For my Libertarian friends

Padraic wrote: What Pat is trying to say (I believe) is that there's a difference between a "right" and "something that I think would be good for every citizen to have". Your argument is that you believe it is to the benefit of our society that we have a single-payer national health care system.  That doesn't make health care a right. Rights are something every human being is born with and requires nothing from anyone else. Note that I'm not arguing for or against the health care system, I'm arguing against the (perhaps semantic) proposition that this is a right.

Ah damn, I started another debate and then was out of here for too long
I had a feeling that most people in here would say that. Maybe it is all semantics, even if it is I still stand by it. I'll give the BOTD and say maybe its not a "right" but I honestly can't believe that, especially in the wealthiest nation on earth, there are people that don't have access to a fundamental need.

And I really don't mean to be mean, but I still think many of you are arguing from a point of paranoia. I've said this before, and I know that "for the common good" can be a justification for terrible things and that if one right goes, then its an avalanche. But there are countries that have a universal healthcare system....Canada, most of Europe, Japan and especially the Nordic Countries, these countries have not snowballed into dictatorship.


Edited by JJLehto - July 10 2010 at 19:54

JJLehto wrote: Oh, and I really think a lot of criticism about "Obamacare" is just misinformation. He dropped universal healthcare after the campaign for "the public option" which was killed in the Senate. I think the plan they put forward was pretty moderate. I mean a call for univseral coverage that doesn't even really reform anything?  It is something I could've lived with....but didn't even get that. By the time the bill takes full effect tens of millions would still be uninsured Awesome change Obama

"Insuring" everyone would probably be the worst possible way to go.

Epignosis wrote: JJLehto wrote: Oh, and I really think a lot of criticism about "Obamacare" is just misinformation. He dropped universal healthcare after the campaign for "the public option" which was killed in the Senate. I think the plan they put forward was pretty moderate. I mean a call for univseral coverage that doesn't even really reform anything?  It is something I could've lived with....but didn't even get that. By the time the bill takes full effect tens of millions would still be uninsured Awesome change Obama "Insuring" everyone would probably be the worst possible way to go.

Well don't worry, not happening. By the time the bill is expected to full take effect, in 2019, 23 million would still be uninsured. And I agree, I certainly wouldn't prefer that....at least with universal you pay you receive. Simple.

JJLehto wrote: Epignosis wrote: JJLehto wrote: Oh, and I really think a lot of criticism about "Obamacare" is just misinformation. He dropped universal healthcare after the campaign for "the public option" which was killed in the Senate. I think the plan they put forward was pretty moderate. I mean a call for univseral coverage that doesn't even really reform anything?  It is something I could've lived with....but didn't even get that. By the time the bill takes full effect tens of millions would still be uninsured Awesome change Obama "Insuring" everyone would probably be the worst possible way to go. Well don't worry, not happening. By the time the bill is expected to full take effect, in 2019, 23 million would still be uninsured. And I agree, I certainly wouldn't prefer that....at least with universal you pay you receive. Simple.

Insurance is stupid, period when it comes to health care.

I don't know why we're still going on about health care.  I gave a reasonable and feasible moderate way to handle health care as a public need.

Nobody will elect me to office though. 

JJLehto wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: JJLehto wrote: Padraic wrote: What Pat is trying to say (I believe) is that there's a difference between a "right" and "something that I think would be good for every citizen to have". Your argument is that you believe it is to the benefit of our society that we have a single-payer national health care system.  That doesn't make health care a right. Rights are something every human being is born with and requires nothing from anyone else. Note that I'm not arguing for or against the health care system, I'm arguing against the (perhaps semantic) proposition that this is a right. Ah damn, I started another debate and then was out of here for too long I had a feeling that most people in here would say that. Maybe it is all semantics, even if it is I still stand by it. I'll give the BOTD and say maybe its not a "right" but I honestly can't believe that, especially in the wealthiest nation on earth, there are people that don't have access to a fundamental need. And I really don't mean to be mean, but I still think many of you are arguing from a point of paranoia. I've said this before, and I know that "for the common good" can be a justification for terrible things and that if one right goes, then its an avalanche. But there are countries that have a universal healthcare system....Canada, most of Europe, Japan and especially the Nordic Countries, these countries have not snowballed into dictatorship. Many people, myself included, see the power the government is using for those Universal Healthcare schemes to be terrible and frightening. It doesn't need to devolve into full despotism; I already find it evil. I guess it's all the mindset that we have instilled in us as Americans. I really hate to just drop it...but we have nothing to debate on now. If you really find the government that evil then yeah...I got nothing to say except I just don't share your paranoia/fear, especially since you say its already evil without it being despotism.

I just think to say that I hate the government is misleading. It suggest that some hatred is reserved for the government, not because of what it does, but because I have this separate, maybe even irrational, hatred of that institution. 

JJLehto wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Many people, myself included, see the power the government is using for those Universal Healthcare schemes to be terrible and frightening. It doesn't need to devolve into full despotism; I already find it evil. I guess it's all the mindset that we have instilled in us as Americans. I really hate to just drop it...but we have nothing to debate on now. If you really find the government that evil then yeah...I got nothing to say except I just don't share your paranoia/fear, especially since you say its already evil without it being despotism.

exactly--  if you're claiming "terrible, frightening and evil" you bet your ass it has to be despotism, what else would it be?  To call something 'despotism' or 'evil' that is not truly those things just cheapens the the concept, devalues the word and overstates the case, thereby lessening the anti-government argument. 

Atavachron wrote: JJLehto wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Many people, myself included, see the power the government is using for those Universal Healthcare schemes to be terrible and frightening. It doesn't need to devolve into full despotism; I already find it evil. I guess it's all the mindset that we have instilled in us as Americans. I really hate to just drop it...but we have nothing to debate on now. If you really find the government that evil then yeah...I got nothing to say except I just don't share your paranoia/fear, especially since you say its already evil without it being despotism. exactly--  if you're claiming "terrible, frightening and evil" you bet your ass it has to be despotism, what else would it be?  To call something 'despotism' or 'evil' that is not truly those things just cheapens the the concept, devalues the word and overstates the case, thereby lessening the anti-government argument.

I don't like the idea of the gvmt forcing everyone to buy health insurance.
That's kind of what I was getting at when I said: At least universal healthcare is simple
Don't have to worry about plans, loopholes, coverage etc etc

You pay into it, and you can receive it.
While it may not be perfect, I think it's better then what we have now, and as I said you can look at other countries and see the results. Thats all I can say.

If you want to get into the "no one can have rights violated/for the common good" debate and "the government is bad, even if it does not lead to despotism...well I respectfully disagree.

And I did find Rob's idea intriguing. I like to consider myself progressive and not liberal. IMHO the difference being progressive is about getting things done, not so much ideology. Whatever gets the job done. I believe every american should have access to healthcare, I believe anyone has the right to get married, etc I dont really care HOW this is accomplished. More federal government, or extreme localization just as long as it is done.

Funny, I just finished taking an exam for labor econ class, and a section dealt with regulation and Employment Protection Legislation, specifically their impact on labor.

EPL often deals with wage flexibility, (less so) and making termination more difficult. Sounds like music to my ears?
Well, these of course drive the cost of business up. Which means there are less jobs created.
So, while strict EPL does lead to less termination, and more long term employment, it seems to lead to more long term unemployment, and higher unemployment overall.
What a sticky web....  
It mentioned how women and youth are hit hard by this, and mentioned early on how Greece had very strict EPL. Made me think of those riots a few years back, which were largely due to youth anger and unemployment.
Long story short: Pretty sure I aced my test and...well dont know why I posted this guess to show Im not as crazy a hardcore socialist lib as I come off as. Fine line between helping workers and helping the overall work market.