Tomi Lahren Admits She Benefits From Obamacare, Still Wants To Nix It
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-08-2017, 11:19 AM
RE: Tomi Lahren Admits She Benefits From Obamacare, Still Wants To Nix It
(01-08-2017 09:39 AM)Hitcher70 Wrote:  Yes, some people should die or go bankrupt. Some. Not very many. And not very many would if the free market was allowed to work as it once did.

really? then who decides who should die or go bankrupt?

and free market? the only time a free market has EVER worked for everyone and not just the wealthy is when it was regulated to prevent any monopoly or anti-consumer, anti-competitive practices from taking place.

Would you take govt assistance to save your life or that of your family if you couldn't afford treatment otherwise and the alternatives were death or bankruptcy?

The more one asserts their own unquestioned preconceived beliefs, the more demanding I will be for empirical evidence for I will accept nothing else in place of it
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Ace's post
01-08-2017, 11:26 AM
RE: Tomi Lahren Admits She Benefits From Obamacare, Still Wants To Nix It
(01-08-2017 11:18 AM)morondog Wrote:  Why don't you tell us your so-wonderful ideas then, o great one?

addressed in post #16

Quote:As you were previously asked, why do you support spending money on "defense" and not on welfare?

addressed in post #18

It's pretty difficult to discuss limits with you when you're bent on ignoring what I've already written and insist on inventing a position I have not taken.

Trying to have a conversation with socialists is really not much different than trying to explain something to a theist. They simply deflect, misrepresent, become obtuse and try to avoid the actual topic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2017, 11:36 AM (This post was last modified: 01-08-2017 11:41 AM by Hitcher70.)
RE: Tomi Lahren Admits She Benefits From Obamacare, Still Wants To Nix It
(01-08-2017 11:19 AM)Ace Wrote:  really? then who decides who should die or go bankrupt?

I give up, who?

If this concept of yours is so good then why are we limiting taxpayer funded care to just those people in the US. Why don't we cover healthcare for all of the world?

Oh...limits. And someone will get left out. Such is life.

Quote:and free market? the only time a free market has EVER worked for everyone and not just the wealthy is when it was regulated to prevent any monopoly or anti-consumer, anti-competitive practices from taking place.

And there, again, we could discuss limits. A free market does not mean there can be no sensible regulation...within limits.

Quote:Would you take govt assistance to save your life or that of your family if you couldn't afford treatment otherwise and the alternatives were death or bankruptcy?

If that's the system that exists, which I've been paying into quite steeply, then I would apply for what assistance that system provides. What I wouldn't do is complain that someone else didn't steal your money and give it to me if that system didn't exist.

You seem to fail to realize that people weren't laying in the streets dying before this nannystate system was implemented.

I don't know anyone who doesn't believe in a help system to assist people in need. There is nothing wrong with a hand up (versus a never ending hand out). What I oppose is a systematic redistribution of wealth simply because your kind has decided that healthcare is a right. One you clearly limit to US Citizens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2017, 11:37 AM
RE: Tomi Lahren Admits She Benefits From Obamacare, Still Wants To Nix It
In a legal sense I agree with Hitch, the Constitution is supposed to be the final word on what can be done at the federal level. It's hard to shoehorn "universal health coverage" into what's actually written. The Constitution, though, is absurdly hard to amend (probably harder than the framers intended) so while most (many? whatever) Americans have ethically moved ahead to the point where at least some health safety net is seen as desirable, (even if it "steals" money from those that can most afford it) it's just never going to be put into the letter of the (this parenthesis has no content) constitution.

I would ask Hitch: If the constitution were amended to add Universal Health Care, would you then be okay with it and not regard expenditures for it as stealing?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2017, 12:10 PM
RE: Tomi Lahren Admits She Benefits From Obamacare, Still Wants To Nix It
(01-08-2017 11:37 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:  In a legal sense I agree with Hitch, the Constitution is supposed to be the final word on what can be done at the federal level. It's hard to shoehorn "universal health coverage" into what's actually written. The Constitution, though, is absurdly hard to amend (probably harder than the framers intended) so while most (many? whatever) Americans have ethically moved ahead to the point where at least some health safety net is seen as desirable, (even if it "steals" money from those that can most afford it) it's just never going to be put into the letter of the (this parenthesis has no content) constitution.

I would ask Hitch: If the constitution were amended to add Universal Health Care, would you then be okay with it and not regard expenditures for it as stealing?

Thank you for addressing the topic at hand rather than playing games.

Beyond it overstepping the prescribed limits outlined in the COTUS and BOR...as has been done with the 16th Amendment and the slippery slope it opened to make this all possible. The "shoehorn", if you will...
I would consider the changes to be an unethical extension that not only violates the 13th Amendment's involuntary servitude, violates the 14th Amendment(equal protection) due to it's existence as a progressive tax, but also contradicts the very rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the individual citizen it was designed to protect.

Wedging something into an Amendment does not automatically exempt it from being unconstitutional.

Two wolves and a sheep were deciding on what to have for diner...

As for the word "stealing" or "theft" or "requisitioning" or whatever word we want to use... the point I was making when I said "The government can only give away what it steals from someone." in the post that started all of this was that it's not as if the government has some magic pot of gold(lest we get on the subject of just printing more money). The government can only give away the money it takes/steals/requisitions/taxes/borrows etc... from the people.

I think we can all agree that there should be a limit to this. And if we expand the concept far enough we can all find where any person would find it unethical to tax/take/requisition/steal from citizens to redistribute. Whether that be a different "benefit" that some deem a right or whether we say that healthcare is a right of humans and we must fund the healthcare of all the people of the world.

It's about limits and what we can ethically expect our fellow man to be forced to do in order to provide for others.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2017, 12:15 PM
RE: Tomi Lahren Admits She Benefits From Obamacare, Still Wants To Nix It
(31-07-2017 08:40 PM)Hitcher70 Wrote:  The end result is that the same way people in Canada have come to the US to get services they would have to wait months for at home...people are already going to Mexico to get.

I hear that a lot but this is purely anecdotal without citations. Got refs?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2017, 12:20 PM
RE: Tomi Lahren Admits She Benefits From Obamacare, Still Wants To Nix It
(31-07-2017 08:40 PM)Hitcher70 Wrote:  No. A healthy citizen isn't a matter of national welfare.

Yeah, it's all fun and games and "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche" until the guillotines come out. Unhealthy citizens certainly are a matter of national defense. Plagues bring down entire civilizations, not merely nations.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
01-08-2017, 12:25 PM
RE: Tomi Lahren Admits She Benefits From Obamacare, Still Wants To Nix It
(01-08-2017 12:15 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(31-07-2017 08:40 PM)Hitcher70 Wrote:  The end result is that the same way people in Canada have come to the US to get services they would have to wait months for at home...people are already going to Mexico to get.

I hear that a lot but this is purely anecdotal without citations. Got refs?

Those must be some awfully rich Canadians that can afford the astronomical cost of US health care without insurance coverage.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Grasshopper's post
01-08-2017, 12:50 PM (This post was last modified: 01-08-2017 12:56 PM by epronovost.)
RE: Tomi Lahren Admits She Benefits From Obamacare, Still Wants To Nix It
(01-08-2017 12:25 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(01-08-2017 12:15 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I hear that a lot but this is purely anecdotal without citations. Got refs?

Those must be some awfully rich Canadians that can afford the astronomical cost of US health care without insurance coverage.

It did happenned and still happen for minor surgeries (mosly for knee surgeries). Around 50 000 Canadian visited the United States for this purpose each year. Canadian citizens can buy american health insurrence for those surgeries. It uses to be more common in the early 2000's when the US dollar was weaker and the Canadian healthcare system was suffering of backlog problems that have been reduced (but not elliminated) since then by a higher retention of medical personnel and better management. Note that the opposite is also true with Americans going to Canada to receive much cheaper prescription drugs and for surgery that requires long stay in hospitals (thus much too pricy in the US). Around 750 000 US citizen travelled to other countries (including Canada and Mexico, but also Europe) for the same purpose and around 2 million of them bought prescription drugs from Canada, sometime illegaly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_to...ted_States

Not a scientific source, but gives a good outlook on this situation.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like epronovost's post
01-08-2017, 12:55 PM
RE: Tomi Lahren Admits She Benefits From Obamacare, Still Wants To Nix It
(01-08-2017 12:50 PM)epronovost Wrote:  
(01-08-2017 12:25 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Those must be some awfully rich Canadians that can afford the astronomical cost of US health care without insurance coverage.

It did happenned and still happen for minor surgeries (mosly for knee surgeries). Canadian citizens can buy american health insurrence for those surgeries. It use to be more common in the early 2000's when the US dollar was weaker and the Canadian healthcare system was suffering of backlog problems that have been reduced (but not elliminated) since then by a higher retention of medical personnel and better management. Note that the opposite is also true with Americans going to Canada to receive much cheaper prescription drugs and for surgery that requires long stay in hospitals (thus much too pricy in the US).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_to...ted_States

Not a scientific source, but gives a good outlook on this situation.

Interesting. So 750,000 Americans went out of country in 2007 to seek medical care. Wait, that's 3 years before the ACA became law. Lemme see if I can find how many since. That would be an interesting factoid for comparison.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: