Healthcare - A Privilege Or A Right?

Yup, that's the idea obama is feeding to the idiots and they're buying it hook line and sinker.

Let's see..... I'm standing on a cliff. It's dangerous. I'm gonna jump since it's better to do something than nothing.

The idiocy of the rabble still siding with obama is amazing

Is there any reason BFT3K and TheDoc are in this business and not doctors/lawyers? ROFL

It's funny how we all argue about this
But at least we have the choice of doing so
If the president can get something this big thru without a vote, or by going around the rules, then we have as a nation already lost because with all the people that have spoken out among it, all the polls showing that they don't want this, then our freedom has just been take away from us.

We're going to get a repeat of history, the last time this happened it was to Clinton, but I don't think the voters are going to be as nice this time. Too bad, as a nation under Clinton and a GOP house and senate, our economy did pretty damn good, people had jobs, Business was going pretty good, the everything went in the deep hole, first Bush, then a Democratic congress and House that ran on the promise of change, well we got the change. The country ain't doing well and after over a year we have a president that has not addressed our concerns over health-care, even in an interview, he just stuck to sales mode, not answering the questions. At Least the new version we can all read, 2700 pages worth, good luck with that, anyone that says they understand it or think it's going to do good is full of shit, you have NO idea what it's going to do, you're just trusting the government, not just the liberal side, both sides, because do you think the democrats will always be in charge?

Hello Stupid Fuck...

Your Not In The Porn Industry Of Course You Wouldn't See Me Posting On Most Topics On An Adult Industry Forum!

Shoot yourself, your not worth a zero.

Might wanna read "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith;

"By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was not part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it."

Yep, a good reason too... we make more money!

You're* And if I'm not worth a zero, then I'm worth something. What a fucking moron rofl.

I was going to say less money and half the intelligence. Of course, I don't recall which lie you two are on in regards to your success

The "2700" pages will not be the bill that you get as there will be court challenges and injunctions as the challenges work there way through the lower courts...appeal courts and ultimately the Supreme Court. Thus there will be modifications to any bill that may be passed...and as of this point in time nothing has been passed and I still have doubts that a bill will be passed.

What a tool of a come back but expected from a shit stain such as yourself..

Well I would love a bitch boy such as yourself to prove I haven't had success... please, I would love for you, the nobody, not in our industry, that comes to our forum and posts, to tell me about success...

Well, I'm waiting.... bitch boy.

Sure, but let's look at this recent debacle that was touched off by the subprime mortgage crisis. Would you say that by pursuing their own interests companies like Countrywide, BofA, Lehman Bros., Goldman Sachs, et al promoted the interests of society more effectually than what they intended? These men did not act in the public good and it's clear they DID no public good. Quite the contrary.

With all due respect to Adam Smith the invisible hand needs a bit of regulation to keep it honest. As long as free markets are run by mortal men there is going to have to be some sort of oversight. I think this last rodeo with deregulation should be clear evidence to that.

But your post does not address what I was asking directly. It's not a matter of whether or not private industry can do better by commodifying certain goods/services, it's whether or not the commodification should be allowed in the first place. That some companies are commodifying their own employees is repugnant and should be disallowed without debate.

Yeah, the state of Idaho has a law to sue the government if they try to force them to pay health insurance

Bump for proof... or maybe the ban hammer?

It appears we are not at odds about what we think should happen with healthcare reform. Since this debate started a year ago,I thought it was about time for real healthcare reform. My mainstream business does provide healthcare and dental to our employees. The monthly premium is staggering. I clearly have an interest in seeing some kind of control.

What I disagree with is the way Pelosi,Reed and The President are ramrodding the bill. Making closed door deals,etc. It makes me wonder what their real agenda is. With more than 1/2 the country against this bill they have made it a galvanizing issue for the country. With the economy as off as it has been,I think their timing for this issue was at best ill advised.

I haven't seen the country this divided since Vietnam.

I don't have to prove that you don't have success, you'd have to prove that you do Ah, your stupidity grows more and more. Didn't you say you had kids? I don't know why you'd lie about something like that, considering this great country wouldn't dare let you procreate.

Bah adam Smith. I'm more of a Hayek/Mises guy. Classical economics is almost as flawed as keynesian economics.

Hahah good luck at trying to get me banned. I'm sure the people on this forum will have more laughs at your expense.

you question is flawed

the issue is whether healthcare insurance is a fundamental human right or a goods like food or a job.

If you were to phrase your question that way it would change votes on this board as well

The only person who is a failure here is you. Those examples are about services that are apart of a free market in this country that are privileges not rights, just like full coverage health care. It has as much to do with health care as your idiotic rambling about the rich white people who founded this country.

Go back to smoking your bong, hippie.

you cannot turn a good into a human right

hahahahahahahaha

Lol@health care being a human right. I guess so is welfare.

I agree. This bill was passed by the senate and most people agreed that, as it sits, it wouldn't pass the house so there would have to be changes made to both the house and senate bills in order to get a bill that would get through both. Then the democrats lost their super-majority and crapped their pants. Now they are doing everything they can to get the senate bill through the house. Who knows what kind of promises were made to change people's minds and get them to vote for this bill and who knows what kind of insanity will follow in the form of amendments to the bill to follow through on all those promises.

The odd thing is that both parties and almost all of the people agree on about 85% of the stuff that is in the bill. It is that last 15% that has a lot of people up in arms. Much of what could be done will cost little or nothing and will simply change laws to make things work better. The big stuff is how to help pay to insure those that have no coverage and then how to oversee those payments. It seems to me the logical way of doing this would be to write a new bill that contains the stuff everyone agrees on and wants and pass it. Then go back and start working on the other stuff in a separate bill. Obama is always saying that this existing bill is better than nothing. I disagree. I think a new bill with the simple stuff that is universally agreed upon would be better than nothing and a strong start. They could then build on that down the road.

Of course the democrats worry is that if they pass a smaller bill with intentions to pass another bigger one down the road they may then lose the house and senate in the fall election and republicans really have no interest health care reform so any future bills will die with that election. So out of that panic they are rushing to push this through and hoping to fix the problems later. I think that will be almost impossible.

If you're going to call someone a stupid fuck at least use proper punctuation.

Potheads

Ahh, so more spew from as usual... and man you look stupid questioning if I have kids, what an idiot. My wife posts on here, and is rather known in the Industry, moron... any other brilliant posts you would like to rack up today?

Can you post pictures of your house to prove you don't live with your mom?

Kane, they've already lost the midterm elections. It's a matter of by how much. And I completely disagree with your 85-15% discrepancy, I don't know where you got those numbers. I'd say we all agree we need some kind of health care reform, but the majority do NOT want Obamacare.

Other than the usual owning your stupid ass? No, I think that's a daily routine.

I don't think he's a pothead. I think him and BFT3K are mentally handicapped patients who are allowed to use the mental ward library computer once in a while.

Great, my post wasn't about that... as I pointed out, your sarcasm failed and it was lame.


Could you first buy me a bong, so I could take a hit from my bong.



Isn't it, Pot Heads? If youR going to call someone on spelling, at least spell correctly.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pothead

Good god, you are a stupid human being.

Here we go again, same repeating bullshit. More spew thinking owning someone, or beating them, or whatever it is you think, on a forum, makes you the winner of something.


Get a life shit stain...

When the major proposals in the bills are broken down the majority of the people polled approve of the major proposals in the bills.

You forgot a space... http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...erm=pot%20head

Now go fuck yourself.

*spew spew blah blah spew spew incoherent rambling spew misspelled words spew spew*

That pretty much sums up the moron that is TheDoc.

It's either or you reject.

funny, once upon a time giving blacks freedom and the right to vote were laughable too. Along with some real knee slappers like women's suffrage and property ownership as well as the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy.

Such as what exactly? Care to show me a poll? And then care to explain to me how polls are a representative of Americans? Notice everytime I use polls, I also say "if we are to take polls seriously."

That had nothing to do with the free market but with government interference.

The invisible hand doesn't need regulation (gov interference). A true free market regulates itself. And there's no such thing as "a bit of regulation". To put it in the words of Ludwig von Mises; "there is no third option". There's the market or government.

and where are you gonna find those angels to watch over us? Yes, mortal men do make mistakes, we all do... and some of us learn from them, some learn from them after a long time and some of us never learn... Uncertainty and entrepreneurial error are part of the economy and at times cause small recessions, but the (free) market always corrects itself. The real danger is caused by mortal men (who make mistakes) who think they can regulate a very complex system and by trying to do so cause more problems. Just compare the depression of 1920-21 to the depression of 1929-...

The US (or Western EU) has only seen increased regulation in the last 150 years. The repeal of the Glass?Steagall act for example wasn't a real form of deregulation because the banks were still 'protected' by the government. In a real free market companies/business have to act responsible or they go out of business.

We are all human beings, we are all born, we are all masters/owners of our own body, we live in a world of scarcity (there's a limited supply of resources) and we all have different goals/wants. The only thing we get for free every day until we die, is time. In a free market world, people are free to use their body and their property (the fruits of their own labour) as they see fit. They are free to do what they deem necessary to accomplish their goals as long as they respect other people's right to do the same: So people can do whatever they want as long as they don't cause damage to other people's body or property. So people have the right to free speech (= the right to use their own ink and paper as they see fit = the right to use their own property). They have the right to sleep all day long they if the want, they have the right to work all day if they want. They have the right to start a bakery if the want and they have the right to sell their products (bread in the case of the baker), but they don't have the right to a guaranteed income. If your bread tastes like sh*t, nobody will buy it. If you don't change your recipe or increase the quality of your bread, you will go out of business even if "making a living as a baker" is what you really wanted to do in life. In a free market you have the right to try to accomplish your dreams, but you don't have a right to get whatever you want for free. You have the right to work hard and try to save a lot of money and buy an Aston Martin, but you don't have the right to wish for an Aston Martin and have it magically appear just because you wanted one. In a free market, the products people produce or services people offer will always benefit society, because if people produced products nobody wanted, nobody would buy them and there would be no reason to produce them in the first place. So just because you work hard doesn't mean you have to be rewarded. However you will be rewarded (paid) if you produce (and sell) something that benefits society (something other people need or want). (If you get up in the morning and start digging a hole in your backyard and at the end of the day you end up with a giant hole in the ground, that means you worked really hard that day. But should you get paid for that? Of course not. Now if you worked hard producing something people wanted to buy, then you'd get rewarded).

So if people have a right to their own body and a right to their own property, then there can't be a thing like "free health care" or "health care as a basic right" because pills and bandages and syringes and hospital beds etc don't magically appear when we wish for them. Some one has to make/build/produce those items and why would somebody do that for free, if he can use his time to do something else? How is the government supposed to pay for those items? The government doesn't have any money... unless they take it from people (and commit an act of aggression by doing so).

I think you are confusing 2 things here. Labour has always been considered a factor of production so the law of supply and demand applies here.
If you refer to the fact that a lot of companies treat their employees without respect, then yes, I agree, that's repugnant and in a free market system, you have the possibility to boycott those companies and you have the right to quit your job if boss treats you like sh*t. Those are you options, anything that goes beyond that would be unethical.

Yea I've heard this before. This argument is usually used for a same sex marriage debate.

So now you steal my line? You have been spewing shit on this forum from day one... at least cum up with your own spew.

It really shows you have nothing when you point out peoples typo's as your attack... so please, proceed on shit stain.

Finally, another fan of the Austrian School.


I wish these mainstream keynesian morons understood that the more government interference in the markets, the more fuckups. The market should be 100% free of political influence.

Ok well it's safe to say you have the best grasp of economics on this forum.

I was mimicking you. My god it's so easy to insult someone so incredible stupid. How does it feel talking to your superior?

Actually, it will most likely pass on a vote. The bill that they are voting on is the senate bill. It passed the senate and now Pelosi and company are trying to get it through the house. So it will get a vote and pass on a vote. But it will be done with a lot of backroom deals and there will be a lot of amendments to the bill brought forth to help make good on the promises that were made to these people in order to get them to vote for it. What is already a mess, will only become a bigger mess.


I think the republicans will win more seats back, but I'm not too sure that they will take both the house and senate back over. They might get one or the other, but right now there is still a reasonably strong anti-republican sentiment out there. According to Rasmussen right now about about 34% of the people see democrats in a favorable light while only 27% see republicans favorably. The tea party gets a 21% favorably rating. I have said before and still believe that the tea party is just another wing of he republicans, but it is yet unproven that the republicans can wrangle them into voting for them at the moment. I won't be shocked to see some independent candidates win this November and I won't be shocked to see the democrats hold onto both the house and senate but by much smaller margins.

I do agree with you though that having one party hold the house and senate and the other the white house is probably the best way to go because it forces them to work together and find common ground.

Kane, there isn't strong anti republican sentiment out there anymore. It's strong liberal/Obama Administration sentiment. Strong anti republican sentiment didn't win Scott Brown Massachusetts. While I'm not saying Republicans are back in the good graces with the people, there's a VERY good chance that they'll win back both the house and the senate. Maybe then shit will get done.

Right, right.. listen shit stain, you're a nobody, with nothing, that dreams you had a life like mine and others on here...

I can't imagine how much it must suck to be you.. come on, you're not even in our industry and you come here to post in political threads? Hahahaha... pathetic simply gives you too much credit.

Soviet Union had healthcare, a job, a house as a human right
UN charter has those 3 as a human right as well, mind you US is not a signatory to that UN human rights charter.

Yea, you're my little bitch now, it's cute. I really don't like having an ego but when the people that argue with you have your IQ and disability, it's hard to be humble. But I guess that's what I get for being better than you in life

I got those numbers right from the mouth of Republican leader John Boehner. He didn't give that exact number but said that republicans and democrats agree on about 80-85% of what is going into the bill. These are the common sense things like forming pools to allow individuals to by insurance on the open market as part of a group and changing the rules on pre-existing conditions. Here is the bill his party has suggested. http://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/S...d_11-04-09.pdf . Much of what is in there is in the Obama plan.

Where the big difference come is on abortion and whether is should be covered in the bill, the republicans want tort reform and it isn't in the bill and how to help those without insurance get that insurance. They also differ on how to pay for these things once they are done and the big on is how to cover those who are uninsured. Basically, the republicans feel if you lower costs, encourage small businesses to give their employees health insurance and make it readily available at good prices to anyone who wants it, then the problem will take care of itself. The democrats feel you need to help provide health insurnace for those that don't have it and that the government should pay for it if need be.

Many a republican has said that they could easily pass a bill that did most of the small, fast changes right now so some good things could start right away.

As for them already losing the election. . .I'm not so sure about that. I think the republicans have won a couple of elections recently and are suddenly feeling cocky. But they have lost some recently too and there is still a lot of anti-republican feelings in the country. I think it will be a lot closer than the republicans might think. I could be wrong, but I think the democrats will hold on to at least one house, if not both, but their majorities will shrink. I personally am so fed up that my voting strategy is going to be simple. If you are the incumbent, I am voting for your opponent no matter what party you are from.

I lived in the Soviet Union, please don't act like you know what you're talking about when trying to define those terms, lol.

If that's the case, then it's one hell of a hefty 15%.

Yes, that much I understand.

I think the Dems blew their chance at "some good things", with their ego and unwillingless to be realistic.

Can you blame the Republicans? The Democrats have achieved what amounts to political suicide. I actually don't see the Republicans being cocky though. They're doing the smart thing right now and playing "representatives for the people". Being cocky would be a terrible political maneuver at this point, when they have everything in the bag.