well we need a top down approach. Regulate and standardize costs. make a resolution to make hospitals ‘public’ and liquidate/downsize the Board of directors, put them on a government pay scale (GS12+). those that opt out of the program can keep their board and remain private hospitals with government subsidies to manage.
Completely dissolve all insurance companies; or just circumvent them entirely, as they are a useless middleman, literally bloat, that contribute nothing to ‘healthcare’.
and finally the answer to your question, my patriotic friend, you and i would cover the costs with our taxes that we pay ( ok you can have your melt down now ); but keep in mind: no more monthly premiums, no more minimum deductibles to ‘buy in to your plan’ just to use what you are already paying for. medicaid/medicare and associated taxes would be rolled into those costs (at a reduced amount because: lower overall threshold, more people paying into the system) ... this COULD possibly result in a reduction of overall expenses... also your car insurance rates would drop, because they would no longer be liable to cover medical bills... thank you and every american that contributes the funding of our healthcare system.
i am glad you guys took the time to engage me in conversation, especially given the controversial nature of the subject on a conservative leaning forum.
As someone who has always been slightly left of center, i recognize the virtues of hard work and integrity. i also value the american way of life and believe we need to return to being a patriotic sovereign nation with borders and laws that are applied fairly and equally. If america succeeds economically, we should all prosper.
thats my reason for supporting a system that would care for everyone, young and old, rich or poor, elite or freeloader. i know its not popular, but it would be a win for the american people, if we can make it work.... believe me, we can make it work.
Since demographic changes are set in stone, this will be the future of the Conservative party.
Current Democrats will turn into UK Conservatives. Current Republicans will turn into Current Democrats.
This country is the victim of the retarded Immigration Act and Illegal immigration whose children are being taught by the Critical Theory educational systems.
we need to accept change and move forward along the progression path. True great nations move with the times, abandoning lofty fantasies(goals) and superstition.
still gotta buy em to exercise that right.
therefore requiring the labor of another to provide you with the Ability to exercise that right.
there is no firearm tree out there... some one had to make that gun. unless you think you’re entitled to government issue weapons, which i wouldn’t be opposed to that either.
Our right is to keep and bear Arms and to not have the government be able to say we can't, there is nobody's labor involved in that.. When you exercise your right, you buy them with your money to compensate the manufacturer and they compensate their workers for said labor.
someone had to clock in, to make that gun. <— required labor.
you buying a gun didn’t allow that man to sleep in that morning.
he went to work, thus providing you a gun, supplied by someone else’s labor... you know what, Build-a-Firearm! there we go, imma patent that original idea! =p
tell you what; show me a picture of your CNC, Autocad Computer, and steel forge, and i will glady take you at your word that you manufactured your own rifle.
I never said I did. Nor did I insinuate I had those things at this time. But purchasing a too to exercise a right is not in fact, the right itself. One offers the product, one purchases. That is the priviledge. The right exists in that I am able to manufacture the tool myself if I so choose, or if I must, there is no legal prohibition of it.
But if one has the toolage, and the knowledge, and the ability, one can simply make their own. By my logic no one's labor was necessary but my own. By your logic, my firearms must be maintained by a gunsmith, and not myself. Maintenance on a firearm is a responsibility, not a right. Being able to afford a tool is a responsibility, not a right. And by afford, I do not merely mean having the means to purchase (money), that also means ability, and time and materials if one decides to make one oneself. It is not a manufacturers responsibility to supply you with a tool. It is a privilege extended to those that do not have the ability or necessary knowledge and tooling, to do so. You have a right to purchase or manufacture. They have no responsibility to you to supply it.
machining is a solution; to which you don’t have access to at this present time.
you have done little in your argument to prove that there is no labor required to exercise the 2nd amendment right. people who have worked hard to manufacture guns and bullets for people to be able to buy should be outraged that you have dismissed their labor.
you are not entitled to their work, so you can arm yourself against a tyrannical government or home invader.
the issue is not the 2nd amendment; but rather the faulty argument “ rights don’t require the labor of others “ — they most certainly do... we don’t live in an automated system, we need people to make it work.
another right? lets see the right to an attorney; who pays for that? is the attorney volunteer?? certainly we cannot expect the labor of others to provide a “right”
give up on this argument, it has failed you... i know, political dogma won’t allow it.
