I delight to inform you that you do not have a right to healthcare

hot dog wrote:

All contracts must be protected, period. That's one of the basic functions of government. Like police. Fail to do so and society quite simply falls apart. It won't matter if you government can operate efficiently on $100,000,000,000 or $100. It will be thrown out of office (either by election or by insurrection faster than you can write the zeroes.

Anyone who has an important contract to protect will be both willing and able to pay a small fee for the service. If half a percent of the value of every contract was charged as a fee, all important contracts would be protected and businesses would pay far less than they do now in taxes. Anyway, that's only one possible way for the government to generate revenue.

asdfasdfasdfsdfsdf wrote:

The OP's belief makes the most sense financially for him, but anyone with an inkling compassion or ALTRUISTIC beliefs would not be able to agree with him fully.

Altruism is the moral poison that is destroying this world.

You're right, but the OP has fallen on the side of anarchy, not capitalism. It's so funny to me how anarchy has gone from a leftist paradigm to a conservative one. Libertarianism is a strange animal, and I believe it is closer to anarchism than any other sort-of-legitimate party has ever been in the US.

Sayer of so, that is what you are. Anarchist. I have respect for the idea of anarchy, but it is not realistic in any sense. Seeing the governance of health care as "altruistic" is wrong. It is a basic responsibility of government to look after its people, first and foremost. If that means health, then that is the answer.

Off the Grid wrote:

You should move to Liberia. All institutions have been destroyed. No government at all. Plenty of cheap labor. Guns for hire to protect your property. Nobody will ever know you are there.

...check it out...

the sayer of so wrote:

Possibly the single stupidest, most intellectually dishonest reponse possible is to substitute anarchy for Capitalism. There is no question about the intelligence level and character of people who do that.

Anarchy has nothing to do w/ Capitalism - they are not competing ideas. The US government interferes w/ Capitalism. Places like Liberia, Cote D'Ivoire, nothing interferes w/ your transactions.

Go...its what you want....unless you actually enjoy all the public goods in modern countries, most of which you did not pay for.

Offthegrid,

Capitalism and anarchy are very much incompatible. The former absolutely requires the protection of individual rights by government, and cannot function without it. In a certain sense, there is no such thing as anarchy, because someone always makes the ruled- if not government, some local despot, i.e. whoever has the most muscle becomes the surrogate "government."

the sayer of so wrote:

Offthegrid,

Capitalism and anarchy are very much incompatible. The former absolutely requires the protection of individual rights by government, and cannot function without it. In a certain sense, there is no such thing as anarchy, because someone always makes the ruled- if not government, some local despot, i.e. whoever has the most muscle becomes the surrogate "government."

...who pays for this? Pay as you go, or is it universal?....

the sayer of so wrote:

Offthegrid,

Capitalism and anarchy are very much incompatible. The former absolutely requires the protection of individual rights by government, and cannot function without it. In a certain sense, there is no such thing as anarchy, because someone always makes the ruled- if not government, some local despot, i.e. whoever has the most muscle becomes the surrogate "government."

So the SEC and CFTC *should* regulate me if I am a futures trader, and I am front running my client, right?

There should be no financial regulation whatsoever, no SEC and no CFTC. There should be a prosecutor and a prison for financial professional who commit acts of theft and fraud and a civil court for the ones who breach contracts. If some financial illiterates make irresponsibe decisions regarding what products and services they purchase, that is their own loss. Consumer awareness.

the sayer of so wrote:

There should be no financial regulation whatsoever, no SEC and no CFTC. There should be a prosecutor and a prison for financial professional who commit acts of theft and fraud and a civil court for the ones who breach contracts. If some financial illiterates make irresponsibe decisions regarding what products and services they purchase, that is their own loss. Consumer awareness.

So misrepresentation results in jail, but it is still caveat emptor?

Then who is going to do the enforcement? How do you catch "rat trading" (look that one up, junior). How do you find "pump and dump"? Who brings suit? Who goes through the OATS system to find data indicating brokers are not filling their clients at the best bid/offer?

I am aware of the arguments that insider trading leads to improved price discovery, and I tend to agree. Both sides need a fill, and the price is based on current knowledge. Insiders selling leads to lower prices. Better price discovery.

What you propose would chop the value of most securities markets in half over-night. Nobody would trust anybody, because they would have no recourse. the plaintiff would bear the burden of proof of serious crime, otherwise they are SOOL.

You are barely out of school, and have never risked your own money. Do that, then get back to us.

As humorous as it is to watch the sophomoric efforts of such a mental midget as "the sayer of so" use his pseudo-intellectual arguments to prove that yes, anyone that actually believes Ayn Rand is dumb as a stump I thought maybe I should point out a few facts that dildos like the OP conveniently ignore.

First off, just because it's not a "right" doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do. There's no "right" to corporate profits but there are plenty that will argue that's a laudable goal. If you ask any educated American "should every American have access to health care" you're going to get near 100% yes. The question is how you pay for it.

Arguing about whether it's a right means nothing and only the mentally weak fall back on that at a justification for or against. Now "the sayer of so" has obviously proven himself to be among the mentally weak, so let's move past that to the real meat of the matter.

Successful nations provide health care as a means to simplify both commerce and governance. End of story. The US provides the most expensive and least effective health care of all modern economies. That's a non-disputable fact.

