• 🛑Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
    Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community! 💪
  • 💪Muscle Gelz® 30% Off Easter Sale👉www.musclegelz.com Coupon code: EASTER30🐰

Harry Reid: Obamacare A Train Wreck

IML Gear Cream!
Those aren't rights, they're privileges from living in a country with other people who create wealth.

what they are is part of every major functional society in the world. the ones that don't provide those basic needs you pretty much only find in the 3rd world, so then there's that.
 
All ^^this^ doesn't mean jack squat!! This country is going to hell in a hand basket--no matter who you point the finger at!! Government is corrupt--left, right, 3rd party.. It will take years and years to get out of a fucking terrible hole the Bush Admin left us in--no matter how you spin it.:coffee:


fuck
 
and your statement doesn't hold true in reality because the US financial sector receives the vast majority of the national income and it creates no wealth at all in fact, it destroys it. real wealth is only created in the manufacturing of goods and the US has lost almost 50,000 manufacturing facilities in the past decades and now has a manufacturing sector that employees less people then it did in the 50's.
 
No, those are rights.

They're not natural rights since they don't transcend the society we live in. There's nothing inherent about others being obligated to care for you. They're not legal rights, certainly not in the universal sense he stated. They're not rights in a meaningful sense of the word. However anything can be a right in the smurf word sense.
 
They're not natural rights since they don't transcend the society we live in. There's nothing inherent about others being obligated to care for you. They're not legal rights, certainly not in the universal sense he stated. They're not rights in a meaningful sense of the word. However anything can be a right in the smurf word sense.

I actually used to have this same view years ago. I would get into debates with my professors about how healthcare was not a right but a privilege. This has actually changed over the years of working in healthcare. In my opinion, to not act to relieve the pain and suffering of others when it is in your power to do so violates the very ethics of medicine. Historically, medical care was started as a ministry to relieve pain and suffering by different religious groups. Now though I've seen how healthcare is business first, something I take issue with. Fiscal responsibility is needed but profit drives today's US healthcare system more than the benefit of the individual. Even not-for-profits with CEOs making 500k+/year.

That being said, many people abuse our current system and are a major part of why everything is so messed up.

I do believe that there are potential solutions but to expand on them now would be a major thread hijack and a wall of text.
 
I believe Obamacare is 'working as intended'.

I believe Obamacare was never designed to fix the healthcare system. It was designed as a move towards universal healthcare coverage. A lot of the youtube conspiracy story stuff is just paranoia but I honestly do believe that the main intention of Obamacare is to bankrupt the private insurance industry setting the stage for universal coverage in the future, possibly as soon as the next few decades.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kvg8qVKZYuM

fast forward to 3:30. I looked for just that interview but didn't find it, the other stuff is interesting though.
 
Last edited:
They're not natural rights since they don't transcend the society we live in.

your right not in the US they aren't. the ONLY reason why the private sector in the US even began to offer health benefits was because of the war (WWII) and there were price controls in place which were normal back then. employers got around that hurdle by offering health benefits.

what's crazy is that Blue Cross & Blue Shield actually started in backwards ass Texas (who would have thought) and it spread out from there.

but to simply say that since it wasn't a natural right in the US it should stay that was is nonsense. as we are seeing today the profit motive in the US has destroyed this country because everything SHOULDN'T be for profit. because the needs of the many most certainly outweighs the needs of the few in any civilized "sustainable" society.
 
I actually used to have this same view years ago. I would get into debates with my professors about how healthcare was not a right but a privilege. This has actually changed over the years of working in healthcare. In my opinion, to not act to relieve the pain and suffering of others when it is in your power to do so violates the very ethics of medicine.

What you're describing is not the right to healthcare. You're leaving out the most crucial part. The right to healthcare entails that society takes a portion of the money someone earns and uses it to pay for the healthcare of another. You might argue it makes sense to do or is the right thing to do but it's still not a right in the sense of property rights or right to life. These are intrinsically necessary for a society to function, universal healthcare is clearly not.
 
but to simply say that since it wasn't a natural right in the US it should stay that was is nonsense.

I didn't. We shouldn't confuse the two and when we use the word "rights" we should be precise. Don't be a bitch and equivocate what you think should be a legal right with natural rights.
 
IML Gear Cream!
They're not natural rights since they don't transcend the society we live in. There's nothing inherent about others being obligated to care for you. They're not legal rights, certainly not in the universal sense he stated. They're not rights in a meaningful sense of the word. However anything can be a right in the smurf word sense.

