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

[Cyber Liberty]

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

Give it up, you just lost the argument.

[Sanguine]

Give it up, you just lost the argument.

I think it was lost way back, but that's just me.

[Cyber Liberty]

I think it was lost way back, but that's just me.

No, it's not just you.

[INVAR]

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

That is what all Commies, Liberals, Leftists, Maoists and Big Government Statists call Principled Conservative Christians.

At least you are consistent.

I will wear your batshit crazy accolade as a badge of honor.

[geronl]

I think it was lost way back, but that's just me.

Lost and getting loster

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Lost and getting loster

He should never have taken that left turn in Trier.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@Jazzhead

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.

With all due respect, this seems contradictory.  You first claim that health care is different from food, shelter, and clothing, because we cannot plan for unexpected health care costs.  But you then (rightly) note the existence of the insurance market, which means we can plan for those unexpected costs.  So I'm not understanding the distinction you're drawing between the government providing food, shelter, and clothing, and the government providing health care.

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?

I think there are a lot of problems with Rawls and his Veil of Ignorance, but if you're going in that direction, then government also should provide food, shelter, and clothing -- again, according to Rawls.  And you haven't distinguished how professional health care is any more necessary to life than food, shelter, and clothing (it's clearly even less necessary), or why government should provide that to everyone but not the others.

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.

Actually, we can be.   What is becoming very clear is that we cannot -- in the literal sense -- provide everyone with all the basics they need to live -- food, shelter, and clothing -- plus health care.  We are collapsing under the weight of providing much less only to limited segments of society, and it is not sustainable in the long term.  Honestly, your plea that we must deal with the world "as it is" rather than "as we wish it could be" seems a very odd point for you to make.  You're talking about something that is desireable in a moral sense without first establishing that it is even possible to do it in the long-term.  I'd suggest that your position may be the one that is dealing with the world as he wishes it to be, rather than what it really is.

[truth_seeker]

Actually, we can be.   What is becoming very clear is that we cannot -- in the literal sense -- provide everyone with all the basics they need to live -- food, shelter, and clothing -- plus health care.  We are collapsing under the weight of providing much less only to limited segments of society, and it is not sustainable in the long term. 

Other places are collapsing under the failure of all-out socialism. Cuba, Venezuela, Greece, etc.

Even with nearly unlimited resources like Venezuela, it doesn't work in the long run. Europe's several nations are examples of where it looks like it is working, but only with total tax rates that Americans would revolt against.

Across the US municipalities are going bankrupt, over promises for pensions and health care beyond their own financial means.

Haircuts for all.

[Smokin Joe]

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?

Good question, considering that has been one of the biggest medical mistakes ever.

[driftdiver]

Other places are collapsing under the failure of all-out socialism. Cuba, Venezuela, Greece, etc.

Even with nearly unlimited resources like Venezuela, it doesn't work in the long run. Europe's several nations are examples of where it looks like it is working, but only with total tax rates that Americans would revolt against.

Across the US municipalities are going bankrupt, over promises for pensions and health care beyond their own financial means.

Haircuts for all.

@truth_seeker @Maj. Bill Martin
The false assumption is that someone will have to suffer.  There are ways that peoples needs can be met.

Mostly it requires those with able bodies and minds to work and create the wealth needed to buy the services and products they need.   This of course requires an economy where work is to be found and the necessary products are available at a fair price.   Some people will fall between the cracks of that model and its not unreasonable for those people to receive help.

Our current systems (social security, welfare, medicare, medicaid) all support too many people who are able to work for themselves.   They just aren't willing too.    This disparity is bankrupting the system.

[Smokin Joe]

@truth_seeker @Maj. Bill Martin
The false assumption is that someone will have to suffer.  There are ways that peoples needs can be met.

Mostly it requires those with able bodies and minds to work and create the wealth needed to buy the services and products they need.   This of course requires an economy where work is to be found and the necessary products are available at a fair price.   Some people will fall between the cracks of that model and its not unreasonable for those people to receive help.

Our current systems (social security, welfare, medicare, medicaid) all support too many people who are able to work for themselves.   They just aren't willing too.    This disparity is bankrupting the system.

When the priest or pastor helped someone in the past, they usually knew or knew of someone to ask about getting someone even temporary work, if the person had problems could direct them to help for those (medical or psychological troubles), who had an old car for sale cheap, or a room to let, etc., and they knew the frequent flyers and their family situations. They had that subtle ability to push a person in the right direction.

Now a 'client' gets referred to another agency as a 'client' etc. Privacy safeguards limit information sharing, and the community pays its taxes to support multiple levels of bureaucracy, but I have to question if the results are anywhere near as good.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

When the priest or pastor helped someone in the past, they usually knew or knew of someone to ask about getting someone even temporary work, if the person had problems could direct them to help for those (medical or psychological troubles), who had an old car for sale cheap, or a room to let, etc., and they knew the frequent flyers and their family situations. They had that subtle ability to push a person in the right direction.

Now a 'client' gets referred to another agency as a 'client' etc. Privacy safeguards limit information sharing, and the community pays its taxes to support multiple levels of bureaucracy, but I have to question if the results are anywhere near as good.

The big difference is the moral hazard argument.  Private charity is discretionary -- if the people doing the giving believe you are milking it, or taking advantage of the system, they can withdraw support in a heartbeat.

But government entitlement is far different.  You have a legal right to those benefits, and our rightful preference for a government of laws rather a government of men means that the low level administrators don't have much discretion.   So, you risk creating a class of dependents who are willing to trade the chance of earning greater wealth for a lazy lifestyle with less benefits.  And that's what is happening/has happened.

[EC]

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?

There's honest lawyers. Never actually seen one, but the law of averages says they must exist.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

There's honest lawyers. Never actually seen one, but the law of averages says they must exist.

Really?  Ever see an honest thief?

[EC]

Really?  Ever see an honest thief?

Yep. That I have.

[geronl]

I think it's a right that everyone be billionaires. We should amend the Constitution.

[DiogenesLamp]

Really?  Ever see an honest thief?

I think Captain Jack Sparrow spoke with quite a degree of profundity on the issue. 


https://youtu.be/1UT9Y6coFT8

[Hoodat]

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.

How odd that you decry this same standard when it comes to abortion or same-sex marriage.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Yep. That I have.

So the impossible can be possible?

Impossible.

[EC]

So the impossible can be possible?

Impossible.

No. Merely improbable.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

By definition alone, you are incorrect.

[montanajoe]

Hate to say it but this is one of the few Constitutional Amendnent proposals that has a chance getting through the states. Luckily it doesn't have a chance of getting through Congress...for now...

[DB]

By definition alone, you are incorrect.

If a thief only steals from thieves is he still a thief? It's a double negative... And regarding honesty and thievery are they necessarily at odds with each other? If a thief never tells a lie or misrepresents himself is he/she not honest? Just thinking out loud...

[Jazzhead]

How odd that you decry this same standard when it comes to abortion or same-sex marriage.

There's quite a difference between the community deciding to create a system of insurance to address income security in old age, and the community deciding to take away the Constitutional rights of disfavored individuals.

How do you feel about the community taking your guns away?   Now who's the hypocrite?   

[Jazzhead]

Yep. That I have.

To live outside the law you must be honest.

  - Bob Dylan