Political Roundtable Part XV

[gtn130]

A comment made by Senator Ron Johnson R. at a high school assembly when a student asked


God Love America

It's not a right guaranteed in the Constitution. But in a country as wealthy as this, where we could TOTALLY afford to give everyone healthcare if we so decided, I don't know what to call it. What do you call selfishness that is so strong it can be classified as a mental health disease? Sociopathy?

Actually, I am with Senator Johnson on this... life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are the inalienable rights. With healthcare there is a cost - someone has to pay for the service and someone has to render the service. I don't think that can be an inalienable right - right?

When you say healthcare, social security, education, etc. are rights, you go down a very slippery slope. For healthcare for example, what level of coverage is a right? Who determines what level is a right. I could do the same for SS and education.

So, it needs another definition. One that I think you are trying to get to Zonk - something along best allocation of resources to our population from our government.

Ok, so to summarize things:

-Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are the only things Americans are entitled to. Every government program that cannot be narrowly couched in that language should obviously be shut down, I guess. Seems like basic health and [the pursuit of] happiness are interconnected, but I'm no constitutional historian.

-Healthcare costs money, whereas life, liberty and happiness are free!

-Things that cost money can lead to more things that cost money. Tricky!

-Complicated things require more 'definitions' of things. Very tricky indeed!

Very compelling argument here, DC.

[gtn130]

We spend 3.5% of our GDP on 'liberty', but healthcare costs money and doesn't fit our made-up definition of random words in the constitution, so it's totally impossible that we provide better health coverage. Story checks out.

[I_Like_Dirt]

The real trick here is that Americans spend so much more on health care per capita than any other nation and yet still don't have universal health care coverage while many other nations do. That's the real head scratcher overall that really goes against the argument that it isn't affordable. Clearly it is affordable but existing health care dollars are being spent in other ways, and existing institutions and even many voters are resistant to sacrificing other parts of the health care industry in order to be able to afford universal health care. The inefficiencies in the American health care system are pretty obvious, honestly, although finding the political will to change them is the harder part of the equation, which is why even Bernie isn't proposing that type of change and is proposing more broad-sweeping measures that will likely cost more.

Re: Gun control, I also sort of wish that beyond simply the awful mass shootings it were recognized that suicides and domestic violence are even bigger issues and stronger reasons why gun control of some form is important. No, people don't actually find other ways to kill themselves if they don't have easy access to a gun - the data is pretty clear on that. And while domestic abuse is a problem everywhere, let's just say it's pretty obviously better that a gun isn't involved in those kinds of situations. If you own a gun, you are faaaar more likely to kill yourself or someone you allegedly care about than you are to use it to defend yourself or to shoot a bad guy of some kind or even to go on a shooting spree. If that isn't a good enough reason to consider some form of significant gun control checks, like the mental health test Japan gun owners have to undergo every 3 years (I'm pretty sure that's the case, although would have to refresh my memory on that one) or something like that, then I don't know what is.

[dckingsfan]

It's not a right guaranteed in the Constitution. But in a country as wealthy as this, where we could TOTALLY afford to give everyone healthcare if we so decided, I don't know what to call it. What do you call selfishness that is so strong it can be classified as a mental health disease? Sociopathy?

Actually, I am with Senator Johnson on this... life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are the inalienable rights. With healthcare there is a cost - someone has to pay for the service and someone has to render the service. I don't think that can be an inalienable right - right?

When you say healthcare, social security, education, etc. are rights, you go down a very slippery slope. For healthcare for example, what level of coverage is a right? Who determines what level is a right. I could do the same for SS and education.

So, it needs another definition. One that I think you are trying to get to Zonk - something along best allocation of resources to our population from our government.

Ok, so to summarize things:

-Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are the only things Americans are entitled to. Every government program that cannot be narrowly couched in that language should obviously be shut down, I guess. Seems like basic health and [the pursuit of] happiness are interconnected, but I'm no constitutional historian.

-Healthcare costs money, whereas life, liberty and happiness are free!

-Things that cost money can lead to more things that cost money. Tricky!

-Complicated things require more 'definitions' of things. Very tricky indeed!

Very compelling argument here, DC.

Let's be clear - you missed the argument. The argument: something that requires someone to provide a service or product for you can't be a right.

If you don't understand that point - we really can't go any further in the discussion.

So, I am with Sen. Johnson on that part of his statement. I don't agree with the rest. But I think that Bernie has locked onto this "lie" and is driving Americans to this type of misguided thinking.

And I provided a point from a former economics professor (back in the 60s/70s) who was countering an argument at that time that food, shelter and healthcare were rights. His point is if the government provided those things - what portion of the population would stop working? And would the government still be able to provide those very same services over time.

[gtn130]

Actually, I am with Senator Johnson on this... life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are the inalienable rights. With healthcare there is a cost - someone has to pay for the service and someone has to render the service. I don't think that can be an inalienable right - right?

When you say healthcare, social security, education, etc. are rights, you go down a very slippery slope. For healthcare for example, what level of coverage is a right? Who determines what level is a right. I could do the same for SS and education.

So, it needs another definition. One that I think you are trying to get to Zonk - something along best allocation of resources to our population from our government.

Ok, so to summarize things:

-Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are the only things Americans are entitled to. Every government program that cannot be narrowly couched in that language should obviously be shut down, I guess. Seems like basic health and [the pursuit of] happiness are interconnected, but I'm no constitutional historian.

-Healthcare costs money, whereas life, liberty and happiness are free!

-Things that cost money can lead to more things that cost money. Tricky!

-Complicated things require more 'definitions' of things. Very tricky indeed!

Very compelling argument here, DC.

Let's be clear - you missed the argument. The argument: something that requires someone to provide a service or product for you can't be a right.

If you don't understand that point - we really can't go any further in the discussion.

So, I am with Sen. Johnson on that part of his statement. I don't agree with the rest. But I think that Bernie has locked onto this "lie" and is driving Americans to this type of misguided thinking.

And I provided a point from a former economics professor (back in the 60s/70s) who was countering an argument at that time that food, shelter and healthcare were rights. His point is if the government provided those things - what portion of the population would stop working? And would the government still be able to provide those very same services over time.

Dude, whether it's a 'right' or not is semantics. We can afford to provide more and better health coverage. This is an incontrovertible truth. If you want to keep mowing down the Bernie Sanders strawman, have fun.

That said, do you think the current healthcare system (from the perspective of health coverage, not cost) is adequate? If the answer is no, what is your idea of a viable solution? Privatize everything and tell everyone to work harder?

[cammac]

Ok, so to summarize things:

-Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are the only things Americans are entitled to. Every government program that cannot be narrowly couched in that language should obviously be shut down, I guess. Seems like basic health and [the pursuit of] happiness are interconnected, but I'm no constitutional historian.

-Healthcare costs money, whereas life, liberty and happiness are free!

-Things that cost money can lead to more things that cost money. Tricky!

-Complicated things require more 'definitions' of things. Very tricky indeed!

Very compelling argument here, DC.

Let's be clear - you missed the argument. The argument: something that requires someone to provide a service or product for you can't be a right.

If you don't understand that point - we really can't go any further in the discussion.

So, I am with Sen. Johnson on that part of his statement. I don't agree with the rest. But I think that Bernie has locked onto this "lie" and is driving Americans to this type of misguided thinking.

And I provided a point from a former economics professor (back in the 60s/70s) who was countering an argument at that time that food, shelter and healthcare were rights. His point is if the government provided those things - what portion of the population would stop working? And would the government still be able to provide those very same services over time.

Dude, whether it's a 'right' or not is semantics. We can afford to provide more and better health coverage. This is an incontrovertible truth. If you want to keep mowing down the Bernie Sanders strawman, have fun.

That said, do you think the current healthcare system (from the perspective of health coverage, not cost) is adequate? If the answer is no, what is your idea of a viable solution? Privatize everything and tell everyone to work harder?

I agree that the plan that Bernie Sanders proposed is unworkable and is utopian but a universal system similar to Canada's is very workable. Canada's is run by Provinces (States) but the overall guidelines established are Federal and extra funds are distributed to poorer Provinces. Yes some fundamental changes must be made to streamline the systems which will ruffle feathers AMA, Lawyers, Big Pharma, Public/Private Hospitals and elimination of Medicare, Medicare and VA.

[I_Like_Dirt]

And I provided a point from a former economics professor (back in the 60s/70s) who was countering an argument at that time that food, shelter and healthcare were rights. His point is if the government provided those things - what portion of the population would stop working? And would the government still be able to provide those very same services over time.

The interesting thing is that while I do think historically this held true, I actually think this kind of thinking, not necessarily rights, depending on how you want to phrase the discussion, but government providing food, housing, basic health care and a certain degree of services is increasingly becoming a conversation worth having. Automation is going to change the economy dramatically and while I have no clue what is going to happen let alone what will be a good solution to said unpredictable problems, personally, I'm currently of a mind that such a type of progress is potentially more societally beneficial than simply cutting people a cheque for universal basic income, which I'm not sure I'm a fan of at this point, or at the very least a combination of the two. As I mentioned, so much is up in the air that I'm not sure what the problems are going to look like, let alone the solutions, but I think it's worth consideration.