9th Amendment
 
I didn't. We shouldn't confuse the two and when we use the word "rights" we should be precise. Don't be a bitch and equivocate what you think should be a legal right with natural rights.

apparently the rest of the OECD thinks that it should be a natural right for a person to have affordable healthcare that doesn't bankrupt them. and the jury is back on that one and the US was wrong again. the use of comparative economics makes solving many of these problems so easy for those not governed by belief systems and rigid, inflexible ideologies.

once again the US way has proven to be the wrong way to foster a sustainable society unless that was never the plan, in that case it's working perfectly...
 
What you're describing is not the right to healthcare. You're leaving out the most crucial part. The right to healthcare entails that society takes a portion of the money someone earns and uses it to pay for the healthcare of another. You might argue it makes sense to do or is the right thing to do but it's still not a right in the sense of property rights or right to life. These are intrinsically necessary for a society to function, universal healthcare is clearly not.

I believe we may differ in our view of society. I believe societies function around cooperation, especially in areas of mutual interest/impact. It is everyone's interest to have a functioning healthcare system that has access for everyone.

Rights to life and rights to property are for the most part personal rights. A right for healthy food, water, medicine and education is what makes a society.

I believe that universal healthcare is essential for society to function. The reality is America already has forms of universal healthcare except we call it things like EMTALA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act

This is why when I work in the ER many of the people in there have no insurance and go the the ER (their clinic) and run up thousands of dollars to get worked up on something that a clinic visit could address for much less. The result of the usually unpaid ER bills that get passed onto the paying consumer. This is a major reason why it cost $2800/night for the ICU, that's almost 3k for just the room, this fee does not include nursing, physicians, testing, meds, labs you name it.

Americans already pay for Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance costs, citizens in other countries pay for universal coverage.

The average American that tries to play by the rules and do things right is ONE serious medical event away from bankruptcy.

For those that say America cannot afford universal coverage I agree, under the current system. The truth is that America cannot afford not to reform the healthcare system and adopt some form of sane universal coverage.
 
Last edited:
Should have went with the fifth.

Try reading it. We have more rights than those specifically called out for in the constitution.
 
What you're describing is not the right to healthcare. You're leaving out the most crucial part. The right to healthcare entails that society takes a portion of the money someone earns and uses it to pay for the healthcare of another. You might argue it makes sense to do or is the right thing to do but it's still not a right in the sense of property rights or right to life. These are intrinsically necessary for a society to function, universal healthcare is clearly not.

I didn't. We shouldn't confuse the two and when we use the word "rights" we should be precise. Don't be a bitch and equivocate what you think should be a legal right with natural rights.

In reading this two posts I took it to mean you were discussing rights in relation to legal rights versus natural rights and how universal healthcare is not needed for society to function. My post in part was me sharing my point of view that what affects society also affects the individual living in the society. I believe that both legal and natural rights have a direct relationship to societal issues, especially on a topic of federally mandated healthcare for the nation since people often don't choose to get ill.

We're not discussing the same thing.
If I was mistaken in my reading of your posts then I may have just misinterpreted your comments. If that is the case would you please clarify for me what exactly your discussing so I can understand your points better?
 
Try reading it. We have more rights than those specifically called out for in the constitution.

there are so many people that just can't grasp that the US Constitution is only the foundation for rights, legislation, etc.
 
Poor Lam will cry like a baby when his Girlfriend leaves office and hasnt done shit in 8 years and his #1 Obama care wont happened.His legacy is shit in 5 years and we have 3 more to go
 
IML Gear Cream!
Poor Lam will cry like a baby when his Girlfriend leaves office and hasnt done shit in 8 years and his #1 Obama care wont happened.His legacy is shit in 5 years and we have 3 more to go

let me guess you thought he was? haven't learned a single thing from US history have you? but then again you don't know it so that would make it pretty hard.

I do know that more financial deregulation did not/has not occurred and that is a good thing for the US because that is exactly what Romney was promising the financial sector and with a GOP controlled House they would have got it.
 
I do believe every American has the right to basic things: food, shelter, education no matter their economic standing..

So you think some dead beat lazy ass person has these "rights".

GTFO, its people who think like this that are part of the problem in this country.

"GIMME! GIMME! I deserve it! (at the expense of the tax payer) :nono:
 
So you think some dead beat lazy ass person has these "rights".

GTFO, its people who think like this that are part of the problem in this country.

"GIMME! GIMME! I deserve it! (at the expense of the tax payer) :nono:

It's people like you that haven't read the constitution, much less be able to understand it, that are the true problem.
 
In reading this two posts I took it to mean you were discussing rights in relation to legal rights versus natural rights and how universal healthcare is not needed for society to function. My post in part was me sharing my point of view that what affects society also affects the individual living in the society. I believe that both legal and natural rights have a direct relationship to societal issues, especially on a topic of federally mandated healthcare for the nation since people often don't choose to get ill.


If I was mistaken in my reading of your posts then I may have just misinterpreted your comments. If that is the case would you please clarify for me what exactly your discussing so I can understand your points better?

In your response to society functioning without universal healthcare you listed an act that's only existed since 1986(the U.S. thrived before). Then you go into why you think we ought have universal healthcare. Neither of these counter the point I was making. I even preemptively addressed these points in what you quoted. I've lost interest.
 
apparently the rest of the OECD thinks that it should be a natural right for a person to have affordable healthcare that doesn't bankrupt them. and the jury is back on that one and the US was wrong again. the use of comparative economics makes solving many of these problems so easy for those not governed by belief systems and rigid, inflexible ideologies.

once again the US way has proven to be the wrong way to foster a sustainable society unless that was never the plan, in that case it's working perfectly...
What about when it bankrupts the state? I work with healthcare organizations in the US, Canada, the UK, Germany, Switzerland, Sweeden, Holland, really all over Europe. Give me what we have here any day of the week and twice on Sunday. I'd much rather take the level of care available to me here compared to other parts of the world.
 
It's people like you that haven't read the constitution, much less be able to understand it, that are the true problem.

Your comments demonstrate your complete lack of knowledge on this subject. There should be a test before some people are allowed to post.
 
let me guess you thought he was? haven't learned a single thing from US history have you? but then again you don't know it so that would make it pretty hard.

I do know that more financial deregulation did not/has not occurred and that is a good thing for the US because that is exactly what Romney was promising the financial sector and with a GOP controlled House they would have got it.



And thats all you ever say "you dont know anything about history,lets face it LAM you been up Obamas ass since day 1 and this idiot has done a horrible job as President and ruined this country worse then it already was.Build this fence first then move on with other shit.But Obama care is dead when he leaves office
 
In your response to society functioning without universal healthcare you listed an act that's only existed since 1986(the U.S. thrived before). Then you go into why you think we ought have universal healthcare. Neither of these counter the point I was making. I even preemptively addressed these points in what you quoted. I've lost interest.

I actually list much more than EMTALA:
I believe we may differ in our view of society. I believe societies function around cooperation, especially in areas of mutual interest/impact. It is everyone's interest to have a functioning healthcare system that has access for everyone.

Rights to life and rights to property are for the most part personal rights. A right for healthy food, water, medicine and education is what makes a society.

I believe that universal healthcare is essential for society to function. The reality is America already has forms of universal healthcare except we call it things like EMTALA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act

This is why when I work in the ER many of the people in there have no insurance and go the the ER (their clinic) and run up thousands of dollars to get worked up on something that a clinic visit could address for much less. The result of the usually unpaid ER bills that get passed onto the paying consumer. This is a major reason why it cost $2800/night for the ICU, that's almost 3k for just the room, this fee does not include nursing, physicians, testing, meds, labs you name it.

Americans already pay for Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance costs, citizens in other countries pay for universal coverage.

The average American that tries to play by the rules and do things right is ONE serious medical event away from bankruptcy.

For those that say America cannot afford universal coverage I agree, under the current system. The truth is that America cannot afford not to reform the healthcare system and adopt some form of sane universal coverage.


What you're describing is not the right to healthcare. You're leaving out the most crucial part. The right to healthcare entails that society takes a portion of the money someone earns and uses it to pay for the healthcare of another. You might argue it makes sense to do or is the right thing to do but it's still not a right in the sense of property rights or right to life. These are intrinsically necessary for a society to function, universal healthcare is clearly not.
Part of my post was me sharing my point of view that what affects society also affects the individual living in the society. Quite relevant to your statement.

I even preemptively addressed these points in what you quoted.
Would you be so gracious to re-post it since I'm having a difficult time making the connection between what I'm reading you say and what you say you're saying?
I've lost interest.
If that is indeed true then I'm sad for the loss of your interest in this topic (not being sarcastic). I value other people's opinions as long as they're genuine. Opinions that differ from my own don't threaten or offend me, I often learn the most when someone shares their opposing position.
If you do intend to rejoin this dialog to advance the topic then I'll take your statement as an emotional moment.
If your throwing your hands up in the air after being re-quoted verbatim and having your views challenged then I'll take that to mean your either offended or you recognize your opinions may not have been expressed in a way that you wish to defend.
 
Your comments demonstrate your complete lack of knowledge on this subject. There should be a test before some people are allowed to post.

If you say so.

:rolleyes:
 
Back
Top