A.M.A. Opposes Government-Sponsored Healthcare Plan

[fmccap]

Healthcare Is a Good, Not a Right

Obviously, if healthcare providers were suddenly considered outright slaves to healthcare consumers, our medical schools would quickly empty. As the government continues to convince us that healthcare is a right instead of a good, it also very generously agrees to step in as middleman. Politicians can be very good at making it sound as if healthcare will be free for everybody. Nothing could be further from the truth. The administration doesn’t want you to think too much about how hospitals will be funded, or how you will somehow get something for nothing in the healthcare arena. We are asked to just trust the politicians. Somehow it will all work out.

 

Universal Healthcare never quite works out the way the people are led to believe before implementing it. Citizens in countries with nationalized healthcare never would have accepted this system had they known upfront about the rationing of care and the long lines.

[suv_guy_19]

What he's really saying is that people are goods....and that's why he never had a chance of being elected. Everyone for themselves, and may the richest man win. He holds true to that ideology, more so than anyone else perhaps.

[fmccap]

What he's really saying is that people are goods....and that's why he never had a chance of being elected. Everyone for themselves, and may the richest man win. He holds true to that ideology, more so than anyone else perhaps.

That is what you are saying.

 

Explain to me how since I was born and so-called have a right to healthcare, what if nobody wanted to be a doctor anymore??? Who would provide that right?

[suv_guy_19]

That's irrelevant, because there are doctors (though no country has enough.

 

I would direct you to the opening line of the Declaration of Independence:

 

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.

 

If life really is a right, and I think that it is, and if health is essential to life, which it is, then I don't think there's an argument to be made.

 

Were the people who wrote the declaration right? Are those truths really self evident, and if not why? If they are, why should people not follow them?

Edited September 4, 2009 by suv_guy_19

[fmccap]

That's irrelevant, because there are doctors (though no country has enough.

 

I would direct you to the opening line of the Declaration of Independence:

 

 

 

If life really is a right, and I think that it is, and if health is essential to life, which it is, then I don't think there's an argument to be made.

 

Were the people who wrote the declaration right? Are those truths really self evident, and if not why? If they are, why should people not follow them?

I see a right to life as I have a right to live and live freely. I don't see anything that says I have to pay for anyone elses health or a doctor has to provide his services to anyone.

 

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

[edit] Origin and phrasing

The famous phrase is based on the writings of English philosopher John Locke, who expressed that "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."[1]

 

The first article of the Virginia Declaration of Rights adopted unanimously by the Virginia Convention of Delegates on June 12, 1776 and written by George Mason, is:

 

That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

 

Benjamin Franklin was in league with Thomas Jefferson in downplaying protecting "property" as a goal of government, replacing the idea with "happiness."[2] The United States Declaration of Independence, which was primarily written by Jefferson, was adopted by the Second Continental Congress on July 4, 1776. The text of the second section of the Declaration of Independence reads:

 

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.

[grbeck]

If life really is a right, and I think that it is, and if health is essential to life, which it is, then I don't think there's an argument to be made.

 

Were the people who wrote the declaration right? Are those truths really self evident, and if not why? If they are, why should people not follow them?

 

They listed "life" as a right in the sense that no government has the right to take away your life by a direct action - i.e., execution - unless you are properly charged with a crime, given due process, and ajudicated guilty in a court of law.

 

They didn't mean that everyone has the right to expect government to pay to extend a life, or that everyone has the right to live at least X number of years, and therefore has the right to government help to make that happen.

 

The government is expected to refrain from doing something to take away your life, except in exceptional circumstances. The government is not expected to take an affirmative action to ensure that you live. That is your responsibility.

Edited September 4, 2009 by grbeck

[suv_guy_19]

That's one interpretation.

[grbeck]

That's one interpretation.

 

It would be quite a stretch to read a right to government-mandated health care into that clause.

[fmccap]

If life really is a right, and I think that it is, and if health is essential to life, which it is, then I don't think there's an argument to be made.

Once again where is personal responsibility????????????

You should be responsible for your health and you can pursue healthcare if you need it.

[suv_guy_19]

Once again where is personal responsibility????????????

You should be responsible for your health and you can pursue healthcare if you need it.

 

 

How far does that responsibility go? Should you go to the doctor? Should the doctor have to treat you? Should we all be responsible for everything to do with our lives? How far are you willing to go with that?

[fmccap]

How far does that responsibility go? Should you go to the doctor? Should the doctor have to treat you? Should we all be responsible for everything to do with our lives? How far are you willing to go with that?

That should be the highest part of it, you should learn to take care of yourself and not depend on others to do it. How far should the governments(the people) responsibilities go??????

 

So you feel that you are not responsible for everything to do with your life but others should be???

 

It may be hard for you to believe but I'll go all the way with it. All I need is the basic government our Constitution provides us.

[grbeck]

How far does that responsibility go? Should you go to the doctor? Should the doctor have to treat you? Should we all be responsible for everything to do with our lives? How far are you willing to go with that?