Governments provide services for the same reason companies merge. Economies of scale. If you are going to argue that big bureaucracies are incapable of providing services efficiently then you also have to argue against every corporate merger that has happened.

The only difference between big companies and big government is the people that run big companies get paid a lot more money to provide a lot less service. There isn't a single CEO of the top 500 that makes less than the president. I'd be willing to bet you'd have to go about 3 layers down any top 100 corporation before you got to the President's pay.

So the difference between big companies providing health care and the government providing health care is the government isn't in it for a profit. It doesn't matter that health insurance industry only gets 3-4% margin and we should consider that fair. The fact is the health insurance industry gets to pay it's CEOs 100 million and that's considered overhead, the 3-4% is going to the people that are investing on the hope they'll let you die in order to pay a dividend.

Now conservatives are as a group scum sucking pieces of s**t because they'd rather kill you off than provide you a service if there's a quick buck in it for them killing you. Having the intellect of a turnip and the morals of a tom cat doesn't put you in a position to make public policy.

Now liberals on the other hand lose more brainpower than your average conservative possesses when they trim their fingernails. Even after this minuscule loss they understand that there is such a thing as right and wrong. This is something that quivering wastes of protoplasm such as the OP lack the ability to comprehend.

"I delight to inform you that you do not have a right to healthcare"

Really? That's weird. I delight in beautiful women.

Possibly the single stupidest, most intellectually dishonest reponse possible is to substitute anarchy for Capitalism. There is no question about the intelligence level and character of people who do that.[/quote]

"intellectually dishonest"

Roman, come on man, I hope you haven't started running just to justify your troll treads. Your arguments are still only one-layer deep. Go on some longer runs, think while doing so, and you will understand that how short-sighted your arguments are.

If capitalism needs the protection of individual rights, then explain the difference between a right to property (which only originates through theft) and a "right" to health care (or shall we say the right of society to provide health care to all).

Raw capitalism is a free-for-all, and is anarchy, for capitalism to thrive a level of social welfare must exist, and that level is determied by society, whch has every right to set the ar anywhere it wants, albeit at the cost of demand for membership.

tacomafan wrote:

Do you have the right to have police rescue you if you're held at gunpoint by a robber?

Do you have the right to have the fire in your burning house put out by the fire department?

Do you have the right to have the Coast Guard rescue you if your boat sinks?

These are not rights these are services purchased with tax dollars.

Firemen used to be volunteers and in many places still are.

Police used to be the henchmen of the local ruler, they kept people in line and cracked the wip for the boss.

The coast guard is a military unit.

The notion of "it's not a right" and "it's not my responsibility" is just a cop-out to not have to sacrifice some of your own things to do what's good for others in society. Agreed, just because "it's not a right" doesn't mean that it's not right. Technically, yes, we are not obligated to help others, but it is the right thing to do to see to it that everyone has access to health care.

Greed. Just pure greed. Makes me sick. Someone not willing to pay a little taxpayer money, to, God forbid, sacrifice some of their goods, so others can be healthy. It also seems like the ones least apt to pay taxes for universal health care are the ones that can most afford to pay taxes--the rich! How effing greedy. I'm sick of this bullshit "you are in control of your own destiny" and "if you can't make it, oh well, you're loss" as a rich person stashes away even more money.

It's the more wealthy people that complain "my taxes are going here," "my taxes are going there..." You can afford to pay those taxes. What else would you do with your $$? Buy a new SUV? More land? Fancier landscaping? Sure, something you'd like to have, but not something you NEED. Nobody NEEDS $80K a year to live on. A moral person is someone who gives up something they WANT so another person can have what they NEED.

Selfish, greedy pigs.

Need is not a claim on the property of others. A man has a right to his property and the need of someone else does not override that right. Nobody of any income level- rich, middle class, or poor- has an obligation to pay more tax money to fulfill the needs of others. What people do with their own money is their own business. If they want to spend it on luxuries, that is their right and it does not make them evil or irresponsible. There is nothing wrong with being selfish.

There is no end to the amount of need in the world. No matter how much tax moeny we pay, no matter how much we try to help others, there will always be more disasters, poverty, and suffering to alleviate. If we gave priority to human NEED over property rights, we could spend our entire existences combatting disasters, feeding the hungry, and caring for the sick and we would be dead and buried before we ever accomplished anything or had any enjoyment of our own lives. We would piss all the years of our lives away like Mother Theresa and never even make a dent in human need. Eventually, there would be no money left to pamper the needy with, because the incentive to produce wealth would be destroyed and we would be a nation of unproductive social workers.

I'll be selfish and greedy over selfless and parasitic any day.

greed and selfishness are good.

can't imagine anyone starting a business with the aim to give all the profits to the needy.

why bother

the sayer of so wrote:

If they want to spend it on luxuries, that is their right and it does not make them evil or irresponsible.

Oh yes it does.

There is nothing wrong with being selfish.

Oh yes there is.

the sayer of so wrote:

Altruism is the moral poison that is destroying this world.

"Moral poison", wow what an idea! How is altruism a poison? Human beings are social creatures and altruism is a behavioral tendency, which evolved because it confers some advantage for groups of people. It might be detrimental for a given individual, but it's advantageous for the group.

Where the evidence that it's destroying the world? The world is not AN indivdual.

i am obviously a troll. stop bringing up this thread