• 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"

Arcana XV said:
What are you talking about? :confused:
Click to expand...

Wow, you were on that like a hawk. I wasn't singling Switzerland out, in particular, it was just the first name that came to mind. Most of Western Europe has superior healthcare to the United States, and they're much more efficient.
 
Catawba said:
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
Click to expand...

*Puts on magical swammy hat*

Predictions of this discussion with you.

Me: Make a bunch of factual points, with evidence.
You: Make of a bunch of points.
Me: Debunk all your evidence.
You: Resort to appeals to emotion, authority and bandwagon fallacy.

No thanks. :2wave:
 
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...

.....and all choice is removed from the equation isnt it......for the patients as well as the physicians. It will be the government option.....because there is no other option.

Got Slavery?
.
.
.
.
 
Badmutha said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is no comparison to doctors being paid for their services and slavery.

Your questions are just hyperbole especially since Dr. Paul is comfortable in arguing that medicare is necessary for his own poor and elderly patients.

Paul, a favorite of the tea party movement, once referred to Medicare as "socialized medicine," but has since toned down his rhetoric about the health insurance program for seniors.

Paul opposes cutting benefits for current Medicare recipients, Benton said.

"We're going to need to make some other tough choices about how we fix the insolvency problem," he said. "But cutting benefits for current recipients or near recipients would be immoral."​

We all pay for those who can't afford to pay for their medical needs. Universal/Single Payer coverage would better manage the cost of healthcare for all of us.
 
Gina said:
There is no comparison to doctors being paid for their services and slavery.

Your questions are just hyperbole especially since Dr. Paul is comfortable in arguing that medicare is necessary for his own poor and elderly patients.

Paul, a favorite of the tea party movement, once referred to Medicare as "socialized medicine," but has since toned down his rhetoric about the health insurance program for seniors.

Paul opposes cutting benefits for current Medicare recipients, Benton said.

"We're going to need to make some other tough choices about how we fix the insolvency problem," he said. "But cutting benefits for current recipients or near recipients would be immoral."​

We all pay for those who can't afford to pay for their medical needs. Universal/Single Payer coverage would better manage the cost of healthcare for all of us.
Click to expand...

Rand didn't change his "rhetoric" one bit on this. He has always framed it to make people understand those currently or soon to be relying on this entitlement will not have the rug pulled out from under them.
 
Gina said:
We all pay for those who can't afford to pay for their medical needs. Universal/Single Payer coverage would better manage the cost of healthcare for all of us.
Click to expand...

I've often wondered what this would do for business. Think about how much of a business' personnel costs are in providing health insurance, and how much their profits could increase with UHC. I'm not saying that's a reason to do it, but I have wondered what it could do for our economy.
 
rocket88 said:
I've often wondered what this would do for business. Think about how much of a business' personnel costs are in providing health insurance, and how much their profits could increase with UHC. I'm not saying that's a reason to do it, but I have wondered what it could do for our economy.
Click to expand...

unintended consequences of goverment intervention is the only reason employer provided health care dominates the market today.

ultimately, I see removing it having little difference in the economy - most of us seek a salary that provided for our requirements, and this is a form of salary./ It would help individuals with preexisting conditions from losing coverage when they change jobs.
 
ARealConservative said:
Rand didn't change his "rhetoric" one bit on this. He has always framed it to make people understand those currently or soon to be relying on this entitlement will not have the rug pulled out from under them.
Click to expand...

I was addressing the OP's topic. Rand said his services would be conscripted. He's a willing participant now and sees the need for the poor and elderly to have access to medical care, but somehow giving access to all Americans would enslave him? It's a poorly conveyed idea at best, demagogic and purposefully misleading at worst.

rocket88 said:
I've often wondered what this would do for business. Think about how much of a business' personnel costs are in providing health insurance, and how much their profits could increase with UHC. I'm not saying that's a reason to do it, but I have wondered what it could do for our economy.
Click to expand...

This is why Obama included UHC/Health care reform in discussing how he would address our economic problems. As you point out, it's a large expenditure for businesses and, as we are competing against businesses in other countries which have government provided health care. That gives them an advantage. That's why I never understand why large corporations are not extolling the virtue of UHC. It would give them that much greater profit if they were free of those costs.
 
MrVicchio said:
It's not a Right if another has to be imposed upon for you to exercise said Right.

