Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 124

Thread: Is Health a matter of civil rights?

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    3,040
    Quote Originally Posted by OldSarge View Post
    You are not connecting much of any thing. You have been shown it is neither an unalienable nor a civil right. If what you term a "right" incurs a burden on someone else it is not a right. You will die if you don't obtain food. You don't have a right to food. You are dependent on your self to obtain food. It is also the same with healthcare.

    A right and civility are two different things. You are trying to confuse the two.

    I am not sure what you are trying for in that last sentence. At any given time a number of citizens of every country are sick or dying. This doesn't mean any thing as far as the wel being of a nation.
    Sarge a small percentage may not inadvertently affect the overall stability of the country overall. But this current health care crisis has spun out of control. It is consuming more and more families daily.

    What I am bridging between two points is that life itself is an inalienable right so therefore does not also maintaining life constitute as that as well?

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    3,040
    Quote Originally Posted by JPSartre12 View Post
    Careful JJ, you're starting to sound like other drama queens that post to this forum. You used to be much more objective.....and credible.
    Jp I'm not a drama queen. I may be a queen but not one of drama

    At any rate I am not denying the major help charity is to those who have none or very little. It is the good nature and giving heart of people that endure in us the spirit of goodwill toward all of our neighbors and friends.

    That is what I am merely trying to state here. We should take it upon ourselves and not just us but convince our lawmakers to make a proper bill. Democrat and Republican alike...

    This sadly has become so mired in bitter party line politics I would not be surprised if the entire bill was scrapped altogether... Dare I say that now it may be the best thing to happen...

    The bill in it's current form is watered down and cannot guarantee to keep costs down nor regulate nor create competition... Sadly the very strengths of this bill have been taken away..

    Do I say pass the bill in it's current form? I am rather torn because I cannot with clear conscience support legislation that does little to actually fix the myriad of issues with the health care system. I won't support a bill just to shout hurray and call it a democratic "victory." Because it isn't.

    And Democrats should be ashamed to even think that such a watered down piece of legislation constitutes reform... I hate to say it but I'm with Dean on this, we need to start the process all over and do it right... WITH Republican support and ideals to truly make it bipartisan...

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    3,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post

    So what exactly are you trying to ask me? Why it isn't a civil right?.
    Yes this is what I was asking you.

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    the Keystone State
    Posts
    2,186
    Quote Originally Posted by jazyjason View Post
    Sarge a small percentage may not inadvertently affect the overall stability of the country overall. But this current health care crisis has spun out of control. It is consuming more and more families daily.

    What I am bridging between two points is that life itself is an inalienable right so therefore does not also maintaining life constitute as that as well?
    No what is consuming families more and more is the insane spending and resulting overwhelming debt of the democratic party.

    In a word no. What you are doing is a slippery slope argument. Food is necessary for life or maintaining it. Yet you have no right civil or inalienable to it. You have the right to pursue it.

    The HC crisis is a manufactured one to support a takeover of 1/6 of our economy and you bought into it.


    http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf

    By: Richard G. Fessler, MD, PhD

    The media and political community have made a big deal out of the fact that the U.S. ranks 37 out of 191 countries on the World Health Organization’s Health Care Ranking System. Is this tool a credible way to compare quality health care delivered in the U.S. vs the rest of the world?
    Let’s be perfectly clear about this, the United States Health Care is second to none! Ask the tens of thousands of patients who travel internationally to the US every year for their health care. As an example of the quality of health care delivered in the US, Americans have a higher survival rate than any other country on earth for 13 of 16 of the most common cancers. Perhaps that is why Belinda Stronach, former liberal member of the Canadian Parliament and Cabinet member (one of the health care systems touted as “superior” to the US) abandoned the Canadian Health Care system to undergo her cancer treatment in California.1

    But to understand how WHO derives this misleading statistic, which has been ballyhooed widely by both the media and politicians alike, you need to understand how it is created. WHO’s health care rankings are constructed from five factors each weighted according to a formula derived by WHO. These are:

    1. Health Level: 25 percent

    2. Health Distribution: 25 percent

    3. Responsiveness: 12.5 percent

    4. Responsiveness Distribution: 12.5 percent

    5. Financial Fairness: 25 percent

    “Health level” is a measure of a countries “disability adjusted life expectancy”. This factor makes sense, since it is a direct measure of the health of a country’s residents. However, even “life expectancy” can be affected by many factors not related to health care per se, such as poverty, homicide rate, dietary habits, accident rate, tobacco use, etc. In fact, if you remove the homicide rate and accidental death rate from MVA’s from this statistic, citizens of the US have a longer life expectancy than any other country on earth.2

    “Responsiveness” measures a variety of factors such as speed of service, choice of doctors, and amenities (e.g. quality of linens). Some of these make sense to include (speed of service) but some have no direct relationship to health care (quality of linens). These two factors at least make some sense in a ranking of health care, but each is problematic as well.

