Do you support single-payer health care?

Hypostrategos · Nov 22, 2009

Whip Comes Down said:
The government's job is whatever the people want it to be, bro.

Well, that person and I don't want that to be government's job. If we're not people... Which is clearly what our elected officials think. They think we're subhuman morons who can't handle our existence effectively enough so they have to do it for us. It reminds me of what the slaveholders of the south thought pre-civil war. They defended slavery by saying the slaves needed the slaveholder's to run their lives for them. Obama a slaveholder?

Vader · Nov 24, 2009

Goobieman said:
Absolutely not.

First, insulating the consumer from the cost of the goods/services he receives only raises those costs.

Second, I have absolutely no responsibility to cover the health care costs of others.

Your kind made those benefits unaffordable for most of the populace by while pocketing the difference.

Since your kind created this mess they bear ABSOLUTE RESPONSIBILITY for fixing the damage caused by their own greed.

Vader · Nov 24, 2009

Goldenboy219 said:
I prefer: agenda serving

It's the same thing.

molten_dragon · Nov 24, 2009

Whip Comes Down said:
The government's job is whatever the people want it to be, bro.

Technically (and in theory) the government's job in a democracy is whatever the majority of people want it to be. It's a minor, but very important, difference.

In practice, it's far, far more complicated, since it's often difficult to tell exactly what the people want, and even then politicians often do whatever they (or another third party) want instead, for a number of reasons too large to list.

Goobieman · Nov 24, 2009

Vader said:
Your kind made those benefits unaffordable for most of the populace by while pocketing the difference.

Since your kind created this mess they bear ABSOLUTE RESPONSIBILITY for fixing the damage caused by their own greed.

Most people, when they have no idea what they are talking about, simply do not post.
Glad to see you're still in the minoirity.

earthworm · Nov 25, 2009

reefedjib said:
It's none of the government's business.

This sort of response is fine for hermits and people of 500 to 2,000 years ago, but not today.
People who are healthy should be very grateful for this, people who are not need the help of those strong and fortunate.
We are humans, not animals; even some higher animals show more compassion that this(its none of the government business).
Nor is it good to have health care as a for profit business. To profit from a man's misfortune is not right.
So, I support single payer.
I note that 55% of the responders do not..

When all of the world's developed nations (except the USA) have socialized health care, this evidently means we are not a developed country, at least socially...

Goobieman · Nov 25, 2009

earthworm said:
This sort of response is fine for hermits and people of 500 to 2,000 years ago, but not today.

Why?

People who are healthy should be very grateful for this, people who are not need the help of those strong and fortunate.

You have every right to be as charitible as you want.
Do not presume to make that choice for others.

We are humans, not animals; even some higher animals show more compassion that this(its none of the government business).

Compassion? That's a moral position.
Since when is it OK for you to force your moraility on me, and when do I get to return the favor?

Nor is it good to have health care as a for profit business. To profit from a man's misfortune is not right.

Its no different that the for-profit business of food production.
Does that need to go, too?

So, I support single payer.

Which is nothig more than you forcing your version of morality on othersn abd forcing people to pay for goods and services they did not receive.

I'm going to send you the bill for my next set of tires, and I will have the government force you to pay it.

When all of the world's developed nations (except the USA) have socialized health care, this evidently means we are not a developed country, at least socially...

Yes -- our social(ist) betters in Europe are SO much more 'developed' than us
:roll:

molten_dragon · Nov 25, 2009

Goobieman said:
Compassion? That's a moral position.
Since when is it OK for you to force your moraility on me, and when do I get to return the favor?

Isn't that the basic function of our government when you get right down to it? The creation and enforcement of a set of group-determined common morals?

Goobieman · Nov 25, 2009

molten_dragon said:
Isn't that the basic function of our government when you get right down to it? The creation and enforcement of a set of group-determined common morals?

Our system of government is based on protecting the rights of its people, not the enforcement of some version if morality.

Once you agree that it OK for you to enforce your version of morality onto others, you then give up any credibile ability to argue against someone else doing the same to you

molten_dragon · Nov 25, 2009

Goobieman said:
Our system of government is based on protecting the rights of its people, not the enforcement of some version if morality.

Once you agree that it OK for you to enforce your version of morality onto others, you then give up any credibile ability to argue against someone else doing the same to you

Our 'rights' are the group morality I was talking about. After all, we're the ones who determined which 'rights' our government would protect. There are many civilizations both today and in the past who, because they lived by different moral codes, had a very different set of 'rights' than what we have now.

Whip Comes Down · Nov 25, 2009

OpEdNews - Article: Single Payer Advocates Address Deep Flaws in Democratic Health Bill

Single Payer Advocates Address Deep Flaws in Democratic Health Bill

On the day before Thanksgiving, members of single payer advocacy organizations gathered for a press conference to voice strong concerns with a Democratic health bill that they feel fails to address the biggest problems with health care in America.

Dr. Carol Paris and Dr. Margaret Flowers of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), Kevin Zeese of Prosperity Agenda, and Russell Mokhiber of Single Payer Action were all present for the press conference in the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. at 10 am ET.

