From a doctor's perspective, is it better to repeal or keep healthcare reform

[deleted103644]

It would be easy to preside over the end of Medicare.

Step 1) Change something technical that makes it almost unworkable 5 years down the line.

Step 2) Use it as evidence of government's inability to do anything right and privatize it.


It's easy to prove government is worthless if the people keep electing people who think government is worthless.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[SteinUmStein]

It would be easy to preside over the end of Medicare.

Step 1) Change something technical that makes it almost unworkable 5 years down the line.

Step 2) Use it as evidence of government's inability to do anything right and privatize it.


It's easy to prove government is worthless if the people keep electing people who think government is worthless.

That's actually incredibly evil and brilliant...

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3oni3b/

Edit: I thought of a pretty decent analogy. The federal government with our two-party system is like having a group project assignment where half of the group members get points if the group succeeds, and the other half get points if the group fails miserably.

 

[ResIpsaLoquitur]

Actually, in the 1932 presidental election, Hilter only received approximately 32% of the votes. Hindenberg won approximately 50% and the presidency. Only after coercion and assassination by the National Socialists and the SA, did Hitler take power. He was never really "voted" in and whether Germany "wanted" a dictator is entirely a matter of opinion.

Granted, this has nothing to do with the PPACA, but if you're going to quote historical references, you should quote them correctly.

I hate to beat a dead horse but as you have rightly established, playing fast and loose with the facts is a staple in the modus operandi of ideological jedis. It is a powerful operational tactic in ideological warfare...if the facts do not fit, just state them in a slanted way anyway and hope the audience is too dumb-stricken to notice analytical lapses. When smart people challenge the fallacious correlation, you can simply accuse them of doing the same thing you are - changing the facts to fit their story!! End result - cyclical arguments that do not even remotely approach a solution: Sabotage on course - mission accomplished!

I am sure you caught the 'soft tyranny' comment which is something that has been brought up on conservative talk radio to characterize the current presidency.

However, with all due respect, I have to say that this has everything to do with PPACA because the disingenuous spirit behind such partisan slant is what accounts for most of the intransigence on the part of detractors. Just read Dave8's solutions in response to SteinUmStein's request for constructive contribution to health care reform - I need not say more!

 

[ResIpsaLoquitur]

That's actually incredibly evil and brilliant...

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3oni3b/

Edit: I thought of a pretty decent analogy. The federal government with our two-party system is like having a group project assignment where half of the group members get points if the group succeeds, and the other half get points if the group fails miserably.

And that great analogy sums up what is stunting our greatness as a democracy, and hastening the demise of reason in a political arena dominated by blind allegiance to ideology. Refusing to play so the other side can fail should be treasonable...but alas - it is what one must do when one has sworn to make a certain Barack Obama a one term president. I do not know why more people are not openly incensed by this nonsense!!

 

[ResIpsaLoquitur]

Very true. Hitler was far from a true democratically-elected leader.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_rise_to_power

I never like to bring up Hitler but since Dave89 brought him up, I'll remind him that Hitler is what happens when fanatic ideologists take over, and good people stand aside thinking, "this is so nuts, we will simply ignore it". But 32% of the zealotry made sure that the other +60% were captive to a dangerous movement that still lingers in different forms throughout the world today but with far more patriotic sounding branding to dampen the scrutiny!

 

[Gut Shot]

To take it to an extreme: if a country wants a dictator, it'll get one (see: Nazi Germany).

I'm going to have to invoke Godwin's Law here and request a new thread.

Thanks a lot, Dave.

 

[SurfingDoctor]

I'm going to have to invoke Godwin's Law here and request a new thread.

Thanks a lot, Dave.

I've never heard of this. I had to Wikipedia it. Obviously I'm not very internet savvy. Hilarious!

 

[Lysinee]

I learned something today besides First Aid.

I will use it in the future.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

I'm going to have to invoke Godwin's Law here and request a new thread.

Thanks a lot, Dave.

 

[ResIpsaLoquitur]

I'm going to have to invoke Godwin's Law here and request a new thread.

Thanks a lot, Dave.

LOL...Argumentum ad Hitlerum is almost always the strategy one uses to unfairly draw a sharp contrast with the aim of painting an opposing view as distasteful. I cannot blame you, Gut shot for pulling the plug. I have been waiting on Dave to bring it up for 2 days now...and he did not fail me!! If you listen to PPACA critics, their arguments are always trending in the direction of abhorrable loses of freedom and self-determination, which eventually lead to characterizations of America as turning into Europe...which we should all hate because guess who is a lightning rod of failed European 'social experiments' - You guessed it!!

 

[Gut Shot]

LOL...Argumentum ad Hitlerum is almost always the strategy one uses to unfairly draw a sharp contrast with the aim of painting an opposing view as distatseful. I cannot blame you, Gut shot for pulling the plug. I have been waiting on Dave to bring it up for 2 days now...and he did not fail me!! If you listen to PPACA critics, their arguments are always trending in the direction of abhorrable loses of freedom and self-determination, which eventually lead to characterizations of America as turning into Europe...which we should all hate because guess who is a lightning rod of failed European 'social experiments' - You guessed it!!

Yeah, I'm guessing you were, at the very least, a theater minor.

 

[Gut Shot]

I've never heard of this. I had to Wikipedia it. Obviously I'm not very internet savvy. Hilarious!

Jesus Christ I'm getting old.

 

[deleted103644]

I've never heard of this. I had to Wikipedia it. Obviously I'm not very internet savvy. Hilarious!

You should also check out Rule 34.

Yes, there is already healthcare reform porn somewhere on the Internet.

 

[SurfingDoctor]

Jesus Christ I'm getting old.

1990 was not really that long ago.

 

[redsquareblack]

1990 was not really that long ago.

Even scarier is the fact that, as an older student in my medical school class, I am one of only two or three people that were alive when Ghostbusters came out.

 

[ResIpsaLoquitur]

Even scarier is the fact that, as an older student in my medical school class, I am one of only two or three people that were alive when Ghostbusters came out.

You have me busting a gut with this...LOL. I will be starting in the Fall, and I'm gonna have the words 'Grumps' embroidered on my White Coat because judging by who was at the interviews, I'll have a good 8 years on the average pup in the litterbox...lol. I was the youngest at every job I worked but that is about to turn on its head...lol.

 

[ResIpsaLoquitur]

Yeah, I'm guessing you were, at the very least, a theater minor.

Allegorically close but not quite...International Relations minor.

 

[Gut Shot]

Allegorically close but not quite...International Relations minor.

Suffice to say you have a certain... panache.

 

[ResIpsaLoquitur]

Suffice to say you have a certain... panache.

Philosophy and literary art tend to permeate my communicative disposition - blame in on my love for old English which was rich in latin - a pre-requisite for indulgence in the classics which I thoroughly enjoy!

...In the chronicles of wasted time I see descriptions of the fairest wights, of beauty making beautiful old rime, in praise of ladies dead and lovely knights......lol....sorry, could not resist

 

[phltz]

Philosophy and literary art tend to permeate my communicative disposition - blame in on my love for old English which was rich in latin - a pre-requisite for indulgence in the classics which I thoroughly enjoy!

...In the chronicles of wasted time I see descriptions of the fairest wights, of beauty making beautiful old rime, in praise of ladies dead and lovely knights......lol....sorry, could not resist

English is a Germanic language, with extensive borrowing, especially from French, Latin, Latin-by-way-of-French, and Greek. Old English predates all of the borrowings I just mentioned, and has the lowest Latin content of any form of English. Pretty much all of its words are solidly Germanic, with a small smattering of borrowing (lots of Celtic languages, some Finno-Urgric, etc).

 

[ResIpsaLoquitur]

English is a Germanic language, with extensive borrowing, especially from French, Latin, Latin-by-way-of-French, and Greek. Old English predates all of the borrowings I just mentioned, and has the lowest Latin content of any form of English. Pretty much all of its words are solidly Germanic, with a small smattering of borrowing (lots of Celtic languages, some Finno-Urgric, etc).

I grew up in England and went through the British system of Education so I am pretty sure that Roman and Latin influences account for tons of vocab in modern English. In English Common Law, we borrowed almost entire Romano-Latinate concepts in the jurisprudence of the day. There were concepts in law and language that remained unframed in old England or had not yet been articulated in Old English. Influences from prominent empires formed the platform through which we acquired literary reference. I misspoke by saying there was a lot of Latin in Old English. I should have said there was a lot of Latin in Old England - the more accurate statement is that Roman and Latin distillates supplemented, and even substituted entire literary concepts in old England/old English. Such hybrid expression was the preserve of the literati in old England. As you probably know, the masses back then were not very educated and classics were almost always never appreciated in the era of authorship because of their rather 'lofty' reach that required understanding of the hybridized nature of formal expression. Shakespeare was actually later criticized for 'dumbing down' literary value to make classic authorship accessible to the masses!