its one of those things that just sounds really clever; the 1st time i heard it i was like “wow! i never thought of it that way” —
but upon any deeper inspection, you come to realize just how retarded the statement is. Nothing about the statement is true, also its a nonsense concept. you’re thinking about the rights given to us by God, however, we are also afforded rights by society. The things we are granted access to by virtue of our existence and participation in civilization.
and to participate, we need others to come to the table. we cannot fend for ourselves and exist on our own, we need each other to survive, that is the law of nature. So the rights we seek to preserve must be agreed upon, thus requiring ‘the labor’ of someone else. The structure which ‘guarantees’ our rights is propped up with our taxes, or, our labor. so the very foundation of the argument is flat wrong... unless you wanna go live in the woods and provide everything for yourself, someone else’s labor is very much involved... so stop pretending you climbed out your mother’s vag ready to battle the elements and fend for yourself; you’re not Conan the Barbarian. lol
You have a right to have an attorney present to speak for you. You still have to pay for the service. Unless they volunteer to waive the cost. The right lays in the ability of yourself to have the possibility of that which the constitution guarantees, which flows from God. Not the state. Being able to do so, whether via your own mind and physical ability, or ability to enlist others' via physical labor (manufacturing, legal counsel, whatever...) is the right. It is not a right to FORCE others to do any damned thing if they chose not to do so for you. And if no one is willing to a) manufacture firearms, and b) represent you as legal counsel, you have the RIGHT to do so yourself, whether you have the ability or not.
“ Overview. The right to counsel refers to the right of a criminal defendant to have a lawyer assist in his defense, even if he cannot afford to pay for an attorney. The Sixth Amendment gives defendants the right to counsel in federal prosecutions.”
so who is paying for this? legal counsel from heaven??
Non profits, the state assumes the debt, or volunteers. What if no one steps up. They all (attorneys) decide to quit, take a vacation..... what are you gonna do, chain an attorney in a court room?
except, all of those termination points, represent someone’s labor.
even the right to a ‘fair trial’ requires an entire team of officials to conduct.
besides; you’re missing the entire point behind arguing against a statement i never made ( i never said ‘healthcare is/should be a right’ ) — also as i have clearly demonstrated and pointed out numerous times; rights require labor; continuing to hold this stance is foolish, and really does nothing to further the discourse on a serious issue impacting millions of american citizens.
All those termination points relate to others offering services for a cost. Not them having a responsibility to do so without their consent. You have a right to life, right? Does your life require the labor of others? Do they have a responsibility to labor for you, for you to live? You need a roof over your head to live a healthy life out of the weather, no? You have a right to live, and that requires clothing to aid in protection from weather elements? You have a right to live which requires food? All these are encompassed under the right to life. However, the responsibility to provide those things lays with you, and you alone. You have to pay for clothing. You have to pay for food. You have to pay rent, or a contractor, or seller, to obtain a home/dwelling. It is not anyone else's responsibility to provide anything for you. Even if it is a right, you must have the means to obtain it. The same goes for firearms.
Conserve - to save, or preserve. the pursuit of using resources efficiently.
making healthcare available to all LEGAL CITIZENS, would actually create a healthier more productive society, and eliminate the need for Health insurance companies which contribute nothing and only syphon money, a literal parasite. and Conservatives despise parasites, so shaking them off would actually be very conservative.
And you think the government can do better? PLEASE! You’re absolutely ignorant to think that. Get the fucking government out of my healthcare and keep them out.
ah yes, i’ve heard this one before: its too late, the government is already involved in everyone’s healthcare...
the problem with government is a lack of efficiency, their solution is to throw enough money at a problem and it will go away...
now we can talk about all the ‘conservative’ contradictions;
The military is run by the incompetent government. Local municipals including the police are run by the incompetent government. public parks are run by the incompetent government. the post office is the longest government institution aside from the marines, both incompetently run by our government.
we can do this all day. there is no private solution, because you cannot profit from human health, we are in a state of constant decline. we are dying everyday, and to pretend otherwise is living in a fantasy more delusional than seeing nothing wrong with the current system...
its not a matter of, i can afford it for me and my family, let that man die in the street. its we all cover a basic need to survive. speaking of needs, the worlds most advanced and strongest military, is not a ‘need’ — but nothing stops us from funding that.
so get rid of the military, the police, and public institutions because a government has a hand in it. Talk about a failed state... lets go back to the days of living in caves and beating rocks with sticks... lol
foolish, to think you have made a case against fixing a broken system.
