"Can you compel another person to provide a service to you?"

[cashmcall]

In a truly free market, with real competition, we normally compel people to work for us by offering a wage that they find attractive and that they agree to. In a system hijacked by government and taxes, the insurance industry, big pharma, medical devices, lobbyists, administrative costs and middlemen, stock holders, and trial attorneys- we are so far removed from a free market that we couldn't unwind this mess with a month long debate.

Which of course is precisely what should have happened before the Affordable Care Tax was unread and passed- which is also known as reform. This fundamental step is key to any number of projects- repairs and reforms are generally undertaken prior to expansion, new ownership, or new management. Here's a great piece on the unconstitutionality of the ACA as a tax bill that did not originate in the House as required by law. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/360460/obamacares-unconstitutional-origins-andrew-c-mccarthy

For months, I have noted a particular thought process among liberals with respect to healthcare. As the great national debate rages on, I watched as a popular theme emerged among the left. I'm not talking about the usual, "hate the GOP ranting" that goes on daily. But rather, a different theme emerged. It is a fascinating blend of entitlement that comes from a law that was literally rammed through Congress without bi-partisan support, passed, and then labeled a tax and called "legal" by a Supreme Court which almost without exception- extends the power of the Federal Government every chance it gets. In fact, I can find very few examples of any issue wherein the Supreme Court sided with the hoi polloi as opposed to a Federal Government which has always sought to extend it's power and control.

It is the will of the majority. It is precisely what has unwound every democracy since time began and it is also why our founding fathers believed in a rule of law and a republic which protects the rights of the minority from the oppression and lawless behavior of the majority.

Liberals and statists adamantly believe that seizing your work product (or money) by whatever means is available- is fine so long as some greater good is served.

This is the underpinnings of mob rule democracy. The mob will always seek to get what it wants by using the oppression of their majority.

So knowing the entitled nature of the statists who inhabit the Democratic party, I asked you all, two simple questions.

"Are you entitled to healthcare?" or in other words "Can you compel another person to provide a service to you?"

 

[Dr.Who]

As far as I can tell the current ACA will only use the service of health care providers if they accept to be paid for their time. Granted they will be paid less than they want.

But might there be a day when the shortage of doctors causes them to be 'drafted'? In the military regular Joe's can only be drafted up to the age of 25 but doctors could always be drafted at older ages. Will the draft be extended to civilian work? i see no reason that the left would not do this.

 

[cashmcall]

I had not thought about that scenario , but IMO the right answer would be...No. I am not entitled to healthcare. I do not believe that others should be forced to pay for me, nor I for them. Where does this expansion of newly created rights stop??? What about food? Housing? At some point, we must realize that a continued cycle of progressive programs will only bring about equal poverty, progressivism never raises a populations standard of living in the long term. I also am reminded of a quote attributed to Henry Ford.."if you think the US government is so great at taking care of people, go talk to the American Indians."

The idea of liberty and freedom that founded this country- which is sadly evaporating from our culture.

 

[Cruella]

As far as I can tell the current ACA will only use the service of health care providers if they accept to be paid for their time. Granted they will be paid less than they want.

But might there be a day when the shortage of doctors causes them to be 'drafted'? In the military regular Joe's can only be drafted up to the age of 25 but doctors could always be drafted at older ages. Will the draft be extended to civilian work? i see no reason that the left would not do this.

I don't think a draft would be called, unless there was a national emergency called. Think of this, there are parts of the ACA where there are groups set up with a military style of command. They are also set up in the NDAA or whatever that guideline is called through the Department of Defense . I suspect that Homeland Security also has a role in that. Now go one more step, is there anyone questioning why the government took control over student funding at the same time that Obamacare was passed?

Who is going to stop them from picking and chosing who gets a student loan and for which major they study in?

In a shortage, what would stop our government from bringing in 10,000 medically trained doctors and personnel from say India and putting them on the government payroll? The doctors over there don't make very much money. Just doubling their salaries would still be a pittance compared to what doctors make here now.

 

[dogtowner]

I don't think a draft would be called, unless there was a national emergency called. Think of this, there are parts of the ACA where there are groups set up with a military style of command. They are also set up in the NDAA or whatever that guideline is called through the Department of Defense . I suspect that Homeland Security also has a role in that. Now go one more step, is there anyone questioning why the government took control over student funding at the same time that Obamacare was passed?

Who is going to stop them from picking and chosing who gets a student loan and for which major they study in?

In a shortage, what would stop our government from bringing in 10,000 medically trained doctors and personnel from say India and putting them on the government payroll? The doctors over there don't make very much money. Just doubling their salaries would still be a pittance compared to what doctors make here now.

Which is why rural and otherwise difficult to recruit areas get so many foreign docs. Ask yourself why the AMA has been reducing the doc gradustion totals....

 

[Cruella]

Which is why rural and otherwise difficult to recruit areas get so many foreign docs. Ask yourself why the AMA has been reducing the doc gradustion totals....

Funny you should bring up the AMA.

AMA losing members in droves, less than 20 percent of US doctors support its agenda

 

[dogtowner]

Funny you should bring up the AMA.

AMA losing members in droves, less than 20 percent of US doctors support its agenda

Yeah they lost the narrstive and the rank and file are unhappy.

 

[cashmcall]

I've been on the annual hunting trip to North Dakota. There have been some casualties in the pheasant world.

Today, I clipped this comment from another board. I clipped it because I think the writer was trying to be honest and genuine about Obamacare but it reveals far more about the thought process of Americans.

“My daughter signed up and starting 1/1/14 she will have a $2000 deductible 80% plan for under $200 a month. She had problems initially, i think she said it took 3 times. She is a new mom who wanted to finish college, had a baby during the start of her 3rd year. She lives with an aunt and the house hold amount made her ineligible for Medicaid. This is perfect. It may take some time to get signed up, but in the end at least in her case, very well worth it.”

I read this comment a couple of times. We have a young woman, not enrolled currently in college, who apparently decided to have a baby first. There is no mention of a father. Her income thresholds are so low that she can afford a gold plan for two people and pay less than 200 bucks for it.

Who plans their life this way? Or more precisely, who fails to plan their life this way?

The liberals love to tell the rest of us that our medical needs should not be borne by society- yet they have no problem at all burdening the rest of us with their poor planning and decision making.

Is there something wrong with going to college first and then after securing a decent income stream- having a baby?

We have a nation filled with people like this.

What makes this comment so prescient is that the writer seems completely oblivious to the possibility that all of these poor decisions are solely their responsibility. Not only that- but they seem to think they are entitled to healthcare at a vastly reduced cost- as long as you pay.

Entitled.

You'll like this video. It is a Mark Dice vid asking people to endorse Karl Marx for President. Very funny.

 

[Cruella]

What makes this comment so prescient is that the writer seems completely oblivious to the possibility that all of these poor decisions are solely their responsibility. Not only that- but they seem to think they are entitled to healthcare at a vastly reduced cost- as long as you pay.

Entitled.

Your right about your concerns. A lot of us see this and the changes that have taken place. Our countrymen are not the same kinds of people as the ones we knew when we were growing up.

The culture today is more crude, immoral, self serving and violent. The government has grown so much that it's out of control and ungovernable, yet you can't walk out your front door without breaking a dozen laws you don't even know exist.

I think our Republic is dead, we just don't know it yet.

 

[Dr.Who]

I've been on the annual hunting trip to North Dakota. There have been some casualties in the pheasant world.


The liberals love to tell the rest of us that our medical needs should not be borne by society- yet they have no problem at all burdening the rest of us with their poor planning and decision making.

So if a person fails to buy insurance they are burdening society and this situation is unacceptable. But if a person makes poor choices, gets a subsidy, and burdens society then this is acceptable?

Perhaps this was never an argument made with genuine motives to begin with. Maybe the real goal was for the gov to take control over more of the economy and for insurance companies to get a captive audience.

 

[Cruella]

So if a person fails to buy insurance they are burdening society and this situation is unacceptable. But if a person makes poor choices, gets a subsidy, and burdens society then this is acceptable?

Perhaps this was never an argument made with genuine motives to begin with. Maybe the real goal was for the gov to take control over more of the economy and for insurance companies to get a captive audience.

I think it serves two purposes. Has nothing to do with healthcare. It's about distributing wealth and government control of one fifth of the economy. They are already talking about a single payer plan, the government, and getting rid of the insurance companies altogether. It was designed that way anyway.
Obama, Sebelius and Reid have all said it's a step toward single payer. They had to do it this way to get it passed into law. Now they can monkey with it and insure that insurance companies will go kaput.

 

[cashmcall]

So if a person fails to buy insurance they are burdening society and this situation is unacceptable. But if a person makes poor choices, gets a subsidy, and burdens society then this is acceptable?

Perhaps this was never an argument made with genuine motives to begin with. Maybe the real goal was for the gov to take control over more of the economy and for insurance companies to get a captive audience.

I have said this before.. social justice cannot be achieved until men are righteous to the degree that each exercises self-sufficiency to the full measure of their ability. There are some in our society who are content to live off the labor of others. Whether this comes as a result of laziness, a misplaced sense of entitlement, or any other reason, it is an obstacle to achieving equality and justice in our society and it is a WRONG. When possessions are taken from he who earned it and given to one who did not earn it, but was capable of doing so, justice is not present.

The bible tells us, The Poor you shall have with you always, But it commands us to help the poor.. I believe that the idea of true “social justice” can only exist as a result of righteousness. As far as social equality is concerned, there are two elements of righteousness that must exist for it to take place. First, mankind must learn to put off selfishness and develop true charity. With charity, the pure love of Christ, in his heart, man will look upon those who stand in need of assistance and give to them willingly, out of a sense of compassion and love. A charitable person is not compelled to do for others, he does so as a byproduct of the Christ like attribute he has developed within.

 

[Dr.Who]

I have said this before.. social justice cannot be achieved until men are righteous to the degree that each exercises self-sufficiency to the full measure of their ability. There are some in our society who are content to live off the labor of others. Whether this comes as a result of laziness, a misplaced sense of entitlement, or any other reason, it is an obstacle to achieving equality and justice in our society and it is a WRONG. When possessions are taken from he who earned it and given to one who did not earn it, but was capable of doing so, justice is not present.

Very well said and thought out. It is true and well worth knowing that regardless of the reasons some are in need the entitlement is an obstacle to equality and justice. Those who want equality and justice would be wise to take heed.

The caveat that each should be self sufficient is also very wise and reflects well on you. I see two sides to that. 1. each must strive and be exected to be as self sufficient as he can. and 2. We must be generous with our charity to all those who have strived and reached their limits.

The bible tells us, The Poor you shall have with you always, But it commands us to help the poor.. I believe that the idea of true “social justice” can only exist as a result of righteousness. As far as social equality is concerned, there are two elements of righteousness that must exist for it to take place. First, mankind must learn to put off selfishness and develop true charity. With charity, the pure love of Christ, in his heart, man will look upon those who stand in need of assistance and give to them willingly, out of a sense of compassion and love. A charitable person is not compelled to do for others, he does so as a byproduct of the Christ like attribute he has developed within.

So how does the bible stack up against the first paragraph?

Well we are instructed to help the poor (and widows and orphans who would likely be poor and even today represent most of the poor) in a variety of ways. One is by providing or at least not taking from a person their coat. I would apply that today to mean sufficient shelter. Another is food which is provided be letting the poor take food from your field intentionally not gathering all of your harvest so that some is left for the poor to take.

Today we have plenty of food pantries though some of them place limits on how much you can take. I doubt anyone is starving so really food pantries do a better job of relieving the pressure on the income one can use to pay for shelter. When you are getting free food you can use your time earning money to pay for shelter. Orphans and mothers of course always receive the most donations in any program that collects for the poor.

I think that individuals could do a better job of providing for the poor, widows, and orpans directly rather than letting impersonal programs take on their obligations. Restaurants could for example always provide food for those in need out the back door. There are easily more restaurants than their are homeless so really this would represent less than one meal per day per restaurant. And could that poor person provide a service to the restaurant? Surely he could at the least stand guard by the back garbage cans for an hour and ring the doorbell if he sees anything suspicious acting as a security guard for a brief time in exchange for a meal.

So why do people do less than they could? Aside from excuses like not wanting o get involved I think the strongest reason is that they think someone else is already doing the charity - namely government. They would be largely right. But equality and justice are diminished in the process. We can reclaim our privilege of providing for the poor, widows, orphans, (and I would add sick) take the power from governement, and see a restoration of equality and justice. Note that I now changed the word from "obligation" to "privilege" because really I think that is how we should look at charity.

So what is holding any of you back?

 

[cashmcall]

Very well said and thought out. It is true and well worth knowing that regardless of the reasons some are in need the entitlement is an obstacle to equality and justice. Those who want equality and justice would be wise to take heed.

The caveat that each should be self sufficient is also very wise and reflects well on you. I see two sides to that. 1. each must strive and be exected to be as self sufficient as he can. and 2. We must be generous with our charity to all those who have strived and reached their limits.



So how does the bible stack up against the first paragraph?

Well we are instructed to help the poor (and widows and orphans who would likely be poor and even today represent most of the poor) in a variety of ways. One is by providing or at least not taking from a person their coat. I would apply that today to mean sufficient shelter. Another is food which is provided be letting the poor take food from your field intentionally not gathering all of your harvest so that some is left for the poor to take.

Today we have plenty of food pantries though some of them place limits on how much you can take. I doubt anyone is starving so really food pantries do a better job of relieving the pressure on the income one can use to pay for shelter. When you are getting free food you can use your time earning money to pay for shelter. Orphans and mothers of course always receive the most donations in any program that collects for the poor.

I think that individuals could do a better job of providing for the poor, widows, and orpans directly rather than letting impersonal programs take on their obligations. Restaurants could for example always provide food for those in need out the back door. There are easily more restaurants than their are homeless so really this would represent less than one meal per day per restaurant. And could that poor person provide a service to the restaurant? Surely he could at the least stand guard by the back garbage cans for an hour and ring the doorbell if he sees anything suspicious acting as a security guard for a brief time in exchange for a meal.

So why do people do less than they could? Aside from excuses like not wanting o get involved I think the strongest reason is that they think someone else is already doing the charity - namely government. They would be largely right. But equality and justice are diminished in the process. We can reclaim our privilege of providing for the poor, widows, orphans, (and I would add sick) take the power from governement, and see a restoration of equality and justice. Note that I now changed the word from "obligation" to "privilege" because really I think that is how we should look at charity.

So what is holding any of you back?

VERY WELL SAID..If I could have.. Those would be my thoughts EXACTLY..Thank you..

 

[cashmcall]

Indiscriminateness is not a virtue. Honesty and integrity are. Tolerance toward evil is not a virtue. Charity is, and it's not charitable to be an enabler, but it's also not charitable to be a forcer.