ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Orwell]

I guess you do not want to debate.

No, I am not interested in "debate" with those who shout down honest discussion with their politically convenient gotcha games.

(1) If you are posting in these forums, I assume you want to either discuss/debate or get approval. I acknowledge that cynical rationale being what it is, that's not something you'd want.

I am all for a good debate - that is a subjective request, sure

(2) I will change my opinion. I have changed my opinions based on posts and information in these very forums. In fact, I used to be stridently opposed to government-provided universal healthcare. I am now willing to see what happens.

I am happy to read this - and you are clearly a voice of reason in the echo-chamber.

(3) I'm not setting up false comparisons. All of the comparisons above are valid. The first is an inherent right (or perhaps a given one, depending on stance on things such as gun control), the second is not a right at all. If there's anything you can glean from this discussion, please take that as the one thing.

Well, I disagree with the comparisons - I consider them false by their nature - different rights, different provisions.

I believe you think that basic healthcare (as you define it) is an inalienable right (or, to use the term you've indicated above, an "inherent" right). I've always operated under the assumption that inalienable rights were those that were "granted from God" (or nature, depending upon one's belief in God and/or nature)... life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and all that. Now, if you tie in healthcare to the "life" part of that phrase, you could make the argument that healthcare is part of the inalienable right of life, but then we'd get into a discussion of whether we're talking about basic healthcare as I define it, or whether we're talking about basic healthcare as you define it.

In sum, I think our differences do not stem from a disagreement about the role of government in healthcare (although, certainly, I have my opinions on that). I think our differences here stem from your determination that healthcare is a basic right and something that is inalienable or inherent and I think it's more akin to police protection. And, like you said, I do think I'm right in that regard.

Yes, this is exactly our disagreement.

[thegreekdog]

No, I am not interested in "debate" with those who shout down honest discussion with their politically convenient gotcha games.

I understand and I couldn't agree more. That being said, consider whether you are one of those people vis-a-vis your last post.

Well, I disagree with the comparisons - I consider them false by their nature - different rights, different provisions.

Okay. I've been trying to think of other rights that are comparable to healthcare. In other words a right that fits the following descriptions: (1) something where the government takes from someone to give to someone else and (2) something that is not an inalienable right.

Yes, this is exactly our disagreement.

So, my request is that you explain to me how healthcare is an inalienable right. Because I do not believe you have done this. Simply put, you believe it to be an inalienable right (and by inalienable right I mean something that is granted by God/nature) and I have not heard why it is that.

[Phatscotty]

He really said that? (inalienable)

This should be good.

[saxitoxin]

You won't change your opinion and I won't change mine.

Then there's no point in discussion and whoever has the most guns will win. I'm going to guess that won't be you.

@Saxitoxin: no, it's not resolved then unless gross oversimplification of the issue is the goal of proving or disproving the necessity to reform and provide health care in the United States.

You're making it overly complex.

You said you believe people should have "immediate and preventative actions to maintain and preserve one's life and well-being."

I noted that's been the status quo since the inclusion of EMTALA in the consolidated omnibus reconciliation act of 1986.

It sounds like you were surprised to learn that, based on which I can assume you're not very knowledgeable on this topic. And that's okay. But, a more civil method of interaction would be to politely accept edification when it is given rather than fall-back to uber-masculine chest-thumping like baboons in mating season.

[Orwell]

No, I am not interested in "debate" with those who shout down honest discussion with their politically convenient gotcha games.

I understand and I couldn't agree more. That being said, consider whether you are one of those people vis-a-vis your last post.

I reject the suggestion. Understand that brevity is sometimes necessary when surrounded by the knee-jerks - as the reaction to my post illustrated.

Well, I disagree with the comparisons - I consider them false by their nature - different rights, different provisions.

Okay. I've been trying to think of other rights that are comparable to healthcare. In other words a right that fits the following descriptions: (1) something where the government takes from someone to give to someone else and (2) something that is not an inalienable right.

