quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

Funny thing there, as the courts have time and time again stated that the police owe no duty (under no obligation) to protect anyone.

Would you happen to have any validation for this insipid nonsense?

Insipid nonsense you say?

Would the NY TIMES do?

Perhaps this might help.

You really are insufferable.

quote:

quote: thonpsonx

quote:

quote: Yachtie

I'm done with you.

No you are not...you enjoy public humiliation too much.

I have enjoyed publicly humiliating you. You got me there

quote:

Funny thing there, as the courts have time and time again stated that the police owe no duty (under no obligation) to protect anyone.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie
Anyway, it appears by your use of such argument that it's your desire that others provide you with the level of healthcare you demand yet cannot afford yourself.

My health care is paid for by lovely taxpayers like yourself. Everything is 100 percent free. I can drive and be paid about fifty cents a mile round trip or they will send a ride to pick me up and bring me back home.
I wish the same level of care for all.

Feel like I should clarify this, as your both wrong. The health care given by the US Goverment (through agencies and groups) is NOT paid with taxpayer funds. Its paid with federal budget money. I know that sounds so shocking but there is a method to the madness....

When you go to a gas station to fill up your car's tank, and hand over the money, the question is "Can you tell that gas station how it will spend that money"? Of course you can! Will they listen to you? Oh hell no! Yet, you gave them money, and by doing that action, the money is no longer your money; it becomes their money. Samething with goverment. When you pay taxes (i.e. income taxes, gas tax, etc), the money you give to the goverment is no longer your money. It is now the 'property' of the goverment. However, unlike the gas station, if you proceed the right way, you can influence how your money is spent. We have people in each state that report to Congress in Washington, D.C.: Representatives and Senators. How you get their attention is of course the name of the game. Most people simply give them money and stuff (aka bribe 'em). Others use fearmongering or sympathy issues.

You didnt pay for the guy in Ohio to get some surgery that would help him live a better life. The Federal Goverment did that directly. If you gave money to the fellow directly, you STILL couldnt tell him how to spend it, unless A) You entered into a mutual contract and B) can than prove in court that he reneged on his end of it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

Funny thing there, as the courts have time and time again stated that the police owe no duty (under no obligation) to protect anyone.

Would you happen to have any validation for this insipid nonsense?

Insipid nonsense you say?

Would the NY TIMES do?

Perhaps this might help.

You really are insufferable.

quote:

quote: thonpsonx

quote:

quote: Yachtie

I'm done with you.

No you are not...you enjoy public humiliation too much.

I have enjoyed publicly humiliating you. You got me there

Thank you for providing the evidence that validates my point.
from your cite:
The Court in DeShaney held that no duty arose because of a "special relationship," concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves. "The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf." [8]

This would seem to refute your contention that

quote:

Funny thing there, as the courts have time and time again stated that the police owe no duty (under no obligation) to protect anyone.

quote:


Thank you for providing the evidence that validates my point.
from your cite:
The Court in DeShaney held that no duty arose because of a "special relationship," concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves. "The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf." [8]

This would seem to refute your contention that
quote:

Funny thing there, as the courts have time and time again stated that the police owe no duty (under no obligation) to protect anyone.



Refutes nothing as you simply point to the abstract, being an exception to the rule:

Because the police have no general duty to protect individuals, judicial remedies are not available for their failure to protect

You are an exercise in the art of pedantry.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:


Thank you for providing the evidence that validates my point.
from your cite:
The Court in DeShaney held that no duty arose because of a "special relationship," concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves. "The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf." [8]

This would seem to refute your contention that
quote:

Funny thing there, as the courts have time and time again stated that the police owe no duty (under no obligation) to protect anyone.



Refutes nothing as you simply point to the abstract, being an exception to the rule:

Because the police have no general duty to protect individuals, judicial remedies are not available for their failure to protect

You are an exercise in the art of pedantry.

Pedantry???
Surely it is nothing but peurility that keeps one from seeing that the rueling speaks directly to the question of rights. The right to life, which the 2nd ammendment provides the means to protect,which are denied by the act of incarceration thus the state assumes that right and he obligation to protect you. Since the corporate medical/insurance/pharma have stripped the citizen of their economic abiity to protect their life the right devolves to the state to protect your life via universal health care from a not for profit system. Exactly the same line of reasoning from deshaney v. winnibego.

quote:

quote: thompsonx
Do we not demand that others provide us with police and fire protection?

quote:

Pedantry???
Surely it is nothing but peurility that keeps one from seeing that the rueling speaks directly to the question of rights. The right to life, which the 2nd ammendment provides the means to protect,which are denied by the act of incarceration thus the state assumes that right and he obligation to protect you. Since the corporate medical/insurance/pharma have stripped the citizen of their economic abiity to protect their life the right devolves to the state to protect your life via universal health care from a not for profit system. Exactly the same line of reasoning from deshaney v. winnibego.


There you go again, running to the exception in place of the rule. Your initial statement did not invoke the exception

You fail to grasp the signifigance of this rueling. The signifigance is in who the state has assumed the right of protection, not in whom it has declared capable of defending themselves.(sidenote not to jack the thread but to stimulate thought...how do the cops who are not protecting that particular class of people spending their time)
. My initial statement invokes the same concept of rights, which I elaborated on at length.

quote:

quote:

quote: thompsonx
Do we not demand that others provide us with police and fire protection?

Unless you're the exception, just what protection are you getting?

Even your BS attempt at obfuscation - Since the corporate medical/insurance/pharma have stripped the citizen of their economic abiity to protect their life the right devolves to the state to protect your life via universal health care from a not for profit system -

ignores that a vast number of people do not need your vaunted universal health care system and are quite able to take care of themselves via insurance or otherwise.

quote:

The polls on Obamacare reflect that.

quote:

You're being a whining little pedantic $#%****^.

quote:

There's been a lot of talk here about single payer health insurance. In reality, single payer insurance programs are a tax on good health because the government becomes your insurance broker, and you will be required to pay for coverage.

quote:

But, they will still get to decide what illnesses they are willing to lose money on

quote:

and the healthy people will pay the tax without realizing any of the benefits of the tax because they do not need the services.

quote:

Now, certainly there is always the chance of a debilitating illness or catastrophic event that causes a healthy person to need insurance. But just like the private insurance industry, if the government gets to choose what they are willing to pay for, then there is always the very real chance that you will need care beyond the coverage they are willing to give you based on their minimum guidelines. In the end, nothing is gained.

quote:

But what may be lost? If the government gets into the health insurance business, then it will become more cost effective for them to stop funding existing programs and clinics.

quote:

Private donations to charities that pay for care for the poor may (or may not) see a dramatic decrease based on the myth that they will somehow be covered by the government.

quote:

Some of the best doctors in the country donate their time and skills right now in free clinics that may very well disappear under government mandated insurance,

quote:

so whether they get waivers or not, the poor may still lose quality health care because they will now be insured for whatever the government

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
You fail to grasp the signifigance of this rueling. The signifigance is in who the state has assumed the right of protection, not in whom it has declared capable of defending themselves.

quote:

quote: thompsonx

quote:

quote: Yachtie
Is said police and fire protection a right?

Do we not demand that others provide us with police and fire protection? Of course we do. Why? Because we have a right to life. We make everyone pay for the enforcement and administration of that right.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
You fail to grasp the signifigance of this rueling. The signifigance is in who the state has assumed the right of protection, not in whom it has declared capable of defending themselves.


Is the state assuming protection of a subset or the whole? Does the free individual have the right to opt out or are all required to participate which negates the individual right to freely choose? Now, being the pedant that you are, do note that paying a penalty for opting out is support of what was opted out of by other means.

quote:

Why not be the first to start a really great veteran's thread for the Memorial Day weekend?

Go ahead, you can do it.

I've done just that

quote:

ORIGINAL: SternSkipper

quote:

Why not be the first to start a really great veteran's thread for the Memorial Day weekend?
Go ahead, you can do it.

No reason to take umbrage with a graphic.
I promise it will never happen again
You believe me, right?

Maybe look holidays up in wiki or some source before you co-opt them into something they're NOT

As a courtesy, I'll presume that's something you can do, in the future I mean.
Still trying to figure out WTF Memorial Day has to do with the healthcare issue (except that our war dead totally missed the boat)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Hi, Mari. Just replying to the OP, without having read the rest of the thread.

I don't really think, "right vs. privilege," is the correct frame for the discussion. Americans have an unquestioned right to travel, but that doesn't mean the government has to buy everyone a Chevy Volt, or even must allow them to board an airplane.

Is healthcare an entitlement in the Constitution that we just hadn't noticed was in there, all this time? I don't think so.

Is the answer to our healthcare problems, putting government in charge of the system? If so, then what's the best way to do it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave



There is absolutely no lack of health care for the poor in America. There is really not much of a lack of free health care for the poor here either when you get down to brass tacks. Yes, there is a lack of insurance for the poor, but I don't think there's ever been a case of anyone ever being cured of a debilitating illness by an insurance policy.

quote:

I don't really think, "right vs. privilege," is the correct frame for the discussion. Americans have an unquestioned right to travel, but that doesn't mean the government has to buy everyone a Chevy Volt, or even must allow them to board an airplane.

quote:

Is healthcare an entitlement in the Constitution that we just hadn't noticed was in there, all this time? I don't think so.

quote:

Is the answer to our healthcare problems, putting government in charge of the system? If so, then what's the best way to do it?

quote:

I don't know in which part of the US you are living, I have lived in NYC and LA before and I'm currently living in LA - you know a woman with a tumor that should be taken care of, she's going to a free clinic, they will take care of her - eventually, when they get round to it and have spaces available... In the meantime the tumor just grows and spreads, but it's not immediate threatening, right? Freaks me out, I see her almost every day when I go shopping, works one of those minimum wage jobs at a local supermarket, no insurance as she's only part time... Learned of this when I asked if she's OK because she didn't look it, she was terrified that a manager might overhear and she'd get fired... No lack of health care for the poor? You are fucking shitting me!

No lack of health care? Stop smoking whatever you are smoking. On top of it the cost of health care is sky high, people with health care are going bankrupt because insurances raise the premiums after a heart attack or diabetes so sky high, or you can opt that it won't be covered and you pay for the treatment yourself...
________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

The arguments of this thread needs to recognize the reality of the present, health care is now a Commodity.
Hello people it is a business/it is a commodity!

With all the usual inequalities that go with any other high priced commodity. The illusion of real insurance doesn't change that. What started as a rational movement for all to share the risks of existence was perverted (Not in a fun way) by the entry of 'business'. As my one time dermatologist at Kaiser Permanente observed (From a most excellent vantage point.), "The nature of business is to get away with everything possible. Do you really want a health care system run that way?"

Once it is clear that only a change in how we value and conceptualize health care happens, can we redesign a system for the future. This work is fast approaching no matter what our wishes or politics, given the double digit yearly increases in most health insurance premiums. When none with a job can afford the system, what do we have??


(The "Excellent" system the poor now enjoy according to one poster? Who really Must get out doors more?? WHICH leading MDs donate significant time to free clinics? Name 3?) We'll have the 1 to 10% elite with major funds at their disposal and a disenchanted majority at the next election? Not an encouraging situation with the usual demagogues and apologists ready to offer false short term (Disastrous) solutions' that continue to line the same pockets and divert attention from the major systemic redesigns necessary to rationalize health care availability and costs.
I fear a reasoned discussion on health care is as impossible in modern America as discussing any other issue where the usual professionals mobilize to polarize both camps to prevent the emergence of a solution that would put the spin managers out of work.

The forces of 'conservatism' have been far too efficient at separating the society into 'us' and them' when it comes to internal issues that would affect profitability of many corporate enterprises and equally energetic at doing the same internationally to, again, preserve corporate profits and maintain legions of over-emotional supporters on election day. Nowhere is there any acceptance of the interconnectedness of the national and global economy and the global environment. The national chauvinism so proudly trumpeted will return to bite these 'patriots' in the ass when the Chinese soon have the military dominance to match their population and economic dominance. If there ever was a better time for the US to promote the international rule of law and respect for the rights and well being of individuals everywhere, internally and internationally . . . Do we really want a Chinese hegemony acting like GW Bush to every potential threat to their 'national interest'?

Just for starters, the American system needs to move it's emphasis from catastrophic and chronic care to real health maintenance.

Which has to be universal by definition. No one can stay really healthy surrounded by disease and chronic dysfunction. Every serious student of the programs that do that note both the steep decline in costs and the better HEALTH enjoyed by the participants. This alone more than justifies trashing the present system and all it's parasites, for a well designed universal system, leaving the moral arguments for later leisure.

We have had ENDLESS threads that are very similar on here for example, complete endless circular arguments, which is why I asked the question,
specifically the way I did!

Those who angrily say the universal systems mean the healthy pay for the sick must all be immortal. And certainly don't understand how employee health insurance and consumer goods and services pricing works. I don't know anyone who hasn't used and needed health care by middle age and can't think of a soul who died of untreatable trauma after a life of stunning health. The human condition is that the body declines and then fails, with temporary episodes of trauma and sickness along the way. A serious health maintenance system changes most all those events' timing and duration in a most positive direction at a reduced price. What's not to like? Given the recent data on the health consequences of so many technologically novel ingredients and simple industrial pollutants increasingly in our air, water, food and consumer goods in close physical contact with our bodies, we all face nasty futures of great dependence on health care.