All four were members of the Baucus Eight that were arrested for confronting senators anddisrupting a Senate hearingafter Sen. Max Baucus and other senators took single payer off the table.

Dr. Paris said the Democratic bill makes the mistake of “keeping the biggest problem, which is the waste of the private insurance industry” a part of the health reform solution being proposed by Congress.

According to Russell Mokhiber, “It's unfair to call this health reform. This is an insurance industry and pharmaceutical industry bailout.”

Goobieman · Nov 25, 2009

molten_dragon said:
Our 'rights' are the group morality I was talking about.

Rights (at least here) are not a 'group morality'. They have nothing to do with a judgement of right and wrong, only a recognition of liberties that one is free to exercise based on a certain set of logical principles.

Rights supersede what someone thinks is moral or immoral -- you may find it immoal to kill someone, but you have the right to do so, should your life be appropriately threatened.

There are many civilizations both today and in the past who, because they lived by different moral codes, had a very different set of 'rights' than what we have now.

Perhaps so, but that doesnt necessitate any relationship between 'rights' and a 'moral code' -- rights MIGHT be based on a moral code, but they do no HAVE to be.

Once you argue that you can impose morality on others, it leaves the door open for them to do the same to you.

molten_dragon · Nov 25, 2009

Goobieman said:
Rights (at least here) are not a 'group morality'. They have nothing to do with a judgement of right and wrong, only a recognition of liberties that one is free to exercise based on a certain set of logical principles.

Rights supersede what someone thinks is moral or immoral -- you may find it immoal to kill someone, but you have the right to do so, should your life be appropriately threatened.

Rights have everything to do with right and wrong. The founding fathers thought it was wrong that they could be forced by the king to quarter soldiers in their homes, so they gave us the right to refuse to do so. When you really look into it, all of our laws and rights come from some idea of what is right and wrong.

Goobieman said:
Once you argue that you can impose morality on others, it leaves the door open for them to do the same to you.

They already do.

Goobieman · Nov 25, 2009

molten_dragon said:
Rights have everything to do with right and wrong. The founding fathers thought it was wrong that they could be forced by the king to quarter soldiers in their homes, so they gave us the right to refuse to do so. When you really look into it, all of our laws and rights come from some idea of what is right and wrong.

You're repeating yourself.

Your statement is incorrect:
You have the right to life. Murder is illegal not because it is wrong, but because it violates that right to life. There's no moral component to that.

They already do.

Under the conditions I have otherwise described, yes.
However, see above.

molten_dragon · Nov 25, 2009

Goobieman said:
You're repeating yourself.

You repeat yourself all the time, what's your point?

Goobieman said:
Your statement is incorrect:
You have the right to life. Murder is illegal not because it is wrong, but because it violates that right to life. There's no moral component to that.

It must be nice to think that your opinions carry the weight of fact. The fact that we have a right to life rises from a set of group morals. Dig a little deeper Goobie.

Goobieman said:
Under the conditions I have otherwise described, yes.
However, see above.

Ah, okay, so it's okay to impose your morals on others in some situations, but not in others. Glad to see you're at least consistent.

Goobieman · Nov 25, 2009

molten_dragon said:
You repeat yourself all the time, what's your point?

That restating your position does nothing to counter the argument against it.

(looking closer, you stated the same thing in two different topics. whcih is why I made the statement of you repeating yourself)

It must be nice to think that your opinions carry the weight of fact. The fact that we have a right to life rises from a set of group morals.

Show this to be true.
Where in the statement of morality, direct or supporting, in:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men....

Ah, okay, so it's okay to impose your morals on others in some situations, but not in others. Glad to see you're at least consistent.

I didn't say it was OK in any situation.

YOU. on the other hand, will say that is is OK in some situations, and not in others, based on the morality in question.
That is, it is OK when you agree with it, and it is NOT OK when you do not.

molten_dragon · Nov 25, 2009

Goobieman said:
That restating your position does nothing to counter the argument against it.

(looking closer, you stated the same thing in two different topics. whcih is why I made the statement of you repeating yourself)

You've done the same thing repeatedly in the short time I've been on these forums. Maybe you should practice what you preach.

Goobieman said:
Show this to be true.
Where in the statement of morality, direct or supporting, in:

After thinking on it some, I've come to the conclusion that you're partially right. I suppose the issue doesn't have so much to do with right and wrong, but more to do with beliefs. So 'Morals' probably isn't the best word for it, 'Beliefs' is probably better. The founding fathers believed that we were all created equal, and that we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and enough people agreed with them that the enforcement of those beliefs was imposed upon everyone.

So yes, it's perfectly okay to attempt to impose the consequences of my beliefs on others. And if I can get enough people to agree with me, I will. That's how democracy works.

Goobieman · Nov 25, 2009

molten_dragon said:
You've done the same thing repeatedly in the short time I've been on these forums. Maybe you should practice what you preach.

So you're not going to counter the argument against your statement, and isntead let that argument stand. Works for me.

After thinking on it some, I've come to the conclusion that you're partially right.

Thank you. Partly.

I suppose the issue doesn't have so much to do with right and wrong, but more to do with beliefs. So 'Morals' probably isn't the best word for it, 'Beliefs' is probably better. The founding fathers believed that we were all created equal, and that we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and enough people agreed with them that the enforcement of those beliefs was imposed upon everyone.

So yes, it's perfectly okay to attempt to impose the consequences of my beliefs on others

Thats fine, as far as it goes, but these beiliefs were not simply made up or taken up because they sounded or felt good -- they're basd on soiund reasoning. You can belive what you want -- can you put together a rational basis for it?

If not, then you may recall that faith in God is a belief, and as such a similarly acceptable basis upon which to create and enact public policy

And if I can get enough people to agree with me, I will. That's how democracy works.

Somehow, I'm pretty sure you;d take exception to that, if the cirumstances were different (see above). If I can get enough people to agree, then you'll have no objection to the impositions of the dicttaes of the Vatican - right?

molten_dragon · Nov 25, 2009

Goobieman said:
Thats fine, as far as it goes, but these beiliefs were not simply made up or taken up because they sounded or felt good -- they're basd on soiund reasoning. You can belive what you want -- can you put together a rational basis for it?

If not, then you may recall that faith in God is a belief, and as such a similarly acceptable basis upon which to create and enact public policy

Plenty of politicians try to pass laws based on their religious beliefs. Some are successful (laws against gay marriage being one of the most recent examples). I've voted against such laws, but in some cases the majority votes for them.

Goobieman said:
Somehow, I'm pretty sure you;d take exception to that, if the cirumstances were different (see above). If I can get enough people to agree, then you'll have no objection to the impositions of the dicttaes of the Vatican - right?

I'd have a lot of objection to the dictates of the Vatican, and I'd do everything in my power to prevent such a law from being passed. But if enough people agreed with you it would happen anyway, and I'd either deal with it or leave. That's just the way it works in America.

I'm not saying you don't have the right to fight against my beliefs being imposed upon you. I'm just saying that if enough people agree with me, we have the right to impose them regardless.

Goobieman · Nov 27, 2009

molten_dragon said:
Plenty of politicians try to pass laws based on their religious beliefs. Some are successful (laws against gay marriage being one of the most recent examples). I've voted against such laws, but in some cases the majority votes for them.

So you agree that 'its by belief' isnt a particularly strong argument for the imposition of same onto others.

I'd have a lot of objection to the dictates of the Vatican, and I'd do everything in my power to prevent such a law from being passed. But if enough people agreed with you it would happen anyway, and I'd either deal with it or leave. That's just the way it works in America.

I'm not saying you don't have the right to fight against my beliefs being imposed upon you. I'm just saying that if enough people agree with me, we have the right to impose them regardless.

Might makes right. Gotcha.

molten_dragon · Nov 28, 2009

Goobieman said:
Might makes right. Gotcha.

Not might, majority. That's how a democracy works.

Goobieman · Nov 30, 2009

molten_dragon said:
Not might, majority. That's how a democracy works.

No difference.

Plenty of politicians try to pass laws based on their religious beliefs. Some are successful (laws against gay marriage being one of the most recent examples). I've voted against such laws, but in some cases the majority votes for them.

So you agree that 'its by belief' isnt a particularly strong argument for the imposition of same onto others.

Vader · Dec 5, 2009

molten_dragon said:
Isn't that the basic function of our government when you get right down to it? The creation and enforcement of a set of group-determined common morals?

No, it is not.

The government is not supposed to regulate morality. That is a misnomer. The government is supposed to regulate conduct and make laws that govern the populace.

The government is supposed to approach this process from a neutral stand point. Herein lies the problem. The government is filled with right wing zealots who want to make laws according to their religious indoctrination.

This is unacceptable. They must be forced to check their religious beliefs at the door or they must be removed from the government.

peepnklown · Dec 6, 2009

Judge Napolitano sums it up nicely, “Everything is government runs is bankrupt.” I think Judge Napolitano should have added; government involvement (industry or service) equals higher prices and lower quality.
We need to get back to paying for basic medical services (the free-market will keep prices down and quality high) and only using insurance for the major illnesses and accidents.

Cephus · Dec 6, 2009

peepnklown said:
We need to get back to paying for basic medical services (the free-market will keep prices down and quality high) and only using insurance for the major illnesses and accidents.

That only works if there aren't external forces working to keep prices high like there are now. Shyster lawyers and the insurance industry which only pays 10%, on average, of the actual cost of services, both conspire to push the costs sky high in order for the medical industry to stay in business, yet nobody wants to touch these two sacred cows in the overhaul of health care.

So long as they're allowed to run rampant without anyone reigning them in, we'll never have a system that the free market can actually work on.

Do you support single-payer health care?

Do you support single-payer health care?

Yes

No

Maybe, if

New member

Anti-Hypocrite

Anti-Hypocrite

Anti-Hypocrite

Anti-Hypocrite

Anti-Hypocrite

Anti-Hypocrite

Anti-Hypocrite

Anti-Hypocrite

Frankernaut