Mumble, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a single payer system.

Am I the only one who sees this comment as the dumbest thing ever written? Begging for support?

Bipartisanship - In a two-party system, bipartisan refers to any bill, act, resolution, or any other action of a political body in which both of the major political parties are in agreement.

It was bipartisanship mumble, not "back the Democrats because they have majority". The Democrats refused to work with the Republicans, Obama lied when he claimed bipartisanship and transparency. But what can you expect, in order for anyone to see the transparency of something they would have to be anything but blind. This bill was not the will of the people, this was the will of a political party. All Obama needed was to stand at the top of the Empire State Building screaming "I Am Obama Almighty, My Will Be Done".

I don't understand why people think health care is a human right. Health care is a power some men have and can give to other men... for a price. If all the doctors decided to just stop practicing, you couldn't just put a gun to their head and make them. Not morally. And it is not their moral obligation to just cure you. In fact, most of them just became doctors to make a lot of money, and they and don't care about you personally, at all. (Of course, admitting this would be career suicide, and I am sure many doctors would be "genuinely upset" by this claim) But I think the reality should be pretty obvious given the attitudes and the philosophical nature of most doctors. They are essentially like mages. They might even fit in pretty well in Elemental. The only difference between magic and scientific materialism is that magic does not actually work. And you would be stupid to pay for it.

Ok. So that might sound like bullshit, and on the surface, it probably has a lot in common with bullshit. But the fact remains that healthcare never was nor ever will be a human right. In the same way, the government has no right to force you to give up your money for charitable causes (or even for your own insurance). But they will do it anyway because they are powerful enough to make you. And that is called freedom. Remember? It was not supposed to be free.

This is absolutely laughable. In a sick sort of way.

And the post-passage propaganda from dunces like Frum was entirely predicted.  Enjoy it while you can.

Lets also remember democrats struck down GOP items such as tort reform (who would have guessed that from the party of trial lawyers), and interstate insurance sales.

Which is interesting because the way I understand this, allowing interstate insurance sales would give the federal government more control over such sales allowing for much better regulation.

Yes, it does sound like bullshit.

Most doctors, I am sure, become doctors to help people or at least for the general prestige rather than primarily for the money. It's too hard a job with too late a payoff to be done by people who are after the money.

And yes, doctors do have a moral duty to help and cure. It is their moral obligation to cure if they can, just as it is mine and yours to help someone in danger as well.

That's true.

And even if it were, this bill is doing nothing to ensure that all humans can enjoy that right. It just gives care to a privileged few (Americans) paid for by other privileged few (fewer Americans).

But government has the right to force you to give up your money for charitable causes. It's called taxation and it's completely legal. Governments have all the rights delegated to them including the right to give to charitable causes. The US constitution specifies what rights have been delegated to the government and taxation is one of those.

If the discussion is about whether government may tax, the discussion ends here, because the answer is yes.

We can only discuss whether government should tax and how much and what the money should be used for.

And it never will be free because it requires labour.

But for a liberal "fairness" simply means the belief that other people work for free.

"Most doctors, I am sure, become doctors to help people or at least for the general prestige rather than primarily for the money. It's too hard a job with too late a payoff to be done by people who are after the money."

Someone has a doctor in the family...

No, doctors tell others (and usually themselves) that they became doctors to help people. In fact, they do it for the money. But you are right about the prestige. They do get a kick out of the belief in superiority. That is probably a factor as well, but not a sufficient one on its own.

"And yes, doctors do have a moral duty to help and cure. It is their moral obligation to cure if they can, just as it is mine and yours to help someone in danger as well."

It is not my moral obligation to help someone in danger, especially not at cost to myself and especially if I do not know the person. And a doctor probably doesn't even believe in God, so there goes the moral argument altogether. Scientific materialism excludes moralism unless it has a self-interested explanation.

Let me put it this way. If I could save 7 people from death by giving up my house, then it would certainly be nice if I gave up my house. But I do not have to. This can be seen because it is true that you have no right to take my house from me in order to save them, if I do not want you to take my house. Of course, in the real world, a vigilante (something that is paradoxically not good) would probably just throw me in prison and take my house.

"That's true."

If you understand this, then you must see how doctors are not required to help you. You have no intrinsic right to it, and they have no obligation to provide it for you. It is simply a power they have aquired through the mutilation of animals and that sort of thing, and if they don't want to share it, they don't have to.

"But government has the right to force you to give up your money for charitable causes. It's called taxation and it's completely legal. Governments have all the rights delegated to them including the right to give to charitable causes. The US constitution specifies what rights have been delegated to the government and taxation is one of those.

If the discussion is about whether government may tax, the discussion ends here, because the answer is yes.

We can only discuss whether government should tax and how much and what the money should be used for."

Actually, the government has no right to tax. And to say it's legal is redundant. The government makes the laws. The question is one of morality. The government can only rightly take your money if you agree that it is ok for the government to take your money because you agree with what will be done with your money by the government. Since this is almost never the case, taxation amounts to thievery.

In that case your problem is not disagreement with this law but disagreement with human society.

"In that case your problem is not disagreement with this law but disagreement with human society."

I think you might be suprised by how wrong you are. Take the Kitty Genovese story, for instance. Over 30 people watched her get stabbed to death in the street below, and no one did anything about it. Human society has spoken.

And anyway, I am not talking about what would be nice and happy. I am talking about what people are absolutely REQUIRED to do. It turns out, people are only required not to cause harm themselves. They don't have to stop it from happening to other people.

I don't know in which human society you grew up, but my parents taught me that there is a duty to help others.

I think you underestimate the number of people in human society.

True, assuming that you alone have the right and privilege to define who owns what. The entire definition of "property" is something society came up with. It doesn't exist in nature as a "right", only as something that can be forced on others as a rule.

And yes, you are at fault if you refuse to cure someone even though it is in your power.

But why don't you try it out? Wait until you are in a situation where somebody could die unless you helped and then tell that someone's mother than you didn't help because you had no duty to help and we'll see whether her instinct is to agree with you or to agree with me.

"I don't know in which human society you grew up, but my parents taught me that there is a duty to help others."

Don't get me started on cultural relativism. I really agree with you here. People ought to help each other, absolutely. But in that necessary since, they don't have to.

"I think you underestimate the number of people in human society."

This was just one of many examples of the same phenomenon. It is caused by the idea of diluted responsibility. Although, it is also influenced by the culture, the anonymity of the participants, and all sorts of other factors. 

I should point out that you can't leave your wallet on the street in NYC and expect your money not to be stolen, either. My point with that story was that human society does not do the right things. You can't use human society as a measure of what is good. That should be pretty obvious. Just look around.

"True, assuming that you alone have the right and privilege to define who owns what. The entire definition of "property" is something society came up with. It doesn't exist in nature as a "right", only as something that can be forced on others as a rule.

And yes, you are at fault if you refuse to cure someone even though it is in your power.

But why don't you try it out? Wait until you are in a situation where somebody could die unless you helped and then tell that someone's mother than you didn't help because you had no duty to help and we'll see whether her instinct is to agree with you or to agree with me."

The first part is more or less saying, "Give to Ceaser what is Ceaser's." I agree.

You are not at fault. Certainly, though, someone might be upset by their son's death and looking for someone to blame. Why not a doctor? Why not the government? I would save the person to begin with, even though I don't have to. (I like to think I am a good person.) But if I didn't, sure, I would definitely lie about being able to have done it. People would not understand that it was the disease that caused death, not the unpaid doctor who stood by and watched. That does not change the fact that it really was not his fault.

Looks like the IRS is gearing up to hire thousands of armed stormtroopers to enforce their new expanded powers. Eventually, even many of the most fanatical liberals will rue this day.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/22/irs-looking-to-hiring-thousands-of-armed-tax-agents-to-enforce-health-care-laws

I see you are a slow reader, among other faults.

It actually started out well, but went into the sewer fast.  Why?

No, your bullsh*t.  The republicans did start out participating, but obama and the democrats figured they had large enough majorities so they did not listen.  I guess your memory only lasts as long as a gold fish.  It is a fact and easily googled (but not on RC so I guess you would never find it).

More BS from the king of BS.  So you are saying Pelosi, Reid, Baucus and Obama are Blue dogs?  THEY never had a chance, and did not care either (Stupak is as stupak does, right stupak?)

Thank you for making my point for me and refuting yours.  For someone not caring, you timed my response down to the second and took a lot of words to look stupid.  But then you dont need many to look that way as you have demonstrated so many times in the past.