Tonight's Debate
Find a Conversation
Tonight's Debate
| Tue, 10-07-2008 - 10:21pm |
is anyone watching the debate? What do you think so far? Who is 'winning'? They don't seem to be answering many audience questions.
| Tue, 10-07-2008 - 10:21pm |
is anyone watching the debate? What do you think so far? Who is 'winning'? They don't seem to be answering many audience questions.
Pages
Let's not get caught up in side issues, shall we? No one's suggesting that people shouldn't contribute to their own health care, as much as they're able.
You asked small peanut why it "should be the obligation of a private company to pay insurance for people who don't have health insurance?" Which Obama's health plan doesn't DO. I merely asked YOU in return why the American people should allow a for-profit industry which adds nothing to either the quality or the delivery of care to operate in the realm of health care and skim profit off the top of a universally needed service which could easily be administered by the government?
Still waiting for an answer to that one.
Sopal
<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />
As AJ Liebling once pithily put it, "freedom of the press is limited to those who own one." I always did like that quote.
However, you've got the wrong model. "Freedoms" aren't always simply the ability to choose to do something with either no cost involved or with all costs borne by the person undertaking the act. The model you should use is more like the right to clean drinking water. That's something very few people would argue against, in this day and age of large, dense cities where it's not really possible for a great many people to simply dig a well in their backyard and not particularly practical to use bottled water for everything from bathing to washing the dishes to cooking. So we all expect to have a right to clean drinking water....and we all pay for it, usually through a low-cost water bill from a municipal utility.
Or, to use your analogy, freedom of the press doesn't just mean your right to go spend your own money on a printing press and being able to distribute it if you wish, it also means - actually, it PRIMARILY means - your right and expectation as a citizen to be able to ACCESS a free press, which isn't hampered or restricted by government propaganda or other restrictions. In a free society, each person isn't required or even expected to publish their own press....but one of the founding principles - rights - is that you and I can both expect to be able to ACCESS the writings of those who DO choose to print, with an understanding that it won't be Izvestia, if you know what I mean.
Edited 10/8/2008 10:37 pm ET by impalin_mccain
I do not desire government-run healthcare. I am unimpressed with the quality and delivery of much of the government-run healthcare we presently have. I have no confidence whatsoever in the government's ability to do any more administrating than they already do. I desire private insurance, so I purchase it from a private company. No one is forced to buy this coverage. It is none of anyone's business how I choose to spend my money.
Many things I deem useless must be tolerated. You have provided no proof of private insurance companies skimming anything.
I am not aware of anything in the Bill of Rights that says the US government has an obligation to insure access to a printing press.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Pages