We actually continue to have lively national debates about why Latin continues to have such a presence in English Law over 1000 years later. Anyway, I hope that sits better with your sensibilities because I'm not an expert - just an eager student.

 

[lightfire22000]

I did NOT say I don't want to see everyone get healthcare. Don't twist my words. What I said was that healthcare is NOT a right given by the US Constitution. Now, in other countries, it may be, and that's all good. However, in the United States, it's currently not a right.

The right to life is explicitly mentioned in the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution which implies a right to pursue longevity provided it is not necessarily hurting others. This is currently incompatible with our healthcare system because of the Abigail Burroughs verdict and Erbitux's ultimate approval for treatment of head and neck cancer. That is, you don't have the right to pursue a potentially beneficial treatment under the law.

What is implicit in a right is a protection but not a gift of goods and services created because of the work, sweat, time and capital investment of others. If healthcare is indeed a right, then these healthcare goods must then be seized forcibly, by law or by theft, from others who have provided them in what is a frank violation of their right not to be robbed of their property. This then begs the question of whether the absolute right to healthcare also involves the right to steal from those who produce the goods and services necessary for that care. In a broader sense one must also ask where do one’s rights end? Do they extend to food, or housing or a job?" -Mitchell Brooks

The counter is that the government has already intervened in healthcare, preventing inferior quality treatment from existing. Once the government defers to organizations that establish practice standards, it opens up Pandora's box. Say an MS patient wants a cheap "Zamboni Angioplasty" and can't get it in the US for legal reasons. What about cancer patients who want a certain Laetrile "treatment," but can't get it due to the law so they now have to pay for much more expensive drugs. Their right to pursue healthcare at their own risk is clearly violated. The patient is being denied the right to pursue cheaper ostensible healthcare. We can easily soothe our consciences with the knowledge that these treatments would never work.

However, what if a cancer patient can't afford treatment from an approved clinic, but there's an illegal clinic that's much cheaper operated by a Pakistani oncologist who has never practiced in the US? The materials and equipment is substandard, but functional. The patient can afford this clinic and the chemotherapy might work. Maybe not, but it could help him. Is this patient's right to pursue healthcare being trampled on by the government who's forcing him to see someone whom he cannot afford? Keep in mind that no one else but the terminally ill patient is actually at risk and there is no downside for the patient since he can't afford quality chemotherapy.

Rights must be applied and denied consistently. If universal healthcare is bad because it compels healthcare providers to provide services, the licenses and regulations must also be bad because they compel patients to to pay extra. If you're going to have a pure free market, make it a pure free market. Otherwise, someone will always get screwed.

I oppose a strict free market and favor universal coverage, just as I favor licenses, quality regulation, etc. Otherwise, the patient's pursuit of happiness is threatened as well as his life possibly.

 

[SpecterGT260]

The right to life is explicitly mentioned in the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution which implies a right to pursue longevity provided it is not necessarily hurting others. This is currently incompatible with our healthcare system because of the Abigail Burroughs verdict and Erbitux's ultimate approval for treatment of head and neck cancer. That is, you don't have the right to pursue a potentially beneficial treatment under the law.



The counter is that the government has already intervened in healthcare, preventing inferior quality treatment from existing. Once the government defers to organizations that establish practice standards, it opens up Pandora's box. Say an MS patient wants a cheap "Zamboni Angioplasty" and can't get it in the US for legal reasons. What about cancer patients who want a certain Laetrile "treatment," but can't get it due to the law so they now have to pay for much more expensive drugs. Their right to pursue healthcare at their own risk is clearly violated. The patient is being denied the right to pursue cheaper ostensible healthcare. We can easily soothe our consciences with the knowledge that these treatments would never work.

