Is healthcare a right?

abe23 said:

-I buy my own insurance individually, but through an exchange my state has set up, so I get a relatively good rate for an individual policy. It's an hmo network type plan where I can only go to certain providers. No complaints though really. Currently, I work as a freelance translator and have a part-time job as an innkeeper. Ok, your turn...

-I don't like the insurance mandate either, but it's the 'least bad' option. Medicare for all or a public option would have been my preference, but politically those weren't possible. Again, the "choice" people make to go without coverage, ends up costing everyone who does have insurance, when those people show up at the ER and can't pay their bill. Unless you get everyone covered or you start turning people away at the ER, that will continue to be the case. You can talk around that all you want...

-The FDA regulatory process has nothing to do with the healthcare bill. The avastin recommendation was based on the clinical issues NOT cost. I know the pharma lobbies and their whores on capitol hill want to turn it into a political issue, but it really isn't. The same thing would have happened before the bill passed...

-Why are all the credit card companies based in south dakota, delaware, utah etc.? Do you think it might have something to do with the fact that there are very lax laws regarding usury in those states? The same thing would happen with the health insurance industry. This has nothing do with consumer choice. Even the savviest, smartest consumers can't get a credit card from a company that isn't based in one of these states....because there are none.

Click to expand...

Actually the "least bad" option would be for people to make their own decisions, live with the consequences and leave other people alone. Rationalizing that somebody else should make decisions about another's life, liberty and property because "they" have gotten away with it before conflicts with the general principles of liberty.

There is an easy solution, stop asking government to control other people's lives at the point of a gun. The means, using force, of achieving an arguably good thing, can never be justified. Taking care of people is a good thing. "Taking" from people is a bad thing.

-I buy my own health insurance from BC/BS. It is a PPO plan and I can see just about any doctor I want and it is expensive.

-I am an inventor and an inventors agent. I licensed 2 of my patents and help others license their patents to manufacturers.

-The FDA regulatory process has everything to do with ObamaCare. The FDA has already stated that Avastin would be denied for breast cancer because of cost-period. It is the first time I can remember a drug being denied for cost. And no it would not have been denied before the bill passed, before ObamaCare drugs were judged on efficacy.

-The reason companies, including credit card companies, are based in South Dakota and Delaware is simple and easy to understand. South Dakota is a low tax state and Delaware has some of the best business laws in the country dating back over a century ago. Credit cards rates are not set by each state, the laws they run under are set by the feds because it is considered an interstate transaction. So who cares where they are from. Also, if you are in trouble with a credit card company and if they have to sue you they have to sue you in the county you live in not in South Dakota or Delaware. So the rule of law for your state is in control.

Maybe you are enamored with ObamaCare because it helps you. It will not do me any good, actually it will hurt me by costing me more than I am paying now and reducing the doctors, hospitals and treatments I may want or require. Your needs should not be my responsiblity, you should be responsble for yourself. I believe you are a hard working person and you believe that you deserve this but this is not what a Republic does to it citizenry.

abe23 said:

-I buy my own insurance individually, but through an exchange my state has set up, so I get a relatively good rate for an individual policy. It's an hmo network type plan where I can only go to certain providers. No complaints though really. Currently, I work as a freelance translator and have a part-time job as an innkeeper. Ok, your turn...

-I don't like the insurance mandate either, but it's the 'least bad' option. Medicare for all or a public option would have been my preference, but politically those weren't possible. Again, the "choice" people make to go without coverage, ends up costing everyone who does have insurance, when those people show up at the ER and can't pay their bill. Unless you get everyone covered or you start turning people away at the ER, that will continue to be the case. You can talk around that all you want...

-The FDA regulatory process has nothing to do with the healthcare bill. The avastin recommendation was based on the clinical issues NOT cost. I know the pharma lobbies and their whores on capitol hill want to turn it into a political issue, but it really isn't. The same thing would have happened before the bill passed...

-Why are all the credit card companies based in south dakota, delaware, utah etc.? Do you think it might have something to do with the fact that there are very lax laws regarding usury in those states? The same thing would happen with the health insurance industry. This has nothing do with consumer choice. Even the savviest, smartest consumers can't get a credit card from a company that isn't based in one of these states....because there are none.