No, those are actually the few roles of government. Healthcare isn't. Sorry, but you have no conceptual framework and basis for what you're talking about.
when you drive your car that doesnt explode down the street, that is fairly maintained, to a grocery store that sells food you can expect to be safe and free from deadly chemicals... you should thank the efforts of our bureaucratic overlords at the government. they made that possible... you need to watch the documentary on youtube ‘millionaires in the congo’ by DW.
its 42 min long and VERY compelling. i promise you its a fantastic documentary.
by comparison our government is a finetuned machine...
No you're actually wrong. Because a car that explodes on the street wouldn't be in business long enough for anyone to buy, based on the free-market, not the government. Secondly, the safe food and drug act were landmark laws which do very good, however one could visit a farm and purchase his beef and pork and be free from those laws, yet still safe. This isn't an argument on the necessity of bureaucracies, but rather the government at the center of a service. Get them the fuck out of 99% of the things they stick their nose in. You're on the wrong site my friend, or else have a warped view of what conservatism is. You cannot compare our government to backwater Congo. It's apples and rocks. So, I'm sorry but your values don't align with any form of conservatism regarding healthcare.
the hollywood elite that want to murder your family are not on welfare.
people on welfare don’t even know you exist. they are the bottom feeders, and i doubt anyone would want to trade places with them because they get a ‘free ride’ - resent them?? i pity them.
Get the fuck out, Nikki Haley. You smell weird.
i don’t know who that is... but, my dick smells like lavender and cedar wood.
You must not have kids in public school.
bitch, i graduated from the hellhole that is public school, and i turned out just fine.
Except that you are promoting socialism. 🤡 Lay off the Jimmy Dore
a little bit of socialism never hurt anyone. ;3
Since you're a genius economist who's got this all figured out, who's going to pay for it?
well we need a top down approach. Regulate and standardize costs. make a resolution to make hospitals ‘public’ and liquidate/downsize the Board of directors, put them on a government pay scale (GS12+). those that opt out of the program can keep their board and remain private hospitals with government subsidies to manage.
Completely dissolve all insurance companies; or just circumvent them entirely, as they are a useless middleman, literally bloat, that contribute nothing to ‘healthcare’.
and finally the answer to your question, my patriotic friend, you and i would cover the costs with our taxes that we pay ( ok you can have your melt down now ); but keep in mind: no more monthly premiums, no more minimum deductibles to ‘buy in to your plan’ just to use what you are already paying for. medicaid/medicare and associated taxes would be rolled into those costs (at a reduced amount because: lower overall threshold, more people paying into the system) ... this COULD possibly result in a reduction of overall expenses... also your car insurance rates would drop, because they would no longer be liable to cover medical bills... thank you and every american that contributes the funding of our healthcare system.
i am glad you guys took the time to engage me in conversation, especially given the controversial nature of the subject on a conservative leaning forum.
As someone who has always been slightly left of center, i recognize the virtues of hard work and integrity. i also value the american way of life and believe we need to return to being a patriotic sovereign nation with borders and laws that are applied fairly and equally. If america succeeds economically, we should all prosper.
thats my reason for supporting a system that would care for everyone, young and old, rich or poor, elite or freeloader. i know its not popular, but it would be a win for the american people, if we can make it work.... believe me, we can make it work.
Since demographic changes are set in stone, this will be the future of the Conservative party.
Current Democrats will turn into UK Conservatives. Current Republicans will turn into Current Democrats.
This country is the victim of the retarded Immigration Act and Illegal immigration whose children are being taught by the Critical Theory educational systems.
we need to accept change and move forward along the progression path. True great nations move with the times, abandoning lofty fantasies(goals) and superstition.
The plan goes some thing like this:
"Don't get sick".
"If you do get sick, too bad for you".
thats the current system, so if there is literally no difference, i guess i can count that as a yes.
Communism under any other name is communism. Anything that requires the physical labor of another is not a right.
Well the 2nd amendment is a right, and i am certain you didn’t manufacture your own gun, so there ya go.
The 2A only affirms our right to possess weapons it does not supply them at the expense of others.
still gotta buy em to exercise that right. therefore requiring the labor of another to provide you with the Ability to exercise that right.
there is no firearm tree out there... some one had to make that gun. unless you think you’re entitled to government issue weapons, which i wouldn’t be opposed to that either.
