Where in the Constitution does it say the Fed gov should provide health care.

That is so idiotic that it's funny.. .

You really think this makes any sense, or that it has any relevance? Well... the NHS is. though I fail to see any relevance whatsoever.

This arbitrary redefinition of "individual vs collective" rights you made up is simply a joke. You're just making up your own language with no real footing in the real world. So your trying to use it as the basis for your argument is ridiculous.

This is the bottom line: Collective rights are rights applied to a group, individual rights are rights applied to an individual. They are all rights equally. How you pay or procure or implement them has nothing to do with it. It's simply like this: If it makes sense to apply a right to a group (the right to assemble, the right to military defense, the right of certain groups to own land collectively, ...) then they are called "collective rights". If they can't be applied to a group (the right to life, the right to live free of discrimination, the right to control what happens to your own body...) they are named "individual rights". There are also rights that can be both, and sometimes interpretations is necessary., but that's besides the point because with healthcare it's easy There is no doubt, for example, that the right to assemble is a collective right (you can't assemble if you're the only one attending). the right to life is obviously an individual right. As is the right to decide what happens to your own body.... You can't "collectively" decide what happens to your body. In the same way, healthcare is applied to individuals. You can't apply healthcare to the collectivity.

So your whole argument is based on a nonsensical and arbitrary redefinition of words in the English language. And that fact, all by itself, invalidates it.

 

Please cite one example of a healthcare system that is completely run on a supply and demand basis, which everyone regardless of class can access.

 

yep
.....

 

Sure. And according to the poster I was responding to, they are the only ones who have rights. I disagree with him.

 

no it isn't, and no it didn't. You have no choice which hospital you are to be taken to in an emergency. You can't price shop for comparison.

nope, they are out of control, because healthcare can't operate in a free market system because it isn't a commodity. It's why every other first world system (single payer) is cheaper, and gets better results.

 

Does it matter unless the States challenge it or Congress or the Federal Courts uphold the stricter view it fact that they can do health care? Do you see this changing?

 

Bingo!

So if we were to take the Constitution as the only source of what the government can do, then anybody would be allowed to open a medical clinic and provide medical services. The only reason why they can't is that the government regulates healthcare. Despite the fact that it's not in the Constitution.

Thanks for the great example! I'll make sure to use it often.

 

The 20 million figure is pure comedy if you unpack how they arrived at it. The CBO claimed 25 million would sign up for Obamacare. Only 11 million did at it's peak, and now it's down to 9 million. They are making the assumptions that: 1. Eventually the original projection of 25 million will come true and 2. That every single person and every single employer who are now mandated to buy coverage, will cease to do so if the mandate is removed. It's so non-serious, I can't believe nobody is being fired for it.

 

Well.... you know what? I have to agree with that. If the government allowed anybody to provide medical services, the cost for a visit to the doctor would be a dime an hour.

Damn government regulations!

 

Nice try, but I've acknowledged the modifications to the ACA that have been demanded since its passage.Yes, 20 million Americans gaining coverage under it is a good thing, and the GOP's plan that would deprive even more Americans of coverage that gained it is a real stinker - as Americans overwhelmingly agree, but now that the GOP has demonstrated its impotence in passing anything better, maybe a bi-partisan effort to improve what needs improvement is possible. Maybe, they'll even defy Big Pharma that controls them and allow Medicare to negotiate the lower Rx prices that folks in advanced nations enjoy.

Until there is the political courage to incrementally lower the Medicare eligibility age until all Americans are covered in the most economical approach that has been repeatedly validated, it'll be a struggle.

 

Oh look - more unsupportable nonsense from someone who doesn't really support single-payer.

 

Yes it is a commodity and works better in a free market which your anecdote about ambulances does not even challenge.

It is by definition a commodity and your ignorant proclamation otherwise is not true.

There is also ZERO evidence that single payer is cheaper than simply letting the market decide.

 

Wrong and demonstrably so

 

Apples and oranges example since there is no system run by government in which anyone can access.

 

You can be as prissy as you wish and falsely declare the position of others to your heart's content.

What you cannot do is offer a single example of your airy-fairy ideological health care policy working anywhere on earth.

 

Ah, Reductio ad Absurdum....of course!

 

No you simply attempted a false analogy

 

I'm sorry -- why, if you are so certain of the value and success of single-payer, have you yet to avail yourself of the single-payer plans of Canada, Australia or Cuba?
I mean other than you only seek to troll...?

 

LOL...I did not provide an analogy. I asked for proof of your assertion! Apparently you have none, it's just a belief, like Santa Claus (that is an analogy).

 

Healthcare is absolutely a commodity. Costs are out of control because people got the idea that insurance should pay for EVERYTHING, and the doctors (opportunists that they are) figured "well gosh, we may as well charge as much as possible then), and then the government got involved regulating how business had to be done. And then...voila!

 

You demanded a standard of proof which is a false analogy because to claim no free market system allows access to ALL implies that other systems do but they do not anywhere ever.

 

Seriously, where did you get this cockamaney idea?

 

Not even close.

 

They just make it up as they go.

 

You make no sense at all. Go play with someone else.