You have to go read the take on Obamacare from buffalopundit...

[WNYresident]

http://buffalopundit.com/

5. Paul Ryan, Republican Chairman of the House Budget Committee shat the following from his mouth:

“I think this at the end of the day is a big philosophy difference. We disagree with the notion that our rights come from government, that the government can now grant us and define our rights. Those are ours, they come from nature and God, according to the Declaration of Independence – a huge difference in philosophy.”

The right to have access to health care is, at its core, a pro-life notion, isn’t it? Any politician who turns to Jesus or God, (and uses the Declaration of Independence, a document that has no legal effect in 2012), as justification to essentially leave millions of Americans with a choice between death or bankruptcy, shouldn’t pontificate about what God would and wouldn’t do.

I might be wrong but I don't think a "right" is related to given "product or service" that someone else would pay for.

[granpabob]

Freedom is a RIGHT and your freedom was paid for buy someone else. it was paid for by all the men who fought to keep this countries people free

[wnyerlaughs]

http://buffalopundit.com/



I might be wrong but I don't think a "right" is related to given "product or service" that someone else would pay for.

there's a nuance to be addreesed Res:

"healthcare" or "healthcare coverage".

the "right to healthcare coverage" is saying that people have a right to have someone else pay for something.

"healthcare" is a service provided by physicians and professionals in the HEALTHCARE industry.

I hope drs and healthcare providers can find a way to empower their patients..to educate them..that this is a bad idea. Does ANYONE see obama calling out physicians on TV to say "this is good? It's all bureaucrats..and more bureacrats..and all anyone hears on TV and from talking heads all in the tank for obama is "pre-existing conditions".

Doctors, the actual PROVIDERS OF HEALTHCARE do not like this law at all. but the lawyers love it, gee i wonder why.

[wnyerlaughs]

http://buffalopundit.com/



I might be wrong but I don't think a "right" is related to given "product or service" that someone else would pay for.

It seems to me that the "right to healthcare", is not being qualified as "timely", or "quality".

and

forget the "demand" side of it. consider the supply side,,consider if you ara doctor or nurse practitioner etc, and this monstrosity of being forced down your throat. You would change careers asap because "i didnt go to medical school for this". The dmeand for health services will increase, yet there is no related increase in the supply of health providers. LINES LINES LINEs..just like DMV...and if you dont feel like sittign and waiting, what are peeps gonan do..oh, right to the emergency room "i want my free healthcare..obama said i can get it anywhere".


You dont have to be a genius to figure out that drs are saying "screw this"...meawnhile, what do you think the politicos will be getting with their own health insurances: VIP health services.

[WNYresident]

there's a nuance to be addreesed Res:

"healthcare" or "healthcare coverage".

the "right to healthcare coverage" is saying that people have a right to have someone else pay for something.

Exactly.

We are all created equal.

If two people walk into a hospital to have something looked at neither should be turned away as long as they can pay for, barter for or setup a payment plan for service.

[granpabob]

Exactly.

We are all created equal.

If two people walk into a hospital to have something looked at neither should be turned away as long as they can pay for, barter for or setup a payment plan for service.

if they can not pay do you let them die

[WNYresident]

Life is cruel sometimes....

[gorja]

When I say-

I always thought a little mixture of tuna fish and antifreeze would solve the problem of invasive cats.

WNYresident states-

Poison is on the cruel side.

When grandpabob says-

if they can not pay do you let them die

WNYresident states-

Life is cruel sometimes....

I don't know. You can call me a soft hearted liberal because I just couldn't see letting a human being die just because they could not pay unless they were an illegal alien.

Cats and humans are NOT equal

[WNYresident]

Poison is on the cruel side.

You need to stay in context.

Poison versus a pellet rifle.

Both still end up with a dead cat.

[therising]

Here's a question:

How come when Corasanti was found not guilty, the overwhelming feeling from nearly everyone here was along the lines of "it's not fair that the rich get off because they can afford better legal care."
BUT
When it comes to healthcare, the overwhelming majority seem to feel "that such is life - if you work hard, and can afford good heath care, then good for you. If not, then it sucks to be you."

Why the hypocrisy??

[WNYresident]

Here's a question:

How come when Corasanti was found not guilty, the overwhelming feeling from nearly everyone here was along the lines of "it's not fair that the rich get off because they can afford better legal care."
BUT
When it comes to healthcare, the overwhelming majority seem to feel "that such is life - if you work hard, and can afford good heath care, then good for you. If not, then it sucks to be you."

Why the hypocrisy??

One directly hits your pocket book the other one doesn't.

[therising]

One directly hits your pocket book the other one doesn't.

Unacceptable response. At least being that it had zero backup.

Here's what I'm getting at: Why is it that people are absolutely sickened when someone with money gets better legal care than someone who is poor? Yet, when it comes to healthcare, those very same people have a "fair is fair" attitude.

EVERYONE hated the fact that Corasanti, being a rich guy, got a better defense than some other poor schmuck. Yet, you will all fight for Corasanti, being a rich guy, to have the right to get better medical treatment than a poor schmuck. Because anything else would be "Socialism."

Why do you all fight for Capitalism when it comes to Health Care, yet you abhor it when it comes to legal care???

Again - why the hypocrisy?

[300miles]

if they can not pay do you let them die

Life is cruel sometimes....

You would change your tune in a nano-second if someone you deeply cared about was ever even CLOSE to being in that situation.

[WNYresident]

Unacceptable response. At least being that it had zero backup.

Here's what I'm getting at: Why is it that people are absolutely sickened when someone with money gets better legal care than someone who is poor? Yet, when it comes to healthcare, those very same people have a "fair is fair" attitude.

EVERYONE hated the fact that Corasanti, being a rich guy, got a better defense than some other poor schmuck. Yet, you will all fight for Corasanti, being a rich guy, to have the right to get better medical treatment than a poor schmuck. Because anything else would be "Socialism."

Why do you all fight for Capitalism when it comes to Health Care, yet you abhor it when it comes to legal care???

Again - why the hypocrisy?

THere is no hypocrisy. The rich guy buys the best lawyers and that is about it. It is his money. If 10,000,000 people all the sudden get any medical care they want every other person ends up paying for it. Seeing the democrats want open borders that bill can be and will be high.

[buffalopundit]

http://buffalopundit.com/

I might be wrong but I don't think a "right" is related to given "product or service" that someone else would pay for.

Right now, we have universal health care in this country that is paid through a socialistic redistribution of wealth. Namely, regardless of whether you can or can't pay for emergency room treatment, the hospital must provide it. If you can't afford it, every American now foots the bill for you. It is the most expensive, least effective ways to deliver health care that could ever be dreamed up. Obamacare changes that, and I'm not particularly in the mood to explain to you how that is, nor to rebut your false facts and talking points, nor to debate with you abstractly the notion of what constitutes liberty, or the bifurcation pointed out by Kant of positive and negative liberty.

Suffice it to say that "Medicare for all Americans" would be the easiest, most cost-effective, and in the long run the best-working and most popular model for health care payment. Expansion of an already efficient and wildly popular program to everyone would be the best thing ever, and I'd gladly pay $200 per pay period to a New York State Medicare Fund and never again see another medical bill or pay another co-pay. I'd also gladly see private health insurers set up a different business model whereby they expand Medicare supplemental insurance to be available to all Americans. Why, they could even set up golden-clad policies for people like Mitt Romney, whereby they're whisked off via Learjet to where their money is in Grand Cayman at the slightest inkling of a cough, to be tended to by the finest medical team this side of Timbuktu, complete with relaxing massage from a team of Swedes.

Instead, we have Obamacare, which is almost identical to Romneycare, which is the product of a conservative Heritage Foundation "conservative" response to what had been the Hillarycare proposal of the early 90s. The fact that the conservatives have completely gone off the deep end to denigrate an idea that they first proposed as a federal solution to the universal health care conundrum merely underscores how insane and marginalized the Republican Party and the conservative movement have become.

At least in 1993, both parties agreed that universal health coverage was a goal. In 2012, the Republicans have decided that it's no longer a goal worth pursuing.

But make no mistake - under the status quo, which is what the Republicans are pushing, taxpayers already pick up the slack for people who can't pay. It's a mandate of a different sort, and one from which you can't opt out.