 

Should you go to the doctor?

 

That is up to the person, as long as he or she is an adult.

 

Should the doctor have to treat you?

 

If the doctor is self-employed, he or she is free to treat or not treat any patient.

 

Should we be responsible for everything we do in our lives?

 

Generally, that is the most productive and fulfilling way to live a life.

[Edstock]

That should be the highest part of it, you should learn to take care of yourself and not depend on others to do it.

Do-It-Yourself surgery and dentistry have their drawbacks.

[suv_guy_19]

Generally, that is the most productive and fulfilling way to live a life.

 

and what about the things we can't control? For example, what if we get an infectious disease from another person who thought that they could do whatever they wanted to do whenever they wanted to do it? What then? Who should be responsible? Should there not be some protection.

[suv_guy_19]

It may be hard for you to believe but I'll go all the way with it. All I need is the basic government our Constitution provides us.

 

Right then...goodbye USAF.

[fmccap]

Right then...goodbye USAF.

Goodbye why? There number 1 job is to protect our borders from invaders. At that time there was no AF or a threat of one, now there is and they are within there job of protecting us with one.

[fmccap]

and what about the things we can't control? For example, what if we get an infectious disease from another person who thought that they could do whatever they wanted to do whenever they wanted to do it? What then? Who should be responsible? Should there not be some protection.

Anything you do in life has risk, EVERYTHING.

[suv_guy_19]

I believe that the constitution specifies specifically armies and navies....no word about an airforce.

Edited September 4, 2009 by suv_guy_19

[xr7g428]

Technically, it is the Army Air Force. The change in command structure took place following WWII. It's okay that a Canadian would not know this, I certainly would not claim to know the structure of your military.

[suv_guy_19]

My bad, I guess that's OK then. I learned something new. I was only having fun with him. You can't take me seriously at least half the time.

 

Our forces are all one structure with different commands for each branch.

[macattak1]

My bad, I guess that's OK then. I learned something new. I was only having fun with him. You can't take me seriously at least half the time.

 

Our forces are all one structure with different commands for each branch.

 

At least half the time? Then what is the sense? Or is there like 1000 ways I could have read that?

[Mark B. Morrow]

More lies and misrepresentations about Health Care Reform

 

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-si...-about-hr-3200/

[Edstock]

Rolling Stone has an interesting article too:

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story...ick_and_wrong/1

 

Sick and Wrong

How Washington is screwing up health care reform – and why it may take a revolt to fix it

 

Let's start with the obvious: America has not only the worst but the dumbest health care system in the developed world. It's become a black leprosy eating away at the American experiment — a bureaucracy so insipid and mean and illogical that even our darkest criminal minds wouldn't be equal to dreaming it up on purpose.

 

The system doesn't work for anyone. It cheats patients and leaves them to die, denies insurance to 47 million Americans, forces hospitals to spend billions haggling over claims, and systematically bleeds and harasses doctors with the specter of catastrophic litigation. Even as a mechanism for delivering bonuses to insurance-company fat cats, it's a miserable failure: Greedy insurance bosses who spent a generation denying preventive care to patients now see their profits sapped by millions of customers who enter the system only when they're sick with incurably expensive illnesses.

 

The cost of all of this to society, in illness and death and lost productivity and a soaring federal deficit and plain old anxiety and anger, is incalculable — and that's the good news. The bad news is our failed health care system won't get fixed, because it exists entirely within the confines of yet another failed system: the political entity known as the United States of America.

 

Intelligence and Perspective

[xr7g428]

So Mark, you are as willing to accept Factcheck.org as others are to accept the email. Pot, meet kettle. I have read the first few hundred pages and the intent of the law is pretty clear, and it appears to be more social engineering than cost containment. I recommend you actually read the thing. I understand that you are 100% in favor of every word in the document, but then you might at least know what you are in favor of.

[Mark B. Morrow]

So Mark, you are as willing to accept Factcheck.org as others are to accept the email. Pot, meet kettle. I have read the first few hundred pages and the intent of the law is pretty clear, and it appears to be more social engineering than cost containment. I recommend you actually read the thing. I understand that you are 100% in favor of every word in the document, but then you might at least know what you are in favor of.

 

 

That isn't even a close comparison. Factcheck is completely non-partisan and I have yet to see them proven wrong. If you can show something they got wrong, please share. They call Obama on it when he is wrong on the facts as well. Factcheck provides the references and the context that these e-mails ignore.

 

I have waded through almost all of H.R 3200 about 900 pgs. It has taken hours to read. Much of it is boilerplate and definitions and it is pretty boring to read. I'm not 100% infavor of all of it. I believe that there are many things that could be stated in clearer language that wouldn't take a lawyer to understand. I don't expect to support 100% of any bill that comes out of Congress. Politics is the art of compromise. What ever law is eventually passed will be altered and amended as we find out what works and what doesn't. The fact is that there will be some trial and error in what ever passes.