Doctor Capitalism says "Healthcare is not a right!"

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by Rexcetera, Feb 8, 2004.

  1. Rexcetera

    Rexcetera Guest

    Doctor Capitalism writes to http://rexcurry.net to call for the repeal of
    socialized medicine and to explain why healthcare is not a right:

    Healthcare professionals who want what is best for their patients do not support an immoral "single
    payer" (more accurately termed "taxpayer") supported system.

    Our rights were correctly identified by the founders of the United States: we are entitled to life,
    liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If we study these rights, we can see that they are negative
    rights. Essentially, we are granted the right not to have our lives, freedom, or property taken
    away. These are our moral rights. Period. The proper (and original) role of our government is to
    protect the rights, or true entitlements, of its citizens.

    We are not entitled to the materials or services (labor) of another person without that person's
    consent. In a free society, those providing a good or service are compensated for it by receiving
    fair market value. This is the value set by free exchanges in the open market place. To quote
    Leonard Peikoff in "Health Care is Not a Right," http://www.bdt.com/pages/Peikoff.html "Health care
    in the modern world is a complex, scientific, technological service. How can anybody be born with a
    right to such a thing?" "You have the right to work, not to rob others of the fruits of their work,
    not to turn others into sacrificial, rightless animals laboring to fulfill your needs."

    Every problem with our current healthcare system in the United States is caused by interference with
    the free market system: by providers who lobby politicians to grant them an exclusionary law to
    provide services (yes, doctors are guilty but certainly not exclusively so), by consumers who have
    been indoctrinated to believe that they aren't smart enough to compare their options and make a
    choice, and by the government: elected officials who already run two massive national health
    insurance companies (Medicare and Medicaid), create ever more restrictive licensure laws, and design
    bureaucratic and bloated organizations such as the FDA who "protect" us from making our own choices
    and taking our own risks.

    Let's all recognize the basic fact here. No government creates revenue. The only governmental source
    of revenue is the taxes it takes from its citizens. To say that the Canadian system is simply
    underfunded is to say that the people are simply under-taxed. I challenge you to find one Canadian
    who agrees with that.

    We must consider other options. There are lots of choices, for example, some version of medical
    savings accounts. Give citizens some of their tax dollars back and let them pick what they want o
    spend their health care dollars on. Minimizing government involvement is what will make the system
    more efficient and effective. Socialistic systems such as "nationalized health care" are immoral.

    yours in liberty, Doctor Capitalism

    -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1
    Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
     
    Tags:


  2. Adam_smith

    Adam_smith Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, "rexcetera" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Doctor Capitalism writes to http://rexcurry.net to call for the repeal of socialized medicine and
    > to explain why healthcare is not a right:
    >
    > Healthcare professionals who want what is best for their patients do not support an immoral
    > "single payer" (more accurately termed "taxpayer") supported system.
    >
    > Our rights were correctly identified by the founders of the United States: we are entitled to
    > life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If we study these rights, we can see that they are
    > negative rights. Essentially, we are granted the right not to have our lives, freedom, or property
    > taken away. These are our moral rights. Period. The proper (and original) role of our government
    > is to protect the rights, or true entitlements, of its citizens.
    >
    > We are not entitled to the materials or services (labor) of another person without that person's
    > consent. In a free society, those providing a good or service are compensated for it by
    > receiving fair market value. This is the value set by free exchanges in the open market place.
    > To quote Leonard Peikoff in "Health Care is Not a Right," http://www.bdt.com/pages/Peikoff.html
    > "Health care in the modern world is a complex, scientific, technological service. How can
    > anybody be born with a right to such a thing?" "You have the right to work, not to rob others of
    > the fruits of their work, not to turn others into sacrificial, rightless animals laboring to
    > fulfill your needs."
    >

    Yea, I heard that crap before.

    And if you were a real libertarian you would give your property back to the people the government
    stole it from - the native population.

    But I doubt you would since you are just a greedy turd.
     
  3. Alan Illeman

    Alan Illeman Guest

    rexcetera <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Doctor Capitalism writes to http://rexcurry.net to call for the repeal of socialized medicine and
    > to explain why healthcare is not a right:
    >
    > Healthcare professionals who want what is best for their patients do not support an immoral
    > "single payer" (more accurately termed "taxpayer") supported system.
    >
    > Our rights were correctly identified by the founders of the United States: we are entitled to
    > life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If we study these rights, we can see that they are
    > negative rights. Essentially, we are granted the right not to have our lives, freedom, or property
    > taken away.

