Is health care a right or a privelege?

That's true for your car insurance, too.

If you came up at the end having had no problems, you could look back and note how much you would have saved by investing that money.

In fact, you could guess that your investments would have paid off royally, even though many didn't - because you're obviously smarter than all those who lost their retirements due to the economic crash, etc.

 

That we could probably agree on, though it's no coincidence that the remnant of healthcare services which remain outside the insurance industry and government bureaucracy are also the most affordable. So to pretend that a government run insurance and healthcare monopoly would somehow improve our healthcare system is an abject failure of rational thinking.

 

No, it's not pure speculation. The Dow Jones Index went up from 838 in 1979 (when I started working) to 21,080 in 2016. Stocks are worth 25 times what they were in 1979!

Do you realize how much money people could have made if they had their Social Security taxes to invest on their own? Even after factoring in inflation (up 327% since 1979), the growth of stocks blows away any pitiful return the government gives us on our Social Security taxes.

 

you shoveling my drive should be a right.

 

It's a privilege if you don't fight for it, if you fight for it it's a right. When you're sick, you have the choice to let you die or fight, and what do you risk to lose ? Your life ? You're already dying.

 

Of course it is. You have no way to,predict what your return will be in the open market.

Ok? How much money did everyone with a 401k, who,planned to retire between 2008-2010 lose in the open market? How many of them were forced to work years longer to recover what the market lost them?

I just showed you in the link you didn't read, that this claim is bullshit.

 

It's a demonstrable fact. Every nation with single payer pays substantially less for more. The Us healthcare system is a demonstrable failure, compared,to single payer.

 

You are in desperate need of a college level economics class, not taught from the socialist perspective.

 

Good luck getting that passed

 

You confuse 'entitlement' with 'right'.

 

You meant most expensive

 

Nope right.

 

I'm curious of your concept of rights. Are "rights" simply things that you think people "should have?" For example, freedom to speak or healthcare.

 

Yes they are things that people should have.

 

Right, and that's the only criteria? "Things Vegas giants thinks people should have."

 

I never said that. Why are you lying?

 

I'm not lying, I'm trying to understand your position. That's why I'm asking questions. So, is the criteria "Anything that the majority of the country think people should have?"

 

Am I alone the majority of the people? Or did you get that wrong?

 

Jesus guy, I'm just talking to you, trying to understand your position. It's clear that your definition of rights don't align with those of many people here, so I'm trying to figure out where you stand.

Again, is your position that rights are anything that the majority of the population think people should have?

 

Rights must fall within the limits of the Constitution and the government can make no law restricting a right without compelling interest

 

Health care is a right. No one can stop youbfron being treated for wounds of ailments.

Health care services are just that, a service. No one can be forced to offer you services, that would be called slavery. I

 

Okay, so rights are entirely dependent on the text of the United States Constitution? Further, those rights are anything that the government must provide barring compelling interest?

Cool, we're getting somewhere, although I think this is an awfully American-centric concept of rights. Okay, so how are we to limit these rights given your view of the 9th Amendment? Do people have a right to a Honda, a Chevrolet, a GMC, a Ford, a Lamborgini? I don't see how you're going to limit the "rights" people have without reference to say, budgetary constraints. So, if we argue that budgetary constraints entail "compelling interest" how would this play out in practice? Are all rights suspended until the budget is in surplus? Until the Federal debt is paid?

My interest in politics has always been in the laying out of basic principles, what do we want to accomplish and how. This kind of discussion is fascinating to me.

 

Lol, I just proved you wrong, in the link you still haven't read. I showed you that SS returns are greater than 4%. I also showed you that it is pure speculation what returns are in the open market. I also showed you, your returns are on average just as god or better with SS.

Like i said, if righties didn't make **** up, they'd have nothing at all to say.

 

Only if you made the right investments. There are a lot of bad investments. You could have lost everything from '69 to the Dot Com Bubble if you had invested in numerous companies. It's a gamble, and not everyone is adept at investments.

 

The stock market has increased in value 25x (838 vs. 21,080) since 1979. That's more than 4% per year.