Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

TheDaliLama · 03-26-2012, 11:28 AM

It is not a fucking right.

Don't Be Daft! · 03-26-2012, 11:32 AM

You are wrong as well as daft.

nwarounder · 03-26-2012, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by liberaldevil

As someone who is in the healthcare industry I've researched this issue at all levels. Prior to becoming an American citizen I practiced my profession in the UK. As most know our healthcare(UK) is all government run--NHS. So, it comes as no surprise that I and many of my countrymen are a wee bit alarmed that this is even a debate. America is the most wealthy country in the world after all. It is simply daft to think healthcare isn't available to all of America's populous. Its a bloody human right. And, in my opinion that is the crux to the whole bloody argument isn't it? Sure, the poor have a healthcare option but it isn't anywhere as brilliant as private healthcare. The Medicaid program has too many long wait times for important procedures. Along with too many financial short cuts which results in the mismanagement of its poorest clients. An example of this would be diagnostic testing for certain lymphoma's or leukemia's. If it is thought a patient has a particular type of leukemia but also has lymphatic involvement then there needs to be further testing. And, that's also the problem. Your Medicaid program frowns upon this pricy testing. It deems it as unnecessary due to its cost. There in lies the problem! Indeed, it is pricy. But, cutting a corner to make a quicker diagnosis isn't the answer. And, obviously it is counterproductive as far as the patients good health is concerned. I reckon this is why the political left has resorted to slogans such as, "Hope you don't get sick because if you do you'll die!" Obviously, this is an extreme case and not all poor people who have a life threatening illnesses die. However, far too many of America's financially burdened are getting the minimal care for illnesses that privatized healthcare is sorting from day one.

I think it is important to realize not every poor person in America is a "meth" addicted individual. And, not every individual is living on government money and having multiple children solely for the benefits. There are loads of individuals that are from all walks of life who have simply fallen on hard times(blue collar as well as white collar ex-executives). One should try to think of the coal miner in western Pennsylvania who is out of work and therefore hasn't proper healthcare. And, Cobra is far too expensive to maintain. Especially, for blokes who are out of work.

It is my opinion that this is 100% a humanity issue. To consider "not" having such an option is simply inhuman as well as daft.

Sweet! So if I ever get really sick I can fly over to the UK and check into a hospital and it will be free, right?

JD Barleycorn · 03-26-2012, 12:02 PM

A "bloody human right" is automatic and requires no one to perform a task for you to have it. Think about it; the right to be free, the right to speak out, the right to meet your fellow soccer (football) thugs, the right to keep and bear arms, and the right not to incriminate yourself. All of these rights (when you have them) require no one to do anything on your behalf, they just are. There is no right to healthcare because someone has to provide that right. In fact it would bring back slavery on healthcare workers because if there was not enough to go around then they would be forced to provide this "right".

CJ7 · 03-26-2012, 01:23 PM

sooooo nobody really wanted to talk about the subject

unconstitutional, Nazi, socialist Republicans mandate healthcare

go figure.

JD Barleycorn · 03-26-2012, 01:28 PM

I did talk about the subject. Maybe you missed those little bugs. They are called words. (borrowing from Edgar Rice Borroughs)
Still have to find time to research between other things in my life. Maybe you should read some of those things and give us an honest synopsis.

nwarounder · 03-26-2012, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJ7

sooooo nobody really wanted to talk about the subject

unconstitutional, Nazi, socialist Republicans mandate healthcare

go figure.

It definitely is unconstitutional, but was pushed by a Democrat prez. Not sure what the Nazi party's involvement was though.

CJ7 · 03-26-2012, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nwarounder

It definitely is unconstitutional, but was pushed by a Democrat prez. Not sure what the Nazi party's involvement was though.

start with the original post and see if that helps

WTF · 03-26-2012, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJ7

sooooo nobody really wanted to talk about the subject

unconstitutional, Nazi, socialist Republicans mandate healthcare

go figure.

JD talked about it. He said that was a long time ago , back when the GOP had some God Damn common sense. That is no longer the case. Which he proves with each of his posts time and time again.

JD Barleycorn · 03-26-2012, 01:53 PM

Good, you admit that your one post was in error. Knowing is half the battle.

CJ7 · 03-26-2012, 02:00 PM

JD spun the whole thing off to Obama almost immediately

did anyone even mention Romney? yanno, the unconstitutional Nazi socialist who passed a similar version of mandated healthcare when he was Gov?

the right was the first to bring the idea to the table, and first to make the idea legislation, aka LAW.

so if Obamacare is unconstitutional, Nazi, socialist, exactly what is Romneycare? What name fits the GOP for allowing him to do it unquestioned?

JD Barleycorn · 03-26-2012, 02:04 PM

Actually the state constitution allows for Romney (who was a democrat a number of years ago) to pass his legislation. Of course it was passed with a majority democratic state senate and legislature. I'm curious, was Romney a democrat back in 1989 when this all started?

Went and checked it out. Romney went from being an independent to Republican before running against Ted Kennedy in 1994. When he ran for Governor he didn't call himself a republican but a moderate progressive. That was 2002.

Like I pointed out originally, the Massachusetts Constitution allowed Romney to create Romney care but the US Constutition does not.

CJ7 · 03-26-2012, 02:07 PM

who cares what romney was in 89, Heritage was republican, then and now

quit deflecting Teach

nwarounder · 03-26-2012, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJ7

JD spun the whole thing off to Obama almost immediately

did anyone even mention Romney? yanno, the unconstitutional Nazi socialist who passed a similar version of mandated healthcare when he was Gov?

the right was the first to bring the idea to the table, and first to make the idea legislation, aka LAW.

so if Obamacare is unconstitutional, Nazi, socialist, exactly what is Romneycare? What name fits the GOP for allowing him to do it unquestioned?

It is a very common misconception that state laws fall under the same constitutional scutiny as federal laws, which they do not. In this case, the federal law is using the inter-state commerce clause as a way to deem it constitutional. Massachusetts does not impose mandates across state lines.

CJ7 · 03-26-2012, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nwarounder

It is a very common misconception that state laws fall under the same constitutional scutiny as federal laws, which they do not. In this case, the federal law is using the inter-state commerce clause as a way to deem it constitutional. Massachusetts does not impose mandates across state lines.

understood, and agreed ... but still short.

even when confined to state bounds, the law still mandates healthcare and puts the $ burden for some on the taxpayers with not so much as a whimper of discomfort from the right side of the building.

why would that be?