Text 12613, 145 rader
Skriven 2010-04-06 16:08:00 av BOB KLAHN (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av BOB ACKLEY
Ärende: Obama Derangement Syndrom
=================================
 TR>>>>> Much of the healthcare bill foisted on America by this
 TR>>>>> president is for the `have nots' at the expense ofthe
 TR>>>>> `haves'. Thats socialism.

 DD>>>> That's compassion, more like. And healthcare is, IMO, a
 DD>>>> legitimate function of gummint.

 BA>>> Why do you suppose the founders managed to avoid any
 BA>>> mention of such things when they set up the national
 BA>>> government here?

 BK>>  Perhaps because there was so little health care possible
 BK>> then  that they didn't even consider it?

 BA> Doctors had been around for a couple of centuries before
 BA> this country was founded.

 Physicians were known in the time of Plato. That doesn't mean
 there was a lot they could do.

 BA> The founders certainly knew what
 BA> health care was, and yet they neglected to make any mention
 BA> of it in the nation's founding documents.  FWIW they didn't
 BA> mention public education, either.

 Yep, and maybe that was because there was such poor
 communications that little could be done for health care from
 any distant place, and education was so well entrenched as a
 public function they didn't consider it necessary to worry about
 it.

 BA>>> And, of course, they DID write that
 BA>>> anything they didn't cover was the responsibility of the
 BA>>> states or of the people.

 BK>>  Well, not really. They reserved it, the did not assign it.

 BA> If the Constitution doesn't assign a specific power to the
 BA> national government that government doesn't have it.  The
 BA> national government cannot assume powers that the
 BA> Constitution doesn't give it.

 That does not respond to what I said.

 Just because the federal govt is not allowed to do something
 that doesn't mean the states can.

 BA>>> Since you think health care should be provided by the
 BA>>> government, you should also support the government takeover
 BA>>> of the food production and distribution system in this
 BA>>> country.  People will die a whole lot quicker without food
 BA>>> than they will without health care.

 BK>>  And you still can't understand what you yourself said. You
 BK>> are  the one who kept saying insurance was not to provide
 BK>> health  care, but to manage risk. Now that is absurd on the
 BK>> face of it,  but your comment above contradicts that.

 BA> Insurance *IS* part of risk management.

 Yeah, for the patient, not the insurance company.

 BK>>  The whole point of national health care, which is nothing
 BK>> other  than insurance, is to spread the risk of a
 BK>> possibility we know  will happen, but do not know when and
 BK>> to whom.

 BA> Hardly.  The point is to *control* the health care system,
 BA> just as Medicare is about the *control* of health care
 BA> provided to the elderly in this country.

 Which is so silly as to not even count as a meaningful
 statement. You seem to think you know the motives of everyone
 who disagrees with you.

 BK>>  You can round up 1000 randomly selected people, and I can
 BK>>  guarantee every single one of them will require food within
 BK>> the  next two weeks, or they will never require food again.

 BK>>  You cannot tell me which of that 1000 people will require
 BK>> what  medical care in the next two weeks.

 BA> True.

 BK>>  That is the difference, and that makes your challenge a
 BK>> fraud.

 BK>>  On top of that, you mischaracterise National Health Care.
 BK>> It  doesn't take over health care, it just guarantees it
 BK>> will be  covered.

 BA> No it doesn't.  That may be what Obama is claiming, but it
 BA> isn't true.

 Oh? Then how does it control but not insure coverage?

 BK>>  And I do support the idea that the government should
 BK>> guarantee  food to those who are unable to provide for
 BK>> themselves. Esp  since the alternative is starvation.

 BA>>> BTW, just in case you think you have a "right" to clean
 BA>>> drinking water, try not paying your municipal water bill.

 BK>>  And you just took another shot at your own position. We do
 BK>> pay  our water bill, we will pay for medical care. I do
 BK>> have a right  to clean drinking water, and a responsibility
 BK>> to pay for it.

 BA> Good.  Then your right to health care includes the
 BA> responsibility that *you* pay for it.

 Yep, and we do. National health care includes insurance
 exchanges where you can buy your own insurance, and continues
 employer provided insurance, and subsidies for insurance for
 those who cannot afford it. All nice private sector insurance.

 Medicare and medicaid are not significantly affected.

 BK>>  You may have a well, but is the water clean?

 BA> It is not treated.  Out of the well pump into the water
 BA> taps in the house, no filters.

 BK>> Have you had it  tested?

 BA> Yes.

 BK>> Is it poluted by industries that the government
 BK>> didn't  regulate because too many people said the govt
 BK>> shouldn't  regulate?

 BA> No.  My well water has a high but not unsafe concentration
 BA> of nitrates because it's located in the middle of a corn
 BA> field.

 If it wasn't safe, what would you do? Tap into a non-existant
 municipal system? Your clean water challenge falls on that
 basis.

BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... --- Experiencing synaptical difficulties;  Please stand by.
 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)