Poll: Is there a "right" to health care?

jpete · By: **jpete** On: Wed Jul 11, 2012 8:01 am

samhill wrote:Yep Jpete, my car & homeowners are I believe just in state, as you should know the U.S. is quite large. Just moving from the Pittsburgh area to the Erie area my rates dropped due to a lot of factors. You can get cut rate Ins. which is good for being inexpensive but I think that if you would ever need them you may just find out how good they aren't. For myself I'll stick with Erie Ins..

My car insurance is Liberty Mutual. I haven't the faintest idea where they are headquartered.

If I wanted health insurance, I have my choice of exactly TWO in state companies even though I'd really like to purchase affordable coverage from a company called Qliance out of Washington state.

Why can't I?

jpete · By: **jpete** On: Wed Jul 11, 2012 8:04 am

rberq wrote:
jpete wrote:why not use the Commerce Clause as they have for every other type of insurance and allow it to be sold nationwide to anyone and everyone?
Yes! It really is THAT simple!

Yes, it really is about affordable health insurance. It really is THAT simple; which is not the same as saying it is a simple undertaking.

Why not? They regulate EVERY OTHER THING through the Commerce Clause. What is so difficult about saying "health insurance must be available across state lines?"

rberq wrote:
jpete wrote:So the question becomes, "Is it really about affordable health insurance?"

The implication of that question is, that President Obama and the Democratic party have some grandiose scheme to subvert the nation. I don't give them credit for being that organized and unified. This forum seems composed of the foremost constitution scholars in the country, with anarchists and paranoid conspiracy theorists to assist them, so it amazes me that we haven't got this all figured out yet.

A little conspiracy minded yourself aren't you? Where did I say this has anything to do with Obama or the democrats?

If you read some of my other posts, I lay this squarely at the feet of Nixon, Kennedy, and Kaiser Permanente Insurance and their collusion to give us the 1973 HMO Act.

samhill · By: **samhill** On: Wed Jul 11, 2012 8:10 am

You can, just move to Washington State, or get Liberty Mutual to set up an in state office & jump in to all the legal crap RI most likely has to get licensed there & then they would most likely have law suits to fight from your two State Licensed Insurers, all that may or may not drive their RI rates up a few pennies.
Seeing how this thread is about the right to health care I can see how selling across state lines could fall in but this is the first Pres. to actually do what every other since Roosevelt (I believe) to follow up on what both sides have always promised. Odd how the Ins. Industry has been spending billions on fighting something that would get them more business or is HC really their business.

jpete · By: **jpete** On: Wed Jul 11, 2012 8:14 am

samhill wrote:You can, just move to Washington State, or get Liberty Mutual to set up an in state office & jump in to all the legal crap RI most likely has to get licensed there & then they would most likely have law suits to fight from your two State Licensed Insurers, all that may or may not drive their RI rates up a few pennies.

A reasonable and sensible solution. Just as we've come to expect.

Anything to deny the fact that health insurance is treated differently than all other insurances for no apparent reason.

lsayre · By: **lsayre** On: Fri Jul 13, 2012 10:19 pm

Wow! Way back in 1993 this philosopher had the entire issue of the "right" to health care figured out completely, succinctly, and concisely. Watch these two linked videos (part 1, and part 2, total time 21 minutes) and be truly amazed at the irrefutable logic therein. You owe it to yourself to listen to and contemplate all of it before commenting.

I fully realize that in this age of expediency many will take a pass at anything taking an entire 21 minutes away from their precious time. In fact, some will even be insulted at the thought of wasting 21 minutes just because someone requests that they do so. But let's be realistic here: Is 21 minutes really too much time to spend given the gravity of this situation. If it is, then I can understand why we have gotten to where we are today.

Here is the link to the videos:

http://www.afcm.org/hcinar_video.html

lsayre · By: **lsayre** On: Sat Jul 21, 2012 4:28 pm

Bump... No comments on the above linked (2 part) video?

franco b · By: **franco b** On: Sat Jul 21, 2012 6:51 pm

Pretty much was already aware of what he had to say regarding the drawbacks of socialized medicine. I did not hear any new plan.

lsayre · By: **lsayre** On: Sun Jul 22, 2012 6:38 am

That's because as the intellectual heir to the estate of Ayn Rand he is for radical laissez faire capitalism, and as such he would be for radical freedom, and not for a centralized plan (the likes of which would come from a socialistic community organizer).

homecomfort · By: **homecomfort** On: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:55 pm

odd, that even the worst convicted and incarcerated criminals all are legally entitled to health care, paid by taxpayers of course, yet some say that because a law abiding person who is either not financially well off, " not even poor," or has a pre-existing health issue, that person, according to some, can just die for lack of medical care. speaks volumes about some people.

lsayre · By: **lsayre** On: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:59 pm

homecomfort wrote:odd, that even the worst convicted and incarcerated criminals all are legally entitled to health care, paid by taxpayers of course, yet some say that because a law abiding person who is either not financially well off, " not even poor," or has a pre-existing health issue, that person, according to some, can just die for lack of medical care. speaks volumes about some people.

A new twist on life boat ethics.

homecomfort · By: **homecomfort** On: Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:02 pm

lsayre wrote:
homecomfort wrote:odd, that even the worst convicted and incarcerated criminals all are legally entitled to health care, paid by taxpayers of course, yet some say that because a law abiding person who is either not financially well off, " not even poor," or has a pre-existing health issue, that person, according to some, can just die for lack of medical care. speaks volumes about some people.

A new twist on life boat ethics.

hear ya speakin' , not sure what you are meaning, but not tough to figure.

franco b · By: **franco b** On: Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:47 am

homecomfort wrote:odd, that even the worst convicted and incarcerated criminals all are legally entitled to health care, paid by taxpayers of course, yet some say that because a law abiding person who is either not financially well off, " not even poor," or has a pre-existing health issue, that person, according to some, can just die for lack of medical care. speaks volumes about some people.

Nobody will be denied health care, nor should they be. It's just when government gets involved that the craziness starts. Sex change, birth control, procedures with great expense and doubtful efficacy. When mindless bureaucracy gets involved common sense goes out the window and costs skyrocket.

rberq · By: **rberq** On: Thu Jul 26, 2012 12:10 pm

franco b wrote:Sex change, birth control, procedures with great expense and doubtful efficacy. When mindless bureaucracy gets involved common sense goes out the window and costs skyrocket.

I have to agree with you in principle. But the healthcare/insurance system has been working so poorly, there seems to be no choice but intervention, and who is going to intervene except us, via the government?

samhill · By: **samhill** On: Thu Jul 26, 2012 12:12 pm

As far as I know things like sex changes, plastic surgery for cosmetic reasons & that kind of thing won't be covered, BC has been around for a long time & is inexpensive & proven to help other conditions. Don't know what the big hang up on it is, like even now they are trying to prevent one young lady from having an abortion because she needs chemo to hopefully save her life but it would most likely kill the fetus. Tough call to make but IMO it's the mothers call not some politicians.

jpete · By: **jpete** On: Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:20 pm

rberq wrote:
franco b wrote:Sex change, birth control, procedures with great expense and doubtful efficacy. When mindless bureaucracy gets involved common sense goes out the window and costs skyrocket.

I have to agree with you in principle. But the healthcare/insurance system has been working so poorly, there seems to be no choice but intervention, and who is going to intervene except us, via the government?

The government ALREADY intervened. That's how we got here.

http://forhealthfreedom.org/Publication ... sRise.html

Poll: Is there a "right" to health care?

Is there a "right" to health care?

Re: Poll: Is there a "right" to health care?

Re: Poll: Is there a "right" to health care?

Re: Poll: Is there a "right" to health care?

Re: Poll: Is there a "right" to health care?

Re: Poll: Is there a "right" to health care?

Re: Poll: Is there a "right" to health care?

Re: Poll: Is there a "right" to health care?

Re: Poll: Is there a "right" to health care?

Re: Poll: Is there a "right" to health care?

Re: Poll: Is there a "right" to health care?

Re: Poll: Is there a "right" to health care?

Re: Poll: Is there a "right" to health care?

Re: Poll: Is there a "right" to health care?

Re: Poll: Is there a "right" to health care?

Re: Poll: Is there a "right" to health care?