    I wouldn't call them negative rights . . .

    "Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive
    - of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced
    choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind:
    to abstain from violating his rights." - Ayn Rand

    > These are our moral rights. Period. The proper (and original) role of our government is to protect
    > the rights, or true entitlements, of its citizens.
    >
    > We are not entitled to the materials or services (labor) of another person without that person's
    > consent. In a free society, those providing a good or service are compensated for it by receiving
    > fair market value. This is the value set by free exchanges in the open market place.

    I believe the intent of your constitution was for a free market within the boundaries of the USA,
    not as we see today, a world free market or 'global economy' as its called. I'm sure the founders
    never contemplated multinational corporations and would detest the personification of corporations,
    enabling them the same freedoms as individuals.
     
  4. Rexcetera

    Rexcetera Guest

    > Yea, I heard that crap before.
    >
    > And if you were a real libertarian you would give your property back to the people the government
    > stole it from - the native population.
    >
    > But I doubt you would since you are just a greedy turd.

    Yea, I heard your crap before.

    And if you were a real socialist you would give your property back to the people the government
    stole it from - people who support liberty.

    But I doubt you would since you are just a greedy thieving socialist turd.

    -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1
    Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
     
  5. NoSurrender

    NoSurrender Guest

    On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 12:03:16 -0500, "rexcetera" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Doctor Capitalism writes to http://rexcurry.net to call for the repeal of socialized medicine and
    >to explain why healthcare is not a right:
    >
    >Healthcare professionals who want what is best for their patients do not support an immoral "single
    >payer" (more accurately termed "taxpayer") supported system.
    >
    >Our rights were correctly identified by the founders of the United States: we are entitled to life,
    >liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If we study these rights, we can see that they are negative
    >rights. Essentially, we are granted the right not to have our lives, freedom, or property taken
    >away. These are our moral rights. Period. The proper (and original) role of our government is to
    >protect the rights, or true entitlements, of its citizens.
    >
    >We are not entitled to the materials or services (labor) of another person without that person's
    >consent. In a free society, those providing a good or service are compensated for it by receiving
    >fair market value. This is the value set by free exchanges in the open market place. To quote
    >Leonard Peikoff in "Health Care is Not a Right," http://www.bdt.com/pages/Peikoff.html "Health care
    >in the modern world is a complex, scientific, technological service. How can anybody be born with a
    >right to such a thing?" "You have the right to work, not to rob others of the fruits of their work,
    >not to turn others into sacrificial, rightless animals laboring to fulfill your needs."
    >
    >Every problem with our current healthcare system in the United States is caused by interference
    >with the free market system: by providers who lobby politicians to grant them an exclusionary law
    >to provide services (yes, doctors are guilty but certainly not exclusively so), by consumers who
    >have been indoctrinated to believe that they aren't smart enough to compare their options and make
    >a choice, and by the government: elected officials who already run two massive national health
    >insurance companies (Medicare and Medicaid), create ever more restrictive licensure laws, and
    >design bureaucratic and bloated organizations such as the FDA who "protect" us from making our own
    >choices and taking our own risks.
    >
    >Let's all recognize the basic fact here. No government creates revenue. The only governmental
    >source of revenue is the taxes it takes from its citizens. To say that the Canadian system is
    >simply underfunded is to say that the people are simply under-taxed. I challenge you to find one
    >Canadian who agrees with that.
    >
    >We must consider other options. There are lots of choices, for example, some version of medical
    >savings accounts. Give citizens some of their tax dollars back and let them pick what they want o
    >spend their health care dollars on. Minimizing government involvement is what will make the system
    >more efficient and effective. Socialistic systems such as "nationalized health care" are immoral.
    >
    >yours in liberty, Doctor Capitalism

    Be careful; be very careful. you're using logic and reason. Libs cannot tolerate such
    rational thinking.

    Ain't the truth beautiful!!

    Have a glowing day!!

    Cheerio, and Hoo-Raah!!

    Dennis, Proud America-Loving NEOCON CAPITALiST, Finest Kind Irish.

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1
    >Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
     
  6. Rexcetera

    Rexcetera Guest

    > I believe the intent of your constitution was for a free market within the boundaries of the USA,
    > not as we see today, a world free market or 'global economy' as its called. I'm sure the founders
    > never contemplated multinational corporations and would detest the personification of
    > corporations, enabling them the same freedoms as individuals.

