Healthcare is not a right!?

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=SK in CV][quote=NeetaT] Those who claim they can’t afford healthcare costs are the same people who can somehow find a way to buy a new car or go on a lavish vacation. All I can say is please “Kill the Bill” so that I am not fleeced for more taxes. I will gladly pay for my own healthcare thank you.[/quote]

Dude, what world are you living in? 45,000 people die every year in this country because they don’t have medical insurance. 10’s of thousand go bankrupt. Nobody is trading a cruise for their life.[/quote]

SK: And another 100,000 die per year due to medical accidents, improper treatments, etc. So, what’s your point?

Something else to consider: When in the history of this country has the government ever compelled its citizenry to comply with an order (buy health insurance) or face fines/sanctions? This is as authoritarian/autocratic as it comes and very few people seem all that outraged by this.[/quote]

My point was exactly what i said. There is no evidence people without insurance are spending that money on new cars and lavish vacations. People without insurance are dying and seeking bankruptcy protection at astounding levels.

Your point about the mandate is valid. And there is quite a bit of outrage about it from both the right and the left, everywhere except for the mainstream media. The current senate bill is a windfall for the insurance industry, further evidence of the financial industry’s grip on our government. A mandate without a public option, plus aid to pay for premiums is beyond their wildest wet dream.

[NeetaT]

Fantastic everyone; welcome to the wonderful world of hedging. When oil prices were peaking, I invested in oil companies and made a lot of money with the intent of hedging against higher gas prices. This is a wonderful situation. The insurance companies procuring a win-fall. Now I can invest in health insurance companies to offset the price of health care. See, we all have options. Remember the hackneyed expression, “if you can’t beat them, join them.” What an opportunity!!!!!

[NeetaT]

Fantastic everyone; welcome to the wonderful world of hedging. When oil prices were peaking, I invested in oil companies and made a lot of money with the intent of hedging against higher gas prices. This is a wonderful situation. The insurance companies procuring a win-fall. Now I can invest in health insurance companies to offset the price of health care. See, we all have options. Remember the hackneyed expression, “if you can’t beat them, join them.” What an opportunity!!!!!

[NeetaT]

Fantastic everyone; welcome to the wonderful world of hedging. When oil prices were peaking, I invested in oil companies and made a lot of money with the intent of hedging against higher gas prices. This is a wonderful situation. The insurance companies procuring a win-fall. Now I can invest in health insurance companies to offset the price of health care. See, we all have options. Remember the hackneyed expression, “if you can’t beat them, join them.” What an opportunity!!!!!

[NeetaT]

Fantastic everyone; welcome to the wonderful world of hedging. When oil prices were peaking, I invested in oil companies and made a lot of money with the intent of hedging against higher gas prices. This is a wonderful situation. The insurance companies procuring a win-fall. Now I can invest in health insurance companies to offset the price of health care. See, we all have options. Remember the hackneyed expression, “if you can’t beat them, join them.” What an opportunity!!!!!

[NeetaT]

Fantastic everyone; welcome to the wonderful world of hedging. When oil prices were peaking, I invested in oil companies and made a lot of money with the intent of hedging against higher gas prices. This is a wonderful situation. The insurance companies procuring a win-fall. Now I can invest in health insurance companies to offset the price of health care. See, we all have options. Remember the hackneyed expression, “if you can’t beat them, join them.” What an opportunity!!!!!

[Carl Veritas]

Your right ends where someone else’s right begins.

No one should go hungry, but —

Since the government does not produce anything, it must take away the farmers right to his property (in this case, food he produced) and give it to you, if you declare that everyone has a right to eat. That is not social cooperation, it’s coercion.

That goes for health care too.

In the beginning of the 20th century, 90 percent of the nations hospitals were private, for-profit enterprises. State and local governments began taking over the hospital industry that by early 1990s only 10 percent were private. T.DiLorenzo

http://mises.org/story/3793

[Carl Veritas]

Your right ends where someone else’s right begins.

No one should go hungry, but —

Since the government does not produce anything, it must take away the farmers right to his property (in this case, food he produced) and give it to you, if you declare that everyone has a right to eat. That is not social cooperation, it’s coercion.

That goes for health care too.

In the beginning of the 20th century, 90 percent of the nations hospitals were private, for-profit enterprises. State and local governments began taking over the hospital industry that by early 1990s only 10 percent were private. T.DiLorenzo

http://mises.org/story/3793

[Carl Veritas]

Your right ends where someone else’s right begins.

No one should go hungry, but —

Since the government does not produce anything, it must take away the farmers right to his property (in this case, food he produced) and give it to you, if you declare that everyone has a right to eat. That is not social cooperation, it’s coercion.

That goes for health care too.

In the beginning of the 20th century, 90 percent of the nations hospitals were private, for-profit enterprises. State and local governments began taking over the hospital industry that by early 1990s only 10 percent were private. T.DiLorenzo

http://mises.org/story/3793

[Carl Veritas]

Your right ends where someone else’s right begins.

No one should go hungry, but —

Since the government does not produce anything, it must take away the farmers right to his property (in this case, food he produced) and give it to you, if you declare that everyone has a right to eat. That is not social cooperation, it’s coercion.

That goes for health care too.

In the beginning of the 20th century, 90 percent of the nations hospitals were private, for-profit enterprises. State and local governments began taking over the hospital industry that by early 1990s only 10 percent were private. T.DiLorenzo

http://mises.org/story/3793

[Carl Veritas]

Your right ends where someone else’s right begins.

No one should go hungry, but —

Since the government does not produce anything, it must take away the farmers right to his property (in this case, food he produced) and give it to you, if you declare that everyone has a right to eat. That is not social cooperation, it’s coercion.

That goes for health care too.

In the beginning of the 20th century, 90 percent of the nations hospitals were private, for-profit enterprises. State and local governments began taking over the hospital industry that by early 1990s only 10 percent were private. T.DiLorenzo

http://mises.org/story/3793

[urbanrealtor]

I don’t think health care is a right.
However, basic survival-oriented and educational public goods are a practical necessity in non-poor countries.
To that extent, it is a government responsibility.
I also think that increasing the efficiency of the distribution of public goods is a responsibility.
Right now we have universal health care.
Anybody showing up at an ER in the US gets treated regardless of income.
That is universal, often publicly subsidized, and very inefficient.
People in this country can’t really starve either.
The only people who starve here are people who have some true disability (like mental illness) or actually desire to starve (like supermodels).
We just make it uncomfortable to live on the dole (fill out these 6 forms then stand in a line for a an hour and then you get 2 loaves of bread and a brick of cheese).
Just as there is no real option for letting poor people starve, there is no real option for letting injured and sick people die for lack of cash.

Therefore, this is really about the following issues:
-how to minimize outlays from government and institutions currently providing that inefficient health care (thus improving the bottom line of hospitals, government entities, and other payers)
-about how to minimize personal bankruptcies (or just general financial burden) associated with insufficient coverage (thus improving global consumer effective demand)
-giving US companies a comparative advantage over their foreign competitors who enjoy more efficient and/or subsidized healthcare (part, though only part, of the reason our companies are currently seeing waning competitiveness)

Also, to Allan’s concern about authoritarianism in the form of required insurance:

1: How is representative democratic legislation “authoritarian”?
2: How is this different from being required to pay unemployment insurance (or having that as an employer-cost associated with you) or paying retirement insurance (social security)?

The purpose of any government is the welfare of its people and right now the inefficiencies in US healthcare have created a self-reinforcing economic burden upon the country. I think that, as a fix, this is an acceptable option.

[urbanrealtor]

I don’t think health care is a right.
However, basic survival-oriented and educational public goods are a practical necessity in non-poor countries.
To that extent, it is a government responsibility.
I also think that increasing the efficiency of the distribution of public goods is a responsibility.
Right now we have universal health care.
Anybody showing up at an ER in the US gets treated regardless of income.
That is universal, often publicly subsidized, and very inefficient.
People in this country can’t really starve either.
The only people who starve here are people who have some true disability (like mental illness) or actually desire to starve (like supermodels).
We just make it uncomfortable to live on the dole (fill out these 6 forms then stand in a line for a an hour and then you get 2 loaves of bread and a brick of cheese).
Just as there is no real option for letting poor people starve, there is no real option for letting injured and sick people die for lack of cash.

Therefore, this is really about the following issues:
-how to minimize outlays from government and institutions currently providing that inefficient health care (thus improving the bottom line of hospitals, government entities, and other payers)
-about how to minimize personal bankruptcies (or just general financial burden) associated with insufficient coverage (thus improving global consumer effective demand)
-giving US companies a comparative advantage over their foreign competitors who enjoy more efficient and/or subsidized healthcare (part, though only part, of the reason our companies are currently seeing waning competitiveness)

Also, to Allan’s concern about authoritarianism in the form of required insurance:

1: How is representative democratic legislation “authoritarian”?
2: How is this different from being required to pay unemployment insurance (or having that as an employer-cost associated with you) or paying retirement insurance (social security)?

The purpose of any government is the welfare of its people and right now the inefficiencies in US healthcare have created a self-reinforcing economic burden upon the country. I think that, as a fix, this is an acceptable option.

[urbanrealtor]

I don’t think health care is a right.
However, basic survival-oriented and educational public goods are a practical necessity in non-poor countries.
To that extent, it is a government responsibility.
I also think that increasing the efficiency of the distribution of public goods is a responsibility.
Right now we have universal health care.
Anybody showing up at an ER in the US gets treated regardless of income.
That is universal, often publicly subsidized, and very inefficient.
People in this country can’t really starve either.
The only people who starve here are people who have some true disability (like mental illness) or actually desire to starve (like supermodels).
We just make it uncomfortable to live on the dole (fill out these 6 forms then stand in a line for a an hour and then you get 2 loaves of bread and a brick of cheese).
Just as there is no real option for letting poor people starve, there is no real option for letting injured and sick people die for lack of cash.

Therefore, this is really about the following issues:
-how to minimize outlays from government and institutions currently providing that inefficient health care (thus improving the bottom line of hospitals, government entities, and other payers)
-about how to minimize personal bankruptcies (or just general financial burden) associated with insufficient coverage (thus improving global consumer effective demand)
-giving US companies a comparative advantage over their foreign competitors who enjoy more efficient and/or subsidized healthcare (part, though only part, of the reason our companies are currently seeing waning competitiveness)

Also, to Allan’s concern about authoritarianism in the form of required insurance:

1: How is representative democratic legislation “authoritarian”?
2: How is this different from being required to pay unemployment insurance (or having that as an employer-cost associated with you) or paying retirement insurance (social security)?

The purpose of any government is the welfare of its people and right now the inefficiencies in US healthcare have created a self-reinforcing economic burden upon the country. I think that, as a fix, this is an acceptable option.

[urbanrealtor]

I don’t think health care is a right.
However, basic survival-oriented and educational public goods are a practical necessity in non-poor countries.
To that extent, it is a government responsibility.
I also think that increasing the efficiency of the distribution of public goods is a responsibility.
Right now we have universal health care.
Anybody showing up at an ER in the US gets treated regardless of income.
That is universal, often publicly subsidized, and very inefficient.
People in this country can’t really starve either.
The only people who starve here are people who have some true disability (like mental illness) or actually desire to starve (like supermodels).
We just make it uncomfortable to live on the dole (fill out these 6 forms then stand in a line for a an hour and then you get 2 loaves of bread and a brick of cheese).
Just as there is no real option for letting poor people starve, there is no real option for letting injured and sick people die for lack of cash.

Therefore, this is really about the following issues:
-how to minimize outlays from government and institutions currently providing that inefficient health care (thus improving the bottom line of hospitals, government entities, and other payers)
-about how to minimize personal bankruptcies (or just general financial burden) associated with insufficient coverage (thus improving global consumer effective demand)
-giving US companies a comparative advantage over their foreign competitors who enjoy more efficient and/or subsidized healthcare (part, though only part, of the reason our companies are currently seeing waning competitiveness)

Also, to Allan’s concern about authoritarianism in the form of required insurance:

1: How is representative democratic legislation “authoritarian”?
2: How is this different from being required to pay unemployment insurance (or having that as an employer-cost associated with you) or paying retirement insurance (social security)?

The purpose of any government is the welfare of its people and right now the inefficiencies in US healthcare have created a self-reinforcing economic burden upon the country. I think that, as a fix, this is an acceptable option.

[Author]

Posts