfare.” It is mentioned again in Article 1, Section 8 as a reason for Congress to impose taxes. Well, that and to declare war — the irony!

I’m no Constitutional scholar, but while “general welfare” and “life” are certainly broad categories, healthcare could easily fall under both. Whether or not that specifically makes healthcare a “right” I do not know. But my hunch is that the founding brosephs kept them so obviously open to interpretation for a reason.

[afx114]

Among the list of those pesky “unalienable rights” listed in the Declaration of Independence is “life,” which of course is preserved via healthcare. Yes, I know, slippery slope and all that. Certainly flat screen TVs are necessary for life, so why doesn’t the government give me one of those?!

Lets us also not forget that the pre-amble to the Constitution expresses a desire to “promote the general welfare.” It is mentioned again in Article 1, Section 8 as a reason for Congress to impose taxes. Well, that and to declare war — the irony!

I’m no Constitutional scholar, but while “general welfare” and “life” are certainly broad categories, healthcare could easily fall under both. Whether or not that specifically makes healthcare a “right” I do not know. But my hunch is that the founding brosephs kept them so obviously open to interpretation for a reason.

[afx114]

Among the list of those pesky “unalienable rights” listed in the Declaration of Independence is “life,” which of course is preserved via healthcare. Yes, I know, slippery slope and all that. Certainly flat screen TVs are necessary for life, so why doesn’t the government give me one of those?!

Lets us also not forget that the pre-amble to the Constitution expresses a desire to “promote the general welfare.” It is mentioned again in Article 1, Section 8 as a reason for Congress to impose taxes. Well, that and to declare war — the irony!

I’m no Constitutional scholar, but while “general welfare” and “life” are certainly broad categories, healthcare could easily fall under both. Whether or not that specifically makes healthcare a “right” I do not know. But my hunch is that the founding brosephs kept them so obviously open to interpretation for a reason.

[afx114]

Among the list of those pesky “unalienable rights” listed in the Declaration of Independence is “life,” which of course is preserved via healthcare. Yes, I know, slippery slope and all that. Certainly flat screen TVs are necessary for life, so why doesn’t the government give me one of those?!

Lets us also not forget that the pre-amble to the Constitution expresses a desire to “promote the general welfare.” It is mentioned again in Article 1, Section 8 as a reason for Congress to impose taxes. Well, that and to declare war — the irony!

I’m no Constitutional scholar, but while “general welfare” and “life” are certainly broad categories, healthcare could easily fall under both. Whether or not that specifically makes healthcare a “right” I do not know. But my hunch is that the founding brosephs kept them so obviously open to interpretation for a reason.

[Author]

Posts