Papa John Is Mad About Obama Care

Voyage,

Go back and read my post you responded to, without assuming any negativism directed towards you, and respond to it civilly and I will do the same. Like my original question asking "What's the basis of claim to universal healthcare being a human right?", some of what you seemed to take offense to was inserted only to make clear what I was using as the basis of my views.

 

1. I did read your post throughly. That's why I quoted bits of it in response. The bits quoted were addressed to me, that's why I took them that way.
2. A few posts back, based on a few things you said like making clear your definition of rights, I agreed there is no basis of claim to universal healthcare.

And if I came across offended, it's only because I take some of your comments as talking down to me, which is why I did the same back, to make a point.

And I hope I did. When we, as a society, reduce all our dialogue to that kind of exchange, then we get where you got.

Fuck it, im going home.

I was seriously engaging you on your question and have made a point to be civil. Which is where I am back to now.

I strongly feel the health care system in this country is a national issue. Eliminate all cross state health systems in place today and then it can be a state only issue.
However I also strongly feel that we have bound ourselves together under one country. With states, counties and cities. A collective society. And as such we need to find ways to work together as a people.
It's good to have strong opinions as you and I both do. But it's not going to move us forward as a people to hold so fast to those opinions in an absolute sense that we wind up in a perpetual state of detante. That's why I used the bible thumping fundamentalist analogy. I've no more issue with christians than I do with libertarians such as you. I consider myself one as well.

But, if I am to hold the libertarian ideal dear, I must also respect that idea of liberty in you as well. Liberty is a two way street, is it not?

Not to talk down to you, but this is rarely discussed any more. Liberty is a two way street. One way, is our rights. The other way is responsibility.

If I am to expect my rights, I am also to respect yours.

Liberty is where those two ideals merge.

 

Yes a very resource rich country.
We have the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. That means that we should have a right to healthcare. As taxpaying, law abiding, reproducing (some of us) citizens the state should guarantee that basic lifesaving and life preserving opportunities be available to all her citizens. It’s in the social contract!

 

What social contract are you talking about?

 

As this is an open forum, each post is read by others who also are free to respond, so it often becomes necessary to elaborate more than would be necessary if we were having a private conversation.

That was all I asked in the original post, and we agree but there remain a good many others who appear not to agree.

I had no intent to talk 'down' to you, simply trying to make myself clear as to what my view is and what it is based on, which may not have been necessary for your consumption, but maybe helpful for others.

Thank you.

That might be what we need to examine in minute detail if any progress is to be achieved in finding a solution that all can agree on.

I don't quite agree with how far you go in the above statement, especially when you insert the term 'collective society'. We are united as a single nation only to the degree each State accepted as the terms of becoming a member State.

I don't know that I would/could call myself a Libertarian, or even a Republican, but only could say with any degree of certainty that my views are most often to the Right of Center especially when speaking of the Federal government. I can be somewhat more moderate and close to Center when speaking of State government, and even a little Left of Center when speaking of Local government or the community I live in.
That is what in my opinion allows us each to maintain and exercise the freedom and Liberties defined by our Constitution.

I agree if you mean that my Liberty is not acquired by taking Liberty away from you or others.

I totally agree that in addition to our rights we also bear responsibilities, but we can get carried away with how we each might interpret that.

Should we ever cross paths, I'm certain I would not have any intent to infringe upon your Liberty, nor would I suspect you would on mine.

 

Perhaps it's not a bad thing to listen to different opinions and experiences. I'm not trying to convince anyone, not my motivation to be here.

Hope so, thanks.

We're never going to all agree on anything. No group ever has or will but you know that

So you disagree with the notion of the United States being a collective society? Why?

 

I think your statement, shown here above your question answers that.

 

Question for those who are opposed to the healthcare, in saying that it is forced upon them, shoved down your throats.

Could one not say the same about your troops at war? I know a lot of your ppl think they should be brought back home, but yet it is forced down their throats to keep having to pay taxes to keep this ongoing?

Ask your ppl which they would rather pay for.......

 

Sounds like a good question for a new thread, but has nothing to do with this threads topic.

 

I'd like to know why universal health care is good enough for the Iraqi Constitution (directed by the Bush Administration) but is an argument here.

Just because we no longer have combat troops in Iraq doesn't mean we aren't paying buttloads of money there in the form of contractors.

Sorry but I'm scratching my head over that statement.

 

Article 31:
First: Every citizen has the right to health care. The State shall maintain public health and provide the means of prevention and treatment by building different types of hospitals and health institutions.

How does this translate to single-payer-universal-health-care?
It's a little vague.

'The UNICEF/WHO report noted that prior to 1990, 97 percent of the urban dwellers and 71 percent of the rural population had access to free primary health care; just 2 percent of hospital beds were privately managed.'

(must have been the first Bush admin')

 

I found what is supposed to be the full text. And added article 32.

What about this isn't single payer? Not that I used that phrase.

http://www.uniraq.org/documents/iraqi_constitution.pdf

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/12/AR2005101201450.html

Wouldn't be surprised if the single payer turns out to be us, in the form of 'aid'.

I'm not taking a stance for or against, just wonder why it's good enough for them and not for us.

Read more:

Damn, I should move to Iraq.

 

I got it from that link...

It doesn't actually say who or how this health care is being funded (international aid?).
How extensive this healthcare is (is it being severely rationed and only basic healthcare is provided?) is, and how it is going to be administered.
What does 'U.S. Department of Health & Human Services' do?
What does 'U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps' do?

Universal healthcare means more than 'The State cares for the handicapped and those with special needs '
I could in theory have 1 million pounds worth of treatment afforded to me - do you think that is true in Iraq?
What's the health system doing as as we speak? providing free care for all? .

I get the point you are trying to make. It just doesn't stack up if you scrutinise it, imho.

 

Then how would you define the word 'collective'? The United States is made up of people who differ greatly in many ways from one another, and that is very frequently pointed out in these forums. As the number of issues which our Federal government involves itself in grow, the greater the divisions between groups who disagree become, and to allow the Federal government to become the deciding force requires that laws be created imposing upon those who disagree. Our government was founded on principles in which the power of the Federal government was meant to be limited by what was enumerated in the Constitution.

Probably we are wasting time in each thread trying to discuss issues as most every issue is directly related to how our government is supposed to work at different levels, Federal, State, and local.

 

what exactly is racist about what i said? because i assumed he was italian because he owns a chain of restaurants serving italian food?

 

Why even insert ethnicity into the topic? Is he not an American? Is Herman Cain Italian too? It would appear to me that too much emphasis is placed on assumption in these forums, which more often than not distracts from resolving anything at all.

Would you refer to Richard McDonald, who founded McDonald's, a German because it's a chain of restaurants serving hamburgers?

Too often I see persons who speak against what Obama is doing/has done as President being called racist simply because he is black, while totally ignoring what the complaint refers to. It's time to either drop this line of commenting or give it equal usage across the political spectrum.

 

except that black people are often discriminated against in your country, and white people aren't, generally.

you've got enough stupid arguments on the go on this forum right now, do you really need to bother with another one?

 

Just responding to a stupid comment. And more related to the topic, it appears that the corporate owned Papa Johns do provide health care, so what's the point of this thread topic?

 

in what way?

 

http://www.nyclu.org/issues/racial-justice/stop-and-frisk-practices