TakeYouToTasker

The problem is that you're wrong, and you don't understand the fundamental nature of rights. The rights we enjoy, know as "natural rights", are "negative rights". They are defined as "negative" because they require nothing more than the inaction of others for you to enjoy. The freedom of speech requires nothing more than the government not restricting your speech. The freedom of religion requires nothing more than the government not instituting a state religion. These rights are all fundamentally derived from property rights, as gives way to self-determination and self-ownership. If I own myself, I own my own time, my own interests, my own thoughts and beliefs, etc. It is this basic concept which makes slavery so abhorrent. "Positive rights" are an entirely different animal. Positive rights actually require the actions of others on your behalf or they cannot exist, and in doing so, in their basic nature, actually violate the negative rights of others as they undo the foundations of negative rights. One can not be said to have ownership of himself, his time, his thoughts and beliefs; if in fact another person has the right to conscript him for whatever their purpose. Positive and negative rights are fundamentally incompatible. Either you believe that individuals are best served under the condition of freedom, or that they are best served under the condition of servitude. You can't have it both ways.

Were I you, I would hesitate to get my news from agenda driven op-ed pieces which disregard the laws of supply, demand, and human motivation.

It applies to the overwhelming majority of the game.

This has to be the worst description of our banking system I've ever heard.

... LOL

If we're all missing your point, perhaps you'd like to clarify?

Would you rather have your right nut, or your left nut crushed with a hammer?

Different location for chains don't even offer the same menu items in most cases. And the costs of running a business in a given area will always be passed along to the customer. That's the cost of living in an urban area. The alternative is having no businesses in the area, as they wouldn't be able to operate.

A return to padded leather helmets with no facemask, and lacrosse style shoulder pads is the answer. Take away a player's willingness to use his head and shoulders as a weapon will minimize "knock out" type hits, and will lead to body tackling like in rugby.

That's not the case that healthcare should be a right, doesn't address it's finite nature, and doesn't address the fact that it doesn't exist at all but for the fact that other individuals produce it. Try again.

I've always been curious how someone could assert that they have a "right" to something which is a commodity with a finite supply, which is 100% reliant on others to produce. I've yet to hear an answer which is sufficient. Anyone care to try?

You !@#$ing retard. LEARN ABOUT INSURANCE.

By national "dialog" [sic], I assume you mean elected Democrats and main stream media outlets who are their mouth piece. You partisan hack.

I also have first hand knowledge, and given that, I assume you feel that all sales and marketing directed at end suppliers is bribery, given the logical extensions of your position. Which is absurd. Yet, it's even more absurd that you feel this is worth discussing as a major driver of pharma costs when compared to our subsidization of costs for the rest of the world. Let me say this as directly as possible: The reason all of Europe and the rest of the socialized West is able to artificially keep the costs of their drugs down is because the US subsidizes those costs. It's not a replicatable model, and if we do as GG suggests (and I happen to agree), drug companies will be forced to raise their costs with other developed nations, which will break their already strained (and in several cases already failing) models. If you pull the demographics most likely to be healthy out of the risk pool, you drive up costs for those on the other end of the spectrum.

What percentage of the cost of pharmaceuticals is impacted by sales and marketing vs. our global subsidization of the entire industry? I am flabbergasted that you attempted to make that point.

Fantastic. We have an accord.

I remember some folks here insisting we should draft him on day 2.

And here I thought you had been talking about the one which had it's least powerful branch of it's government convert itself into being the most powerful branch of government, telling the man who wrote the foundational document that he was wrong about the meaning of what he himself had written.

The cost of our drugs is so high relative to the rest of the world because we subsidize the costs of those drugs for the rest of the world. Your plan will make supplying life saving drugs to 3rd world countries unaffordable. Before you talk about this stuff, you really should attempt to educate yourself about the actual markets you're opining about.

Not the one which usurped the power to purchase land from other governments, despite that power not having been afforded to them by their foundational document, which had been ratified only fifteen years prior?

I've long been an advocate for a national pool for catastrophic care. Now imagine if your country also provided military defense for the entire western world.

The one where they abolished the existing American government without the consent of the governed, and established a new government which absolved them of their personal debts, instead obligating the states to pay them.

You're entitled to your opinion, but it isn't based on evidence. And this would be fine if it was just an opinion floating around out in the ether, but since you're trying to legislate it, it's a major problem.

So the problem with Socialism is that we haven't tried it yet? No, we won't do better because of the fundamental laws of supply and demand. Try as you may, you cannot repeal them. As has been written here before, the three desirable prongs of health care are: abundance, universal affordability, and high quality. You can control for any two of those outcomes, but not all three.

As GG says, that's not a pre-existing condition, as the condition, as far as insurance goes, begins with diagnosis. However, with that said, what your talking about is a portability issue.