Health care is not zero-sum. I understand that many here who are hung up on the "mandate" - but just as one can be taxed in order to provide a basic education (also an unalienable right, imo), or a military, I see health care as no different.

Yes, this is exactly our disagreement.

So, my request is that you explain to me how healthcare is an inalienable right. Because I do not believe you have done this. Simply put, you believe it to be an inalienable right (and by inalienable right I mean something that is granted by God/nature) and I have not heard why it is that.

Second Treatise of Civil Government. Chapter II, Of the State of Nature. Sec. 6:

The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's. Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.

No one argues that we all have a natural right to life and to the preservation of it.

It follows that maintaining health is an inherent right within the life given to us. And since we have the capability and the capacity to provide and maintain the health and well-being of all (do not confuse this with a guarantee of good health), who are equal in their unalienable rights as human beings, I think it logically follows that we, as a society, have an obligation to provide what we can.

This is the basis of my thinking.

[thegreekdog]

but just as one can be taxed in order to provide a basic education (also an unalienable right, imo), or a military, I see health care as no different.

I agree with that. However, education and the military are not inalienable rights (in my opinion). So, if we equate health care with education and the military and I agree with you that they are similar... I guess I'm still not getting where healthcare is an inalienable right (addressed more below).

No one argues that we all have a natural right to life and to the preservation of it.

AGREED!

It follows that maintaining health is an inherent right within the life given to us. And since we have the capability and the capacity to provide and maintain the health and well-being of all (do not confuse this with a guarantee of good health), who are equal in their unalienable rights as human beings, I think it logically follows that we, as a society, have an obligation to provide what we can.

I don't think maintaining good health follows from the inherent right to life. Perhaps that is where the wires are crossed. Even if we assume maintaining health follows from the inherent right to life, I would propose that everyone in the United States has access to free healthcare in the event their life is at risk. In any event, I also agree with your statement that society does have an obligation to provide what we can. I just think the vehicle to provide what we can should not be the federal government and it certainly should not be so that the federal government can provide subsidies to insurance companies. But, now we're digressing. I prefer to discuss whether health care is a right...

[Night Strike]

Health care is not zero-sum. I understand that many here who are hung up on the "mandate" - but just as one can be taxed in order to provide a basic education (also an unalienable right, imo), or a military, I see health care as no different.

Education is not a roll of the federal government so it is left to the states to provide if they so choose. That's why the federal department of education, NCLB, and federal control of student loans are all unconstitutional. No where in the Constitution does it say the federal government is to provide for the education of its citizens, so the power of regulating education is up to the states. In fact, there was NO federal involvement in education for the first 100-150 years of this country.........until the progressives realized they could use a system of education to raise kids to follow their beliefs instead of those of their parents and families.

No one argues that we all have a natural right to life and to the preservation of it.

It follows that maintaining health is an inherent right within the life given to us. And since we have the capability and the capacity to provide and maintain the health and well-being of all (do not confuse this with a guarantee of good health), who are equal in their unalienable rights as human beings, I think it logically follows that we, as a society, have an obligation to provide what we can.

This is the basis of my thinking.

There is HUGE difference between the preservation of life and the treatment of ailments. It has always been understood that in the realm of natural rights, the government's responsibility is to make laws that keep some people from killing other people and that the government could not go around and kill its citizens on a whim. Until progressives realized they could use health care to control personal lives and decisions, the right to life was never construed as forcing citizens to provide treatment to other citizens. The government has NO RIGHT to force a doctor to treat a patient or a business to provide insurance. That is tyranny.

[GreecePwns]

Can we at least get the thread title correct? This wasn't socialized healthcare in the slightest.

[saxitoxin]

Why is there no talk of V going on? We already resolved this debate 2 pages ago.

Tobinov was under the mistaken impression that people do not have access to "immediate and preventative actions to maintain and preserve one's life and well-being." He was corrected in that mistake, as they have since 1986 (in fact I think that specific verbiage is spelled-out in the 24 year-old legislation): http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 0#p2969955

Tobinov simply experienced a knowledge gap. That's okay, it happens to the best of us. In any case, the knowledge gap has been bridged. His ideal state-of-affairs already exists, ergo, there is no need for him to advocate for amendment or revision.

