About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Thursday, June 9, 2011 - 11:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
From the article:

"Almost every one of those citizens would need health care eventually, and because they could not legally be turned away by hospitals or doctors, the cost of their treatment would have to be paid by someone else."

Do these idiots not realize that the legal compulsions on hospitals and doctors to treat these people themselves violate liberty?

Repeal the compulsions and the costs vanish!

Post 1

Thursday, June 9, 2011 - 11:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Definitely, compelling these hospitals to receive patients is immoral. It's also a misconception these people are legally entitled to free emergency room care. They do get billed for the services, it's only that they don't pay. But they do suffer some consequences for this, their credit report is ruined and they would find it increasingly difficult for them to get loans or credit. So their argument doesn't even work on that level. Sometimes people leave my restaurant without paying, the cost of that is passed on to other people. Why not compel every citizen to contribute to a collective restaurant fund?

Post 2

Thursday, June 9, 2011 - 12:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The degree of relentless dishonesty and evasion in this so-called "debate" never ceases to astound me. Here is a relevant passage from a history book about "Hillarycare":

Clearly an understanding had been struck long before the election: Hillary Clinton would play the loyal wife in order to gain power, and once in office, Bill would reward her through policy appointments that did not require Senate confirmation. The couple even joked to one reporter that if the voters elected Clinton, they would get "two for the price of one." Consummating the deal, the president immediately named Hillary to head a task force to review and fix the nation’s health-care "crisis." The only real crisis was the lack of congressional will to cut costs or raise revenue for the costly and inefficient Medicare and Medicaid programs. Instead, Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee diverted the debate to one of uninsurability, implying that any Americans who lacked insurance had no access to medical treatment. In fact, it meant nothing of the sort. Millions of Americans in sole proprietorships or other small businesses found it cheaper to pay cash for medical care, and there was always emergency medical care available to anyone, insured or not.

Schweikart, Larry (2007). A Patriot's History of the United States (Kindle Locations 18667-18670). Sentinel. Kindle Edition.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 6/09, 12:16pm)


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Saturday, June 11, 2011 - 1:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Great article by Yaron Brook on the ARC about this "Ayn Rand Constitution", here

Post 4

Saturday, June 11, 2011 - 2:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This might be a straw in the wind.  Brook says, correctly, that Rand never presented a jurisprudential theory.  Rand said this herself.  It's a denial of the "closed Objectivism" theory that the Peikoff circle has been pushing for some years.

Post 5

Saturday, June 11, 2011 - 4:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The article was written by Tom Bowden, Objectivist attorney, not Yaron Brook, but the point is still taken.

Post 6

Saturday, June 11, 2011 - 6:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Oops, my bad, I got the link via Yaron on facebook and missed the correct author.

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.