    The other three factors are even worse. “Financial fairness” measures the percentage of household income spent on health care. It can be expected that the “percentage” of income spent on health care decreases with increasing income, just as is true for food purchases and housing. Thus, this factor does not measure the quality or delivery of health care, but the value judgment that everyone should pay the same “percentage” of their income on health care even regardless of their income or use of the system. This factor is biased to make countries that rely on free market incentives look inferior. It rewards countries that spend the same percentage of household income on health care, and punishes those that spend either a higher or lower percentage, regardless of the impact on health. In the extreme then, a country in which all health care is paid for by the government (with money derived from a progressive tax system), but delivers horrible health care, will score perfectly in this ranking, whereas a country where the amount paid for health care is based on use of the system, but delivers excellent health care will rank poorly. To use this factor to justify more government involvement in health care, therefore, is using circular reasoning since this factor is designed to favor government intervention.

    “Health Distribution and Responsiveness Distribution” measure inequality in the other factors. In other words, neither factor actually measures the quality of health care delivery, because “inequality of delivery” is independent of “quality of care”. It is possible, for example, to have great inequality in a health care system where the majority of the population gets “excellent” health care, but a minority only gets “good” health care. This system would rank more poorly on these measures than another country that had “equal”, but poor, health care throughout the system.
    Popular Ranking Unfairly Misrepresents the U.S. Health Care System : Smart Girl Nation
    Carroll: U.S. health care is not inferior - The Denver Post
    37th in Health Performance? | FactCheck.org
    The left lost the ability, use logic or know what truth is with the embrace of moral relativism. Thus you get moral equivalence between acts like detaining terrorists and cutting off heads of innocents.
    If lawmakers and anti-gun groups were serious about reducing or ending gun crimes, they would turn their wrath toward the criminals. As it is, their efforts are not the solution to gun crimes they are part of the problem.
    Even if you gave liberals the answers on an ethics exam, they’d fail.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,645
    Quote Originally Posted by jazyjason View Post
    Yes this is what I was asking you.
    Then read the rest of that post.

  6. #51
    JPSartre12 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by jazyjason View Post
    Jp I'm not a drama queen. I may be a queen but not one of drama

    At any rate I am not denying the major help charity is to those who have none or very little. It is the good nature and giving heart of people that endure in us the spirit of goodwill toward all of our neighbors and friends.

    That is what I am merely trying to state here. We should take it upon ourselves and not just us but convince our lawmakers to make a proper bill. Democrat and Republican alike...

    This sadly has become so mired in bitter party line politics I would not be surprised if the entire bill was scrapped altogether... Dare I say that now it may be the best thing to happen...

    The bill in it's current form is watered down and cannot guarantee to keep costs down nor regulate nor create competition... Sadly the very strengths of this bill have been taken away..

    Do I say pass the bill in it's current form? I am rather torn because I cannot with clear conscience support legislation that does little to actually fix the myriad of issues with the health care system. I won't support a bill just to shout hurray and call it a democratic "victory." Because it isn't.

    And Democrats should be ashamed to even think that such a watered down piece of legislation constitutes reform... I hate to say it but I'm with Dean on this, we need to start the process all over and do it right... WITH Republican support and ideals to truly make it bipartisan...
    The reform that is needed is in the area of portability, tort reform, drug company profiteering and pre-existing conditions. There’s no need to give Uncle Sam control of another 1/6th of our GDP to fix them either.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    3,040
    Quote Originally Posted by JPSartre12 View Post
    The reform that is needed is in the area of portability, tort reform, drug company profiteering and pre-existing conditions. There’s no need to give Uncle Sam control of another 1/6th of our GDP to fix them either.
    It's a shame we can't give the control back to the people or at least honest people. Not you know communist like and all that lol but I dunno just maybe a melting pot of people to oversee reform or something.

