If Gov can make you buy insurance... why not guns?

[slim 1,530]

completely unrelated to my comment.

But a good illustration for some folks who think healthcare is a right and guns are not.

The reason people are not running up unpaid tabs for firearms is because the Gov't has not yet set up a practice where people can take goods or services from Gun stores without paying.

Imagine if doctors and nurses all carried guns!

[rika60607 215]

Cost of medical insurance is such, that it is probably cheaper to buy a new gun every month than to pay the monthly premium

The reason government is starting to interfere is that while anyone can afford a gun (or could steal it or borrow a gun when in need) - try stealing or borrowing medical care. That will not go well.

But let's say Slim is right. Health care is not a right. It would only be logical then to ban health insurance all together. Then all the really sick people will die, unless they are rich. Rich are not many. So, many old and sick folks will die. Social security problems will be solved and the nation will be healthier overall! Yay!

The only problem I see, "health care is not a right" only for the healthy people of working age. It is somehow a right for the elderly, children and people with disabilities. It is not a good scheme for the society to deny health care to the people who are actually producing goods and services and support the rest - the elderly, children and people with disabilities.

Edited February 2, 2011 by rika60607

[rika60607 215]

Perhaps those folks refer to Human Rights rather than Consitution?

But a good illustration for some folks who think healthcare is a right and guns are not.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Perhaps those folks refer to Human Rights rather than Consitution?

What are the "Human Rights"?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Cost of medical insurance is such, that it is probably cheaper to buy a new gun every month than to pay the monthly premium

The reason government is starting to interfere is that while anyone can afford a gun (or could steal it or borrow a gun when in need) - try stealing or borrowing medical care. That will not go well.

But let's say Slim is right. Health care is not a right. It would only be logical then to ban health insurance all together. Then all the really sick people will die, unless they are rich. Rich are not many. So, many old and sick folks will die. Social security problems will be solved and the nation will be healthier overall! Yay!

The only problem I see, "health care is not a right" only for the healthy people of working age. It is somehow a right for the elderly, children and people with disabilities. It is not a good scheme for the society to deny health care to the people who are actually producing goods and services and support the rest - the elderly, children and people with disabilities.

You can steal medical care by going to the hospital and not paying. Try walking out of a gun shop without paying for the gun.

Are you proposing that anything that isn't a right be banned? Health care is not a right for anyone. Neither is Social Security. Social Security problems can be solved by ending the pyramid scheme called Social Security. No one has to die for that nightmare to go away.

There ARE alternatives to the Federal government giving you (and everyone else) everything.

1. Make healthcare insurance available anywhere across state lines. Premiums and costs will go down when you see Geico healthcare commercials

2. Offer group insurance to individuals. Again by making healthcare insurance available anywhere, individuals become a group, just as with affordable homeowners and car insurance

3. Limit liability claims against doctors to truly negligent acts, this will end silly lawsuits, reduce malpractrice insurance costs, and reduce patients having to pay for "defensive medicine"

4. Detach healthcare from employment. It was incorporated their due to government regulations on pay increases during WW2. It needs to go away. Let everyone buy their own. Let everyone get group rates.

5. Subsidize only those that cannot afford it, as we do now for people of all ages.

Now that Obamacare has been determined to be unconstitutional, maybe we will have some progress in this area.

It would also appear to answer the OPs question. The government CANNOT make you buy healthcare insurance

[SMR 368]

Cost of medical insurance is such, that it is probably cheaper to buy a new gun every month than to pay the monthly premium

The reason government is starting to interfere is that while anyone can afford a gun (or could steal it or borrow a gun when in need) - try stealing or borrowing medical care. That will not go well.

But let's say Slim is right. Health care is not a right. It would only be logical then to ban health insurance all together. Then all the really sick people will die, unless they are rich. Rich are not many. So, many old and sick folks will die. Social security problems will be solved and the nation will be healthier overall! Yay!

The only problem I see, "health care is not a right" only for the healthy people of working age. It is somehow a right for the elderly, children and people with disabilities. It is not a good scheme for the society to deny health care to the people who are actually producing goods and services and support the rest - the elderly, children and people with disabilities.

