Plus as far as to my knowledge mandatory insurance hasn't been ruled unconstitutional, ie auto and homeowners.
I don't really know how many more times I have to repeat this, but with respect to health care this is simply not true. That is why we are having the discussion. As I stated before, Kenneth Arrow pretty much knocked this out of the park way back in 1963 when he wrote "Uncertainty and the Welfare Economics of Health Care" - what is generally considered the seminal paper on the economics of health care. It is arguably one of the most-cited and influential papers in the all of contemporary economics. You may read it, here it is: http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/82/2/PHCBP.pdf To give you a very quick summation of some of the highlights, he defined the theory a number of factors, primarily, information asymmetry, increasing returns, and exist in the market for health care which ensure that an uregulated market will not ever reach an efficient allocation of resources (Pareto optimality). In fact it would have the opposite effect where free markets means less competition rather than more. This is really the biggest obstacle in getting people to understand the economics of health care. Some people just don't understand that in certain areas, the invisible hand simply doesn't work and goes to a non-optimal outcome. I hate to break this to you, but Adam Smith did not write the final chapter in economics. It's like saying that Physics stopped with Newton. LOL - how do you know what you need when you need it? Are you a doctor? This is part of the information asymmetry at work that Arrow identified. Do you have any stats to prove anything about these wait time deaths that you are alluding to? Or are you just kind of assumng that this phenomenon exists? I am guessing it's the latter. Anyway for now I'm glad you enjoy paying for marketing and lobbying and lawyers and CEO salaries with your health care dollars - I don't. And the Alfa Romeo spyder only seats 2 people and can take the corner way faster, sure it breaks down and guzzles tons of cash but you can go as fast as you want whenever you want to. I don't really know what else to say - if you think having an inefficient system that generally fails to accomplish its goals save for offering very high end services at an exorbitant, ever increasing cost is better than having a more efficient system, than I suppose we are at an impasse. I hope you don't mind a large tax increase in the future to pay for this system - way larger than anything you would ever get in a government run system.
But every public school and road is built with tax dollars taken from you by force. Good luck explaining that to the judge when you don't pay taxes. Do you pay taxes? You may be a hunter-gatherer who lives off the land so I could be wrong. It's not persuasive to you, as you are making zero attempt to build any sort of logical foundation and are only interested in making inconsistent nonsensical arguments. Which basically means you should shut up.
Of course if he owns that land then he still has to pay property taxes. If it is someone elses land then the he is a looter, in both the literal and Randian sense. If it is government land then he is also a looter in the Randian sense.
As sad as that is it makes him in Rand terms worse than a looter as he is a member of a defeated people confined to a limited territory by the US government and given a set of privelages out of mercy by the US Government.
I was referring to when a doctor orders, for example, an MRI, you get it. Right then. Unless you're at your family practice doctor, who refers you to an MRI center, and then you call them to make an appointment, and then you get your MRI. Not only this, but medical care is moving toward preventive medicine. MRIs and CT scans are a huge part of this. You really think the government is going to support paying for all of this without it getting lost or otherwise tied up in some committee? And you want the government in charge of this for you? You have far more faith in them than I do. Outside of what I hear and read, which is usually a point, counter-point thing anyway, no. But that is why I referred to my family in the UK who has come here to the States for simple things such as eye and dental exams, because the wait times are, according to them, way too long back home. I also worked several years in inpatient psych, where we treated many international patients. They all said the same thing when the topic came up. They didn't complain about the level of care so much as they did about wait times and red tape hoops to jump through because rather than a doctor wanting to do a particular test and having it simply get done, it had to go through some government committee where others (who hadn't met you and/or knew virtually nothing about your needs of care) determined your medical fate. As a result they came here, usually paying out of pocket, to get the care they needed in a timely fashion because they could not receive this in their home countries. These are the things I have personally seen, heard, and worked with, combined with my experience so far in nursing school. You'll have to forgive me if I don't find a particular theory (Arrow) to be as life-changing as it apparently was for you. It's a theory. What does that even mean? Because it makes sense on paper it should be implemented for all Americans? Some guy's got a theory....great. What does that mean for me? I'm not arguing that reform isn't needed nor am I arguing that the government shouldn't be involved at some level. What I am saying is that the government in charge of the whole thing quite frankly terrifies me, and I cannot fathom that putting the government in charge would in any way lessen the amount of anyone's health care dollars going to line the pockets of politicians.
Wow just wow...you bought Rand hook, line, and sinker didn't you? You stole that "point of a gun" phrase from Atlas Shrugged. At least giver her credit for your plagiarism. As for your anecdotal evidence, good for you I can name numerous individuals that cannot get insurance because of those conditions I named. And if you think for a minute that that insurance contract is going to hold up if you become too much of a risk you are deluding yourself. Try this experiment, go out tomorrow and cause several at fault accidents and then go and get a DWI. Your car insurance WHICH YOU HAVE AN INSURANCE CONTRACT will drop you. I already pointed out why insurance coverage will be and should be mandatory. Just like car insurance the uninsured causes the insureds rates to go up. That is not up for debate that is a fact.
From the Declaration of Independence: [RQUOTER]We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.[/RQUOTER] Our founders were very bold indeed to declare life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as unalienable rights. Anyone who has been alive for very long can give personal testimony to the intervention of fate and circumstance to rapidly, and sometimes rudely, change our lives for better of for worse. We are not in secure control of our lives or our futures. And the government is not either. Even if the U.S. government were to declare healthcare as an unalienable right, it cannot guarantee health. So what would this pledge amount to anyway? Nothing, that's what. Health care is not an unalienable right, regardless of any proclamations that the U.S. government makes to the contrary.
Well first off the Declaration of Independence is superceded by the Constitution so while it is of historical import it no longer has legal import. Secondly as I stated earlier I agree that health care isn't a right at the sametime it doesn't mean that addressing it isn't a bad idea such as roads aren't a right but they were a good idea.
Not to derail this thread, but I have never heard such a thing. The two documents cover two different subjects and have two different purposes. It is impossible for the Constitution to supersede the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution did supersede the Articles of Confederation.
Not an inalienable right. And no. Cops, firemen, public education, national defense are not inalienable rights either. They are public services. There is a difference. If doctors, cops, firemen, teachers, etc. go on strike, do we arrest them? Force them at gunpoint to work?
It is logically impossible to guarantee a scarce and limited resource as an inalienable human right. Legal rights and inalienable human rights are different.
Since you decided to take us up a few thousand feet back to the level of silly "ph3ar the government!!!11!!" platitudes, my retort is - yeah, I can't see why they'd be any worse than the management of a for profit corporation whose job is to deny as much coverage and pay for as little as possible. I'm guessing you didn't read the paper. Which is fine. But to answer your question Lynus, it means that you shouldn't go around spouting crap like this that you have dug up from the recesses of Econ 101: ..when it has proven to be not true. As it makes you look foolish. We've gone back and forth about this for a few pages now, you haven't really shown the ability/desire to acknowledge the baseline conditions of health care economics - so why do you even pretend to wish for a solution about the whole thing? Just say you don't want reform and don't care, as long as you are taken care of. You already said you don't give a crap about efficiency (which actually shows why a free market solution won't work)....like I said before, if you are satisfied with a wasteful inefficient system not operating at optimal conditions, it's fine, if obviously not rational - but don't claim that it's because it's the best system that can be had, when it is obviously not.
