An Easy Way To Prove That Healthcare is NOT A Right

Dr. Jack Cassell is a urologist in Florida. Just recently, he put the following notice on his Mount Dora practice:

“If you voted for Obama, seek urologic care elsewhere. Changes to your healthcare begin right now, not in four years.”

Cassell told reporters that he wasn’t refusing care to patients; he wanted only to educate them on how the new healthcare takeover would affect them:

I came across the timeline for implementation of Obamacare and I got a little discouraged when I got to next year when I found that most of the ancillary services and nursing homes and diagnostic imaging, all these things start to fade away,” he told Fox News’ Neil Cavuto. “And I felt that my patients really need to know about this. And the more I thought about it, the angrier I got until I finally felt like I’m going to put a little splash page on my front door and just get people thinking a little bit.

As it turns out, Doctor Cassell — and I applaud you for your efforts and think that every doctor in the country should go on strike right now, this very moment, to show that their lives and their labor are their own and do not in any belong to the state or to other people — there’s a painfully simple way to demonstrate how and why urologic care, like all healthcare, is not a right:

Rights by definition are immutable and timeless. They apply as much to humans now — and for the same reasons — as they did to humans five or ten thousand years ago. If healthcare is a right, then, where was your right to a heart transplant 200 years ago?

Where is your right to be completely cured of cancer today?

Where is your right to kidney dialysis if there are no kidney dialysis machines?

Where is your right to medical care if there are no doctors anywhere near you because young people are no longer studying the science of medicine, since to be a doctor means to be a slave to the state?


  • Nick

    April 6, 2010

    What a tool.

  • Capitalist

    April 6, 2010

    C’mon, Ray, since when do doctors have the right to decide anything? Only liberals and their ruling elite have the right to decide anything. Once you accept that their dictates are as well-meaning as they claim, and that we’ll all be better off once we accept that only liberal politicians and their marching hoard of Mongolian followers know what’s right for us all will utopia be achieved.

    I mean, what’s wrong with you and this jerk doctor, thinking you should be able to decide the real meaning of the magnanimous health care edicts, or who a doctor really works for? Just because the elites exempt themselves and shift the heavy cost burden until after the next couple elections is no reason for you to pretend you have a brain or understand any of this. Just shut up and accept that you’re as stupid and racist as they say you are, grab your ankles, and pay up.

  • ShyButIntrigued

    April 7, 2010

    I watched the entire interview with the doctor and the completely unilluminating questions lobbed at him by Neil Cavuto. The doctor states that diagnostic imaging and nursing homes start to “fade away,” implying these services are no longer provided for. What the actual text of the bill says is doctors who stand to profit from Medicare payments for certain imaging services in-office by referring himself/herself or through an arrangement with another entity is prohibited from doing so.

    My point is not theoretical regarding rights, although I do think in an advanced society that health care is a right, rather that this doctor frames his horrifying discovery as a denial of coverage to frighten people. What the bill really says is he can’t order a bunch of tests he’ll then profit from. He has to outsource them. And I agree.

    If that’s how he wants to make money, let him buy the equipment and set up shop. But he doesn’t get the leeway of both deciding how many tests someone needs then profiting from the lab work. Chicken in hen house potential. I’m sure I’ll be skewered here, but for God’s sake people, read what the hell this thing says. Even Neil Cavuto didn’t ask or know what the text of the bill says. Journalism 101. Christ.

    6/19/2009–Introduced.Integrity in Medicare Advanced Diagnostic Imaging Act of 2009 – Amends title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act to exclude certain advanced diagnostic imaging services from the in-office ancillary services exception to the prohibition on physician self-referral. (Thus prohibits a physician [or an immediate family member] who has an ownership or investment relationship or compensation arrangement with an entity from referring a patient to the entity for certain advanced diagnostic imaging services for which a Medicare payment otherwise may be made.)

  • ShyButIntrigued

    April 7, 2010

    In addition, medical ethicists say it is completely unethical to refuse service based on gender, religion, sexual orientation, and political affiliation. So while the good doctor has an aw shucks, just-joking I’ll-see-anyone-who-needs-me attitude in the interview, the sign on his door does say, “If you voted for Obama, seek urological services elsewhere.”

    Could a store owner put up a sign that says Whites Only and be considered ethical? Uh, no. And that same principle applies to politics. I doubt most of my father’s physicians agree with him politically. I don’t either, but I sure as hell don’t want him questioning whether he can get care from them because of it.

    You do live in a world of other people. I know it sucks, but let’s not tolerate unethical behavior.

  • Capitalist

    April 7, 2010

    “I do think in an advanced society that health care is a right…”
    Then amend the Constitution to explicitly state that. And what else is a right in an advanced society? Food? Housing? Child care? Shall we simply abandon our Constitution and adopt the ICESCR?

    “…let’s not tolerate unethical behavior.”
    Forcing people to buy health insurance, according to many AG I happen to agree with, is unconstitutional. Is it ethical to violate the Constitution? Is it ethical to call protestors “racist” without a single shred of evidence?

    The doctor has the right to freedom of speech, at least at the moment, even if Obama Zombies don’t like what he has to say.

    Ray, I understand why you walked away. As I understand it, “Leave Us Alone” was, for you, an assignment, whereas “More and More Unto the Perfect Day” was a passion. Your recent soliloquies also demonstrate your uncontroversial artistic abilities. When you touch current affairs (politics), we invariably wind up with a hero-worshiper rationalizing why the government needs to rule every aspect of our lives and tax us to our graves.

    What “shy but intrigued”, who appears to be neither, fails to understand is that government meddling invariably leads to poor results. Enslaving medical providers will lead to rationing, soaring costs, declining quality, and severely impact innovation. Free people, as American history has proven, are motivated to bring about great advances, and competition always drives down cost and drives up quality. The entitled demanding from the enslaved will, instead, lead to insidious results. Remember the gas lines?

  • ShyButIntrigued

    April 7, 2010

    And I NEVER hear Dr. Cassell say healthcare isn’t a right. The only thing argument he makes is that somehow this healthcare bill does away with ancillary services like “advanced diagnostics” and nursing home care. The bill doesn’t say that ANYWHERE. He’s not addressing RIGHTS.

    So why are you printing this as some kind of salvo regarding rights? This asshole isn’t talking about rights. He’s spewing lies. If you want to shoot off a salvo regarding rights, get a relevant example.

    He’s lying about what’s in the bill while also saying he happily takes Medicare. He says he wants to “educate people about what’s in the bill,” then incorrectly (and obviously)lies that diagnostics and nursing home care are cut off.

    If you want to make a relevant argument, do the research and at least choose sources that match your point of view and then check to see if the facts back it up. Dr. Penis is a goddamn moron and doesn’t know anything about what he’s saying. Let’s hope he studied more carefully in med school.

  • ShyButIntrigued

    April 7, 2010

    Gee, Cap, was the government leading us to decline with the funding of the interstate highway system, social security, building projects to improve infrastructure in water quality, bridges (now falling with lack of government funding) building codes that keep your house from exploding in flames, police and fire departments, state and local roads, educational opportunities, fire hydrants, stop signs, and traffic lights, food safety standards, medicare for old sick people?

    Let’s not forget the good ol’ Internet. A military project funded by the good of US of A and yes, tax dollars. Shiver me timbers!

    I worship no politician. And I’m not into ad hominem bursts of childish temper towards those with whom I disagree. But stupid is as stupid does. Do your homework before you lash out or use sources that really don’t support your argument.

    Oh, and the only way the government will catch you if you don’t buy insurance is if you claim the expense on your tax return. So, uh, don’t claim it and be free, my fellow American. READ IT FOR CHRIST’S SAKE. Otherwise, even if you don’t buy the insurance, you can still show up at the emergency room bloody and broken and buy insurance to cover yourself. I KNOW! Evil tyranny at its finest. You people really need to get a hobby. Or learn to read.

    I disagree with you. That does not make me a zombie. And I bet you never read a word of the bill until I published it. Which one of us

  • Capitalist

    April 7, 2010

    Quoting “ShyButIntrigued” (again): “I do think in an advanced society that health care is a right…”

    Where in the Constitution is that right stated? I must have missed it somewhere. You had the right all along; now you have no choice. Government cannot provide this kind of “right”, they can only soil, corrupt, and desecrate it.

    Let me summarize the difference between you and I. I would let you be free, and you would have your “liberal” government force me to do things – like buy insurance – I don’t want to do. You would dictate to me, I would let you enjoy success or failure as the case may be. Previous bad behavior and overreaching government does not justify excessive unconstitutional bad behavior and totalitarian government. Bush farting in November does not justify Obama shitting on my Thanksgiving turkey. Comparing police, fire departments, etc. to forcing us into a system that ultimately looks like the USSR is an invalid argument.