    I dunno I'm talking out of my backside cause it's 6 in the morning and I can't sleep lol...

  8. #53
    JPSartre12 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by jazyjason View Post
    It's a shame we can't give the control back to the people or at least honest people. Not you know communist like and all that lol but I dunno just maybe a melting pot of people to oversee reform or something.

    I dunno I'm talking out of my backside cause it's 6 in the morning and I can't sleep lol...
    A lot of the problems could be fixed with nothing more than a healthcare reform panel composed of citizens and professionals looking at where the system is broken and concentrating on those areas. We have state insurance commissions and utility commissions now.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    3,040
    Quote Originally Posted by JPSartre12 View Post
    A lot of the problems could be fixed with nothing more than a healthcare reform panel composed of citizens and professionals looking at where the system is broken and concentrating on those areas. We have state insurance commissions and utility commissions now.
    Yeah but think of how much money the AMA and all the big drug companies could throw at that panel....

    It just sucks that greed has killed any sens eof morality or hell even sensibility in this country..Depression? Print more!!!

    God forbid people actually use their heads and work together. I think theres actually some sort of puppet master that stages all this political drama and spoon feeds the American public to keep us fixated on the trees and not the forest.. Same with the system of government...

    Dunno just kind of sprang out at me. Blinding everyone with vision... Kind of scary if you think about it...

  10. #55
    JPSartre12 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by jazyjason View Post
    Yeah but think of how much money the AMA and all the big drug companies could throw at that panel....

    It just sucks that greed has killed any sens eof morality or hell even sensibility in this country..Depression? Print more!!!

    God forbid people actually use their heads and work together. I think theres actually some sort of puppet master that stages all this political drama and spoon feeds the American public to keep us fixated on the trees and not the forest.. Same with the system of government...

    Dunno just kind of sprang out at me. Blinding everyone with vision... Kind of scary if you think about it...
    That entity is called the liberal press.

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    3,040
    Quote Originally Posted by JPSartre12 View Post
    That entity is called the liberal press.
    Naw it's all the press man... their pulling the wool over everyones eyes if you ask me. Including the elephants... Think about it drama... gripping stories.. ooh pretty colors and flashing lights... actual debate and methodical thought is saved for PBS.... not primetime glen beck or keithe olberman you know?

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,645
    Quote Originally Posted by jazyjason View Post
    Naw it's all the press man... their pulling the wool over everyones eyes if you ask me. Including the elephants... Think about it drama... gripping stories.. ooh pretty colors and flashing lights... actual debate and methodical thought is saved for PBS.... not primetime glen beck or keithe olberman you know?
    They got you blinded too...PBS is just as bad...sadly.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    3,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    They got you blinded too...PBS is just as bad...sadly.
    But but Big Bird!!! Mr Rodgers all lies?? What about the red trolley? Damn you PBS!!!!!

  14. #59
    JPSartre12 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by jazyjason View Post
    Naw it's all the press man... their pulling the wool over everyones eyes if you ask me. Including the elephants... Think about it drama... gripping stories.. ooh pretty colors and flashing lights... actual debate and methodical thought is saved for PBS.... not primetime glen beck or keithe olberman you know?
    While I agree that it’s all of the media, the media is predominantly liberal in its bent. Journalists see themselves as agents for social change and not as objective observers. That’s because journalism schools shifted from reporting the news to influencing the news back in the Vietnam War era. Modern journalism majors are taught how to push a progressive agenda rather than to write unbiased copy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    They got you blinded too...PBS is just as bad...sadly.
    PBS has succumbed to an agenda-driven existence as well. Since they are constantly panhandling the public for funding, they, too, are biased as a result.

    Quote Originally Posted by jazyjason View Post
    But but Big Bird!!! Mr Rodgers all lies?? What about the red trolley? Damn you PBS!!!!!
    Mr Rodgers was a pedophile and Big Bird was a flamer.

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,645
    Quote Originally Posted by jazyjason View Post
    But but Big Bird!!! Mr Rodgers all lies?? What about the red trolley? Damn you PBS!!!!!
    If you can't trust a man dressed up in a big yellow feather suit then who can you trust?

    Ha, PBS has no flare and other than their morning programming you really don't get an even perspective. The worse thing is they don't tell you much anyway.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •