Why do we need a healthcare law?

[Thor]

Before Rome built the Apia Way infrastructure has been a recognized government responsibility...all else is up for discussion.

 

[Lelliott8]

How about infastructure. You know sewage, water, roads, bridges, electricity, and all those other things that government provide you with. Yes, they tax you but without a functioning government your left to your own means. Now true some of these are in decay but that's largely to due with a government not functioning as well as it should. So maybe you might want to try and do what you can so our government functions as it should or maybe you might want to go to your island and your out house and no internet.

All of the things that you say government provides are actually provided by people. Without the government stealing wealth and funneling it to those people, we could simply pay those people directly to build/do the things we want and need.

 

[ATM]

Some still can't seem to fathom a past or future without a ruling State "providing" nearly everything for all.

I don't think they teach anything else in most schools.

https://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/literature-liberty

 

[IndyDave1776]

Neither is the old-timey canard that "Doctors used to treat people for free," because again, nothing is preventing them from doing that, currently. Unless there's something I'm unaware of (and I hope HooDoc will set me straight, if so), any doctor is free to make the decision to A) not join a physician "group," and / or B) see patients on their own time and nickel, for whatever cost (or lack thereof) their hearts wish to bear, and accepting whatever impacts to their business this may entail.

There are some issues here. I recall a local doctor getting himself in a heap of legal trouble over Medicare fraud because of treating a patient who needed help and had no means to pay for it. It seems that the feds have a problem with working for anyone else cheaper than you work for them.

OK, ATM, how do you privatize a lighthouse?

Demote it from Corporal to Private?

 

[Leadeye]

I figure somebody is making money like they are printing it from obiecare and expecting to get even richer as time goes by. It's the only reason it was passed in the first place and why it's still going.

Always follow the money

 

[Dddrees]

Wait. You said that like you think the origin of freedom is government. Now, I'm not an anarchist. But dayam! You've got a really nasty case of collectivitis. Put down the Mother Jones already.

Collectivitus is a new one on me, but then again I'm just going by history and it seems to me as long as there are people there will be governments.

I guess collectivitus on the whole isn't all bad as all the Democracies and Republics I'm aware of are a collection of people having mostly the same ideals. On the other hand a good number of authoritarian or dictatorships are run by one person. There are a few like China which are governed by the ruling party. So maybe collectivitus ain't all bad.

Very few islands you can really go to at this point where you might be able to govern yourself.

 

[Twangbanger]

Every now and then, if you wait long enough...INGO reaches a higher gear, where the libertarian trolls kick in and temporarily make the democrat trolls look like the sane ones.

 

[jamil]

Collectivitus is a new one on me, but then again I'm just going by history and it seems to me as long as there are people there will be governments.

I guess collectivitus on the whole isn't all bad as all the Democracies and Republics I'm aware of are a collection of people having mostly the same ideals. On the other hand a good number of authoritarian or dictatorships are run by one person. There are a few like China which are governed by the ruling party. So maybe collectivitus ain't all bad.

Very few islands you can really go to at this point where you might be able to govern yourself.

"Collectivitus" refers to thinking the group is more important than individuals. My objection wasn't your defense of having governments. At this point if humans were capable of not being governed in large societies, there'd be large societies without governments. So we can argue about where to draw the line between more or less government. I'm very far towards less. I'm fine with having a military, infrastructure, basically the powers that the constitution prescribes. I don't think it's the role of government to be our nannies, or have redistributive entitlement programs. So that's pretty much where I'd draw the line.

My disagreement with you was in how you worded "How about the freedoms you currently enjoy. You really think you could do so without a government that allows you to do so?"

As a matter of practice, governments tend to "allow" freedom. But I think the founding basis of the U.S. was to create a government for the purpose of being the protector of rights people already have, rather than declaring which rights people may have. The former is more individualist. The latter is more collectivist.

 

[Dddrees]

"Collectivitus" refers to thinking the group is more important than individuals. My objection wasn't your defense of having governments. At this point if humans were capable of not being governed in large societies, there'd be large societies without governments. So we can argue about where to draw the line between more or less government. I'm very far towards less. I'm fine with having a military, infrastructure, basically the powers that the constitution prescribes. I don't think it's the role of government to be our nannies, or have redistributive entitlement programs. So that's pretty much where I'd draw the line.

My disagreement with you was in how you worded "How about the freedoms you currently enjoy. You really think you could do so without a government that allows you to do so?"

As a matter of practice, governments tend to "allow" freedom. But I think the founding basis of the U.S. was to create a government for the purpose of being the protector of rights people already have, rather than declaring which rights people may have. The former is more individualist. The latter is more collectivist.

Well, the thing is reality kind of hits you smack dab right in the face. It seems some people here believe they can do entirely without government. Well not only are there very few places you could go where they don't exist they actually do come in handy when it comes to certain things. So although some may argue about what governments should and should not do we could do much worse off. Just be glad we enjoy the freedoms we have in the US. Having traveled a bit I'm always happy when I come back home. So in the meantime I guess we're stuck trying to get it right where we are.

 

[Dddrees]

Relationship between GOP Senate and Trump hit the Skids.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...56bd5568db8_story.html?utm_term=.69510dc049fb

Since this directly relates to the Health Care debate I thought I would post it here as well.

 

[ATM]

Every now and then, if you wait long enough...INGO reaches a higher gear, where the libertarian trolls kick in and temporarily make the democrat trolls look like the sane ones.

So many quotes to reply with; take your pick:

Great Quotes about the Insanity of Society and the Sanity of the Dissident

 

[Dddrees]

So many quotes to reply with; take your pick:

Great Quotes about the Insanity of Society and the Sanity of the Dissident

And I thought you were going to say take the money away.

 

[ATM]

And I thought you were going to say take the money away.

We can't just take money away, but we could stop stealing it to pay for some things.

Do you comprehend the difference?

 

[Dddrees]

Senate to work on Bipartisian Health Care.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...n-senators-seek-path-health-reform/519895001/

How many more things can Trump afford to become irrelevant on?

 

[ATM]

Why would we need bipartisan healthcare law any more than we needed partisan healthcare law?

 

[gregr]

Fine, but our Constitution is built to not give one person too much power. Like it or not, he has to lead. With no followers (in power who can affect change), he's not leading anyone...which means he's not leading at all.

In short, he really can't blow the system up by himself, even if someone thinks that's a good idea. He has to build alliances. He has to form some level of consensus or else all he can do is tweet out about how everyone treats him bad and no one follows him. This may cause his entrenched supporters to entrench all the more, but it does nothing of substance.

What frustrates me so, is that demon-crats rammed the obamacare bill through, in the middle of the night, without ever reading it, it passed without a single GOP vote, and, people still vote demon-crat. The federal government is easily as corrupt and arrogant as it is tyrannical and bloated.

 

[gregr]

Keep naming things you assume I'll agree that we need government to provide.

I'll keep saying no thanks, let's privatize it.

Kinda like health care services and insurance.

But wait...Daniels privatized some Indiana road, gave us a two billion dollar surplus, and some screamed to high heaven about that, so, it can`t be good...can it?

 

[gregr]

Wait. You said that like you think the origin of freedom is government. Now, I'm not an anarchist. But dayam! You've got a really nasty case of collectivitis. Put down the Mother Jones already.

No kidding...next thing you know, we`ll be bitter clingers, and of course, we didn`t build that. Glad I`m not downwind of that load of hooey.

 

[gregr]

Senate to work on Bipartisian Health Care.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...n-senators-seek-path-health-reform/519895001/

How many more things can Trump afford to become irrelevant on?

I didn`t vote for trump, and I`m not a fan, but, I`m even less of a fan of a liberal media that mocks him, attacks his character, and will literally say anything about the man and his family. Trump is no more irrelevant than the diseased, traitorous POS we dealt with for eight long years. The only difference is, the media protected the POS we just got rid of, and the same media makes no attempt to hide their contempt for Trump. You don`t have a leg to stand on with that baseless statement.

 

[MCgrease08]

I didn`t vote for trump, and I`m not a fan, but, I`m even less of a fan of a liberal media that mocks him, attacks his character, and will literally say anything about the man and his family. Trump is no more irrelevant than the diseased, traitorous POS we dealt with for eight long years. The only difference is, the media protected the POS we just got rid of, and the same media makes no attempt to hide their contempt for Trump. You don`t have a leg to stand on with that baseless statement.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to gregr again.

This is pretty much my feeling too. Well said gregr.