Mark Cuban: Amend U.S. Constitution to Make Healthcare a Right

[Jazzhead]

I've grown used to strawman arguments from progressives.  You'd rather the Government take complete control of every individual's physical being than bear the responsibility of personal responsibility.  I get it.

That is a complete mischaracterization and fabrication of my position. 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

If you get sick, you can die.  Is that the "natural liberty" you're so keen to preserve? 

Average Americans can no longer tolerate our system where SHEER LUCK determines whether a catastrophic illness brings bankruptcy and ruin.

Bad luck can bring ruin for almost anything.

In Connecticut there are a bunch of houses that were built with bad foundations from a single company in the 1980's-90's. If your foundation is failing, your house is uninsurable and is basically uninhabitable. People's $300,000 investment is worthless overnight.

Do we get the government to step in and protect us from all forms of possible failure?

Bankruptcy sucks, but it's not death. And Bankruptcy, from what I've heard, is not the financial kiss of death it's often presented as. If you search online you'll find that people's credit is often repaired well before the 7 years it technically lasts on your credit report.

In any system on earth you will find horror stories. There are plenty of horror stories from socialized systems when you start to dig. I don't even believe those are the norms in those systems.

People who hate our system tend to take a few general numbers, like longevity, without considering the very complex factors that goes into those numbers.

Here's an interesting number you won't see publicized:



Heart attack survivablity rates in the US are very good (although liberals say that for the money we spend, not so).

So would you rather be debt-free or alive?

There are huge massive problems with our system, and just repeating that "we have the best system" (as some in the GOP have done in the past) falls flat with people for good reason. But just declaring that our system is unsolvably terrible and needs to be completely scrapped is just as wrong IMO.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Security against homelessness should likewise be provided by means of broad-based taxes.

Security against hunger and bad nutrition should likewise be provided for by means of broad-based taxes.

Security against lack of fashionable clothing should likewise be provided for by means of broad-based taxes.

Security against lack of personal transportation should likewise be provided for by means of broad-based taxes.

Security against job loss should likewise be provided for by means of broad-based taxes.

Security against lack of cell phone should likewise be provided for by means of broad-based taxes.

That's where Jazzhead's mindset takes us. 

@INVAR @Jazzhead

That's exactly the problem.  I don't see how you can declare healthcare to be a right that must be provided/guaranteed by the government without doing the same for things that are even more essential for life -- food/shelter/clothing, etc..  We're (literally) going broke as a country trying to provide reduced versions of that just to senior citizens via Medicare and Social Security.  What the hell happens when those things are guaranteed to all?

Whether it is laudable as an aspiration or not, it is simply not affordable.  Period.

[Cyber Liberty]

The Bible, Biblical Christianity and Constitutional Conservatism are what he calls mythology based on his past replies of invective to those issues.

I think that's exactly what he's saying, and notice he won't answer me with his own face?  He's called God everything except "sky fairy."

[CSM]

call me a pragmatic Republican,  who's moderate or conservative or even libertarian depending on the issue, 

In other words, you are simply a populist that has no guiding principle at his core.  Given that, I'm not surprised that you have no understanding individual liberty and responsibility.

[CSM]

That is a complete mischaracterization and fabrication of my position.

No it isn't.  My characterization only clarified your position and much like all other progressives, you are not keen to the clarification. 

You support a broad based tax in order to make "health care a right."  Anyone who is willing to abdicate such responsibilities to the government is also handing over control of their bodies to that same government.  Much like SSIP, which you have also supported on this thread, the government is using a broad based tax to "protect" and as a result they now DICTATE when people can retire and how much they receive as compensation.

[Cyber Liberty]

 :eatdrink:

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I do hope he runs for President.

Cuban envisions himself as a leftist populist alternative billionaire to Trump.

[Hoodat]

What do you consider to be just and fair compensation for an individual who is the victim of a medical mistake?

What do you consider to be a just and fair compensation for an individual who is the victim of federal government interference in the health insurance market?

[Hoodat]

That's exactly the problem.  I don't see how you can declare healthcare to be a right that must be provided/guaranteed by the government without doing the same for things that are even more essential for life -- food/shelter/clothing, etc.. 

@INVAR
@Maj. Bill Martin

Rights are granted by God - not by government.  The second any liberal proposes that education be a right, or healthcare, or food, etc., then they are proposing that so-called right be granted by taking away from someone else at the point of a gun.

[catfish1957]

I do hope he runs for President.

Cuban envisions himself as a leftist populist alternative billionaire to Trump.

Cuban's ethics, especially with sports team negotiations is beyond sleazy.  His business practices make Trump look like a saint.

[Night Hides Not]

I do hope he runs for President.

Cuban envisions himself as a leftist populist alternative billionaire to Trump.

Let's face it, Trump's run opened the door for multiple narcissistic billionaires to run for POTUS. Reality show producers are rejoicing everywhere.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@INVAR
@Maj. Bill Martin

Rights are granted by God - not by government.  The second any liberal proposes that education be a right, or healthcare, or food, etc., then they are proposing that so-called right be granted by taking away from someone else at the point of a gun.

I understand and agree with that, but in essence, that means tossing Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, and every other program completely.  And politically, that's a losing argument.  Push for that, and you end up with nothing.

But the cost issue is completely legitimate, and one that can persuade some people to at least limit the welfare state.  It is simply not affordable.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Let's face it, Trump's run opened the door for multiple narcissistic billionaires to run for POTUS. Reality show producers are rejoicing everywhere.

Isn't Oprah yapping about it?

[Idaho_Cowboy]

But there is a natural right to health care, just as there are natural rights to keep and bear arms, to speak one's mind freely, to publish writings on most any subject, to worship and follow the dictates of one's religiously informed conscience.

None of these natural rights create any obligation on the part of others to provide us with the means of exercising them.  Freedom of the press does not create a right to subsidized paper, ink and printing presses or to compel publishers to print and distribute one's writings; the right to keep and bear arms does not mean that others should be taxed to buy each of us an AR-15, ammo and range time or that firearms manufacturers be compelled to provide us with their products at government mandated prices; nor does the non-enumerated right to health care create a right to have anyone pay physicians on one's behalf, or to compel physicians to provide health care outside of contracts willingly entered into.

Most government regulations of health insurance and health care actually represent infringements of the natural right to health care.

What Cuban means is not a right to health care, but a "right" to compel others to provide us with the product of their labors to subsidize the exercise of that right.  This "right" is nothing of the sort, but a form of tyranny exercised on the plea of benefiting the citizenry (as all modern forms of tyranny now are).

Right on.

[INVAR]

But the cost issue is completely legitimate, and one that can persuade some people to at least limit the welfare state.  It is simply not affordable.

Not according to Leftists like Jazzhead.  Just tax the rich more and then supplement with 'broad-based tax increases' and spread the misery equally.  There's always money in the mind of a Leftist.  The government is simply empowered to take more and regulate more and then these imbeciles think there will be plenty for everyone when it is redistributed.

[kevindavis007]

I'm so glad it takes an arm and a leg to amend the Constitution.

[Jazzhead]

@INVAR @Jazzhead

That's exactly the problem.  I don't see how you can declare healthcare to be a right that must be provided/guaranteed by the government without doing the same for things that are even more essential for life -- food/shelter/clothing, etc..  We're (literally) going broke as a country trying to provide reduced versions of that just to senior citizens via Medicare and Social Security.  What the hell happens when those things are guaranteed to all?

Whether it is laudable as an aspiration or not, it is simply not affordable.  Period.

Folks can plan to provide themselves with food, shelter and clothing.   The cost of an unexpected health crisis?  Not so much.   That's why most responsible folks turn to insurance,  just as they do when what's at stake is the protection of their home against fire or flood, or their life savings against a lawsuit in the event of an auto accident.   

The purpose of insurance is to protect against unexpected catastrophe.   A problem with health care insurance is that it covers stuff well beyond the normal purpose of insurance - like free annual check-ups and vaccinations.   No one pays for auto insurance that covers oil changes.

Is protection against ruin in the event of medical catastrophe a "right"?  No, but the members of a community can decide -as we've done with Social Security -  to devise a system by which such risks can be spread among the community at large.   As I've mentioned before,  I apply a Rawlesian analysis to a matter such as this -  if you were ignorant of your circumstance -  wealth or poverty,  health or sickness - is this the sort of risk you'd agree should be spread among the community at large so that an individual can have peace of mind against the ill winds of arbitrary fate?

As you've pointed out, Bill,  we must deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it could be.  We cannot be selfish islands of individuality without a care for the larger community.   Programs derided by (some) conservatives as welfare and part of the unconstitutional government safety net have existed for our entire lifetimes.   These programs aren't going away, nor is the mentality that we as a community should, when appropriate,  pool our resources to address the less fortunate.

As for protection against medical catastrophe,  of course it is affordable.   We pay already for the cost of uncompensated care provided to others.   But we do so in a way that is arbitrary and unfair,  imposing the price on those who play by the rules and act responsibly.   I'd like to see a better way,  and am not averse to government playing its role because,  let's face it,  the risk of financial ruin exists for us all.   (Even for social conservatives who've convinced themselves they're more virtuous than the rest of us godless communists).     

     

[corbe]

I'm so glad it takes an arm and a leg to amend the Constitution.

   So true @kevindavis but it isn't infallible-Exhibit 1 (among many) The 17th and 18th Amendment.





 

[INVAR]

the members of a community can decide -as we've done with Social Security -  to devise a system by which such risks can be spread among the community at large.

...is this the sort of risk you'd agree should be spread among the community at large so that an individual can have peace of mind against the ill winds of arbitrary fate?

...We cannot be selfish islands of individuality without a care for the larger community..... (Even for social conservatives who've convinced themselves they're more virtuous than the rest of us godless communists).     

As if we needed any more proof from your own mouth that you are a Godless Communist.

[Jazzhead]

As if we needed any more proof from your own mouth that you are a Godless Communist.

So because I support Social Security I'm a Godless Communist?   You truly do live in Cloudcuckooland.   

[truth_seeker]

Who do you trust for your health care?

--A good doctor

--A good lawyer

Do you think that most doctors are honest?

Do you think that most lawyers are honest?

[Hoodat]

I understand and agree with that, but in essence, that means tossing Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, and every other program completely.

Not at all.  Social Security is not a right.  Neither is Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, etc.

[INVAR]

So because I support Social Security I'm a Godless Communist? 

THAT and the emphasis and necessity you place upon the 'Community' to empower government on behalf of "community" demands and desires upon the people to create and mandate 'rights' out of thin air.

Textbook Communism.  That's what you spew here.

[Jazzhead]

THAT and the emphasis and necessity you place upon the 'Community' to empower government on behalf of "community" demands and desires upon the people to create and mandate 'rights' out of thin air.

Textbook Communism.  That's what you spew here.

At least I'm not batshit crazy.   Spew your mythology at someone else.