Much ado has been made about nation health care. While I firmly believe single payer national health insurance is the best way to serve our Nation, President Obama wants something that covers everyone through employers or government run. He's the President so I don't have a lot of sway here.
Righties argue about choice and freedom regarding health care . They say they don't want government making decisions for them. Of course in the same breath they don't want to allow women making decision regarding a certain procedure my friend The Illustrious Patrick doesn't allow people to mention on his outstanding blog anymore.
What it really comes down to is this friends. The Right is ruled by the whims and desires of the wealthy. The wealthy believe they are privileged by their wealth to have more of everything than the working class. Country clubs. Fine houses in gated communities. BMWs like my good friend Tookie. Best whores. Best vacations. And most of, THE BEST HEALTH CARE.
I want to reassure my rich friends that because of their economic situation, they will always have the best of everything. Just because we share the same insurance company, by benefit of your ability to pay more, your health care will be better than mine. There will be plenty of good doctors that will be more than happy to kiss your rich ass and give you a private room and a private nurse.
It pains me to see fellow working class Americans like myself duped into the rich man's definition of freedom nonsense. I have no right to join the club if I can't afford the dues. But all of us have the right to quality health care. Life is more precious than the country club or the BMW.
16 comments:
TSR: 'I have no right to join the club if I can't afford the dues."
I wouldn't want to belong to a club that would have me as a member, anyway.
Truth: This "procedure" you can't speak of shouldn't concern the government, as far as I'm concerned. I want the government OUT of my wallet, health care, bedroom, car and off my back. Basically, let them take care of the mail, security and our roads. That's about all I trust them with and that's pushing it.
Agreed that the rich will make out no matter what.
The question is the middle class. We're the ones that that are going to get screwed by single-payer. As such, I tend to agree with Pamela D Hart.
That said, Truth, I don't question your motives, and I know that you truly just want the best for our country. We've just got different ideas on how to get there.
PDH,
The Obama plans allows you to make that decision. If you wish to keep your own private health care plan, you can. If you are not fortunate enough to be able to afford a comprehensive health care plan, you can buy into the one Mr. Obama proposes.
We may be closer than you think Tom. The things I want from government I'm willing to pay for. My problem with Bush/Reaganites is their blindness to the danger of huge debt. They come up with excuses why deficits explode under their watch. In the same breath they attack fiscal irresponsibility. If a strong defense and homeland security are important then I believe they are worth paying for by the generation that benefits. If our Soldiers need more equipment I'm more than happy to pay more tax to see that they get it. Whether or not I agree with the mission. They're following the orders of the Commander in Chief. My Dad said he fought where he was ordered. Not where he wanted.
Truth: I KNOW you want what is best for our country, like Tom said. I also agree with you on who should pay for it. You and I agree on that front. However, our deficit has been tripled since Obama took office. I am madder than hell that Bush left an enormous deficit when he left office, but Obama didn’t have to double or triple that deficit. He campaigned on no earmarks and that he was going to go over the budget line by line. He broke those promises. He and Congress rammed that stimulus bill through without any oversight. As an American, I know the dangers of debt, that’s why I run my household on cash. As a Conservative, I EXPECT fiscal responsibility from my government officials. All this debt is making me crazy.
I do agree with you that the richest among us will still have health care (especially when the best doctors move offshore). However....
But all of us have the right to quality health care.
No, we don't. Your premise is wrong.
For health care to be a right, we must be able to exercise that right without the government forcing someone to provide it for us. in the case of health care, someone has to be compelled to provide it if no one would choose to do so.
As it is, not everything that the government may provide is a right. Driving on government roads is not a right (requires licensing and obeying the laws. Clean water and air is not a right (although I have relatively few problems with some government intervention in these). Social Security is not a right (and people my age and youger are getting the shaft on this for sure). Even voting for President is not a right (it's a privilege granted by the states, who retain the right to select the electors who do the actual voting).
Now the (minimum) pros and (copious) cons of government control of health care aside, a free country does require that we limit rights to those that are natural rights, and not renaming every half-baked government benefit program.
...The Illustrious Patrick doesn't allow people to mention [abortion]on his outstanding blog anymore.
It's not a matter of mentioning, it's a matter of derailing topics.
But on that topic, opposing abortion is not always about controlling women. There are (debatably) two lives in the equation in these circumstances. And both side's inability to see that is what made ban the topic on unrelated posts.
It is a vital role of government to insure the rights of the people with effective regulation and enforcement Patrick. Right wingers have tried to draw a distinction between rights and privileges for years now. Whatever you want to call them, they can be taken away for violations of law.
By drawing a distinction between access to quality health care between the rich and the rest of us says you value the health of the rich more than us.
Don't be sucked in by the scare tactics Patrick. As much as I enjoy taunting and being taunted by you, I give you credit for your intelligence and quality blog. There won't be many doctors leaving the country despite what the Rush Limbaughs tell you. Their big problem which must be addressed is litigation abuse and cost of malpractice insurance.
We are in the middle of a 'jobless recovery' which simply translates into the final death rattle of the middle class...
So, Tom, its the haves versus the have nots....
Glad you're still with us TAO. I was having a hell of time coming up with a eulogy for your "retired?" blog that would do you justice.
I do agree with what you say about the death rattle of the middle class. The war now seems to be the haves and those that buy into their line of crap, and the don't have as much and a few haves that see those of us that don't have as much getting less hurts them also.
101: It is a vital role of government to insure the rights of the people with effective regulation and enforcement [oh great purveyor of wisdom,] Patrick.
No argument there. But you don't address how you define a right.
There's a reason many of us insist on a clear definition of a right. If we don't define it (and therefore create limits) then things that were once considered privileges can be reinvented as "rights."
Now there is nothing that creates a barrier where someone "can't" access health care. As with anything, money does help make it easier, and may effectively put some things out of the reach of every person. But in a free (and free market) society, it is possible (though admittedly not easy in many cases) to gain that access on your own.
The other alternative is to take away that freedom and create a "right" which requires the individual to be given something, which requires someone else to pay for it.
True rights do not require using the police power of the state to take resources from one person and give them to another. The purpose of taxation is to provide revenue to create a functioning government and to fund those items necessary for the protection of rights for all people (police).
And I do value the rich more than other people in some sense (monetarily) for one reason: They've earned it. I haven't, and I can cite clearly the myriad of reasons why (mostly involving the fact I'm a lazy fuck).
And I don't need Rush to tell me what doctors will do when the government takes over. Some will stay, of course. Some of the best will go where they can make money and not be forced to provide their services at government rates (and Rush will fly to the Bahamas to visit them). And some will get the hell out of the business to avoid government control. I'll have to ask my dentist next visit (July, more cavities) what he plans to do if the government takes over management of his profession (and I no longer have any reason to pay cash). After all, people have a right to eat, therefore they need teeth to do it. And if that happens, I'm getting a mouthful on the public dole (and probably from another dentist).
Patrick: please define a right and a privilege for me. If one is convicted of a felony he loses his right to vote. So voting is a privilege I guess. If one is convicted of a felony he loses his right to bear arms. So in reality, gun ownership is a privilege.
I value everyones health. Rich and poor. I am well aware of the benefits of wealth. I don't begrudge the weathy nice homes and cars. I do take issue with anyone that thinks he's more entitled to good health and quality health care because of his economic situation.
You say:
"True rights do not require using the police power of the state to take resources from one person and give them to another"
What "true rights" are you talking about?
Your reverse Robin Hood thing is troubling Patrick. The wealthy don't need your help. But if a rich guy comes to your house and says thanks for standing up for rich guys and gives you money, I'll take this back.
The wealthiest among us enjoy a greater share of the largesse that comes from living in America. I believe it's right that they pay a bigger share to ensure that largesse. They have no problem donating big bucks to any right wing politician that promises tax cuts and fat government contracts.
I love it when people start throwing economic theory into healthcare because it just doesn't work.
Where would doctors go if the govenrment got involved in healthcare? Europe is nationalized and so is Canada.
So, would all the American doctors go to China? India? Russia?
When does technology, improvements, and everything else that falls within the whelm of economic theory apply to healthcare? What drives down the cost? What increases the efficiencies?
We may have the best healthcare research and knowledge system in the world but we do have the worst delivery system in the world.
In regards to the issue of rights vs privelege....at somepoint everyone has to acknowledge that a country advances and improves, thus shouldn't more things that were once viewed as priveleges become rights?
Think about abortion; that is a big issue and if we assume that a fetus is a living being and all life is precious and we believe that the government must outlaw abortion then logically why does life become irrelevant at birth? Which is what we are saying when we rant against government mandated health care.
If abortion is such a vile act then isn't denying healthcare to those that cannot afford it just as much a vile act?
Or why is it that we believe we owe our veterans life long healthcare yet we do not believe that we have the same debt to those who have worked hard, paid taxes, and built this country up by being model citizens?
Ah, Truth, I don't need an obituary; my plate was full and I had to take a couple of things off of my plate!
That, and it looks like I am going to get dragged into a big lawsuit and I didn't want to have a blog readily available for me to vent; it could be nasty!
We visited you for wisdom TAO. If we wanted friendly we would visit our dogs.
Best wishes and don't be a stranger.
101: To answer the definition of rights and privileges, I ended up doing a post to clarify.
The "true rights" I as speaking about are life, liberty, and property. These are things you can acquire and possess on your own, the government protects your rights to do so, and can only take them through due process for violating the law (which protects others' rights).
Your reverse Robin Hood thing is troubling [O Glorious and Radiant] Patrick.
Considering you probably have a fallacious view on the symbolism of Robin Hood, the facts prove this statement impossible.
Robin Hood stole from the GOVERNMENT! He stole from those who used the police power of the state to enrich themselves. Any other portrait would make him a common thief, and therefore detestable.
I don't seek to champion the rich in rich vs poor. I don't see a competition. Your union background makes you see all relations between the owners of businesses and the employees of said businesses this way. However, the idea that someone wishes to accumulate wealth, if done legally should not be looked upon as bad. Everyone, working within their own self-interest, has the potential to make a shitload of money. Most won't. And I'm not going to join in shitting on those who do. The ones who want to play dirty in doing so, have at them. but remember, most of the "rich" have earned it.
The wealthiest among us enjoy a greater share of the largesse that comes from living in America. I believe it's right that they pay a bigger share to ensure that largesse.
As do I. And they do. But not to the point where the standard of living for someone making $500,000 isn't much better than the person making $50,000. Otherwise, what's the point?
Tao: In regards to the issue of rights vs privelege....at somepoint everyone has to acknowledge that a country advances and improves, thus shouldn't more things that were once viewed as priveleges become rights?
No. How do you make more "rights" without having to take something from someone to make that right possible?
It may be that we extend or create new privileges if we have the prosperity and money in the country to do so. But enshrining things as a right gives them power and permanence, and dilutes the value of those natural rights by legalized confiscation.
If abortion is such a vile act then isn't denying healthcare to those that cannot afford it just as much a vile act?
It's not a matter of denying anything. No one is told "no doctor for you." They generally have to find a way to pay though. And even if some of them suck, there are always options. I know this personally, because I've had no other choice.
Oh, and now that I've given you the verbal tongue lashing, good luck on getting out from under the lawsuit. Because lawsuits suck.
Patrick : you eloquently said what I said.
Before I was Joe Union, I was Joe salesman. I also have a close relationship with the healthcare industry.
For the most part, the people that go to the emegency room with no insurance, ain't gonna pay.
"Robin Hood stole from the GOVERNMENT! He stole from those who used the police power of the state to enrich themselves. Any other portrait would make him a common thief, and therefore detestable.
The private sector is just as wrought with abuse of government power now as in Robin Hood's legendary time . You argument in that regard is based on some vain notion that business in these times don't lobby and bribe for government largesse. You of all people should not be so naieve my illustrious friend.
I'll read your post and regale you with wisdom at your site Patrick. Thank you for gracing my site with your regalness.
Post a Comment