Posted on 02/08/2017 7:36:51 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Hey Bern,
So HOW does it make ANY sense to TAX/FINE/PENALIZE people who “can’t afford it” into buying it?!?!?
I believe it was P.J. O’Rourke:
“There’s NOTHING more expensive than a ‘free’ government program!”
They confuse health care with liability insurance. When you get pregnant and want an abortionnor keep the child, it is not a health care issue, it is a liability issue. Poor decision making was involved and, like in an accident, other people are affected. And frankly, I do not want to pay for others’ liability.
My father used to “watch the radio” back in the thirties. Let them listen to “little orphan Annie” and “Amos and Andy”. Damn straight
Back when obamacare was being debated and the public was wailing about how bad the system was, I asked those that were talking to me: Will you name one person that you personally knew that died because a doctor refused to treat them because they could not afford to pay? Not one could say that they did.
Is Sanders arguing AGAINST Obamacare? Lots of people have ACA insurance or medicaid expanded coverage but
1) Can’t afford the copays
2) Can’t afford the deductibles
3) Can’t afford the 3 hour drive/ride each way (and day off work for the round trip) to see a doctor who accepts medicaid
Ds punted “health CARE reform” and passed “health INSURANCE legislation” that gives lots of people access to health INSURANCE with no access to health CARE.
Yep, too many people benefiting from the costs of healthcare for there to be a will to change it. From a systemic point of view, a system where both the doctor and patient are spending money from someone else (insurance company) you’re only going to have ever-increasing costs. For non emergency procedures there’s no incentive to shop around and look for the best cost:benefit solution.
Lasik is a good example. A procedure that used to cost several thousand dollars has been reduced to a fraction of that due to it being an elective procedure that people would shop around for. With the current model the opposite happens, I pay every month when I don’t need anything so when I do have medical needs I feel entitled to the best of everything in excess of what is needed. The hospital goes along due to liability concerns too.
It is not capitalism, which I define as “transactions that are mutually beneficial between parties”.
There are plenty of old TVs available sitting on the curb for pickup day.
Should have been Cruz’ line. The current form of Obamacare puts decent, affordable care out of the reach of most people in the interest of “fairness.”
Well said.
“Everyone has a right to use the government to force someone to provide you FREE healthcare.”
The people who love their free stuff are little tyrants that have no problem enslaving everyone.
Sanders is redefining the meaning of the word “Right” ( as in — I have the “right” to this or that ).
“Rights” as defined by the founders are those prerogatives the individual have that are FREE from government interference.
Sanders and Obama are redefining “rights” to mean services the government is obligated to provide to the individual, with attendant means to fund and enforce those obligations (which means either taxing, borrowing or printing money ).
Meaning, to the individual, Sanders ‘rights’ aren’t really rights at all. Much the opposite - they are entitlements.
The original and true meaning of “rights” however, are a person’s rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. These don’t require a single thing from another human being. Only that your rights and mine not be interfered with.
So, by Bernie Sander’s lights, His so called “right to healthcare” would require healthcare providers to work for you. Someone else must act for you to get healthcare.
So, if that right exists as Sanders insist it should, then payment is no impediment in that the right must supersede other concerns.
A “right” to healthcare then necessarily requires that all healthcare workers be slaves to your needs.
Sanders is redefining the meaning of the word “Right” ( as in — I have the “right” to this or that ).
“Rights” as defined by the founders are those prerogatives the individual have that are FREE from government interference.
Sanders and Obama are redefining “rights” to mean services the government is obligated to provide to the individual, with attendant means to fund and enforce those obligations (which means either taxing, borrowing or printing money ).
Meaning, to the individual, Sanders ‘rights’ aren’t really rights at all. Much the opposite - they are entitlements.
The original and true meaning of “rights” however, are a person’s rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. These don’t require a single thing from another human being. Only that your rights and mine not be interfered with.
So, by Bernie Sander’s lights, His so called “right to healthcare” would require healthcare providers to work for you. Someone else must act for you to get healthcare.
So, if that right exists as Sanders insist it should, then payment is no impediment in that the right must supersede other concerns.
A “right” to healthcare then necessarily requires that all healthcare workers be slaves to your needs.
I watched about half the debate. Bernie doesn’t want Ocare either. He wants socialized medicine like Canada. Cruz is so unfamiliar with the Canadian system he couldn’t recite the negatives except to say Canadians flock to the US for treatment.
Like most republicans Cruz can’t articulate what turning private insurance loose across state lines would do.
I could have done a much better job than Cruz and I only attended FSU not Princeton. :-)
By Bernie's own logic then expensive Obama care doesn't mean a damn thing !
In addition, the best health care theoretically possible would result in eternal life and having, drs spending a fortune to find the cure for death which is not even possible.. ... therfore for a person to believe internal life is a right, then their debate is not against conservatives but god himself, for it is by God's mercy we are given eternal life and well being on this earth, to demand otherwise is a haughty position which puts man above God.
If people have a “right” to something they cannot afford, and I have to pay for it, I am their slave. Plain and simple.
People have no “right” to anything that costs others money.
Or Bernie's beachfront mansion. . . . .
Great comment
The fact that it’s “free” DOESN’T MEAN A THING if no one credible is willing to provide it.
Precisely, and we can’t afford anything in the entire realm of Obamacare, so scrap it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.