By the way, Greg. It was you who came here to waste your time, no one forced you.

Rather than address any issue I raised, he departs with a final ad hominem. Perfectly fits in with the high skills of a logic and debate professor.

Would you believe that I’m a university professor teaching logic and debate in the mid-west?

Unfortunately, I would believe it.

I certainly believe that you have been a licensed insurance agent for 24 years. Would you believe that I’m a university professor teaching logic and debate in the mid-west?

“Insurance companies really have no incentive at all to provide for preventative medicine.” This is just plain ignorant. I apologize, but you don’t know what you’re talking about. Insurance is based on the concept of indemnity. Indemnity is the exchange of valuable consideration in order to lessen the risk of financial loss due to a covered peril.

I contractually exchange my relatively small premium for the insurance company’s promise that if a covered peril occurs the insurance company with pay for that expense according to the terms of the contract. That is, if something bad happens, they pay.

This has absolutely nothing to do with preventative medicine. Preventative medicine is a 100% potential for loss and is not insurable. Your insurance does not pay for you to paint your home or change the oil in your car. That is your responsibility, as is preventative medicine.

“…because you can’t seem to open your mind to any opposing ideas and consider them rationally.” Open my mind means agreeing with you, doesn’t it? The fact that I disagree with you means I have a closed mind. What I have or have not considered has not been discussed, so I wonder how you know what I think.

“…as a more thorough understanding of the issues surrounding health care…” I doubt that. In fact, I dispute that vigorously based on what you have presented so far. I am a licensed insurance agent with 24 years of experience. What are your credentials?

You write, “Nice how you picked the military example and none of the others. Fire and police services, the EPA, and many other things financed through taxes on the general population are not transferring wealth…” I did not claim these were transferring wealth.

There is a difference betweeen transferring wealth (the forced transfer of money from someone who earned it to others who did not) and charity (the voluntary giving of money to another as an act of compassion).

You really need to improve your reading comprehension, sir. “Transferring wealth” was my criteria, introduced to you in my previous post. You used the term “charity.” You conflate the spending of tax money for any reason to justify spending on UHC. This is a Category Error.

There may or may not be constitutional problems with any number of services provided to people via taxation. We can argue as many of these as you want. But first we need to have a basis of understanding. That is still lacking from you.

Out of context? You claimed that “Christians think of themselves as the most charitable people on the planet.” I pointed out that Christians make no such claim, and in fact are instructed to give in secret.

You write, “Are you really prepared to argue that things like free speech… etc. are rights but health is not? Just because it’s not mentioned specifically in a 200+ year old document proves your point?” This is a Non Sequitur.

First, your criteria was “human right.” Now you are discussing constitutional rights. Second, I made no comment regarding other rights, constitutional or otherwise. Third, I make the same point again that I made before: claiming something is a human right is not the same thing as proving it.

“…if Christians are so charitable, how can they stand by while 45,000+ people die each year in the U.S. (not to mention the bankruptcies) due to lack of access to health care?” Looking in vain for this argument in your prior post. First prove that Christians are standing by, given the thousands of Christian charities, hospitals, and ministries. Almost every hospital I see is “Sacred Heart” or named after some saint. To suggest that Christians don’t care about the sick is a Strawman.

How about you? Tell me how much money you have sent to charities to help sick people. What are you doing right now to make a difference for some of the 45,000?

“…but yet we spend nearly twice as much per person AND fail to cover about 10% of the population…” Who is “we?” You and me? The government? Oh, and I am wondering, since obamacare will only cover 95%, and doesn’t fully kick in until 2019, are you as outraged at your fellow leftists?

“Would you want your fire department to be for profit? How about the police department?” Another Non Sequitur. The existence of other government entities or spending programs does not justify adding another.

(continued)

As far as biblical references go, do you really think you made a point with that one out of context quote? Please.

Are you really prepared to argue that things like free speech, gun ownership, the right to an attorney, the right to confront your accuser, to self protection, etc. are rights but health is not? Just because it’s not mentioned specifically in a 200+ year old document proves your point?

Most Americans also feel they have a ‘right’ to clean water and clean air without thinking it has to be specifically mentioned in the constitution. Is making companies stop dumping pollutants into the nations waterways a transfer of wealth too?

Almost anyone would gladly give up any of these constitutional ‘rights’ in exchange for health. What good are guns without health?

The Christian Nation comment was a leftover from a different discussion with someone else who insisted that the U.S. was founded to be basically a Christian Theocracy and that Christians were more charitable than most.

My argument to him was that if Christians are so charitable, how can they stand by while 45,000+ people die each year in the U.S. (not to mention the bankruptcies) due to lack of access to health care? That works out to more than a 9/11 every month! However, it does not mean that UHC should in any way be considered charity.

As far as ranking our health care system, there are more than 30 other countries with better outcomes (quantifiable, not a value judgment) but yet we spend nearly twice as much per person AND fail to cover about 10% of the population. All the trickle down factors in the world are not going to make that look much better.

Also, of ALL the other developed countries with private health insurance companies, NONE are for profit. That’s a big part of the problem and maybe even the core problem. Would you want your fire department to be for profit? How about the police department? Is that a free lunch?

It’s all about spreading risk, not charity. Everyone needs to be in the risk pool, originally a republican idea for personal responsibility (ie: no free lunch). Now it’s somehow unconstitutional to these same people.

Insurance companies really have no incentive at all to provide for preventative medicine. You are likely to change jobs and be covered by someone else by the time you develop problems due to lack of preventative care. Worse, they just have to keep you relatively healthy until they can pass you off to Medicare.

All due respect, I think I have a much better grasp of logic, reason, and thinking skills as well as a more thorough understanding of the issues surrounding health care. You seem to be attempting to defend an indefensible position because you can’t seem to open your mind to any opposing ideas and consider them rationally.

1) the military is authorized by the Constitution.
2) funding the military does not transfer wealth from one citizen to another.
3) the military does not set up a class of citizens that are entitled to benefits, or attempt to change social outcomes.

“It’s a basic human right!” Your declarative statement does not establish fact. Make you case and we can discuss it. Otherwise, all I am required to say in response is “no it’s not!”

Regarding your “Christian nation” remark, are you suggesting that the wall of separation between church and state be dismantled? I thought imposing morality was wrong?

“…Christians think of themselves as the most charitable people on the planet.” They do? Please cite your evidence. Forgive me for quoting the Bible, but Jesus teaches just the opposite: “…when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret.”

Beyond that, you opened your remarks by claming UHC was not charity. Now you are calling upon Christian charity to bolster your case. So, which is it, charity or not charity?

I have not seen anyone give a “yes but it’s impossible” argument. Again, cite your evidence. As far as what constitutes “better” health care, that is a value judgment that requires us to not only evaluate the other health systems for cost, but level of care rendered, waiting times, and mortality.

Beyond that is trickle-down factors like productivity, strengh of their currency, unemployment rates, tax rates, personal wealth, and a whole host of other economic factors. In other words, what did they have to give up to get UHC? There is no free lunch, Greg.

Lastly, health insurance companies are private businesses, not defacto arms of the government. Fire departments are government entities. Health insurance companies do not exist for social purposes, or to further the quasi-fascist social aims of government. They exist to provide a product that people will buy, and to make a profit doing so.

Greg, no offense intended, but I would suggest that you try to improve your thinking skills, because although you appear to be sincere, you don’t seem to grasp basic logic and reason.

A woman I know who has very bad problems with her shoulders, lives in constant pain for which she must take medication, and cannot hold a job for any length of time because too often the pain or dislocations make her unreliable. This woman is very proud, and has never gone on public assistance of any kind. Her dream is to get shoulder replacement surgery, so that she can live pain free, get a job and become a productive member of society again. But this won’t happen as long as for-profit insurance can deny her care because of her “pre-existing condition.” Single payer or even mandated insurance would have been a life-saver for this young woman. Instead, her health will slowly deteriorate as she pays out of pocket full-price for the medications that barely make her day livable. This is not civilized. This is not Christian.