• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sen. Rand Paul: Right To Health Care Is Like Believing In "Slavery"

winston53660 said:
When you get into the high dollar things like heart transplants you can get kicked out of the program for not following dietary guidelines. And your blood is checked every four to six weeks at a min.
Click to expand...

And while that may be true for a narrow portion of the population, it is not true for most.
Exceptions do not disprove the general rule.
 
digsbe said:
I think it's naive to rely on a for profit healthcare system who's focus isn't providing healthcare but to maximize profits. People have the right to be obese, but I support incentives like tax breaks for those who stay healthy and try to lose weight.

It's wrong and inhumane for a family to go broke because a family member developed cancer and they have to spend everything and then some to ensure that persons survival. I think it's wrong that people who are born with chronic diseases could be denied coverage or forced to pay much more than others. I think a for profit health insurer system is wrong and infective. I would also tweak healthcare practice in America, but for profit insurance companies only drive up the cost and put the patients 2nd to profits.
Click to expand...

I pay twice the State average. Oh and I'm sick as well.
 
digsbe said:
I think it's naive to rely on a for profit healthcare system who's focus isn't providing healthcare but to maximize profits. People have the right to be obese, but I support incentives like tax breaks for those who stay healthy and try to lose weight.
Click to expand...

I know you're going into the medical field.
Are you only going to work for what it costs you to live?
Otherwise you will be earning a profit from medical treatments, so be careful what you wish for, you might just get it. ;)

Why it is ok for you to profit from the unhealthy?

digsbe said:
It's wrong and inhumane for a family to go broke because a family member developed cancer and they have to spend everything and then some to ensure that persons survival. I think it's wrong that people who are born with chronic diseases could be denied coverage or forced to pay much more than others. I think a for profit health insurer system is wrong and infective. I would also tweak healthcare practice in America, but for profit insurance companies only drive up the cost and put the patients 2nd to profits.
Click to expand...

Most families do not go broke because of that, that is hyperbole much like "UHC = slavery" comments.

The fact is that people who filed for bankruptcy because of medical issues, were already in consumer debt prior to incurring the illness.
Not to mention, that no matter the method of paying for treatment, for those that are seriously ill, they typically will not being working, making incurring debt or being unable to pay debt, relatively the same.

Get to caught up in the emotional hyperbole and your argument will melt you.

I have no problem with UHC for those with inborn illnesses and I'd be happy to pay a tax to fund that.
 
When it comes to who is a slave and who isn't...you have to look at who is forced and who has the money. If the case of a single payer system who is being forced? Everyone. Everyone that must go to the government for health care is a slave. Who has the money? The government.

If you go to the government for your health care needs (with the exception of those that worked for the government and got the insurance as a benefit) you are a slave to the government. They control the means by which you may improve the quality of your health and your life.
 
ksu_aviator said:
When it comes to who is a slave and who isn't...you have to look at who is forced and who has the money. If the case of a single payer system who is being forced? Everyone. Everyone that must go to the government for health care is a slave. Who has the money? The government.

If you go to the government for your health care needs (with the exception of those that worked for the government and got the insurance as a benefit) you are a slave to the government. They control the means by which you may improve the quality of your health and your life.
Click to expand...

It's more like the feudal system, that most consider bad, but now it's good. :doh
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It's more like the feudal system, that most consider bad, but now it's good. :doh
Click to expand...

Well, under the liberal mantra of inclusiveness, good is now bad and bad is now good...so that makes sense.
 
ksu_aviator said:
If you go to the government for your health care needs (with the exception of those that worked for the government and got the insurance as a benefit) you are a slave to the government. They control the means by which you may improve the quality of your health and your life.
Click to expand...


Err so? The same goes for an insurance co.
 
MrVicchio said:
No. Because you have the CHOICE to have an attorney represent you, or you can choose to have a court appointed one.
Click to expand...

It's your choice to go to the doctor or not to go to the doctor.

And a "court appointed attorney" is just that. An attorney who is "drafted" in a sense, by the court to represent you. When they say you have a "right" to have an attorney, it means that they will give you an attorney.

So how is a "court appointed attorney," who is sometimes pressed into service by the government, different from a doctor who has to help you?

As it stands now, if you go to an Emergency Room they have to treat you. If you can't pay, the government does. In effect, that is a right to health care. So this terrible future that Rand Paul is predicting was here long before Obama became President. You may not like Obama's solution, but essentially he is trying to fix the cost to the government caused by uninsured people crowding into ERs. What is Rand Paul doing about that?
 
Objective Voice said:
Tell that to the hundreds of Black people who escaped from the south via the Underground Railroad.

But I digress...
Click to expand...

Slavery is not necessarily racial. The term "slave" and the term "slav" come from the same root. In fact, many slavs were slaves, and there is a line of thinking that says that the biggest reason Western European powers went to Africa for slaves was that the Turkish conquest of Constantinople cut them off from the Black Sea slave trade of "slavs."

Racism was largely constructed in America to separate the white servants from the black servants.
 
winston53660 said:
Err so? The same goes for an insurance co.
Click to expand...

Do you really want to explore that fallacious statement?

Insurance companies, regardless of what you believe, are not a requirement for getting health care. You can chose not to use them. In fact, 90% of the country (in my best guess) is well over insured because they fall for that same trap. You don't have to have coverage for every day health care. Everyday health care coverage is always...ALWAYS...ALWAYS more expensive than paying out of pocket.
 
rocket88 said:
It's your choice to go to the doctor or not to go to the doctor.

And a "court appointed attorney" is just that. An attorney who is "drafted" in a sense, by the court to represent you. When they say you have a "right" to have an attorney, it means that they will give you an attorney.

So how is a "court appointed attorney," who is sometimes pressed into service by the government, different from a doctor who has to help you?

As it stands now, if you go to an Emergency Room they have to treat you. If you can't pay, the government does. In effect, that is a right to health care. So this terrible future that Rand Paul is predicting was here long before Obama became President. You may not like Obama's solution, but essentially he is trying to fix the cost to the government caused by uninsured people crowding into ERs. What is Rand Paul doing about that?
Click to expand...

A court appointed attorney is provided because the state aims to take away your rights and punish you, that is the only reason such a positive right exists.

On the other hand, forcing the ER to stabilize you does not necessarily mean that you are in need of their services.
It's "junk" legislation, where emotions override realistic need.
 
MrVicchio said:
He was making a comparison, to explain how you cannot have a RIGHT to healthcare. Instead of taking a moment to think about that, and why he said it, you're stuck on "OMG it's NOT SLAVERY LOL" mode. Which is the real tragedy here.
Click to expand...

You can't have a right to health care. Man, that's a cold statement.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The government changing it is not the same as the market changing.
Click to expand...

Actually it is. The regulatory environment is all part of business. ESPECIALLY for industries like health care, which is not like a widget industry and never has been.

Harry Guerrilla said:
Typically the market changes in slower intervals, while the government makes very rapid moves that can't easily be adapted to.
Click to expand...

Someone will adapt to it. Whether or not it is the players that currently dominate the market, I don't know and don't particularly care.
 
Kandahar said:
Actually it is. The regulatory environment is all part of business. ESPECIALLY for industries like health care, which is not like a widget industry and never has been.
Click to expand...

And when those regulations are based on politicizing an industry, on the net it harms either/or the business and the consumer.
Firm reasonable rules are one thing, politicized junk is another.


Kandahar said:
Someone will adapt to it. Whether or not it is the players that currently dominate the market, I don't know and don't particularly care.
Click to expand...

Government shouldn't be in the business of choosing winners and losers.
Manipulating the market for social engineering and political purposes is not something I want to continue.
 
Gina said:
That is not what Paul is saying.

"That means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery."

Under universal health care, the doctor is paid, not conscripted and forced to work without pay. You are arguing a different point, which is not Dr. Paul's point.
Click to expand...

Albeit my point was better......Rand is still spot on.

Democrats claim there is a "Right to Healthcare".......a Right that cannot be denied. What do you think would happen if doctors nationwide stopped taking Medicare patients?

......what would happen if there was nothing but Medicare patients?

When government decides what the fruits of Rand's labor is worth.....and isnt worth........

.....you may argue its not really Slavery.........but you sure as hell cant call it Freedom.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
And when those regulations are based on politicizing an industry, on the net it harms either/or the business and the consumer.
Firm reasonable rules are one thing, politicized junk is another.
Click to expand...

First of all, it is not "politicizing" an industry to change public policy as it relates to that industry. The Affordable Care Act was not passed because Democrats wanted to stick it to Republican donors, it was passed because they thought it would improve health care.

Second of all, it's not like we were previously operating under a laissez-faire health care market, and the idea of regulatory changes was a totally unforeseeable risk for the health care industry. We changed from one set of regulations to another set of regulations. Some companies will adapt to it better than others, and those who thrive under the new regulations will be the winners...as was the case under the previous system.

Harry Guerrilla said:
Government shouldn't be in the business of choosing winners and losers.
Click to expand...

I agree. But the government SHOULD be in the business of creating a regulatory framework and allowing winners and losers to emerge as the regulations are continuously updated as conditions change.

Harry Guerrilla said:
Manipulating the market for social engineering and political purposes is not something I want to continue.
Click to expand...

I think this is an apt example of "market fundamentalism," which is one of the most economically destructive ideas to emerge since Marxism. While the free market can OFTEN produce better outcomes for societies than government, it is simply not the case that it ALWAYS can.
 
Last edited:
Paschendale said:
I never understand this perspective. Why would the basic presumption for every person be not to share what they have?
Click to expand...

Because the reality your missing......sharing took place long before a government mandated it at the end of a gun.

You understand the perspective and you live it everyday........as long as you have $1 more than any of your fellow americans. Perhaps government needs to force you to share more........since your so selfish and greedy.
.
.
.
.
 
Badmutha said:
Democrats claim there is a "Right to Healthcare".......a Right that cannot be denied. .
Click to expand...

This right already exists -- go to the ER with no insurance, and somebody has to pay.

I suppose you could take away the requirement that they treat people, but that would violate the hippocratic oath, I think. Not that it's a law or anything.
 
American said:
Next you'll want your food, gasoline, mortgage, haircuts and beer paid for. Where does it end?
Click to expand...

Naaa. Just cuz im a socialist doesnt mean i want the gov to give me everything.. Just dont think basic human rights should be privatized.. I know its evil to think this way for you but cmon...

Naaa just think if you cant afford food you should have a program that can help you out..
Naaa gov doesnt have to pay for my gasoline... We have public transportation right?
Naaa mortgage naaa...
Haircuts... Would be nice but naaa....
Beer!Yes that is what i am talking about! They should pay for my beer! That would be heaven! :) Beer! Beer!
 
Badmutha said:
......what would happen if there was nothing but Medicare patients?
Click to expand...

Then, Americans would have access to the kind of medical care the Swiss take for granted. Also, in addition to being both cheaper and significantly more efficient, it happens to be what the majority of the American people want, or, as John Kerry put it; '..not politically possible.'
 
Kandahar said:
First of all, it is not "politicizing" an industry to change public policy as it relates to that industry. The Affordable Care Act was not passed because Democrats wanted to stick it to Republican donors, it was passed because they thought it would improve health care.
Click to expand...

No they passed it to get votes, to please their political constituents.
Improving medical care.....HA!

Kandahar said:
Second of all, it's not like we were previously operating under a laissez-faire health care market, and the idea of regulatory changes was a totally unforeseeable risk for the health care industry. We changed from one set of regulations to another set of regulations. Some companies will adapt to it better than others, and those who thrive under the new regulations will be the winners...as was the case under the previous system.
Click to expand...

No we've continuously added regulations, that have continuously added to the cost.
When it was entirely unnecessary, but again it was done to appease a political constituency.

Before the HMO act and the Medicare bill was passed, we were largely operating on a laissez fair medical care system.
It was doing just fine.

Kandahar said:
I agree. But the government SHOULD be in the business of creating a regulatory framework and allowing winners and losers to emerge as the regulations are continuously updated as conditions change.
Click to expand...

There is a divergence on what continuous means.
I think it means to address fraud and force, you think it means to cover everyone with insurance (whether it is private or public).

One is necessary, one is not.

Kandahar said:
I think this is an apt example of "market fundamentalism," which is one of the most economically destructive ideas to emerge since Marxism. While the free market can OFTEN produce better outcomes for societies than government, it is simply not the case that it ALWAYS can.
Click to expand...

Not at all, you'd have to prove that market incentives do not work with medical care, which you haven't.
You just co opted the utilitarian idea of government directed medical care.
Because it's cheaper.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Needless to say, both sides are using highly emotive terminology to advance their political positions on medical care.

His using the slavery example isn't excusable, but neither is the hyperbole coming from those who rant and rave over the supposed problems we have now.
Click to expand...

Glad you don't see the most expensive health care system in the world that is killing people, hurting our economy, bloating our government spending, and is the biggest cause of bankruptsies in the middle class, as a problem! :sun
 
NGNM85 said:
Then, Americans would have access to the kind of medical care the Swiss take for granted. Also, in addition to being both cheaper and significantly more efficient, it happens to be what the majority of the American people want, or, as John Kerry put it; '..not politically possible.'
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom