Number 6 says:

#21, said:

“Fair enough, but can we *at least* agree that the anti-nudity laws are worse than this one? How about the anti-sodomy laws?”

Yes.

And your point about perspective is well taken. There are certainly worse things going on, by far. I suppose that’s why I was in an anti-war march but for this issue I just post on blogs.

On the giving thing … the only issue I’d have is where the money came from to pay for it. I don’t like the idea of receiving stolen goods.

Traaxx says:

bobbo, the devout evangelical anti-theist: “mandatory education is a violation of individual rights”, “imposing common sense on people is a violation of their individual rights”, hee haa hee haa hee haa – what a moron.

You can still go to school and not learn anything, as you amply show. If you want to impose “COMMON SENSE”, then you just might end up killing all the Demoncrats. Not having health insurance and getting sick and dying should be right up your Darwin alley, but then you couldn’t get off on telling people what to do, could you? Dying is a means of imposing “COMMON SENSE”, not voting for a Globalist like President Hussein would have been “COMMON SENSE”, understanding that when President Hussein say’s that he won’t insure the illegal’s, he really means that there won’t be any illegal’s sense even now he’s going to give away citizenship to anyone and everyone.

Another Brainwashed Induh!vidual rushing themselves into the 2nd Dark Ages.

Whatever……………………….
Traaxx

Scott says:

The first place that came up on google with the figures shows 45.8 million people without healthcare. See
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=631
How is that acceptable in a democracy?

In the UK, we have 0(zero/none/nada) without healthcare. Yes, we only spend half per head what you guys do but we do have ‘experts’ working on that.
A friend was diagnosed with breat cancer a few years ago. She was in hospital that afternoon and operated on next morning. No waiting list there. She then got the chemotherapy etc as and when needed. I phone my doctor and get an appointment for 30 minutes later – no waiting list there either.
The biggest list we do have would be hugely sorted by more people carrying donor cards. Yes, we are short of kidneys and stuff. I suspect you guys have the same problem. You can still get your dialysis free here.

Grandpa says:

Obviously produced by Republicans to enrage and create fear over government subsidized health care. It’s not funny. It’s disgusting. The rich people of this country need to met their moral and civic responsibilities and help those who have not. The rich are the ones that shipped the jobs overseas and they are the ones who benefited from that. So they are the ones that should help pay for health care. We wouldn’t even need Obamacare were it not for them! Don’t take this shit sitting down, speak out now!!!!!

LibertyLover says:

#18, It’s not about them being smarter. As part of the federal government, it’s their job to deal with the forest (general welfare) as opposed to individual trees (personal welfare). If everyone buys into the system, the cost of doing so goes down universally. That’s all.

As evidenced by the bankrupt Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security systems? Everybody pays into that but not everybody uses it and it can’t even stay afloat.

Seems to me that should be all the evidence we need that the Federal Government can’t manage a system of that magnitude.

Besides, the Federal Government doesn’t have the authorization as per the Constitution.

Rick says:

Leaving aside secondary discussions (above) of Government’s rights/role in healthcare…this kind of video is just ridiculous, emotional rhetorical crap. May as well watch for the counterpoint when someone asks some white executives about their mansions or yachts (or you fill in the stereotype)…then says “because no billionaire should have to choose between mansions and affordable healthcare”…it’s all off the point.

There is NO free market in healthcare right now. People can’t “walk” if the insurance companies all fix prices (which is all it is)…there is no company coming in low to drive prices down and no way (often because of legislation) the regular folks can bargain collectively as to exert this pressure.

Reminds me a little of Comcast (cable)…sure, I hate them. There are websites dedicated to them. Now, if I want to get mad at their billing department or their company at all, how do I leave them and still purchase the actual content with which I had no argument? I can’t. If I get fed up with my health insurance company, or in fact all of them, what do I do? I stand my ground and let the chemo fall behind, right? That’ll show ‘em!

With all this talk of insurance and illegals and driving with/without insurance…I can only assume the same folks saying this would say driving is a privilege not a right, and it carries with it some “terms” that must be met to get to do it. I got NO problem saying making money in America in the health industry is a privilege, not a right. Now, how about the people who allow that privilege set some terms that work for everyone.

LibertyLover says:

#32, The answer to your question is to get government out of the way.

330,000 pages of regulations is way too much for anybody to feasibly manage without raising the costs to hire a team of compliance people.

How much money do you think a simple visit to the doctor’s office would cost you if that doctor wasn’t hampered by those regulations?

simongiln says:

#27: “As for your argument, health insurance = auto insurance, that is impossible, one doesn’t run over other people with their bad health.”

True, but my lack of Insurance raises Health Insurance costs for everyone else, even if I never go to the ER for “FREE” care, that you’d end up paying for too. Again, when everyone buys into the system, costs come down universally (bigger pool==lower rates).

Again, I don’t like the mandate either, but fundamentally it’s not an invalid idea.

#29: “As evidenced by the bankrupt Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security systems? Everybody pays into that but not everybody uses it and it can’t even stay afloat.”

As a result of private sector costs; not actual costs of running Medicare (Social Security is a different discussion). Systemic costs for healthcare have risen, but Medicare revenue has not gone up (unlike private insurance). And actually, the people who use Medicare *don’t* pay into it, and that’s part of the problem. If we simply gave people below 65 the option to buy into the system by paying a little more, we could easily deal with the revenue problem.

#29: “Besides, the Federal Government doesn’t have the authorisation as per the Constitution.”

Reread Article III Section 2 & Article I Section 8: In short, Interstate Commerce + General Welfare + Supreme Court Rulings = Legal Right. The FBI isn’t innumerated in the constitution either, yet that’s considered legal. Hell, a standing army isn’t even innumerated in the constitution: “To raise and support Armies, **but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years**” (Article I, Section 8).

Sorry, but I’m of the opinion that Interstate Commerce and General Welfare were put in the constitution for a reason. And even if they weren’t, the Supreme Court thinks they were, which comes to the same result.

#33 “The ONLY reason the health industry is as messed up as it is can be summed up in one word – LAWYERS!”

And you think lawyers are a bigger problem in the healthcare industry than in any other industry because why? No other industry is shielded from lawsuits, yet we still live in the richest nation in the world. Tort Reform is, and has always been, a red herring. Many states have tried it, and it’s always failed to result in lower costs for consumers.

And even if it did result in lower costs, I wouldn’t support that sort of bastardisation of our legal system. The judiciary is the most important protector of our rights. I would never support castrating it in such a way.

Rick says:

#37 so, from a government point of view it’d be better to allow hospitals to reject patients? I’m not saying that I can’t see your point (I am all for rules that negate the “cost” to others that I apparently would cause if I were to ride without a helmet or seatbelt – let it be my choice, my cost). Apart from the odd equation of the two there is a big difference between an environment in which people choose not to do the best option and one in which the system has built up processes and procedures (rules) that make it not even a choice. I don’t buy that most people who are not insured are buying jeans with white threads instead of insurance.

More to the point of your comment, however, is that you just suggested that monetary pressure is a good enough reason to deny someone coverage. Isn’t one of the big conservative push-backs centered on how Obama would let Granny die because she cost too much? And how is this not the same as denying coverage to someone who had no money?

Full circle…Granny can’t afford hospital A, so why not let Granny go to cheap-version Hospital B? Oh yeah, because A and B are both well fit and prices, the lowest ones, are unusually and unnaturally high. There is no option for Granny.

I once had a math teacher who, when I said “I’ll never need to know this to balance my checkbook” replied that he hoped I’d want to do more with my time than just be able to balance a check-book. Seems to me we can debate all day about right and freedom and all that, but at the end I don’t believe there really is anyone with the right motivations who really doesn’t/wouldn’t want to do more than just balance our checkbook. Show me who really thinks it’d be ok to let Granny die…and then I’ll show you where they stand to make a buck on her death.

LibertyLover says:

#38, No, it is not good to let people die for lack of access to health care.

But you have to understand that the reason they don’t have access is because HC has gotten too expense because gov regulations have made it too expensive.

Adding MORE regulations is not going to solve the problem. Something will have to give — it will either get more expensive or the quality will go down for everyone. Those are the only two outcomes.

Return HC to the service industry where it belongs and get the government out of the equation. They got us in the mess, not insurance companies.