Thread: Health Care in the USA

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

The pull your self up by your own bootstraps of the extremist conservative mindset looks upon any government assistance of their citizens beyond national defense as communism. The extreme right wing thinks liberals are traitors, these ultra conservatives would totally dismantle all of the gov sponsored social programs of the new deal and the great society. Fortunately they are a minority within the right but they do have influence and they make themselves heard.

YES WE CAN!!!

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

The pull your self up by your own bootstraps of the extremist conservative mindset looks upon any government assistance of their citizens beyond national defense as communism.

If I can't pull myself up by my own bootstraps, how can I be expected to pull you up by yours? Everytime someone lays down, someone else has to carry them. It becomes wrong when it is legislated by law that citizens must pay into federal charities whether they want to or not

Let me choose

The purpose of government is to protect rights to life and liberty against those who would try to take them from us. It is not to dole out those rights, it is to protect the rights of the people to go get life and to go get liberty as they see fit. The government is supposed to protect these endeavors, not replace them with its own programs. This sort of taxation is a heavy burden in principle, and I don't think the ends can justify the means for me. Maybe if I'm old and in failing health and nobody wants to help me, then I will plead with the government for help. But I would certainly rather that be an indictment on those who could have helped but didn't, than on the government which could have forced them to help but didn't. If you don't want to help me, who has the right to force you to? And if you do want to help me, do you really have to use Congress and the IRS as middlemen?

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

If I can't pull myself up by my own bootstraps, how can I be expected to pull you up by yours? Everytime someone lays down, someone else has to carry them. It becomes wrong when it is legislated by law that citizens must pay into federal charities whether they want to or not

+1 Socialism is a guy saying, "hey, I have nothing... let's share!"

Originally Posted by jockeys

+1 Socialism is a guy saying, "hey, I have nothing... let's share!"

Compassionate conservatism in action.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

Compassionate conservatism in action.

I'm not a conservative, I'm a libertarian. Completely different thing.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

The purpose of government is to protect rights to life and liberty against those who would try to take them from us. It is not to dole out those rights, it is to protect the rights of the people to go get life and to go get liberty as they see fit. The government is supposed to protect these endeavors, not replace them with its own programs. This sort of taxation is a heavy burden in principle, and I don't think the ends can justify the means for me. Maybe if I'm old and in failing health and nobody wants to help me, then I will plead with the government for help. But I would certainly rather that be an indictment on those who could have helped but didn't, than on the government which could have forced them to help but didn't. If you don't want to help me, who has the right to force you to? And if you do want to help me, do you really have to use Congress and the IRS as middlemen?

hoglahoo

It's an interesting argument, but does it apply equally to the police forces that protect your cities or the highways you travel on? You couldn't have these things, nor could you have a decent education system or for that matter a standing army, unless citizens agreed to act collectively through their government to provide them. Health care is no different.

Best Regards

goshawk

Originally Posted by jockeys

I'm not a conservative, I'm a libertarian. Completely different thing.

Yeah well..... I'm not a liberal, a socialist, a communist ..... I consider myself a centrist. I think many of us have a tendency is to tar everyone with the same brush depending on their viewpoint on one issue or another.

Originally Posted by goshawk

It's an interesting argument, but does it apply equally to...

Best Regards

goshawk

Yes, it applies, and equally I think. "[The purpose of government] is not to dole out those rights, it is to protect the rights of the people."

Police are necessary to protect your rights from others who would otherwise infringe on them. So yes, let's use legal methods of revenue collection to pay for police. But let's do it on a small, local scale where the affected citizens of a small, local area can make the decisions. Same with fire-emergency and medical-emergency responses.

The interstate highway system does not protect my rights, and in fact the highways within it are owned and operated by the states. Subsidies are gladly accepted, but as far as I know, these come from vehicle and gasoline taxes. So there is a way to opt out (not drive). Most highways though are not interstate highways, but are state highways. I think what I am getting at is that at least let each state make its own decision as is the intent of the tenth amendment.

A decent education system does not directly protect your rights. So leave it to the states as the 10th amendment suggests. And I think it is, in theory left to the states. But again, subsidizing from Congress is commonly accepted, so there you go. A decent education actually costs more than the federal government can figure out how to run and afford. My parents paid thousands in property taxes into education funding that I never received benefit from as they scrimped and saved for private tuitions to put me into a decent education system. I guess they could have opted out of that by not owning property, but they still paid into the national treasury every April 15

A standing army may or may not be necessary in order to protect liberty. If it is, then it is also the duty of government to support it. If it is not, then disband it and give me a giant refund.

You're right that health care is no different. Is it a program designed to increase my personal liberty by protecting my rights from those who would choose to strip me of freedom of choice? Does it help support the seemingly forgotten idea of limited government? I don't think it is or does. I think it is a social and local hurdle, not a Congressional responsibility to overcome. If I could be convinced that it is:

1. Necessary that US taxpayers (the middle class) including you (well, not you, but for the sake of argument you ) and people I don't know who may or may not want to pay my medical bills in order for my rights to life and liberty to be protected
2. Necessary that I pay for your medical bills in order for your rights to be protected
3. Necessary in order for the U.S. to continue to exist as a sovereign nation

Then yes I would be all for nationalized health coverage (but Congress would still have to come up with the money to pay for it)

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."

I was unaware that the Constitution, the founding fathers ratified, guaranteed liberty/personal freedoms.

Originally Posted by Leighton

I was unaware that the Constitution, the founding fathers ratified, guaranteed liberty/personal freedoms.

Who says they did? The government is not God (even if it ever erroneously supposed itself to be)

The purpose of government is to protect certain inalienable rights, which include liberty/personal freedoms. "...to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..." Isn't that what I've been ranting about?