However, what if a cancer patient can't afford treatment from an approved clinic, but there's an illegal clinic that's much cheaper operated by a Pakistani oncologist who has never practiced in the US? The materials and equipment is substandard, but functional. The patient can afford this clinic and the chemotherapy might work. Maybe not, but it could help him. Is this patient's right to pursue healthcare being trampled on by the government who's forcing him to see someone whom he cannot afford? Keep in mind that no one else but the terminally ill patient is actually at risk and there is no downside for the patient since he can't afford quality chemotherapy.

Rights must be applied and denied consistently. If universal healthcare is bad because it compels healthcare providers to provide services, the licenses and regulations must also be bad because they compel patients to to pay extra. If you're going to have a pure free market, make it a pure free market. Otherwise, someone will always get screwed.

I oppose a strict free market and favor universal coverage, just as I favor licenses, quality regulation, etc. Otherwise, the patient's pursuit of happiness is threatened as well as his life possibly.

Here's your problem..
1) you are too long winded...
2) something IMPLIED in an amendment is open to interpretation and therefore debate. You should know better than to spin that jazz here

One could argue that any "pursuit" is limited to happiness as expressly written in the language. Ergo your only right to life is that which you currently have and not a right to that which you do not have. I.e. the right stops after protection from having life taken away

 

[lightfire22000]

Here's your problem..
1) you are too long winded...

True.

2) something IMPLIED in an amendment is open to interpretation and therefore debate. You should know better than to spin that jazz here

One could argue that any "pursuit" is limited to happiness as expressly written in the language. Ergo your only right to life is that which you currently have and not a right to that which you do not have. I.e. the right stops after protection from having life taken away

How is healthcare not protection from having your life taken away? The disease is attacking you after all. Perhaps only diseases covered by bona fide invading pathogens should be covered as they are attackers. The government bears as much responsibility for bacterial infections as it does for murderers and thugs.

 

[SpecterGT260]

you have a right to be protected from someone taking something to you. This is not the same (nor should it be confused with) the right to force someone to give something to you that you do not already have.

Big difference.

Right to healthcare in any form is not protected nor implied in any part of the constitution

 

[lightfire22000]

you have a right to be protected from someone taking something to you. This is not the same (nor should it be confused with) the right to force someone to give something to you that you do not already have.

Big difference.

A pathogen, virus, or carcinogen is definitely taking something from you. Also, pursuit of happiness is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. However, the right to life, liberty, and property is mentioned in the Constitution. Banning a person from seeking affordable healthcare that would not pose a meaningful risk to him is definitely depriving him of his right to life. A disease is attacking him and he wouldn't be allowed to defend himself against it if we didn't guarantee treatment at the ER.

Imagine if we privatized the police force and the fire department and simultaneously only allowed very few people to own guns or fire-extinguishers. That's what it would be like without any universal healthcare.

Right to healthcare in any form is not protected nor implied in any part of the constitution

Sure, it is. The Fifth Amendment says one may not be deprived of property without due process of law. Unless a judge rules that you need to be sick, which is depriving one of property, you have a right to protection from an invading disease.

 

[SpecterGT260]

This is just off the wall backwards... if you feel a virus is depriving you of your basic rights then sue the virus.... by your reasoning we do not need to collect dues from those responsible. I had an appt yesterday, so please send me a check for the bill as your own line of reasoning implicates you as just as liable as anyone else.

Are you by chance libertarian? I've seen similar extensions and warpings of reasoning to support ron Paul economics

You have now gone from talking about right to life, to equating life and property. The language used in the constitution has meaning. The words have meaning. You cannot simply mix and match definitions as you see fit. You are you needed hinging on the quote " life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." What you've done to take a giant can of gray paint and dumped it all over the original piece.

 

[SpecterGT260]

A pathogen, virus, or carcinogen is definitely taking something from you. Also, pursuit of happiness is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. However, the right to life, liberty, and property is mentioned in the Constitution. Banning a person from seeking affordable healthcare that would not pose a meaningful risk to him is definitely depriving him of his right to life. A disease is attacking him and he wouldn't be allowed to defend himself against it if we didn't guarantee treatment at the ER.

Imagine if we privatized the police force and the fire department and simultaneously only allowed very few people to own guns or fire-extinguishers. That's what it would be like without any universal healthcare.



Sure, it is. The Fifth Amendment says one may not be deprived of property without due process of law. Unless a judge rules that you need to be sick, which is depriving one of property, you have a right to protection from an invading disease.

Here's another way to look at this. You say that one may not be deprived a property without due process of law. What this means is that the government cannot take something away from you that you already possess without this due process. In the scenario you describe the government is not taking anything away from you. Rather, and illness is taking something away from you. What you are actually suggesting is that you have the right to demand that the government feel any and all perceived gaps in your life. I saw a motorcycle commercial recently that said harley davidsons equal freedom. Freedom equals liberty. The constitution of united states demand that the US government gives me a motorcycle.

You also neglect to acknowledge that the resources that go into providing health to someone is bound to be someone else's property. What did you just say about right to property? Yes, the health bill constitutes due process, I'm only suggesting you are oversimplifying this issue and only acknowledging 1 point of view on the matter. So any subsequent talk of "well life > property" (which is really the only rational way to go from here) actually supports my arguments (at least between the two of us)

 

[Cdg02001]

Specter,

Why do I have a right to the services of a police officer, a lawyer, a firefighter, a soldier (and the property that those services entail), but not to a physician?

Not that I necessarily believe in a right to healthcare, but your logic seems faulty to me.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Because it was legislated. These are not basic rights (and for those that are constitutionally protected, it is more explicit than that he was saying about right to life liberty and property), and the impact they have changes with laws/policies. This other poster was saying that healthcare is a basic human right protected by the constitution. It is not. End of story. There are thousands of things that occur due to law or policy that are not protected rights. The above argument is no different than saying you have the Right to drive no faster than 25mph in downtown .

As a society we have a few basic and inalienable rights. Aside from that we have a series of agreed upon policies (laws)- which often restrict basic freedoms (or freedoms of some) for the benefit of the whole or the greater good. If you understand this then you understand how healthcare is not a right and even legislation which provides free healthcare in no way supports the argument that it is a right.

Aside from that..... How does a right to one thing mean a right to another? Can you show me the amendment which gives right to a police officer? Services shouldn't be confused with rights even if those services can overlap in terms of ideas. This is where the extensions in interpretation starts to get a little inappropriate

 

[SpecterGT260]

Here is the killer. The amendment (which if you look at it, it in the context of legal injustices like double jeopardy) was designed to say only "the government cannot whimsically take from you".

The part he refers to says "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

I highlighted what he is focusing on.

1)this ammendment has nothing to do with healthcare
2)IF we concede his point, we MUST take the whole phrase together. Property is listed in the same breath. Per his logic there is no difference (using this ammendment as defense) between a right to free healthcare and a right to free property via the government. Aid programs do not constitute property. I'm talking free home ownership. No situation you can point to actually constitutes a right to PROVIDED property ownership, only the protection of owned property.

Again, HUGE difference

 

[deleted103644]

Do we really need to keep going back to the constitution as the justification for everything?

The founding fathers had good ideas, but were not omniscient. That's why they created a system with the capacity to adapt to changing times.

There are a few key restrictions on what the powers of the government should be, but the details are left to us.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Do we really need to keep going back to the constitution as the justification for everything?

The founding fathers had good ideas, but were not omniscient. That's why they created a system with the capacity to adapt to changing times.

There are a few key restrictions on what the powers of the government should be, but the details are left to us.

Agreed.... Too many people apply an overly strict interpretation to a passage and then like to pretend that it is the only reasonable meaning.

I have a friend who thinks Obama should be impeached for treason.... Why? The healthcare bill violates the constitution (debatable) and signing a bill that violates the constitution subsequently violates his duty to protect the country (also debatable), and failing to uphold said duty in such way constitutes HARMING the country (even more debatable) and harming the country is treason.

Yeah..... Holy crap, right?

 

[lightfire22000]

This is just off the wall backwards... if you feel a virus is depriving you of your basic rights then sue the virus.... by your reasoning we do not need to collect dues from those responsible. I had an appt yesterday, so please send me a check for the bill as your own line of reasoning implicates you as just as liable as anyone else.

You were asking for Constitutional justification. If a virus is threatening your property, then the government and the legal code should work within reason to protect you from said virus.

The laws already regulate healthcare. Many physicians agreed that Abigail Burroughs should have been legally blocked from receiving and purchasing Erbitux treatment for the purposes of preserving the regulatory structure. They figured that she should have to be denied beneficial treatment to help physicians and other healthcare professionals with clinical trials. If the regulations may require some to die for healthcare regulations that benefit healthcare workers, surely it's only fair to make regulations require healthcare workers to work for free to help others.

Are you by chance libertarian? I've seen similar extensions and warpings of reasoning to support ron Paul economics

You're opposing government healthcare. I'm supporting it. Do I sound like a libertarian? By the way, do you oppose Medicare, Medicaid, etc? You're the one trumpeting "Austrian" economics.

You have now gone from talking about right to life, to equating life and property. The language used in the constitution has meaning. The words have meaning. You cannot simply mix and match definitions as you see fit. You are you needed hinging on the quote " life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." What you've done to take a giant can of gray paint and dumped it all over the original piece.

I've done no such thing. I've used two arguments: the first one being "right to life" and the second one being "protection of property." The language used in the Constitution has been reinterpreted by the Supreme Court and lower courts many times in history so most American judges disagree with you to some extent. The meaning lies only in initial propositions and not in the logical conclusions drawn from such propositions. If you draft the rules to a game, someone may come up with an innovative strategy or move that was completely unintended. It's still within the rules. The authors of the 14th Amendment never intended it to force public schools to have wheelchair ramps or for children of illegal immigrants to gain birthright citizenship, but the courts have long ruled against the authors' intentions.

The phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" ISN'T IN THE CONSTITUTION! It's in the Declaration of Independence, but the Supreme Court has used it in the past to interpret the Constitution.

 

[deleted103644]

You're opposing government healthcare. I'm supporting it. Do I sound like a libertarian? By the way, do you oppose Medicare, Medicaid, etc? You're the one trumpeting Austrian "economics".

Fixed.

 

[SpecterGT260]

You were asking for Constitutional justification. If a virus is threatening your property, then the government and the legal code should work within reason to protect you from said virus.

The laws already regulate healthcare. Many physicians agreed that Abigail Burroughs should have been legally blocked from receiving and purchasing Erbitux treatment for the purposes of preserving the regulatory structure. They figured that she should have to be denied beneficial treatment to help physicians and other healthcare professionals with clinical trials. If the regulations may require some to die for healthcare regulations that benefit healthcare workers, surely it's only fair to make regulations require healthcare workers to work for free to help others.



You're opposing government healthcare. I'm supporting it. Do I sound like a libertarian? By the way, do you oppose Medicare, Medicaid, etc? You're the one trumpeting "Austrian" economics.



I've done no such thing. I've used two arguments: the first one being "right to life" and the second one being "protection of property." The language used in the Constitution has been reinterpreted by the Supreme Court and lower courts many times in history so most American judges disagree with you to some extent. The meaning lies only in initial propositions and not in the logical conclusions drawn from such propositions. If you draft the rules to a game, someone may come up with an innovative strategy or move that was completely unintended. It's still within the rules. The authors of the 14th Amendment never intended it to force public schools to have wheelchair ramps or for children of illegal immigrants to gain birthright citizenship, but the courts have long ruled against the authors' intentions.

The phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" ISN'T IN THE CONSTITUTION! It's in the Declaration of Independence, but the Supreme Court has used it in the past to interpret the Constitution.

Actually... I called you out for that earlier before double checking your language. We are all good on the wording of old documents and you're still extending to the point of nonsense. I'm about to break out my aluminum foil hat while reading your posts

You're argument has been "the 5th amendment OBVIOUSLY includes the right to free health care"
It is one interpretation and it is open to debate as I said in my first post to you. Between you and myself (excluding earlier posts in this thread that I dont remember nor do I want to go back) I haven't given my opinion on how healthcare costs should be handled. I have only said it is not a *right* and that your argument to the contrary smells like poo

Saying something isn't a right is not the same as being against it by the way. Just a thought

 

[Dave89]

You were asking for Constitutional justification. If a virus is threatening your property, then the government and the legal code should work within reason to protect you from said virus.

Are you, by any chance, an intern for Donald Verrilli Jr? Your constituional...ah... reasoning is reminiscent of his spectacle in the Supreme Court in March.

 

[lightfire22000]

I highlighted what he is focusing on.

1)this ammendment has nothing to do with healthcare
2)IF we concede his point, we MUST take the whole phrase together. Property is listed in the same breath. Per his logic there is no difference (using this ammendment as defense) between a right to free healthcare and a right to free property via the government. Aid programs do not constitute property. I'm talking free home ownership. No situation you can point to actually constitutes a right to PROVIDED property ownership, only the protection of owned property.

Again, HUGE difference

Not quite, because the government is already taking from you through certain healthcare regulations.

Your body is your property. You have a right to attempt protection against a pathogen. In People v. Kane, we have the statement "The ownership and possession of property confer a certain right to defend that possession.." In Dickman v. Commissioner, we see that "'Property' is more than just the physical thing-the land, the bricks, the mortar-it is also the sum of all the rights and powers incident to ownership of the physical thing. "

However, there is no right to self-treat without a license when medication is warranted, nor is there a right to purchase non-FDA approved drugs in clinical trials. This means that without universal healthcare, the government IS STEALING from you with their regulations. The universal healthcare is necessary to compensate for already stolen property.

 

[SpecterGT260]

So now you assume that you will be able to self treat and obtain unapproved drugs with universal healthcare...

Dont drink the koolaid, people

 

[SpecterGT260]

I really hope, for your sake, that I skimmed too fast there and missed your point

 

[lightfire22000]

Are you, by any chance, an intern for Donald Verrilli Jr? Your constituional...ah... reasoning is reminiscent of his spectacle in the Supreme Court in March.

No, because I'm in med school, but Donald Verrilli Jr. is a fine authority on the Constitution so I take your insult as a complement.

 

[lightfire22000]

So now you assume that you will be able to self treat and obtain unapproved drugs with universal healthcare...

Dont drink the koolaid, people

No! You'll be able to see a real doctor so you wouldn't have to self-treat. That's the whole purpose of universal healthcare: to discourage reckless medical practices that may harm people. You currently have people self-treating recklessly and illegally with imported antibiotics and unlicensed surgeons for their own perceived survival, which is why I favor universal healthcare.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Not quite, because the government is already taking from you through certain healthcare regulations.

Your body is your property. You have a right to attempt protection against a pathogen. In People v. Kane, we have the statement "The ownership and possession of property confer a certain right to defend that possession.." In Dickman v. Commissioner, we see that "'Property' is more than just the physical thing-the land, the bricks, the mortar-it is also the sum of all the rights and powers incident to ownership of the physical thing. "

However, there is no right to self-treat without a license when medication is warranted, nor is there a right to purchase non-FDA approved drugs in clinical trials. This means that without universal healthcare, the government IS STEALING from you with their regulations. The universal healthcare is necessary to compensate for already stolen property.

ok seriously kid... this is a VERY simple concept that just seems to be.... BEYOND you

Yes, your body is your property. The fact that you felt the need to bring this up means you have missed something. This was never in question.

Yes, you have the right to "attempt protection against [an illness]" (felt it necessary to use your own words here, but decided to stay away from pre-med buzzwords and use something encompassing and therefore useful...)

I also believe we agree that you do not have the right to harm others. yes?

Here is where you go wrong.... The right to "attempt protection" is NOT the same as "the right to force someone to protect you". The scenarios you describe, ALL OF THEM, are the latter, not the former. Calling free healthcare a right means exactly what I just said: you have the right to force someone else to restore your well-being to whatever ideal you deem necessary. I phrase it like that for an important reason. What IS healthy? (God... I hate waxing philosophical like that... but seriously it was unavoidable). You focus on viruses (which is funny because they are often untreated even in those with stellar insurance) but what about an old dude with bad knees? they "ail" him he is not as "healthy" as you or I, so do we owe him those knees? Disease and deterioration is a natural and normal part of life. This definition alone is insufficient to support claim to a right to healthcare.

You even seem to mix and match your arguments jumping on both sides of the fence where it seems to fit.... remember, per your own ramblings, the gov cannot take from you WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW. If the gov is taking from me in the situation you pose above, how much u wanna bet there is a law backing it

You have the right to your life and whatever you wish to do with it unless expressly forbidden by law. This in no way translates into saying that you have the right to force other people to provide these things for you. Nowhere in all of your random defenses have you addressed this one point. In any such situations where someone IS providing something (anything...) there is a law or policy behind it. This is why even the existence of provided services (of all kinds) does not support the argument that anything is a right. The rights are explicit, albeit open to interpretation. You can disagree and you can interpret how you see fit. That is fine. but if you point to these things you need a disclaimer starting with "in my opinion" otherwise you are simply factually incorrect. Thus far you have been presenting this as if what you say is the obvious conclusion and it simply is not and if you were even half way correct we would have free healthcare right now

 

[SpecterGT260]

No! You'll be able to see a real doctor so you wouldn't have to self-treat. That's the whole purpose of universal healthcare: to discourage reckless medical practices that may harm people. You currently have people self-treating recklessly and illegally with imported antibiotics and unlicensed surgeons for their own perceived survival, which is why I favor universal healthcare.

That is absolutely NOT the point of universal healthcare. Show me statistics please. Many o f the back ally procedures are outrageously expensive because people are paying out of pocket and out of desperation. The most notable and recognizable are for things that are medically unethical to begin with and would very likely be denied even in a universal system. I am not familiar with any stats that suggest that the poor (those who cannot afford health insurance currently) are the major perpetrators of illegal Rx use. Please provide a source other than skewed logic that would suggest that universal healthcare is going to significantly impact the rate of self-treatment and unliscensed procedures.... and if you truly are a medical student, please do not use something as asinine as antibiotics.... yes... lets open up THAT can of worms because now your position seems to be in favor of public harm with opening the flood gates to antibiotic use

 

[deleted103644]

Um,Specter, you know that the government has been forcing ER doctors to treat everyone who walks through the door since Reagan, right? (EMTALA)

If you're going to be using the "universal healthcare is denying physicians due process" argument, EMTALA is a much bigger issue than universal healthcare.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Um,Specter, you know that the government has been forcing ER doctors to treat everyone who walks through the door since Reagan, right? (EMTALA)

If you're going to be using the "universal healthcare is denying physicians due process" argument, EMTALA is a much bigger issue than universal healthcare.

johnny go back and read.... I have NOT said at any poitn that healthcare CANNOT be comped. My only point for the last several posts is that this guy's rationale for why free healthcare is a right is completely off base. Healthcare is not a right, and just because we have some laws that provide healthcare in specific situations does not make it a right according to his argument. If free healthcare was a RIGHT in the literal sense of the word NOBODY would have to pay, but you only get out of paying if you have no other option. moral of the story, the 5th amendment does not guarantee the right to free healthcare.

I am not saying anything is denied physicians... Again... im just saying that this guy's logic turns in on itself. Thats all. I dont believe physicians are denied due process. The laws are all there and all in place. that IS due process. But according to our constitutional scholar up there, if such healthcare was a right we wouldnt need such laws in the first place. In (IMO) a more coherent fashion than his previous interpretations, the existence of those laws shows physician skill to be an owned commodity i.e. "property". if it wasnt we wouldnt need the laws to begin with would we? (and once again, this need not be applied to the thread as a whole or taken as my opinion on healthcare... jsut an argument meant to show limelight why his logic is.... interesting, and his zealous conviction... concerning )

 

[deleted103644]

johnny go back and read.... I have NOT said at any poitn that healthcare CANNOT be comped. My only point for the last several posts is that this guy's rationale for why free healthcare is a right is completely off base. Healthcare is not a right, and just because we have some laws that provide healthcare in specific situations does not make it a right according to his argument. If free healthcare was a RIGHT in the literal sense of the word NOBODY would have to pay, but you only get out of paying if you have no other option. moral of the story, the 5th amendment does not guarantee the right to free healthcare.

Who says that having a right to something makes it free?

I don't see defenders of the 2nd amendment demanding free guns.

I don't see defenders of abortion demanding free abortions (for those who can afford it).

I don't personally care if healthcare is a right, it's not important because whether it is or not we should have basic universal healthcare with supplemental private insurance.

 

[Valadi]

I have to side with Specter on this.

For the record, though, Ron Paul is not for universal healthcare and believes it is a privilege, not a right.

 

[startoverat40]

We had a lively discussion in the nontrad forum, feel free to add to it.
http://mobile.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=909792

 

[SpecterGT260]

Who says that having a right to something makes it free?

I don't see defenders of the 2nd amendment demanding free guns.

I don't see defenders of abortion demanding free abortions (for those who can afford it).

I don't personally care if healthcare is a right, it's not important because whether it is or not we should have basic universal healthcare with supplemental private insurance.

The dude I'm arguing with is!

 

[deleted103644]

The dude I'm arguing with is!

Well, then he's an idiot, but I still think you went too far arguing against him (an easy temptation. I'll admit).