[SoFloFreeper]

A sop to a tv fake entertainer. Which plan is closer to our Constitutional moorings? Graham-Cassidy.

Rand Paul is right that it isn't the ideal solution. But it is better than Obamacare.

Meanwhile, the Ass Press is kissing little Jimmy's backside. Pathetic.

[Cicero]

The title alone is enough to put paid to this article. A.P. wouldn’t know a fact from a hole in the ground.

Or, rather, they support the liberal principle that a “fact” is whatever I say it is.

[sourcery]

Refuting is as easy as this:

To say you have a claim to my property is to say you have a claim to the labor I performed to obtain it. To say you have a claim to my labor is to say that I am your slave.

The fruits of a person's labor absolutely do belong to the person, and to no one else. To claim otherwise is to make that person your slave.

The right to property, to liberty or even to life itself cannot rightfully be transmuted into any right to make others your unwilling slaves. Valid rights can do no more than keep others out of your affairs; they cannot conscript others into your army.

If we "owe" society for all the good deeds performed without our consent to pay for them, then we must also "owe" society for all the bad deeds done without our consent or approval. That would make us guilty for every theft, every vandalism, every rape, every murder and every genocide, just because we are members of the society or community.

Transitive debt also entails transitive guilt. One fully and ineluctably requires the other. But such a theory of transitive responsibility (whether blame or credit) has no social utility. And it would create logical contradictions. And a logical contradiction is an absolute falsification.

Fortunately, that's not how the ethical algebra works:

We don't owe "the community" anything just because we live in it, because debts can only accrue because the debtor has agreed to them or because the debtor violated someone's rights. But if all of a person's interactions with others are consensual, and all contractual obligations are met, then there is no residual debt to anyone, and therefore no debt to the community as a whole.

At most, a person living in a community (or in a society) would owe specific people the remaining balance on any loans and/or for any violations of rights that had occurred. But even if that's the case, owing finite amounts to specific people is not any sort of debt to "the community" (or to society.)

Society (or the community) has no just claim to some percentage of our property or our profits just because we live in it and do business with others who also live in it. If doing business with others gave those others a residual claim against a person's property or profits that remained after the person had transacted with them as agreed, it would not be society who had any such claim, but rather those specific individuals.

Transactions only give the counter-parties those rights and obligations that are specifically agreed to by the parties. If you don't agree that having bought eggs from the grocery store at an agreed price also (without any such statement in the agreement) gives the grocer a claim on your income, then no such claim is ethically valid.

Bottom line: We each own ourselves, and so own our labor. We don't owe anyone else anything just because we exist, or just because we perform work, or just because we exchange goods and services with others who agree to make those exchanges with us.

Others do not own you because you are of the same species, live in the same locale, speak the same language, or exchange goods and services with them by mutual consent.

[BobinIL]

Jimmy Kimmel??? When is he going to give us “Girls on Trampolines”!!!!

[sourcery]

[Buckeye McFrog]

Meanwhile late-night TV viewers yearn for the days of Johnny Carson, who was actually FUNNY.

[Yaelle]

What is Kimmel asking for? All sick children getting free health care?

What about fee for service health care, some basic catastrophic insurance that you pay monthly forever from birth, and great charities to help certain victims?

People, focus on the surgeries and medical departments that are fee for service. Like cosmetic procedures. You pay more in Beverly Hills. Less in Tijuana. And everywhere else, something in between. And many plastic surgeons take trips to third world countries and provide free surgeries for the desperate injured or disfigured people.

Capitalism works, combined with the desire to do altruistic things. It’s not perfect but it works.

Make all medicine like cosmetic medicine. Like the alternative therapies not covered. If people really want them, they find a way. Bariatric surgeons in Mexico are building bigger hospitals and clinics. Think, people. It’s easy.

[CivilWarBrewing]

Jimmy Kimmel is a mouth piece for his butt boy Obama. That’s all this is.

[caligatrux]

I’ll listen to Kimmel’s opinions on Obamacare as soon as he and his family are actually on Obamacare. I can almost guarantee that he isn’t.

[blueplum]

Everyone will lose health care under the current federal program

Everyone will gain health care under their state’s new programs

If people are afraid they will lose coverage, they must not trust their own state legislatures. And that is a problem the federales can’t fix for them.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

AP: None has really captured the complexity of the debate over who might lose insurance protections in the latest Republican health care bill.

Well RATagandist morons....I'll answer that question.

Q: Who might lose insurance protection?

A:
1) Those RAT parasites who are not paying for "health insurance" the subsidized premium and MediCaid recipients (not insurance at all, but rather medical welfare)

-And-

2) Those who have deliberately destroyed their health and have not yet purchased health insurance. Queers, smokers and 400 pounders.(the lauded and martyred pre-x class, mostly AIDS patients)

Of course they don't even have insurance, so they will only lose the ability to get the same low premium rates as healthy working people.

the TV guy is the hardest to refute.

That's because there is currently no debate forum where he can be prevented from talking over, or cutting off, somebody who knows what they're talking about. Even I know all the RAT talking points, and that is all he has.

He certainly has no esoteric knowledge of insurance.

[DoodleDawg]

Which plan is closer to our Constitutional moorings? Graham-Cassidy.

Neither one, really. Government has no business in health care.