As for Bernie himself, I'm not totally sure how he would define things - I'm more interested in what people mean rather than words they actually use - but the reality is that the word "rights" tends to play better with pretty much everybody politically, which is where people talk about their rights in basically any conversation rather than their responsibilities. Responsibilities is where we've really dropped the ball, honestly. They come part and parcel with rights, but left unchecked rights cause all sorts of problems be it with spending, social attitudes like racism, sexism, owning guns, avoiding taxes, theft, or whatever if responsibilities aren't given equal value and people don't accept them.

Honestly, that's where I see government's biggest job: ensuring societal responsibilities are accounted for. Despite all the talk of how private sector and companies doing humanitarian work, the reality is that it isn't so simple with them, and a lot of what they do is the result of government incentives like tax write-offs - and some of them are of debatable value, such as asking for $2 or small donations from clients for whatever and then take make a massive donation in their own name at the end of it all, basically writing off the donations of their clients on their own taxes while trumpeting all the money they raised for charity. How government goes about it is up for debate, and there is a careful line to be drawn so that it doesn't unnecessarily hinder individual rights too much, but government is very much necessary and a lot of the reason it's viewed so negative has to do with people not valuing responsibilities - those who feel they should be taken care of and those who feel they shouldn't have to care for others in any way unless they want to. I mean, there are other factors, too, like corruption, etc., but a lot of that is due to other non-responsibility type influences infiltrating government.

[dckingsfan]

Dude, whether it's a 'right' or not is semantics.

No, that is the problem - it isn't just semantics.

If you say it is a right that is different than saying it is a service that the government provides. It isn't semantics at all - it is fundamental to the argument. You don't pay for an inalienable right.

And at the current rate of growth and entitlement spending - the government will eat up more than all the tax receipts that it takes in.

And therein lies the big lie.

[Zonkerbl]

A right you have to pay for no matter what. If it costs money, you have to pay that money. To protect the right to free speech, we have police and a court system where if the government violates your constitutional right to free speech, you can sue and a judge that YOU DON'T PAY FOR, the government does, hears your case.

Rights aren't free, what a load of hooie. Nothing is free.

[stilldropin20]

Per Trump: wipe out puerto rico's debt!!!

now we're talking!!!!!!!!! real issues. like I said. Trump aint no friend of the banks. Bond PR bond market dropping like flies. banks on full alert with full court press (releases): (MOM n POP going to feel this) eff you bankers!!!! You are going to stick it to mom and pop by moving their accounts out last after you move yourself out at higher positions. God I wish americans weren't so dumb.

Please trump, please follow through on this one. wipe out their debt!! The US has been dropping bombs off the coast of vieques for decades. cancer rates very high. we owe them!!

[DCZards]

And I provided a point from a former economics professor (back in the 60s/70s) who was countering an argument at that time that food, shelter and healthcare were rights. His point is if the government provided those things - what portion of the population would stop working? And would the government still be able to provide those very same services over time.

Tell your former economics professor that this American is more concerned about those people who die because they don't have healthcare than those who stop working because they get free or cheap healthcare.

[Wizardspride]

Per Trump: wipe out puerto rico's debt!!!

now we're talking!!!!!!!!! real issues. like I said. Trump aint no friend of the banks. Bond PR bond market dropping like flies. banks on full alert with full court press (releases): (MOM n POP going to feel this) eff you bankers!!!! You are going to stick it to mom and pop by moving their accounts out last after you move yourself out at higher positions. God I wish americans weren't so dumb.

Please trump, please follow through on this one. wipe out their debt!! The US has been dropping bombs off the coast of vieques for decades. cancer rates very high. we owe them!!

They're walking that back of course.

[dckingsfan]

And I provided a point from a former economics professor (back in the 60s/70s) who was countering an argument at that time that food, shelter and healthcare were rights. His point is if the government provided those things - what portion of the population would stop working? And would the government still be able to provide those very same services over time.

Tell your former economics professor that this American is more concerned about those people who die because they don't have healthcare than those who stop working because they get free or cheap healthcare.

Well, he is dead - so that won't happen

But his point stands. And he was one of those that predicted that tax exempt Employer-Sponsored Healthcare would cause runaway inflation on healthcare services - and that would have cause big problems for those that weren't fully employed. He predicted this in the 30s. Very smart dude.

Sadly, you are still missing the point - the point was was rhetorical. Dirt has some good points on the topic.

[dckingsfan]

A right you have to pay for no matter what. If it costs money, you have to pay that money. To protect the right to free speech, we have police and a court system where if the government violates your constitutional right to free speech, you can sue and a judge that YOU DON'T PAY FOR, the government does, hears your case.

Rights aren't free, what a load of hooie. Nothing is free.

Solid point...

[gtn130]

Dude, whether it's a 'right' or not is semantics.

No, that is the problem - it isn't just semantics.

If you say it is a right that is different than saying it is a service that the government provides. It isn't semantics at all - it is fundamental to the argument. You don't pay for an inalienable right.

And at the current rate of growth and entitlement spending - the government will eat up more than all the tax receipts that it takes in.

And therein lies the big lie.

This has already been addressed, but 'rights' aren't free, so the distinction you're making still appears to be semantic.

And you didn't answer my question - what is your plan for healthcare?

[dckingsfan]

We spend 3.5% of our GDP on 'liberty', but healthcare costs money and doesn't fit our made-up definition of random words in the constitution, so it's totally impossible that we provide better health coverage. Story checks out.

It isn't that we spend a lot of entitlements - most would agree that is a good thing. What is a bad thing is that they aren't sustainable. And folks like Trump and Bernie lie continually about this.

BTW, we spend way more than 3.5% of our GDP on liberty. Think of the courts, police, industrial prison complex, etc.

[gtn130]

We spend 3.5% of our GDP on 'liberty', but healthcare costs money and doesn't fit our made-up definition of random words in the constitution, so it's totally impossible that we provide better health coverage. Story checks out.

It isn't that we spend a lot of entitlements - most would agree that is a good thing. What is a bad thing is that they aren't sustainable. And folks like Trump and Bernie lie continually about this.

BTW, we spend way more than 3.5% of our GDP on liberty. Think of the courts, police, industrial prison complex, etc.

That wasn't your original argument or anything I was addressing.

[DCZards]

Well, he is dead - so that won't happen

But his point stands. And he was one of those that predicted that tax exempt Employer-Sponsored Healthcare would cause runaway inflation on healthcare services - and that would have cause big problems for those that weren't fully employed. He predicted this in the 30s. Very smart dude.

Sadly, you are still missing the point - the point was was rhetorical. Dirt has some good points on the topic.

Actually, you missed my point. But it's all good. Different strokes for different folks.

[I_Like_Dirt]

That wasn't your original argument or anything I was addressing.

Reading your post, I'm fairly sure you're misunderstanding dc's original argument a touch. Even with Zonk, he's shown how defending and codifying any particular right costs money, but not how rights themselves actually cost money.

I mean, to be honest, I think the distinction is beside the point here, and I honestly feel it's a bit representative of a larger societal issue that rights vs. something else is what's being most seriously contested here. Rights are by and large a legal fabrication. They're basically a story we tell ourselves and because enough of us believe them, they hold true. The biggest example of this kind of societal story-telling is the value of money.

With that in mind, rights are a bit of a hodgepodge of definitions and mean different things to different people and their meaning can and does evolve over time. So the idea of health care as a right can make sense and even work, but it dramatically shifts the meaning of the word to accept as much. Maybe that's for the best, but I can certainly understand dc's argument that having a "right" that involves others doing something for you is a problematic situation. That line of thinking presupposes the existence of responsibilities, which is why I brought them up. And I still stand by my belief that health care is more of a responsibility than a right, and honestly, I feel that makes it all the more important.

[gtn130]

That wasn't your original argument or anything I was addressing.

Reading your post, I'm fairly sure you're misunderstanding dc's original argument a touch. Even with Zonk, he's shown how defending and codifying any particular right costs money, but not how rights themselves actually cost money.

I mean, to be honest, I think the distinction is beside the point here, and I honestly feel it's a bit representative of a larger societal issue that rights vs. something else is what's being most seriously contested here. Rights are by and large a legal fabrication. They're basically a story we tell ourselves and because enough of us believe them, they hold true. The biggest example of this kind of societal story-telling is the value of money.

With that in mind, rights are a bit of a hodgepodge of definitions and mean different things to different people and their meaning can and does evolve over time. So the idea of health care as a right can make sense and even work, but it dramatically shifts the meaning of the word to accept as much. Maybe that's for the best, but I can certainly understand dc's argument that having a "right" that involves others doing something for you is a problematic situation. That line of thinking presupposes the existence of responsibilities, which is why I brought them up. And I still stand by my belief that health care is more of a responsibility than a right, and honestly, I feel that makes it all the more important.

No, I understand what he's saying, and his point is totally asinine.

His original argument, which he's already abandoned, was that healthcare can't technically be an unalienable right because it, on its face, costs money whereas life, liberty and happiness are just vague concepts that are free. I made the point early on that we spend a huge % of our GDP on 'liberty' alone, so this entire dialog is a waste of time.