Click to expand...

ganja girl said:

-I buy my own health insurance from BC/BS. It is a PPO plan and I can see just about any doctor I want and it is expensive.

-I am an inventor and an inventors agent. I licensed 2 of my patents and help others license their patents to manufacturers.

-The FDA regulatory process has everything to do with ObamaCare. The FDA has already stated that Avastin would be denied for breast cancer because of cost-period. It is the first time I can remember a drug being denied for cost. And no it would not have been denied before the bill passed, before ObamaCare drugs were judged on efficacy.

-The reason companies, including credit card companies, are based in South Dakota and Delaware is simple and easy to understand. South Dakota is a low tax state and Delaware has some of the best business laws in the country dating back over a century ago. Credit cards rates are not set by each state, the laws they run under are set by the feds because it is considered an interstate transaction. So who cares where they are from. Also, if you are in trouble with a credit card company and if they have to sue you they have to sue you in the county you live in not in South Dakota or Delaware. So the rule of law for your state is in control.

Maybe you are enamored with ObamaCare because it helps you. It will not do me any good, actually it will hurt me by costing me more than I am paying now and reducing the doctors, hospitals and treatments I may want or require. Your needs should not be my responsiblity, you should be responsble for yourself. I believe you are a hard working person and you believe that you deserve this but this is not what a Republic does to it citizenry.

Click to expand...

I don't know where you get your facts, ganja girl, but you're misinformed...

The FDA does not take cost into account when it makes these recommendations, it's against the law. This was the case before the healthcare bill and remains that way today. The review of avastin (this is only for advanced breast cancer, btw) was based on poor clinical results of the drug and adverse events. Basically the recent data suggests that it prolonged the lives of patients by 1 to 3 months with very serious side effects. Nothing to do with cost, 'obamacare' or any of that. Again, the scaremongers and pharma lobbyists in DC want you to believe otherwise, but it's bullshit...

As far as credit card regulation goes, you're wrong. South Dakota has no limit on interest rates for consumer credit, while most states cap it at 18%. Thanks to banking deregulation, if mastercard is based in south dakota and you are based in california, they don't have to abide by california rules, only the SD ones. The credit card bill that congress passed last year does address this and consumers now have some protection from these sort of practices. It has nothing to do with low tax rates in SD and everything to do with that state's lax banking regulation and lack of a cap on interest rates those companies can charge their customers.
You should watch this if you get a chance, it might give you an idea of what I'm talking about: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/creditcards/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid

I'm not at all enamored with 'obamacare' actually. I do think it was the only thing achievable given the politics of it all, but I don't think it went far enough. According to some recent polling, I'm not the only one. http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978548007

The poll conducted through Stanford University with the support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation demonstrates people who think the bill didn’t go far enough outnumber those who think the government should stay out of health care by a 2 to 1 margin. Only one in 5 people said they thing the government should stay completely away from health care. No matter whether they supported the bill or not, about 40% said they believed the bill did not go far enough to change the health care system.

Click to expand...

I think its not a right....Its a priveledge. Rights are liberties and those are free. Health care cost so much money it isnt right..... But it should be a right,,

StonedBlownSkiller said:

I think its not a right....Its a priveledge. Rights are liberties and those are free. Health care cost so much money it isnt right..... But it should be a right,,

Click to expand...

Hello StonedBlownSkiller. You are correct, healthcare costs are pretty expensive. I think MORE free market and less government would solve that problem though, in fact I'm certain of it.

You have a right to acquire healthcare. The question is... Do you have a right to make somebody else provide it for you, against their will? Do you have a right to initiate force to make another provide anything for you?

The intervention of government has driven costs higher. More government will not solve the problem, it will have the opposite effect.
A truly free market will drive costs down and increase consumer choices.

If you look at the how much more expensive healthcare is now you will see that the expense over the years has grown in direct correlation with government regulation and subsidies. Just like College tuition has also grown due to subsidies and grants, plus not to mention the ability for anyone who can fog a mirror to get $100K in school loans no questions asked thanks to Uncle Sam. Or should we start calling it Uncle SCAM?

like rob said, A Truly Free market will drive costs down. A truly free market ALWAYS drives costs down on everything that participates.