    I believe the intent of the constitution was for any U.S. citizen to be able to engage in free
    market activity anywhere, including anywhere in the world, anywhere on the globe, and that it was
    none of the government's business where or with whom any person engaged in trade. I'm sure the
    founders contemplated multinational corporations and would engaged in international trade
    themselves.

    -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1
    Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
     
  7. Adam_smith

    Adam_smith Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, "Alan Illeman"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    > rexcetera <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > > Doctor Capitalism writes to http://rexcurry.net to call for the repeal of socialized medicine
    > > and to explain why healthcare is not a right:
    > >
    > > Healthcare professionals who want what is best for their patients do not support an immoral
    > > "single payer" (more accurately termed "taxpayer") supported system.
    > >
    > > Our rights were correctly identified by the founders of the United States: we are entitled to
    > > life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If we study these rights, we can see that they are
    > > negative rights. Essentially, we are granted the right not to have our lives, freedom, or
    > > property taken away.
    >
    > I wouldn't call them negative rights . . .
    >
    > "Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive
    > - of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced
    > choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind:
    > to abstain from violating his rights." - Ayn Rand
    >
    > > These are our moral rights. Period. The proper (and original) role of our government is to
    > > protect the rights, or true entitlements, of its citizens.
    > >
    > > We are not entitled to the materials or services (labor) of another person without that person's
    > > consent. In a free society, those providing a good or service are compensated for it by
    > > receiving fair market value. This is the value set by free exchanges in the open market place.
    >
    > I believe the intent of your constitution was for a free market within the boundaries of the USA,
    > not as we see today, a world free market or 'global economy' as its called. I'm sure the founders
    > never contemplated multinational corporations and would detest the personification of
    > corporations, enabling them the same freedoms as individuals.

    If you read Smith's the Wealth of Nations, I am sure he would have agreed with you...
     
  8. Adam_smith

    Adam_smith Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    [email protected] wrote:

    > On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 12:03:16 -0500, "rexcetera" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >Doctor Capitalism writes to http://rexcurry.net to call for the repeal of socialized medicine and
    > >to explain why healthcare is not a right:
    > >
    > >Healthcare professionals who want what is best for their patients do not support an immoral
    > >"single payer" (more accurately termed "taxpayer") supported system.
    > >
    > >Our rights were correctly identified by the founders of the United States: we are entitled to
    > >life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If we study these rights, we can see that they are
    > >negative rights. Essentially, we are granted the right not to have our lives, freedom, or
    > >property taken away. These are our moral rights. Period. The proper (and original) role of our
    > >government is to protect the rights, or true entitlements, of its citizens.
    > >
    > >We are not entitled to the materials or services (labor) of another person without that person's
    > >consent. In a free society, those providing a good or service are compensated for it by receiving
    > >fair market value. This is the value set by free exchanges in the open market place. To quote
    > >Leonard Peikoff in "Health Care is Not a Right," http://www.bdt.com/pages/Peikoff.html "Health
    > >care in the modern world is a complex, scientific, technological service. How can anybody be born
    > >with a right to such a thing?" "You have the right to work, not to rob others of the fruits of
    > >their work, not to turn others into sacrificial, rightless animals laboring to fulfill your
    > >needs."
    > >
    > >Every problem with our current healthcare system in the United States is caused by interference
    > >with the free market system: by providers who lobby politicians to grant them an exclusionary law
    > >to provide services (yes, doctors are guilty but certainly not exclusively so), by consumers who
    > >have been indoctrinated to believe that they aren't smart enough to compare their options and
    > >make a choice, and by the government: elected officials who already run two massive national
    > >health insurance companies (Medicare and Medicaid), create ever more restrictive licensure laws,
    > >and design bureaucratic and bloated organizations such as the FDA who "protect" us from making
    > >our own choices and taking our own risks.
    > >
    > >Let's all recognize the basic fact here. No government creates revenue. The only governmental
    > >source of revenue is the taxes it takes from its citizens. To say that the Canadian system is
    > >simply underfunded is to say that the people are simply under-taxed. I challenge you to find one
    > >Canadian who agrees with that.
    > >
    > >We must consider other options. There are lots of choices, for example, some version of medical
    > >savings accounts. Give citizens some of their tax dollars back and let them pick what they want o
    > >spend their health care dollars on. Minimizing government involvement is what will make the
    > >system more efficient and effective. Socialistic systems such as "nationalized health care" are
    > >immoral.
    > >
    > >yours in liberty, Doctor Capitalism
    >
    > Be careful; be very careful. you're using logic and reason. Libs cannot tolerate such rational
    > thinking.
    >

    Ah yes, nothing like using the 'logic' of rhetoric to win the arguement!
     
  9. Rexcetera

    Rexcetera Guest

    <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:eek:[email protected]...
    > Be careful; be very careful. you're using logic and reason. Libs cannot tolerate such rational
    > thinking.
    >
    > Ain't the truth beautiful!!
    >
    > Have a glowing day!!
    >
    > Cheerio, and Hoo-Raah!!

    Be careful; be very careful. you're using logic and reason. Liberty-haters cannot tolerate such
    rational thinking.

    Ain't the truth beautiful!!

    Have a glowing day!!

    Cheerio, and Hoo-Raah!!

    -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1
    Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
     
  10. Adam_smith

    Adam_smith Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, "rexcetera" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > > Yea, I heard that crap before.
    > >
    > > And if you were a real libertarian you would give your property back to the people the
    > > government stole it from - the native population.
    > >
    > > But I doubt you would since you are just a greedy turd.
    >
    > Yea, I heard your crap before.
    >
    > And if you were a real socialist you would give your property back to the people the government
    > stole it from - people who support liberty.
    >
    > But I doubt you would since you are just a greedy thieving socialist turd.
    >

    Hm, Where did I say I am a 'socialist?' And as a matter of fact, I do not own any land since I
    believe most of the land owner in the land called the United States was stolen.
     
  11. Rexcetera

    Rexcetera Guest

  12. NoSurrender

    NoSurrender Guest

    On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 20:57:34 -0800, [email protected] (Adam_Smith)
    wrote:

    >In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
    >
    >> On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 12:03:16 -0500, "rexcetera" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >> >Doctor Capitalism writes to http://rexcurry.net to call for the repeal of socialized medicine
    >> >and to explain why healthcare is not a right:
    >> >
    >> >Healthcare professionals who want what is best for their patients do not support an immoral
    >> >"single payer" (more accurately termed "taxpayer") supported system.
    >> >
    >> >Our rights were correctly identified by the founders of the United States: we are entitled to
    >> >life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If we study these rights, we can see that they are
    >> >negative rights. Essentially, we are granted the right not to have our lives, freedom, or
    >> >property taken away. These are our moral rights. Period. The proper (and original) role of our
    >> >government is to protect the rights, or true entitlements, of its citizens.
    >> >
    >> >We are not entitled to the materials or services (labor) of another person without that person's
    >> >consent. In a free society, those providing a good or service are compensated for it by
    >> >receiving fair market value. This is the value set by free exchanges in the open market place.
    >> >To quote Leonard Peikoff in "Health Care is Not a Right," http://www.bdt.com/pages/Peikoff.html
    >> >"Health care in the modern world is a complex, scientific, technological service. How can
    >> >anybody be born with a right to such a thing?" "You have the right to work, not to rob others of
    >> >the fruits of their work, not to turn others into sacrificial, rightless animals laboring to
    >> >fulfill your needs."
    >> >
    >> >Every problem with our current healthcare system in the United States is caused by interference
    >> >with the free market system: by providers who lobby politicians to grant them an exclusionary
    >> >law to provide services (yes, doctors are guilty but certainly not exclusively so), by consumers
    >> >who have been indoctrinated to believe that they aren't smart enough to compare their options
    >> >and make a choice, and by the government: elected officials who already run two massive national
    >> >health insurance companies (Medicare and Medicaid), create ever more restrictive licensure laws,
    >> >and design bureaucratic and bloated organizations such as the FDA who "protect" us from making
    >> >our own choices and taking our own risks.
    >> >
    >> >Let's all recognize the basic fact here. No government creates revenue. The only governmental
    >> >source of revenue is the taxes it takes from its citizens. To say that the Canadian system is
    >> >simply underfunded is to say that the people are simply under-taxed. I challenge you to find one
    >> >Canadian who agrees with that.
    >> >
    >> >We must consider other options. There are lots of choices, for example, some version of medical
    >> >savings accounts. Give citizens some of their tax dollars back and let them pick what they want
    >> >o spend their health care dollars on. Minimizing government involvement is what will make the
    >> >system more efficient and effective. Socialistic systems such as "nationalized health care" are
    >> >immoral.
    >> >
    >> >yours in liberty, Doctor Capitalism
    >>
    >> Be careful; be very careful. you're using logic and reason. Libs cannot tolerate such rational
    >> thinking.
    >>
    >
    >Ah yes, nothing like using the 'logic' of rhetoric to win the arguement!

    You mis-spelled a word up there; go get an education.

    Ain't the truth beautiful!!

    Have a glowing day!!

    Cheerio, and Hoo-Raah!!

    Dennis, Proud America-Loving NEOCON CAPITALiST, Finest Kind Irish.
     
  13. Chris

    Chris Guest

    "rexcetera" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > I believe the intent of the constitution was for any U.S. citizen to be
    able
    > to engage in free market activity anywhere, including anywhere in the
    world,
    > anywhere on the globe, and that it was none of the government's business where or with whom any
    > person engaged in trade. I'm sure the founders contemplated multinational corporations and would
    > engaged in international trade themselves.

    Actually, having fled from a "multi-national corporation" (Britain), I'm quite sure they didn't
    intend upon making their newfound land into another one.
     
  14. Adam_smith

    Adam_smith Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, "rexcetera" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > <[email protected]> wrote in message news:eek:[email protected]...
    > > Be careful; be very careful. you're using logic and reason. Libs cannot tolerate such rational
    > > thinking.
    > >
    > > Ain't the truth beautiful!!
    > >
    > > Have a glowing day!!
    > >
    > > Cheerio, and Hoo-Raah!!
    >
    > Be careful; be very careful. you're using logic and reason. Liberty-haters cannot tolerate such
    > rational thinking.
    >
    > Ain't the truth beautiful!!
    >
    > Have a glowing day!!
    >
    > Cheerio, and Hoo-Raah!!
    >

    Ah yea, and you are being very ┼ĺreasonable┬╣ using hollow attacks.
     
  15. Rexcetera

    Rexcetera Guest

    "Adam_Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > In article <[email protected]>, "rexcetera" <[email protected]>
    wrote:
    > Hm, Where did I say I am a 'socialist?' And as a matter of fact, I do not own any land since I
    > believe most of the land owner in the land called the United States was stolen.

    Oops, you did it again. In fact, its always hilarious to watch socialists dance around. Why are
    socialists so ashamed of their philosophy?

    -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1
    Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
     
  16. NoSurrender

    NoSurrender Guest

    On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 20:56:27 -0800, [email protected] (Adam_Smith)
    wrote:

    >In article <[email protected]>, "rexcetera" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> > Yea, I heard that crap before.
    >> >
    >> > And if you were a real libertarian you would give your property back to the people the
    >> > government stole it from - the native population.
    >> >
    >> > But I doubt you would since you are just a greedy turd.
    >>
    >> Yea, I heard your crap before.
    >>
    >> And if you were a real socialist you would give your property back to the people the government
    >> stole it from - people who support liberty.
    >>
    >> But I doubt you would since you are just a greedy thieving socialist turd.
    >>
    >
    >
    >Hm, Where did I say I am a 'socialist?' And as a matter of fact, I do not own any land since I
    >believe most of the land owner in the land called the United States was stolen.

    Now that's being superciliously silly. You don't own land, but you pay rent to someone who owns the
    land!! It is to laugh.

    Ain't the truth beautiful!!

    Have a glowing day!!

    Cheerio, and Hoo-Raah!!

    Dennis, Proud America-Loving NEOCON CAPITALiST, Finest Kind Irish.
     
  17. Chris wrote:

    >
    > Actually, having fled from a "multi-national corporation" (Britain), I'm quite sure they didn't
    > intend upon making their newfound land into another one.

    While I'm sure they didn't intend for the NATIONAL government to be anything similar to what it
    actually is today, It is ludicrous to think that the founding fathers thought the US would be a
    closed economy, and not participate in international trade. They even knew it would be a very strong
    economic power on the world stage.

    ref

    -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1
    Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
     
  18. Adam_smith

    Adam_smith Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    [email protected] wrote:

    > On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 20:57:34 -0800, [email protected] (Adam_Smith) wrote:
    >
    > >In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
    > >
    > >> On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 12:03:16 -0500, "rexcetera" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >Doctor Capitalism writes to http://rexcurry.net to call for the repeal of socialized medicine
    > >> >and to explain why healthcare is not a right:
    > >> >
    > >> >Healthcare professionals who want what is best for their patients do not support an immoral
    > >> >"single payer" (more accurately termed "taxpayer") supported system.
    > >> >
    > >> >Our rights were correctly identified by the founders of the United States: we are entitled to
    > >> >life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If
    we study
    > >> >these rights, we can see that they are negative rights. Essentially,
    we are
    > >> >granted the right not to have our lives, freedom, or property taken away. These are our moral
    > >> >rights. Period. The proper (and original) role of our government is to protect the rights, or
    > >> >true entitlements, of its
    citizens.
    > >> >
    > >> >We are not entitled to the materials or services (labor) of another person without that
    > >> >person's consent. In a free society, those providing a
    good or
    > >> >service are compensated for it by receiving fair market value. This is the value set by free
    > >> >exchanges in the open market place. To quote Leonard Peikoff in "Health Care is Not a Right,"
    > >> >http://www.bdt.com/pages/Peikoff.html "Health care in the modern
    world is a
    > >> >complex, scientific, technological service. How can anybody be born with a right to such a
    > >> >thing?" "You have the right to work, not to rob others of the fruits of their work, not to
    > >> >turn others into sacrificial, rightless animals laboring to fulfill your needs."
    > >> >
    > >> >Every problem with our current healthcare system in the United States is caused by
    > >> >interference with the free market system: by providers who lobby politicians to grant them an
    > >> >exclusionary law to provide services (yes, doctors are guilty but certainly not exclusively
    > >> >so), by consumers
    who have
    > >> >been indoctrinated to believe that they aren't smart enough to
    compare their
    > >> >options and make a choice, and by the government: elected officials who already run two
    > >> >massive national health insurance companies (Medicare and Medicaid), create ever more
    > >> >restrictive licensure laws, and design bureaucratic and bloated organizations such as the FDA
    > >> >who "protect"
    us from
    > >> >making our own choices and taking our own risks.
    > >> >
    > >> >Let's all recognize the basic fact here. No government creates
    revenue. The
    > >> >only governmental source of revenue is the taxes it takes from its
    citizens.
    > >> >To say that the Canadian system is simply underfunded is to say that the people are simply under-
    > >> >taxed. I challenge you to find one Canadian who agrees with that.
    > >> >
    > >> >We must consider other options. There are lots of choices, for
    example, some
    > >> >version of medical savings accounts. Give citizens some of their tax
    dollars
    > >> >back and let them pick what they want o spend their health care
    dollars on.
    > >> >Minimizing government involvement is what will make the system more efficient and effective.
    > >> >Socialistic systems such as "nationalized health care" are immoral.
    > >> >
    > >> >yours in liberty, Doctor Capitalism
    > >>
    > >> Be careful; be very careful. you're using logic and reason. Libs cannot tolerate such rational
    > >> thinking.
    > >>
    > >
    > >Ah yes, nothing like using the 'logic' of rhetoric to win the arguement!
    >
    > You mis-spelled a word up there; go get an education.
    >
    > Ain't the truth beautiful!!
    >
    > Have a glowing day!!
    >
    > Cheerio, and Hoo-Raah!!
    >
    > Dennis, Proud America-Loving NEOCON CAPITALiST, Finest Kind Irish.

    Silly me, I guess mis spelling is for you but not for me since I wasn't raised to be superstitious.
     
  19. Chris

    Chris Guest

    "El Gran Cantinflas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > While I'm sure they didn't intend for the NATIONAL government to be anything similar to what it
    > actually is today, It is ludicrous to think that the founding fathers thought the US would be a
    > closed economy, and not participate in international trade. They even knew it would be a very
    > strong economic power on the world stage.

    Sure. If you say so.
     
  20. Adam_smith

    Adam_smith Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, "rexcetera" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "Adam_Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
    > 251.dial.spiritone.com...
    > > In article <[email protected]>, "rexcetera" <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    > > Hm, Where did I say I am a 'socialist?' And as a matter of fact, I do not own any land since I
    > > believe most of the land owner in the land called the United States was stolen.
    >
    > Oops, you did it again. In fact, its always hilarious to watch socialists dance around. Why are
    > socialists so ashamed of their philosophy?
    >
    >

    Well, if that's the game you want to play, why are you a fascist?
     
Loading...