Bernie Sanders vs Ted Cruz CNN Debate The future of Obama Care.

Originally posted by whodey
I think all Trump wants to do is get rid of the mandate for citizens as well as employers.

He cares nothing about the mounting debt.

The left is in the dubious position of trying to defend the ACA because they just shoved it down our throats with the ink not even being dry, but not admitting it was just one painful step to force universal coverage.

A ...[text shortened]... s before throwing it under the bus and ultimately blaming the GOP for it in some way or another.

Get rid of the mandate for citizens and employers while keeping the regulations that have caused the premiums to skyrocket, and uninsured rates will go right back up (though the subset of uninsured people might change a little from pre-ACA days).

Originally posted by sh76
Get rid of the mandate for citizens and employers while keeping the regulations that have caused the premiums to skyrocket, and uninsured rates will go right back up (though the subset of uninsured people might change a little from pre-ACA days).

Anytime the government is on the dole for paying anything rates increase exponentially.

Just look at how the cost of college has been exploding after the government took over the student loan business.

What is sobering is, if government takes over every aspect of health care as they did for the VA, will we wind up on death lists as well, assuming we become too expensive to care for?

Will they treat us any better than they do those who were willing to give their lives for the government officials who sent them off to fight?

Originally posted by sh76
I thought it was an excellent debate. Cruz may have far right political views, but he's an intelligent guy. Sanders is also one of the few truly genuine politicians on the national stage.

I thought there were holes on both senators' arguments and I don't think either "won" the debate. Cruz hammered home the idea of opening more competition in health insuran ...[text shortened]... 't have a President who's intellectually capable of engaging in this sort of discussion, though.

Cruz was my first choice for President, but that's water under the bridge.
It was a good debate, But I would like to see one that would answer many of the posters here, who comment on how great Obamacare is.
I also do not think Healthcare is a right, but now that Obama opened Pandora's box I would like to hear more about the Republicans lower cost plans.
Trump claims it will be more affordable and cover more people.

Originally posted by sh76
I thought it was an excellent debate. Cruz may have far right political views, but he's an intelligent guy. Sanders is also one of the few truly genuine politicians on the national stage.

I thought there were holes on both senators' arguments and I don't think either "won" the debate. Cruz hammered home the idea of opening more competition in health insuran ...[text shortened]... 't have a President who's intellectually capable of engaging in this sort of discussion, though.

"(I don't think there can be a human right to make someone else give you something.)"

The state of California, for one, holds parents responsible for the well-being of their children. Placing the child at risk of harm can be punishable. On the financial side of this, the state can go after either parent; whichever has the wherewithal; or both. Parents know this or should, going in, and ignorance is no excuse. In extreme circumstance the state is empowered by society to step in.

Surely you can see how obligations on parents and caregivers to provide for the physical and emotional well-being of others can arise in society, even if it is an imposition upon freedoms.

Originally posted by whodey
Here is a thought, instead of the US doing all the dirty work for Europe militarily, like kicking out Gaddafi so Europe could have their oil, perhaps the US could afford adequate health care.

Oh, I forgot, Europe is entitled to it.

You're being an idiot as usual - all European countries including ones that are much wealthier than the U.S. have lower health care costs per citizen than the U.S.

Originally posted by sh76
I thought it was an excellent debate. Cruz may have far right political views, but he's an intelligent guy. Sanders is also one of the few truly genuine politicians on the national stage.

I thought there were holes on both senators' arguments and I don't think either "won" the debate. Cruz hammered home the idea of opening more competition in health insuran ...[text shortened]... 't have a President who's intellectually capable of engaging in this sort of discussion, though.

What rights do not involve forcing others to (not) do something?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
What rights do not involve forcing others to (not) do something?

You do realize, I assume, that the word "not" you inserted in parentheses and which was not there in my initial point, is precisely the word on which my entire point turned, correct?

I have a right to not be killed or hurt by you.

I have a right to not have my freedoms interfered with by others, including, and especially, government.

I have a right to my own privacy, to raise my own children, to do what I want in my spheres as long as I don't interfere with those of others, etc.

I do not have the right to force you to create something for me.

Providing healthcare and education for all may be a good idea, but no natural rights theory can posit that everyone had the right to force society to provide free healthcare and education for him.

Originally posted by JS357
"(I don't think there can be a human right to make someone else give you something.)"

The state of California, for one, holds parents responsible for the well-being of their children. Placing the child at risk of harm can be punishable. On the financial side of this, the state can go after either parent; whichever has the wherewithal; or both. Parents know ...[text shortened]... emotional well-being of others can arise in society, even if it is an imposition upon freedoms.

Just as there are rights, there are surely obligations as well.

Parents have an enforceable obligation to provide adequate care for those they choose to bring into the world. This is practically a corollary to the natural right to raise one's children as one sees fit.

Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't take it upon ourselves as a society to provide everyone with healthcare. That's a much closer question. But nobody has a legally enforceable right to force someone else to produce something for him. The parent-child example is different because it's self-evident to all that if you bring a child into the world, the child will be dependent upon you for support and maintenance. You knowingly chose to bring the child into the world (or engaged in behavior that made such a possibility) and so can reasonably be expected to have done so with an understanding of the responsibilities that implies.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
You're being an idiot as usual - all European countries including ones that are much wealthier than the U.S. have lower health care costs per citizen than the U.S.

Sure, and the VA was doing a bang up job keeping costs down as well.

The Alt left cares nothing about fiscal policy UNTIL it comes to our health care. Then all of a sudden they want to make cuts and save money while we are fighting for our lives.

Originally posted by sh76
....Providing healthcare and education for all may be a good idea, but no natural rights theory can posit that everyone had the right to force society to provide free healthcare and education for him.

I think natural rights theory is a grand idea if you are living out on your own without need of civilization. Once you live among great numbers of people, then civilized values and norms to some extent limit your natural rights. You can debate the degree to which those limits should impinge your rights, but you will have to acknowledge that you have to give up some of your rights to benefit from the commons that is societies combined, wealth, knowledge and social values.

Once you agree to live in a society, you also must agree that the health of the society has priority and rights. This is why we have political parties and political/ideological movements because the argument over which rights should be limited is not universally agreed upon.

Having universal healthcare as a right, some would argue, guarantees a society that is more cohesive, one in which the desperation of being poor, does not lead to criminal activity which has greater impact on those affected than any amount of money in taxes they may be levied to support a universal right health system. Same applies to welfare and low income housing. Other than government being in your pocket as you would have, the benefits to a society that has these social safety nets in place is invaluable.

But if absolute freedoms and absolute natural rights are all you would argue, then how is America ever to evolve beyond the wild west at its fringes? How is it ever to avoid the gated communities and preoccupation with security the way they had to in apartheid South Africa.

All your natural rights theory falls down when you see what it actually emboldens and strengthens. The rights of corporations to run roughshod over people and natural resources. That's what.

Originally posted by kmax87
I think natural rights theory is a grand idea if you are living out on your own without need of civilization. Once you live among great numbers of people, then civilized values and norms to some extent limit your natural rights. You can debate the degree to which those limits should impinge your rights, but you will have to acknowledge that you have to give u ...[text shortened]... ens. The rights of corporations to run roughshod over people and natural resources. That's what.

I know of no natural rights theory that says artificial entities like corporations possess them.

Originally posted by kmax87
And on this very point anyone not living in America just shakes their head and says how is it than in Europe, Britain, Canada and Australia, which all qualify as successful Western democracies, our citizens are not forced with this choice, yet in the land of the free and the home of the brave you've allowed capital before people to dictate who gets health care? Do you realize just how insane that sounds?

Talking about the hypocrisy of the ultra powerful and wealthy preaching moral and fiduciary obligations to those providing actual wage opportunities for others.
What has Congress wrought?

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Bernie Sanders vs Ted Cruz CNN Debate The future of Obama Care.


During CNN's Ted Cruz-Bernie Sanders debate on Tuesday, the business owner, who operates several hair salons in Texas, asked Sanders how she can comply with Obamacare without passing on costs to customers or lowering her employees’ wages. She said she has just under 50 employees.
“Let ...[text shortened]... xas-salon-owner-tells-bernie-her-business-cant-afford-obamacare-his-response-stops-viewers-cold/

The business owner quickly shot back:

“So my question is how do I do that without raising my prices to my customers or lowing the wages to my employees?”


UMM, make less profit?

Apparently that idea never occurred to the business owner. In fact, worker's share of corporate income has dropped significantly in the last 15 years.http://www.epi.org/publication/the-decline-in-labors-share-of-corporate-income-since-2000-means-535-billion-less-for-workers/

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Talking about the hypocrisy of the ultra powerful and wealthy preaching moral and fiduciary obligations to those providing actual wage opportunities for others.
What has Congress wrought?

It's always funny to hear right wingers pretend that business owners are performing a public service by taking the surplus value of employer's work for their personal enrichment.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I know of no natural rights theory that says artificial entities like corporations possess them.

If natural rights leads to a system where no-one is compelled either by lack of civic duty and pride or by legislation to feel any responsibility toward their fellow man, then corporations imbued with that me first me only attitude will rule the roost to the detriment of society and the individual.