Our right is to keep and bear Arms and to not have the government be able to say we can't, there is nobody's labor involved in that.. When you exercise your right, you buy them with your money to compensate the manufacturer and they compensate their workers for said labor.
someone had to clock in, to make that gun. <— required labor.
you buying a gun didn’t allow that man to sleep in that morning.
he went to work, thus providing you a gun, supplied by someone else’s labor... you know what, Build-a-Firearm! there we go, imma patent that original idea! =p
you go in, choose the stock, choose the sight, ammo type, finish. add ons and boom, you built your own firearm, 2nd amendment approved.
Apparently machining is only available to the elite?
tell you what; show me a picture of your CNC, Autocad Computer, and steel forge, and i will glady take you at your word that you manufactured your own rifle.
I never said I did. Nor did I insinuate I had those things at this time. But purchasing a too to exercise a right is not in fact, the right itself. One offers the product, one purchases. That is the priviledge. The right exists in that I am able to manufacture the tool myself if I so choose, or if I must, there is no legal prohibition of it.
so buying the gun is not the right;
owning the gun is the right...
but how do you own a gun with out buying it?
by your logic banning all gun sales does not violate the 2nd amendment.
unless guns must be made available for us to purchase, thus requiring someone’s labor.
But if one has the toolage, and the knowledge, and the ability, one can simply make their own. By my logic no one's labor was necessary but my own. By your logic, my firearms must be maintained by a gunsmith, and not myself. Maintenance on a firearm is a responsibility, not a right. Being able to afford a tool is a responsibility, not a right. And by afford, I do not merely mean having the means to purchase (money), that also means ability, and time and materials if one decides to make one oneself. It is not a manufacturers responsibility to supply you with a tool. It is a privilege extended to those that do not have the ability or necessary knowledge and tooling, to do so. You have a right to purchase or manufacture. They have no responsibility to you to supply it.
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/turning-ploughshares-into-swords-man-builds-ak-47-from-shovel/
machining is a solution; to which you don’t have access to at this present time.
you have done little in your argument to prove that there is no labor required to exercise the 2nd amendment right. people who have worked hard to manufacture guns and bullets for people to be able to buy should be outraged that you have dismissed their labor.
you are not entitled to their work, so you can arm yourself against a tyrannical government or home invader.
And I am so glad that our founders had autocad to help with their designs. It's such a hassle to math designs with a pencil.
ouch... perhaps leave the sarcasm and jokes to me.
the issue is not the 2nd amendment; but rather the faulty argument “ rights don’t require the labor of others “ — they most certainly do... we don’t live in an automated system, we need people to make it work.
another right? lets see the right to an attorney; who pays for that? is the attorney volunteer?? certainly we cannot expect the labor of others to provide a “right”
give up on this argument, it has failed you... i know, political dogma won’t allow it.
“Rights don’t require the Labor of others”
its one of those things that just sounds really clever; the 1st time i heard it i was like “wow! i never thought of it that way” —
but upon any deeper inspection, you come to realize just how retarded the statement is. Nothing about the statement is true, also its a nonsense concept. you’re thinking about the rights given to us by God, however, we are also afforded rights by society. The things we are granted access to by virtue of our existence and participation in civilization.
and to participate, we need others to come to the table. we cannot fend for ourselves and exist on our own, we need each other to survive, that is the law of nature. So the rights we seek to preserve must be agreed upon, thus requiring ‘the labor’ of someone else. The structure which ‘guarantees’ our rights is propped up with our taxes, or, our labor. so the very foundation of the argument is flat wrong... unless you wanna go live in the woods and provide everything for yourself, someone else’s labor is very much involved... so stop pretending you climbed out your mother’s vag ready to battle the elements and fend for yourself; you’re not Conan the Barbarian. lol
You have a right to have an attorney present to speak for you. You still have to pay for the service. Unless they volunteer to waive the cost. The right lays in the ability of yourself to have the possibility of that which the constitution guarantees, which flows from God. Not the state. Being able to do so, whether via your own mind and physical ability, or ability to enlist others' via physical labor (manufacturing, legal counsel, whatever...) is the right. It is not a right to FORCE others to do any damned thing if they chose not to do so for you. And if no one is willing to a) manufacture firearms, and b) represent you as legal counsel, you have the RIGHT to do so yourself, whether you have the ability or not.
“ Overview. The right to counsel refers to the right of a criminal defendant to have a lawyer assist in his defense, even if he cannot afford to pay for an attorney. The Sixth Amendment gives defendants the right to counsel in federal prosecutions.”
so who is paying for this? legal counsel from heaven??
seems like this Right requires someone’s labor.
as do all the other rights.