WHICH is what is the point here. The supposed "RIGHT" to healthcare is bull****. You have RIGHT to access Healthcare, you do not have a RIGHT to Healthcare.
Click to expand...

ARealConservative said:
progressives are saying we do have a right to healthcare though.
Click to expand...

If the technology is there to save a life, should that life not be saved simply because the person can't pay for it? Should their entire life be dismal because they were saved, but now can't pay for the cost.

Mayor Snorkum said:
What kind of stupid remark is this?

O_amaCare forces citizens into The Plan.
Click to expand...

Rand isn't talking about Obamacare.

American said:
Next you'll want your food
Click to expand...

If someone is working, they shouldn't have to worry about paying for food. Thats the way capitalism is suppose to operate. Problem is, no one, with any power anyways, wants real capitalism. Evil maximum, thats all anyone cares about.


ARealConservative said:
you never supported his positions, and you clearly have no ability to understand the mindset of people that did support his opinions. so what you just wrote, is pure bull****.
Click to expand...

Doesn't change the fact that his analogy is a weak one.

If you work, you contribute to society and therefore shouldn't have to worry about basic life sustaining necessities.
 
Last edited:
Simon W. Moon said:
So if we had a choice to have a doctor or to have a court appoint a doctor, a right to health care would be just like the right to have an attorney?

I am not following you on that one.
Click to expand...

Rand was talking about the RIGHT to healthcare myth that people spew. For you to have the RIGHT to something Someone ELSE is obligated to provide it.

Take the Courts, you have the RIGHT to legal council, but that doesn't mean you NEED a lawyer. You are free to Represent yourself.
 
MrVicchio said:
Rand was talking about the RIGHT to healthcare myth that people spew. For you to have the RIGHT to something Someone ELSE is obligated to provide it.

Take the Courts, you have the RIGHT to legal council, but that doesn't mean you NEED a lawyer. You are free to Represent yourself.
Click to expand...

So people should just be left to die, no matter if they can be saved or not.
 
MrVicchio said:
Rand was talking about the RIGHT to healthcare myth that people spew. For you to have the RIGHT to something Someone ELSE is obligated to provide it.

Take the Courts, you have the RIGHT to legal council, but that doesn't mean you NEED a lawyer. You are free to Represent yourself.
Click to expand...

That's a really bad example. You'd be better off with my argument. If health care is a right and the government controls the means to which you exercise your right, then your right to health care is no longer a right but a privilege that is subject to the whims of the government.
 
xpiher said:
So people should just be left to die, no matter if they can be saved or not.
Click to expand...

So we can't pay for huge entitlements without destroying the economy, ruining the dollar... but hey, well feel good on the way down right!

Emergency Care is one thing, UHC is another, stay on topic.
 
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...

So, you don't believe we have problems? I agree hyperbole is all too common on all sides in politics. However, can we agree the system has problems.
 
MrVicchio said:
So we can't pay for huge entitlements without destroying the economy, ruining the dollar... but hey, we'll feel good on the way down right!

Emergency Care is one thing, UHC is another, stay on topic.
Click to expand...

I am on topic. Heres how it works. A person has heart disease and cannot pay for the treatments. He/she then sufferes from a heart attack and is taken to the emergency room.

And UHC would lower cost either through proper mechanisms such as providing for preventive medicine, or through improper ways like price controls.

I don't agree with UHC. I agree with a societal/cultural shift were, if you work, you are able to provide for yourself.
 
MrVicchio said:
RealClearPolitics - Video - Sen. Rand Paul: Right To Health Care Is Like Believing In "Slavery"

He's spot on, watch the video, he makes a great point.
Click to expand...

Well, Paul is good for nothing else but the consistent use of Ayn Rand talking points. And as we heard, Paul is not just referring to health care, but also to food and shelter. According to Paul and the other Ayn Rand Acolytes, any time the government forces you to contribute to society in the form of taxes and social safety net programs, it is an intrusion of force on you to give to someone else. They would have us believe that if we take away the "nanny state" and remove almost all taxes, that the poor and underprivelidged will be taken care of by charity alone. Provided the selfish philosophy that Ayn Rand celebrates will allow for sufficient charity.