Anywho, how about the reinforcement Visitor fleet? Do you think it will arrive to support Anna or is it loyal to Diana?

[saxitoxin]

Can we at least get the thread title correct? This wasn't socialized healthcare in the slightest.

GP has an excellent point, as always usual. Obamacare is corporate welfare, not socialized healthcare. Scott should amend the title to reflect that.

[Orwell]

but just as one can be taxed in order to provide a basic education (also an unalienable right, imo), or a military, I see health care as no different.

I agree with that. However, education and the military are not inalienable rights (in my opinion). So, if we equate health care with education and the military and I agree with you that they are similar... I guess I'm still not getting where healthcare is an inalienable right (addressed more below).

Ok - neither you nor I have an issue with accepting the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as stated in the Declaration of Independence - correct?

I am saying that without security, without an education, and without maintaining health and well-being, those inalienable rights are at risk - whether by a foreign power or a domestic threat, by ignorance or inability, by disease or injury - so I consider them inherent to those rights.

It follows that maintaining health is an inherent right within the life given to us. And since we have the capability and the capacity to provide and maintain the health and well-being of all (do not confuse this with a guarantee of good health), who are equal in their unalienable rights as human beings, I think it logically follows that we, as a society, have an obligation to provide what we can.

I don't think maintaining good health follows from the inherent right to life. Perhaps that is where the wires are crossed. Even if we assume maintaining health follows from the inherent right to life, I would propose that everyone in the United States has access to free healthcare in the event their life is at risk. In any event, I also agree with your statement that society does have an obligation to provide what we can. I just think the vehicle to provide what we can should not be the federal government and it certainly should not be so that the federal government can provide subsidies to insurance companies. But, now we're digressing. I prefer to discuss whether health care is a right...

Well, this is the heart of it - how one views the role of government.

First, I do not think you can separate preventative care from urgent care - so I disagree with the implication of your claim (and strenuously disagree with Saxitoxin's convenient oversimplification of coverage...) - and we all know it's not really "free" access.

Second, I think health care is the role of the Federal Government - just as I consider it the role of the Federal Government to provide military protection and a public education system. The free market deny's coverage if it chooses - and based on it's own interests, not those of individuals in need. I consider this a fundamental denial of rights which must end.

[GreecePwns]

Why is there no talk of V going on? We already resolved this debate 2 pages ago.

Tobinov was under the mistaken impression that people do not have access to "immediate and preventative actions to maintain and preserve one's life and well-being." He was corrected in that mistake, as they have since 1986 (in fact I think that specific verbiage is spelled-out in the 24 year-old legislation): http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 0#p2969955

Tobinov simply experienced a knowledge gap. That's okay, it happens to the best of us. In any case, the knowledge gap has been bridged. His ideal state-of-affairs already exists, ergo, there is no need for him to advocate for amendment or revision.

Anywho, how about the reinforcement Visitor fleet? Do you think it will arrive to support Anna or is it loyal to Diana?

Clearly, no one here is interested in V, so let's talk about sex, baby. Let's talk about you and me. Let's talk about sex.

[saxitoxin]

I am saying that without security, without an education, and without maintaining health and well-being, those inalienable rights are at risk - whether by a foreign power or a domestic threat, by ignorance or inability, by disease or injury - so I consider them inherent to those rights.

People cannot exercise a right to keep and bear arms if they have no arms to bear, ergo the government should provide guns to all households.

Unless I'm mistaken, this is a so-called "absurd conclusion" restrained by virtually every canon of statutory interpretation ever adopted by the courts of this, or any other, nation. On a less formal basis, I'd note this is the second distinct and unique reductio ad absurdum to which you've resorted in this thread. An introductory logic course, or at least perusal of a book on logic, may be of benefit before basing one's position on what one thinks is logical reasoning.

You are destined to fail in continuance of the inalienable right argument. A better bet for you would be to recognize this as a policy discussion and approach it as such. As a policy debate you stand a fairly reasonable chance of emerging victorious in light of the bulk of GAO evidence on the efficacy of Obamacare.

Clearly, no one here is interested in V, so let's talk about sex, baby. Let's talk about you and me. Let's talk about sex.

BRO!

Bro?

BRRRROOOO!!!

Bro.

[Night Strike]

Second, I think health care is the role of the Federal Government - just as I consider it the role of the Federal Government to provide military protection and a public education system. The free market deny's coverage if it chooses - and based on it's own interests, not those of individuals in need. I consider this a fundamental denial of rights which must end.

The problem with your arguments in this thread is that they all revolve around your beliefs and not what the Constitution actually says/allows. Saying a federal government should provide "free" health care to all is a valid point. However, that desire is incompatible with the powers outlined for OUR federal government, so it's all a moot point until the Constitution is amended to allow it.

[thegreekdog]

Saxi - I don't want to have a policy argument because I'll probably lose. So this -

A better bet for you would be to recognize this as a policy discussion and approach it as such.

- BOOO!

I am saying that without security, without an education, and without maintaining health and well-being, those inalienable rights are at risk - whether by a foreign power or a domestic threat, by ignorance or inability, by disease or injury - so I consider them inherent to those rights.

I understand that argument. I just don't agree with it. I will never agree that these are inalienable rights, regardless of the connection they have with life, liberty and the pursuit. Along the same lines of argument, I could argue that if people have the right to pursue happiness, they should have the right to a job (and a well-paying one at that)... otherwise, how could they possibly pursue happiness. Therefore, is a job an inalienable right? What about a home? Or running water? Now, I'm not saying people should not have these things. And I'm a very ardent supporter of public education (being publicly educated myself). And possibly these things could be classified as rights some day. For example, I suppose I would argue that public education is a right considering that the US government had mandated public education and the public supports it (please see my second post above where I discuss "rights" as falling into three general categories - in the Constitution by amendment, in the Constitution by judicial fiat, and a right because the majority of the legislature agrees).

I got sidetracked - these are not inalienable rights because education and the military and healthcare are not inherent in nature (or given by God). They are things that are provided for us by others... like a house or running water or a job. These things are part of a social contract, sure, but they aren't inalienable. So maybe we need to discuss what an inalienable (or unalienable) right actually is... because I think we're arguing about two different things here.

First, I do not think you can separate preventative care from urgent care - so I disagree with the implication of your claim (and strenuously disagree with Saxitoxin's convenient oversimplification of coverage...) - and we all know it's not really "free" access.

I think you can separate it - as evidenced by the US healthcare system over the course of the last 200 years or so. Does it work? It can work. I would say we don't have the best system right now, but that's because I think the government is too involved... but I digress.

It's not really free access since someone has to pay for it; you are correct. However, I would rather indirectly pay for it through increased insurance premiums and/or increased doctor/hospital fees than to also pay for a slew of government bureaucrats... but, again, that's role of government stuff.

The free market deny's coverage if it chooses - and based on it's own interests, not those of individuals in need.

Correct. Except that coverage is usually not denied unless one actually has health insurance (ironically). If I don't have health insurance and cannot pay for healthcare (usually because my big screen TV, cable bill, and internet monthly fee had to be paid for first... sorry, I couldn't help myself... ignore that), I can get my healthcare for free from the local hospital, which is usually a non-profit organization.

[Orwell]

I am saying that without security, without an education, and without maintaining health and well-being, those inalienable rights are at risk - whether by a foreign power or a domestic threat, by ignorance or inability, by disease or injury - so I consider them inherent to those rights.

People cannot exercise a right to keep and bear arms if they have no arms to bear, ergo the government should provide guns to all households.

Unless I'm mistaken, this is a so-called "absurd conclusion" restrained by virtually every canon of statutory interpretation ever adopted by the courts of this, or any other, nation. On a less formal basis, I'd note this is the second distinct and unique reductio ad absurdum to which you've resorted in this thread. An introductory logic course, or at least perusal of a book on logic, may be of benefit before basing one's position on what one thinks is logical reasoning.

You are destined to fail in continuance of the inalienable right argument. A better bet for you would be to recognize this as a policy discussion and approach it as such. As a policy debate you stand a fairly reasonable chance of emerging victorious in light of the bulk of GAO evidence on the efficacy of Obamacare.

I do not take advice from Sophists.

[Orwell]

I see your point. I disagree with it.

And apparently, I failed to make the first correlation I made more clear.

Previously, I stated that I thought you were conflating different types of rights - given (like gun ownership) with inalienable (like freedom of speech) - and the rights and responsibilities of a social contract (this would be obligation of government to provide).

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are unalienable rights - and what I failed to connect in my statement was that I view their inherent nature in those rights as fulfilled by the social contract. This is the obligation of government to us - and if you read the Locke quote again, this idea is fairly well outlined with in it.

Regarding water, food, shelter, warmth - basic human needs as dictated by our human physiology are, yes, unalienable rights. From a moral standpoint, I cannot see how anyone would disagree to granting these rights - of course, each comes with it's own complication and like citing the Constitution, detractors will focus on the how, rather than the why.

[thegreekdog]

And I think the social contract (what the government provides to us so that we can exercise our rights) relies upon both the government and the general public. When the general public (I guess, more importantly their representatives) wishes to have police in order to protect their right to life (and, I suppose the other two as well), they empower their representatives and government to create a police force and the general public pays for this protection with tax dollars.

So, I think we actually agree, except, again, I think you're equating elements of the social contract (namely the public's desires that assist them in fulfilling their inalienable rights) with unalienable rights themselves. Thus, as I posited in the beginning, health care is not, actually, an inalienable right. It is merely a part of the social contract that assists the public in achieving its inalienable right to life (and the other two).

In any event, there are a number of elements of the pursuit of life, for example, that could be connected to the unalienable right of life itself... the question is whether those elements of the social contract are ones that are so beneficial that the general public will give up tax dollars for.

[saxitoxin]

I am saying that without security, without an education, and without maintaining health and well-being, those inalienable rights are at risk - whether by a foreign power or a domestic threat, by ignorance or inability, by disease or injury - so I consider them inherent to those rights.

People cannot exercise a right to keep and bear arms if they have no arms to bear, ergo the government should provide guns to all households.

Unless I'm mistaken, this is a so-called "absurd conclusion" restrained by virtually every canon of statutory interpretation ever adopted by the courts of this, or any other, nation. On a less formal basis, I'd note this is the second distinct and unique reductio ad absurdum to which you've resorted in this thread. An introductory logic course, or at least perusal of a book on logic, may be of benefit before basing one's position on what one thinks is logical reasoning.

You are destined to fail in continuance of the inalienable right argument. A better bet for you would be to recognize this as a policy discussion and approach it as such. As a policy debate you stand a fairly reasonable chance of emerging victorious in light of the bulk of GAO evidence on the efficacy of Obamacare.

I do not take advice from Sophists.

Are you looking for a discussion or a monologue? It seems the latter. There are very many words to which you have not - I assume you cannot - respond. Perhaps it would be better to start a thread with just you where you could just put out your views and not have to deal with the inconvenience of anyone presenting different ones? Don't you agree? I'm sure you do.

[Orwell]

So, I think we actually agree, except, again, I think you're equating elements of the social contract (namely the public's desires that assist them in fulfilling their inalienable rights) with unalienable rights themselves. Thus, as I posited in the beginning, health care is not, actually, an inalienable right. It is merely a part of the social contract that assists the public in achieving its inalienable right to life (and the other two).

I disagree and I think you are too quick to declare your original posit is proven by ignoring the case I have made.

Health, as reinforced by Locke, fits the law of Nature - and those rights tied to our basic human functionality, comprise our unalienable right to exist. These are not rights granted by government, but an obligation to them can be fulfilled by government.

I consider this to be an obligation (of the social contract), you recognize degrees of obligation, and others deny any and all obligation - it's how one views the role of government (and ultimately this dictates how one interprets the US Constitution... ).

[Orwell]

Are you looking for a discussion or a monologue?

I am having a discussion with thegreekdog since he is willing to engage in the nuances of rights and responsibilities, the role of government and health care.

You have interjected with oversimplifications, personal insults, and Sophist conclusions.

So, no, I am not looking to have a discussion with you.

[saxitoxin]

I am having a discussion with thegreekdog ...

So, no, I am not looking to have a discussion with you.

You can choose to engage in interpersonal conversation with TGD using the PM function which is located in the "Interaction Menu" on your left side of the screen. The forums are for broad-based discussion.

I understand you feel a sense of personal embarrassment at having had to accept an in-thread learning event on page 155 to fill a knowledge-gap you had regarding EMTALA 85. I'm sorry if you felt hurt by that, however, I can not reasonably be expected to mute my own knowledge simply to accommodate others who may have less. Don't you agree? I'm sure you do. Instead of packing up your toys and going home, meeting posts with bizarre silence and childish glares, why don't you seek to engage and interact? This is what being part of a society is about.

Those of us who enjoy the tete-a-tete of liberal, learned culture prefer the inconvenience of debate to the convenience of ignoring (to ignore being root of "ignorance"). You are always welcome to join us if you make the choice to be part of society and civilization. I assume you will continue to choose to ignore arguments that don't obsecrate your paradigm, however. That's unfortunate. Don't you agree? I'm sure you do.

Health, as reinforced by Locke, fits the law of Nature - and those rights tied to our basic human functionality, comprise our unalienable right to exist.

Your continued propagation of the meme that "health" is a synonym for "Obamacare" is so sophistic as to provide almost infinite amusement.

Your choice to continue fronting that sophistry - refusing to rationalize it (you have met each entreat to do so with either deafening silence or name-calling, as I'm sure this will be as well) - serves as a basic refutation of your logic.

[john9blue]

"social contract" apparently is secret code for "tobinov's opinion"

it does sound much fancier and more important than the latter, i'll give you that

[Orwell]

"social contract" apparently is secret code for "tobinov's opinion"

I didn't realize a tenet of the likes of Grotius, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, etc was considered secret code.

[saxitoxin]

"social contract" apparently is secret code for "tobinov's opinion"

I didn't realize a tenet of the likes of Grotius, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, etc was considered secret code.

john9blue - you threw tobinov a softball ... naughty!

When you pitch him something easy to hit you elicit a reply.

When you cause him personal embarrassment by edifying a gap-of-comprehension he loudly declares, with haughty indignation, that it is below his illuminated station to respond and then goes dead silent.

It's an easy out, though, endlessly amusing. A tactic a former - or, perhaps current (I can't recall) - legislator in proximity to him, Jamie Pederson, used to use, with frequency. It's a jocular approach that "public engagement" volunteers for the Democrat branch of the IDRP have recently been instructed in their "7 Points" packets (or whatever they're called this year) as part of the grassroots social networking strategy; not so dissimilar to the "conservatives tend to be uneducated or easily fooled working poor" meme that they (quite effectively and with surprising staying power) rolled-out to bullwark their brand identity against the series of not-so-organic-but-masquerading-as-such gotcha videos John Ziegler produced on Obama voters in early '09.

The predictable use of buzzwords, frequent fallback to reductio ad absurdum, bizarre to the point of mindless repetition of certain phrases and periodic declarations of observance of self-declared civility rules that precludes engaging a line-of-thought for which key messages have not been previously vetted, is not normal in interpersonal conversation and should, to the trained eye, have exposed tobinov's off-forums extra-curricular activities pages ago. IOW, John, you're not speaking to a person, you're speaking to a recording made by a committee of public relations professionals and delivered by a flesh-bot.

Their ethics and transparency policy requires identification-on-inquiry, but they're advised they can remain compliant by simply not acknowledging. So, you'll see no response to this post.