Comments on: socialized healthcare FAQ 3/4

By: tjandsarahdotcom

tjandsarahdotcom — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:45:54 +0000

In response to your first point of order, if someone is to cancel a health insurance contract then what are they meant to do for healthcare? My understanding is that health insurance premiums in the US are extremely high and they’re able to refuse to pay for things which you’re actually meant to be covered for. In order words you pay a company money and they can chose to not fulfill their obligation when it comes time. How is that sensible?

By: tjandsarahdotcom

tjandsarahdotcom — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:22:40 +0000

In response to your second point of order, I’d like to draw your attention to the fact that United States is amoung other nations whom have signed and ratified the UNHDR which DOES include the right for every member of a community to have healthcare. In orderwords it’s actually already part of your international legal obligations and over rules your constitution.

By: tjandsarahdotcom

tjandsarahdotcom — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:09:32 +0000

In addition, there is nothing in your constitution that talks about socialised healthcare one way or another. Healthcare is NOT property! If you have 2 people left alive, one being a doctor, YES they have a very strong moral obligation to help the other person should they become ill. In fact doctors take an oathe stating just that!

By: tjandsarahdotcom

tjandsarahdotcom — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 18:56:58 +0000

Now here is a question for you at what point to YOU PERSONALLY did money become MORE IMPORTANT than human suffering &/or human life? Because by NOT supporting at least a partially socialised healthcare system where everyone is entitled to healthcare because you argue it’s property and about money you’re literally saying, that money is more important than human life. Go look into a dying childs eyes and tell them they can’t get better because their parents don’t have the right health insurance!

By: Frettsy

Frettsy — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 18:29:25 +0000

#1: that is exactly my point about the courts. if the contract is not being enforced it is the COURTS that must be held liable, just like in any other industry or walk of life.

By: Frettsy

Frettsy — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 17:31:13 +0000

#2: NOTHING overrules our Constitution. anything we “agree” to, which the Constitution conflicts with, the Constitution wins.

By: Frettsy

Frettsy — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 16:36:12 +0000

#3: they don’t take an oath to do it for free, or for charity. and in that scenario, they do it out of free will, not out of force.

By: Frettsy

Frettsy — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 16:21:15 +0000

your last point is more of the poorly thought out liberal emotionalism we’ve all come to love, but allow me to address it for the 100th time anyways. if you weren’t already aware, we already have a “partially socialised healthcare system”. in fact more than partially – very much so. money never has and never will be more important to me than human suffering or human life. my LIBERTY, though, is. there are proper channels through which ANYONE can get Church or charity ALREADY.

By: Frettsy

Frettsy — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 16:04:31 +0000

in summation, your implication that, because I don’t support socialized healthcare, that I’m some kind of animal, is pathetic. if you wish for the State to use force against you to take your money and give it to others, move to a country that does so (moreso than ours now). I on the other hand choose a system where I am not a slave to you or any other man.

By: tjandsarahdotcom

tjandsarahdotcom — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:15:13 +0000

Oh now I get it, you don’t actually understand the law. When you sign with a health insurance provider you actually make an agreement that they’re allowed to behave in that manner. That is how insurance companies stay in business and a court CAN NOT help you as you’ve agreed to it.