Non profits, the state assumes the debt, or volunteers. What if no one steps up. They all (attorneys) decide to quit, take a vacation..... what are you gonna do, chain an attorney in a court room?
except, all of those termination points, represent someone’s labor.
even the right to a ‘fair trial’ requires an entire team of officials to conduct.
besides; you’re missing the entire point behind arguing against a statement i never made ( i never said ‘healthcare is/should be a right’ ) — also as i have clearly demonstrated and pointed out numerous times; rights require labor; continuing to hold this stance is foolish, and really does nothing to further the discourse on a serious issue impacting millions of american citizens.
All those termination points relate to others offering services for a cost. Not them having a responsibility to do so without their consent. You have a right to life, right? Does your life require the labor of others? Do they have a responsibility to labor for you, for you to live? You need a roof over your head to live a healthy life out of the weather, no? You have a right to live, and that requires clothing to aid in protection from weather elements? You have a right to live which requires food? All these are encompassed under the right to life. However, the responsibility to provide those things lays with you, and you alone. You have to pay for clothing. You have to pay for food. You have to pay rent, or a contractor, or seller, to obtain a home/dwelling. It is not anyone else's responsibility to provide anything for you. Even if it is a right, you must have the means to obtain it. The same goes for firearms.
No way. It goes against conservatism
Conserve - to save, or preserve. the pursuit of using resources efficiently.
making healthcare available to all LEGAL CITIZENS, would actually create a healthier more productive society, and eliminate the need for Health insurance companies which contribute nothing and only syphon money, a literal parasite. and Conservatives despise parasites, so shaking them off would actually be very conservative.
And you think the government can do better? PLEASE! You’re absolutely ignorant to think that. Get the fucking government out of my healthcare and keep them out.
ah yes, i’ve heard this one before: its too late, the government is already involved in everyone’s healthcare... the problem with government is a lack of efficiency, their solution is to throw enough money at a problem and it will go away...
now we can talk about all the ‘conservative’ contradictions;
The military is run by the incompetent government. Local municipals including the police are run by the incompetent government. public parks are run by the incompetent government. the post office is the longest government institution aside from the marines, both incompetently run by our government.
we can do this all day. there is no private solution, because you cannot profit from human health, we are in a state of constant decline. we are dying everyday, and to pretend otherwise is living in a fantasy more delusional than seeing nothing wrong with the current system...
its not a matter of, i can afford it for me and my family, let that man die in the street. its we all cover a basic need to survive. speaking of needs, the worlds most advanced and strongest military, is not a ‘need’ — but nothing stops us from funding that.
Your argument makes my point. Good Day.
so get rid of the military, the police, and public institutions because a government has a hand in it. Talk about a failed state... lets go back to the days of living in caves and beating rocks with sticks... lol
foolish, to think you have made a case against fixing a broken system.
No, those are actually the few roles of government. Healthcare isn't. Sorry, but you have no conceptual framework and basis for what you're talking about.
when you drive your car that doesnt explode down the street, that is fairly maintained, to a grocery store that sells food you can expect to be safe and free from deadly chemicals... you should thank the efforts of our bureaucratic overlords at the government. they made that possible... you need to watch the documentary on youtube ‘millionaires in the congo’ by DW.
its 42 min long and VERY compelling. i promise you its a fantastic documentary.
by comparison our government is a finetuned machine...
No you're actually wrong. Because a car that explodes on the street wouldn't be in business long enough for anyone to buy, based on the free-market, not the government. Secondly, the safe food and drug act were landmark laws which do very good, however one could visit a farm and purchase his beef and pork and be free from those laws, yet still safe. This isn't an argument on the necessity of bureaucracies, but rather the government at the center of a service. Get them the fuck out of 99% of the things they stick their nose in. You're on the wrong site my friend, or else have a warped view of what conservatism is. You cannot compare our government to backwater Congo. It's apples and rocks. So, I'm sorry but your values don't align with any form of conservatism regarding healthcare.
well, then, what is the ‘conservative solution’ to healthcare ? status quo ?? abolish medicaid/medicare ??
you do realize you’re cherry picking what functions as a government institution, as if those things are good merely by accident.
Nah, why should my tax dollars go to people who want to murder me and my family?
but their tax payer dollars are going to you too~
Which dollars are these? The ones that come from welfare?
the hollywood elite that want to murder your family are not on welfare.
people on welfare don’t even know you exist. they are the bottom feeders, and i doubt anyone would want to trade places with them because they get a ‘free ride’ - resent them?? i pity them.