The irony is that modern society is forced to impose selflessness on its citizens due to the selfishness of people like Rand Paul. In the end Sen. Paul's namesake and hero believed in her right to have the government take care of her medical needs. At the end of her life she did go on her husbands Social Security benefits, and she also took advantage of Medicare.
 
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...

The fact that the court can appoint one to you could mean that if no attorneys wanted to take you case, the government could force an attorney to take you as a client. It happens every day in courts across the country. So in this case, the government is forcing services of one person onto another. Slavery, right?
 
Boo Radley said:
So, you don't believe we have problems? I agree hyperbole is all too common on all sides in politics. However, can we agree the system has problems.
Click to expand...

Yes but the constant tail spin to UHC, is just bandwagoning.
That isn't serious review.

Cpwill has already detailed that there are other options available that could cut costs while increasing accessibility.
Those are routinely ignored because we must follow Europe.

There are better ways, that doesn't eliminate choice of providers, and may actually be cheaper per month.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Yes but the constant tail spin to UHC, is just bandwagoning.
That isn't serious review.

Cpwill has already detailed that there are other options available that could cut costs while increasing accessibility.
Those are routinely ignored because we must follow Europe.

There are better ways, that doesn't eliminate choice of providers, and may actually be cheaper per month.
Click to expand...

No one was suggesting eliminating choice of providers. Except for the "free market" insurance companies, who routinely do.
 
Paschendale said:
No one was suggesting eliminating choice of providers. Except for the "free market" insurance companies, who routinely do.
Click to expand...

I have a choice of insurance companies, a choice of doctors, a choice of medications, pretty much anything I want.

When you enact UHC, where the consumer does not face price as a factor, people over consume medical care.
The government will have to eliminate choices in care, to control costs.
All countries with UHC do this.

There are other options, that are more complicated but seek to actually remedy the situation, without creating another government bureaucracy.
Because these options are not well known and can not fit into a talking point people routinely ignore them, because they don't research the situation beyond the nonsense that is spouted on tv and by political pundits.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I have a choice of insurance companies, a choice of doctors, a choice of medications, pretty much anything I want.

When you enact UHC, where the consumer does not face price as a factor, people over consume medical care.
The government will have to eliminate choices in care, to control costs.
All countries with UHC do this.

There are other options, that are more complicated but seek to actually remedy the situation, without creating another government bureaucracy.
Because these options are not well known and can not fit into a talking point people routinely ignore them, because they don't research the situation beyond the nonsense that is spouted on tv and by political pundits.
Click to expand...

To be fair, insurance inflates price as well.
 
xpiher said:
To be fair, insurance inflates price as well.
Click to expand...

Our current insurance system does do this.
With price not being a factor in care, people consume to the limit they are allowed.

I do not want politicians further regulating what type of insurance, with what benefits, individuals have to chose.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Our current insurance system does do this.
With price not being a factor in care, people consume to the limit they are allowed.

I do not want politicians further regulating what type of insurance, with what benefits, individuals have to chose.
Click to expand...

All the government really had to do to fix insurance (this wouldn't fix health care) was to say that people can't be denyed coverage for everything because of previous condition. This would of allowed everyone to purchase relatively cheap catastrophic care while getting the "in network" discounts for everything else. I don't agree with the existence of in network discounts since it drives up cost, but thats the system thats not going away.
 
xpiher said:
All the government really had to do to fix insurance (this wouldn't fix health care) was to say that people can't be denyed coverage for everything because of previous condition. This would of allowed everyone to purchase relatively cheap catastrophic care while getting the "in network" discounts for everything else. I don't agree with the existence of in network discounts since it drives up cost, but thats the system thats not going away.
Click to expand...

I would be fine with that, if there were repeals of other laws, like the HMO act, minimum benefit mandates, the ceiling on doctors being graduated, removal of the employer tax advantage, etc.

Surgical (aka catastrophic) plans existed about 10-15 years ago, I remember considering buying one.
Now they're no longer an option because of benefit mandates.
 
Badmutha said:
.....and all choice is removed from the equation isnt it......for the patients as well as the physicians. It will be the government option.....because there is no other option.

Got Slavery?
Click to expand...

That's completely asinine. Patients' would, finally, have access to the medical care they want, and need. If they wanted, they could still buy private insurance. If they don't want medical care, by all means, they can stay home and die, however, I don't expect many will make that choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom