The Free markets simply CANNOT manage affordable healthcare.

I've been saying this for years!

 

The PRIMARY definition of entitlements is rights, as the PRIMARY definition of rights is entitlements. . . . The defining of entitlements as government handouts was a later development. Your implication that my argument even has relevance to people being given things is misguided, as obviously you have not traced it to its root. . . . In fact, the argument is actually off-topic.

 

All of this is fine and good -- but when you say you are entitled to receive something from a government program, you use the term under its, using your terms, "later" definition.

 

Your ego causes you to dismiss all definitions not relevant to your perspective. Government handouts aren't a part of this argument.

From the "IDIOTS" at Oxford University Press:

en·ti·tle·ment
[inˈtīdlmənt, enˈtīdlmənt]
NOUN
entitlements (plural noun)

1. the fact of having a right to something:
   "full entitlement to fees and maintenance should be offered" ·
   right · prerogative · claim · permission · dispensation · privilege
   • the amount to which a person has a right:
     "annual leave entitlement"
     synonyms: right · prerogative · claim · permission · dispensation · privilege
   • the belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment:
     "no wonder your kids have a sense of entitlement" ·
     [more]
     "this entitlement mentality is completely out of control"
     
     
   • US
     a government program that provides benefits to any individual meeting certain eligibility requirements:
     "Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlements are going broke"

Entitlements don't necessarily involve government or tangible distributions.

 

As noted previously:
Except when discussing talking about government programs, which we are.
I said:
Entitlements created by the state cannot be rights, by definition.
You have no right to the benefits they provide; the state grants you that privilege.

 

Spending less than healthcare actually costs results in medical care being delayed, diluted or denied. Perhaps Canadians and Europeans are okay with that, but Americans are not.

Non-sequitur. Your facts are uncoordinated.

If you admit your healthcare system is broken, then it would behoove you to fix it first.

As an analogy, you have a car that doesn't work, because it has no transmission. What you want to do is paint the car, which will make it look nicer, but it still won't work.

Government is the reason your healthcare system is a mess. You might consider that your government's own policies and regulations barred States from gravitating toward a single-payer system back in the 1950s.

 

Human rights only exist if humans want them to.
Much of the world believes in many human rights, some don't. Mostly because of some religious belief. IE, their creator.

 

Which then follows if it is so powerful it could create an object to heavy for it to lift.
There are many many societies that have such a powerful creature. How many would you say there are, that require pretty much blind faith?

 

Everything in this world is given to you or you taking from another. Much of the time, there is an agreed upon legal contract bridging the 2.

 

The constitution is the law of the land. If any law tries to violate parts of it, the USSC will correct it.

 

The dictionary's actually define it.
Conservatives don't comprehend it.

 

Wait...
You STILL cannot cite the text of 1st Amendment that GIVES us the right to free speech, as per your claim?
Why is that?
Said text doesn't exist?
Huh.
Your claim, proven untrue.

 

This is true, but only because liberals believe only they can comprehend compassion.

 

60M people is a lot of people to let suffer or go bankrupt or die, just because you thing 80% is good enough.
The R's have complete control right now, they want to take that number back to 80%. And have nothing better to offer.

 

Read: I just got my ass kicked and don't want to play anymore.

 

That's because in the USA, they are. They don't do the actual service, but dictate if an actual service will be performed or not in some cases. They handle the money, they dictate the coverage, they run the show.

 

This is true. Conservatives can't, if it involves the gov't, or charity. They will claim they give to charity, but not enough to meet the needs of the needy. So something more needs to be added. Mostly by the gov't, since they have the largest pool to draw from.

 

I have, more than 1X in this thread. And so have at least 1 other. You can read the 1A for yourself. It is your silly game, afterall.

 

Entitlements are *NOT* defined as rights. Rights can't be taken away. Entitlements *can* be taken away. What do you think all the whining and crocodile tears about cutting the growth of Medicaid is all about?

Some day you *really* need to learn to read. I said that governments *can* suppress the rights of the citizens. But it can't take those rights away! If it could take them away then they would be gone, never to be returned. The government can't take away your right to free speech but it *can* suppress it. If the government *could* take it away then why would you have any reason to agitate for getting it back? It wouldn't be a right any longer!

Governments *can* take away entitlements. And it can take them away forever. Just as easily as it gives them!

Man can't vote himself rights only entitlements!

 

I guess you are again, wrong.
So giving us your opinion isn't worth much.

You don't understand the differences of The and Their. Even though I gave the definitions.
And now given the definition of Entitlement, you don't understand that either.

 

Can you explain without conflating providing health care with insurance?

 

Except that isn't a problem in those countries. It is a false, invented lie perpetrated by the U.S. right wing and corporate interests. Those countries are quite satisfied with their healthcare. We are not.

It has been broken a long time. And if you know of a superior system, it would be nuts to try to "fix" the one you have that has been "fixed" several times before, when you could just adopt the better, proven system.

That is because the government, like you, worked and struggled to conspire to benefit corporate interests. It's time the people forced a change to national healthcare, and I believe they will now.

 

Sure. Ask a specific question.

 

What is the difference between these two, anyway?

 

Sorry, I thought it was obvious. Can you explain how healthcare is incompatible with the free market without conflating healthcare with a risk management strategy?