I believe that healthcare is a right. The problem is there is a serious misunderstanding as to what that means that I honestly cannot explain the source of. There really is no precedent of other rights that the government provides. As a precedent, a right is something that the government is not allowed to prevent you from having.

That is, when the exercise of a right requires money and resources (and most of them do, to one extent or another), those resources are provided by the individual exercising the right, not by the government. The right to bear arms doesn't mean the government buys you a gun. Freedom of the press doesn't mean the government pays for the cost of printing your newspaper. Freedom of religion doesn't mean that the government builds you a church. Why would you expect that a right to healthcare means the government pays your medical bills?

In short, healthcare may be a right but that does not mean what some seem to think it means. It means that people have the right to seek healthcare to the extent that opportunity and resources allow. I certainly would not dispute such a right.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

What are the "Human Rights"?

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

I believe the US was instrumental in drafting these.

[rika60607 215]

If I have a right to health care, but should not expect government to pay for it, then government should STOP requiring that I provide prescriptions issued by a doctor. I can very well figure out what medicines I need and I should be able to buy them at the pharmacy. Also, government should STOP requiring doctors to be licensed and educated at particular schools. If I want to get an advice on my health problem from someone who is not a doctor (but had the same medical problem in the past) - why shouldn't I be able to? If I want to get an advice from an experienced nurse, why shouldn't I?

So, if government takes away my freedom in seeking health care, they better pay for the doctor they make me go to. Or at least make sure the fee I pay is reasonable.

I believe that healthcare is a right. The problem is there is a serious misunderstanding as to what that means that I honestly cannot explain the source of. There really is no precedent of other rights that the government provides. As a precedent, a right is something that the government is not allowed to prevent you from having.

That is, when the exercise of a right requires money and resources (and most of them do, to one extent or another), those resources are provided by the individual exercising the right, not by the government. The right to bear arms doesn't mean the government buys you a gun. Freedom of the press doesn't mean the government pays for the cost of printing your newspaper. Freedom of religion doesn't mean that the government builds you a church. Why would you expect that a right to healthcare means the government pays your medical bills?

In short, healthcare may be a right but that does not mean what some seem to think it means. It means that people have the right to seek healthcare to the extent that opportunity and resources allow. I certainly would not dispute such a right.

[The_Dude 1,142]

I wonder how much longer the RWN's will support ideas like mandatory guns, or keep up the ignorant belief that the 2nd amendment is in place as a check to the federal government once they realize the projected demographics of the coming decades.

[^_^ 5,021]

I wonder how much longer the RWN's will support ideas like mandatory guns, or keep up the ignorant belief that the 2nd amendment is in place as a check to the federal government once they realize the projected demographics of the coming decades.

The gun nuts will try to use their 2nd-amendment-protected weapons to change the demographic trajectory of this country. They will fail, of course.

[rika60607 215]

Well, *I* can't steal it, because I do not steal. I can't borrow medical care from a friend, because it is individual. With a gun, I could borrow.

I actually like your plan much better than Obama's plan. I think it would work. Add to that opening more medical schools (currently there are 1000s applicant per place) - and the health insurance issue would be solved because the fees will go down. However, medical insurance is different from, say car insurance and home insurance and the same rules should not apply. You do not pay for regular car or home repairs with your insurance, but you do use your medical insurance when you go to see a doctor for all kinds of regular check ups and small problems. If you ignore those health issues they may become much more serious and costly.

As for the Social Security - I paid into it, and I want my money back if the pyramid is canceled

But I also believe that old people should have some small guaranteed income until they die. The fear of hunger and homelessness is not a pleasant environment.

You can steal medical care by going to the hospital and not paying. Try walking out of a gun shop without paying for the gun.

Are you proposing that anything that isn't a right be banned? Health care is not a right for anyone. Neither is Social Security. Social Security problems can be solved by ending the pyramid scheme called Social Security. No one has to die for that nightmare to go away.

There ARE alternatives to the Federal government giving you (and everyone else) everything.

1. Make healthcare insurance available anywhere across state lines. Premiums and costs will go down when you see Geico healthcare commercials

2. Offer group insurance to individuals. Again by making healthcare insurance available anywhere, individuals become a group, just as with affordable homeowners and car insurance

3. Limit liability claims against doctors to truly negligent acts, this will end silly lawsuits, reduce malpractrice insurance costs, and reduce patients having to pay for "defensive medicine"

4. Detach healthcare from employment. It was incorporated their due to government regulations on pay increases during WW2. It needs to go away. Let everyone buy their own. Let everyone get group rates.

5. Subsidize only those that cannot afford it, as we do now for people of all ages.

Now that Obamacare has been determined to be unconstitutional, maybe we will have some progress in this area.

It would also appear to answer the OPs question. The government CANNOT make you buy healthcare insurance

[The_Dude 1,142]

The gun nuts will try to use their 2nd-amendment-protected weapons to change the demographic trajectory of this country. They will fail, of course.

Are you suggesting that Slim and company are going to arm themselves with the explicit reason of culling the herd? That will be $404,000 times the number of complaints.

[^_^ 5,021]

1. Make healthcare insurance available anywhere across state lines.

Look up the inter-state compacts provision of the PPACA.

Offer group insurance to individuals.

That is what the exchanges in the PPACA do.

Limit liability claims against doctors to truly negligent acts ...

PPACA does not address this as robustly as it should have; Obama did make mention to this in his recent SOTU and it will most likely become law in the next year.

Detach healthcare from employment.

That is what the exchanges in the PPACA do, in the sense that anyone without insurance from their job can go seek it from the exchanges and procure group insurance.

Subsidize only those that cannot afford it, as we do now for people of all ages.

The PPACA does this as well. It will subsidize those who can not afford it, and exempt from the mandate those who can not afford it even after the subsidy.

Are you suggesting that Slim and company are going to arm themselves with the explicit reason of culling the herd? That will be $404,000 times the number of complaints.

Yes, although I don't think Slim is going to be doing it. But that is the direction the real freaks are headed.

[SMR 368]

If I have a right to health care, but should not expect government to pay for it, then government should STOP requiring that I provide prescriptions issued by a doctor. I can very well figure out what medicines I need and I should be able to buy them at the pharmacy. Also, government should STOP requiring doctors to be licensed and educated at particular schools. If I want to get an advice on my health problem from someone who is not a doctor (but had the same medical problem in the past) - why shouldn't I be able to? If I want to get an advice from an experienced nurse, why shouldn't I?

So, if government takes away my freedom in seeking health care, they better pay for the doctor they make me go to. Or at least make sure the fee I pay is reasonable.

Now you are really just deflecting the issue. As far as prescriptions, I agree with you to a large extent. There are some problems with a prescription-less system since some prescription drugs are narcotics and the over-use of antibiotics can hurt society at large. But in certain situations the prescription situation is ridiculous. I also agree that we need to remove the caps and controls on medical school slots. As far as being able to get advice from non-doctors, who is stopping you? In certain situations, certain people won't give advice but that has to do with liability and not actual regulations.

But as I said at the beginning, I think you are deflecting the issue by claiming that the government should have to pay for healthcare because it regulates some aspects of it. By that logic, the government should have to pay for everyone's food since there are regulations on food quality and give everyone a car since emissions regulation increases the price of cars. You have jumped from one unprecedented non-sequitur to another.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Now you are really just deflecting the issue. As far as prescriptions, I agree with you to a large extent. There are some problems with a prescription-less system since some prescription drugs are narcotics and the over-use of antibiotics can hurt society at large. But in certain situations the prescription situation is ridiculous. I also agree that we need to remove the caps and controls on medical school slots. As far as being able to get advice from non-doctors, who is stopping you? In certain situations, certain people won't give advice but that has to do with liability and not actual regulations.

But as I said at the beginning, I think you are deflecting the issue by claiming that the government should have to pay for healthcare because it regulates some aspects of it. By that logic, the government should have to pay for everyone's food since there are regulations on food quality and give everyone a car since emissions regulation increases the price of cars. You have jumped from one unprecedented non-sequitur to another.

Of course the government isn't just regulating healthcare, they are requiring a business to take on non paying customers.