[KSMountain]

[quote=poorgradstudent]”A society is ultimately judged by how it treats its weakest and most vulnerable members.”

“‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'” Jesus in Matthew 25:40

The morality of universal healthcare sadly fell to the wayside early in the debate. To me, it is clearly the right and just thing to do. The United States lags behind the developed world in many ways, and hopefully we will close the gap further.[/quote]
So you feel that your interpretation of morality is sufficient to justify a new trillion dollar entitlement that the rest of all your countrymen must comply with? What if someone else’s definition of the moral oligation of government is different?

When you say “it” is the clearly right thing to do, what does “it” mean? For example, how much money is it morally right to spend on a very premature baby? $1 million? $10 million? Who pays for that? Same with a very elderly person. Who makes those decisions?

[KSMountain]

[quote=poorgradstudent]”A society is ultimately judged by how it treats its weakest and most vulnerable members.”

“‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'” Jesus in Matthew 25:40

The morality of universal healthcare sadly fell to the wayside early in the debate. To me, it is clearly the right and just thing to do. The United States lags behind the developed world in many ways, and hopefully we will close the gap further.[/quote]
So you feel that your interpretation of morality is sufficient to justify a new trillion dollar entitlement that the rest of all your countrymen must comply with? What if someone else’s definition of the moral oligation of government is different?

When you say “it” is the clearly right thing to do, what does “it” mean? For example, how much money is it morally right to spend on a very premature baby? $1 million? $10 million? Who pays for that? Same with a very elderly person. Who makes those decisions?

[KSMountain]

Marginally-related, I feel if the problem is that there is insufficient insurance company competition – then let’s correct that. You don’t correct every situation of inadequate competition by having the government join in as a new participant.

We didn’t do that with Standard Oil, nor with AT&T, nor with Microsoft. By analogy, do folks who support the public option “because there’s no competition” think that the U.S. government should have started oil, phone, and computer software businesses and then run those into perpetuity?

No. We have a mechanism to deal with inadequate competition: it’s called Antitrust. It really is not rocket science. It’s my understanding that the medical insurance companies were granted some antitrust exemptions back in the 30’s or something (I didn’t research).

Anyway, I would have no problem whatsoever removing those exemptions if that were now appropriate (and it may well be).

I have a much bigger problem with this piece of legislation being rammed down our throats. This is a *big* new entitlement to sign up for – when the others are already insolvent. Seems crazy to me.

[KSMountain]

Marginally-related, I feel if the problem is that there is insufficient insurance company competition – then let’s correct that. You don’t correct every situation of inadequate competition by having the government join in as a new participant.

We didn’t do that with Standard Oil, nor with AT&T, nor with Microsoft. By analogy, do folks who support the public option “because there’s no competition” think that the U.S. government should have started oil, phone, and computer software businesses and then run those into perpetuity?

No. We have a mechanism to deal with inadequate competition: it’s called Antitrust. It really is not rocket science. It’s my understanding that the medical insurance companies were granted some antitrust exemptions back in the 30’s or something (I didn’t research).

Anyway, I would have no problem whatsoever removing those exemptions if that were now appropriate (and it may well be).

I have a much bigger problem with this piece of legislation being rammed down our throats. This is a *big* new entitlement to sign up for – when the others are already insolvent. Seems crazy to me.

[KSMountain]

Marginally-related, I feel if the problem is that there is insufficient insurance company competition – then let’s correct that. You don’t correct every situation of inadequate competition by having the government join in as a new participant.

We didn’t do that with Standard Oil, nor with AT&T, nor with Microsoft. By analogy, do folks who support the public option “because there’s no competition” think that the U.S. government should have started oil, phone, and computer software businesses and then run those into perpetuity?

No. We have a mechanism to deal with inadequate competition: it’s called Antitrust. It really is not rocket science. It’s my understanding that the medical insurance companies were granted some antitrust exemptions back in the 30’s or something (I didn’t research).

Anyway, I would have no problem whatsoever removing those exemptions if that were now appropriate (and it may well be).

I have a much bigger problem with this piece of legislation being rammed down our throats. This is a *big* new entitlement to sign up for – when the others are already insolvent. Seems crazy to me.

[KSMountain]

Marginally-related, I feel if the problem is that there is insufficient insurance company competition – then let’s correct that. You don’t correct every situation of inadequate competition by having the government join in as a new participant.

We didn’t do that with Standard Oil, nor with AT&T, nor with Microsoft. By analogy, do folks who support the public option “because there’s no competition” think that the U.S. government should have started oil, phone, and computer software businesses and then run those into perpetuity?

No. We have a mechanism to deal with inadequate competition: it’s called Antitrust. It really is not rocket science. It’s my understanding that the medical insurance companies were granted some antitrust exemptions back in the 30’s or something (I didn’t research).

Anyway, I would have no problem whatsoever removing those exemptions if that were now appropriate (and it may well be).

I have a much bigger problem with this piece of legislation being rammed down our throats. This is a *big* new entitlement to sign up for – when the others are already insolvent. Seems crazy to me.

[KSMountain]

Marginally-related, I feel if the problem is that there is insufficient insurance company competition – then let’s correct that. You don’t correct every situation of inadequate competition by having the government join in as a new participant.

We didn’t do that with Standard Oil, nor with AT&T, nor with Microsoft. By analogy, do folks who support the public option “because there’s no competition” think that the U.S. government should have started oil, phone, and computer software businesses and then run those into perpetuity?

No. We have a mechanism to deal with inadequate competition: it’s called Antitrust. It really is not rocket science. It’s my understanding that the medical insurance companies were granted some antitrust exemptions back in the 30’s or something (I didn’t research).

Anyway, I would have no problem whatsoever removing those exemptions if that were now appropriate (and it may well be).

I have a much bigger problem with this piece of legislation being rammed down our throats. This is a *big* new entitlement to sign up for – when the others are already insolvent. Seems crazy to me.

[KSMountain]

[quote=pertinazzio]anything that costs money can’t be a right. for instance the poorest possible society can grant all their citizens the right to free speech, association, religion etc. no matter how poor the society, the citizens can still have exercise those rights. on the other hand if in very poor societies you grant a right to universal high quality education, health-care, nutrition no will be able to exercise their so-called rights for a lack of resouces. now a society may decide that decency requires it to give all citizens health care, a job, etc. but that supposes society has the wherewithall to provide those things. Real rights are independent of society’s wealth.[/quote]

I thought this was a pretty good comment.

Sure it would be *nice* to give everyone everything, for free. In fact, it would be even nicer to give it to anyone, of any legal status, that found their way into the country. But why stop there? Why be so selfish and discriminatory as to only want to provide healthcare to folks in the U.S? Certainly healthcare is a universal *human* right, right? Perhaps U.S. taxpayers should be obligated to cover *everyone’s* healthcare, everywhere in the world.

Without going to that silly extreme, I think you can start getting into trouble when you confuse comforts with “rights”.

For example, are these also rights?:
Electricity
Telephone
Cable/Satellite TV (for folks in remote locations)
Heating
High-speed Internet
Transportation
Dental
Orthodontia
Clothing
Entertainment
Swim Lessons (“it’s a safety issue”)
Access to health clubs
Daycare
Personal Automobile
Liver transplant for alcoholic
Care for Octomom’s 14 kids

Where do you draw the line and why?

[KSMountain]

[quote=pertinazzio]anything that costs money can’t be a right. for instance the poorest possible society can grant all their citizens the right to free speech, association, religion etc. no matter how poor the society, the citizens can still have exercise those rights. on the other hand if in very poor societies you grant a right to universal high quality education, health-care, nutrition no will be able to exercise their so-called rights for a lack of resouces. now a society may decide that decency requires it to give all citizens health care, a job, etc. but that supposes society has the wherewithall to provide those things. Real rights are independent of society’s wealth.[/quote]

I thought this was a pretty good comment.

Sure it would be *nice* to give everyone everything, for free. In fact, it would be even nicer to give it to anyone, of any legal status, that found their way into the country. But why stop there? Why be so selfish and discriminatory as to only want to provide healthcare to folks in the U.S? Certainly healthcare is a universal *human* right, right? Perhaps U.S. taxpayers should be obligated to cover *everyone’s* healthcare, everywhere in the world.

Without going to that silly extreme, I think you can start getting into trouble when you confuse comforts with “rights”.

For example, are these also rights?:
Electricity
Telephone
Cable/Satellite TV (for folks in remote locations)
Heating
High-speed Internet
Transportation
Dental
Orthodontia
Clothing
Entertainment
Swim Lessons (“it’s a safety issue”)
Access to health clubs
Daycare
Personal Automobile
Liver transplant for alcoholic
Care for Octomom’s 14 kids

Where do you draw the line and why?

[KSMountain]

[quote=pertinazzio]anything that costs money can’t be a right. for instance the poorest possible society can grant all their citizens the right to free speech, association, religion etc. no matter how poor the society, the citizens can still have exercise those rights. on the other hand if in very poor societies you grant a right to universal high quality education, health-care, nutrition no will be able to exercise their so-called rights for a lack of resouces. now a society may decide that decency requires it to give all citizens health care, a job, etc. but that supposes society has the wherewithall to provide those things. Real rights are independent of society’s wealth.[/quote]

I thought this was a pretty good comment.

Sure it would be *nice* to give everyone everything, for free. In fact, it would be even nicer to give it to anyone, of any legal status, that found their way into the country. But why stop there? Why be so selfish and discriminatory as to only want to provide healthcare to folks in the U.S? Certainly healthcare is a universal *human* right, right? Perhaps U.S. taxpayers should be obligated to cover *everyone’s* healthcare, everywhere in the world.

Without going to that silly extreme, I think you can start getting into trouble when you confuse comforts with “rights”.

For example, are these also rights?:
Electricity
Telephone
Cable/Satellite TV (for folks in remote locations)
Heating
High-speed Internet
Transportation
Dental
Orthodontia
Clothing
Entertainment
Swim Lessons (“it’s a safety issue”)
Access to health clubs
Daycare
Personal Automobile
Liver transplant for alcoholic
Care for Octomom’s 14 kids

Where do you draw the line and why?

[KSMountain]

[quote=pertinazzio]anything that costs money can’t be a right. for instance the poorest possible society can grant all their citizens the right to free speech, association, religion etc. no matter how poor the society, the citizens can still have exercise those rights. on the other hand if in very poor societies you grant a right to universal high quality education, health-care, nutrition no will be able to exercise their so-called rights for a lack of resouces. now a society may decide that decency requires it to give all citizens health care, a job, etc. but that supposes society has the wherewithall to provide those things. Real rights are independent of society’s wealth.[/quote]

I thought this was a pretty good comment.

Sure it would be *nice* to give everyone everything, for free. In fact, it would be even nicer to give it to anyone, of any legal status, that found their way into the country. But why stop there? Why be so selfish and discriminatory as to only want to provide healthcare to folks in the U.S? Certainly healthcare is a universal *human* right, right? Perhaps U.S. taxpayers should be obligated to cover *everyone’s* healthcare, everywhere in the world.

Without going to that silly extreme, I think you can start getting into trouble when you confuse comforts with “rights”.

For example, are these also rights?:
Electricity
Telephone
Cable/Satellite TV (for folks in remote locations)
Heating
High-speed Internet
Transportation
Dental
Orthodontia
Clothing
Entertainment
Swim Lessons (“it’s a safety issue”)
Access to health clubs
Daycare
Personal Automobile
Liver transplant for alcoholic
Care for Octomom’s 14 kids

Where do you draw the line and why?

[KSMountain]

[quote=pertinazzio]anything that costs money can’t be a right. for instance the poorest possible society can grant all their citizens the right to free speech, association, religion etc. no matter how poor the society, the citizens can still have exercise those rights. on the other hand if in very poor societies you grant a right to universal high quality education, health-care, nutrition no will be able to exercise their so-called rights for a lack of resouces. now a society may decide that decency requires it to give all citizens health care, a job, etc. but that supposes society has the wherewithall to provide those things. Real rights are independent of society’s wealth.[/quote]

I thought this was a pretty good comment.

Sure it would be *nice* to give everyone everything, for free. In fact, it would be even nicer to give it to anyone, of any legal status, that found their way into the country. But why stop there? Why be so selfish and discriminatory as to only want to provide healthcare to folks in the U.S? Certainly healthcare is a universal *human* right, right? Perhaps U.S. taxpayers should be obligated to cover *everyone’s* healthcare, everywhere in the world.

Without going to that silly extreme, I think you can start getting into trouble when you confuse comforts with “rights”.

For example, are these also rights?:
Electricity
Telephone
Cable/Satellite TV (for folks in remote locations)
Heating
High-speed Internet
Transportation
Dental
Orthodontia
Clothing
Entertainment
Swim Lessons (“it’s a safety issue”)
Access to health clubs
Daycare
Personal Automobile
Liver transplant for alcoholic
Care for Octomom’s 14 kids

Where do you draw the line and why?

[KSMountain]

What, you mean you don’t think the problem could be fixed simply by printing and sending more money?

[KSMountain]

What, you mean you don’t think the problem could be fixed simply by printing and sending more money?

[KSMountain]

What, you mean you don’t think the problem could be fixed simply by printing and sending more money?

[Author]

Posts