    As is typical of the liberal utopian ilk, you want to change the subject. Of course I accept reasonable and moderate government services. Health care is not one of them, and now in your utopian dreamland the door is wide open to confiscate our homes, our farms and ranches, everything to do with transportation, etc. etc. etc. If you like Chavez-Castro style living, go there. Remember, I would give you freedom, my brother, not the chains of corrupt government “oversight and control” you so trust.

    I don’t need to read your skank bill to know it robs me of freedom and violates my rights. If there’s no mandate and IRS enforcement, why do they need 16000 new agents, and why are so many AG filing suit over the mandate? If it was so great, why did it take so much bribery (with our money) to buy the votes? Why are so many people angry about the process and the content? Oh, that’s right, according to your vaunted leaders, we’re stupid and racist, that’s why.

  • ShyButIntrigued

    April 7, 2010


    Well, you proved your stupidity by admitting you didn’t read the bill then opining all about it. But I never implied or directly said you were racist. You really aren’t a good reader, are you?

  • Ray

    April 7, 2010

    ShyButIntrigued wrote: > I do think in an advanced society that health care is a right

    Rights apply the same to any society, advanced or non-advanced, and in any society, no one has the right to the life or labor of another human being. Rights by definition preclude it. The only alternative to acting by right is acting by permission. If someone possessed the right to the life and labor of another, from whom would such a right derive? And who would give permission to those who determine that you have the right to my life and my labor? And who gives permission to those above? And those above them? And so on?

    ShyButIntrigued wrote: > Could a store owner put up a sign that says Whites Only and be considered ethical?






    In any case, ethical or not, it’s still the property owner’s right. And we are free to boycott them, or not.

    ShyButIntrigued wrote: > was the government leading us to decline with the funding of the interstate highway system, social security, building projects to improve infrastructure in water quality, bridges (now falling with lack of government funding) building codes that keep your house from exploding in flames, police and fire departments, state and local roads, educational opportunities, fire hydrants, stop signs, and traffic lights, food safety standards, medicare for old sick people

    Yes, indubitably! Government by definition cannot spend a single penny unless it either taxes, borrows, or prints. This coercively siphons money from one sector of the economy into another, and it does so without regard to what that money would have been spent on otherwise. This is what the great economist Bastiat described as “the seen and the unseen.” You only see what the government has spent its plundered money on; you do not see what that money would have done were it not taken by force. The government has to such a degree been leading us into decline by funding these projects that if you saw what this society would have been without such massive government expenditures, you would not believe your eyes at the sheer wealth created by the private sector — wealth that benefits everyone. Sir John Cowperthwaite dealt with this same (non)argument when he was overseeing the economy of Hong Kong, and they told him he must build a bridge with government money. His answer: when there’s sufficient demand for that bridge, the market will provide it. And do you know what? It did. The bridge was funded and built privately and stands tall to this day.

    Social Security, of all things, which forgot to take into account basic factors like increased life expectancy, is one of the biggest frauds every perpetrated on this country. It’s been bankrupt for years, living on borrowed time and money, and yet we’re still subsidizing it. You want to talk about being led into decline by government, it’s difficult to think of a more profligate program than social security.

    Medicare and Medicaid, also bankrupt, and which by injecting tons of government money into the medical system went far in creating the disastrous medical crisis we now find ourselves in, has incontrovertibly led us into decline. Contrary to popular belief, prior to government involvement into the medical system, the overwhelming majority of people in this country had access to inexpensive, quality medicine. Those who didn’t, were amply taken care of by private organizations and private charities, which private organizations and charities were effectively wiped out by government meddling and taxation. Government has done incalculable damage to the medical profession, and in providing “medicare for old sick people” has led this country to such decline that we’re now told that the only solution is more government intervention! This is not only incorrect: it’s a kind of lunacy.

    The horrific decline in medicine began with government interference in the marketplace. It began with price and wage controls, which are a form of socialism, and it began with tax breaks.

    It did not begin with the free market, which would have established the best possible medicine at the lowest possible cost and would have maintained that standard as long as the medical profession was left free.

    What is now termed modern medicine actually began in the early 1920s when science — in particular, germ theory — developed to the point where sickness and disease were at last being treated reliably. It was then that doctors and hospitals got much more adept at saving lives. This more highly developed service and expertise raised the value of their work, and they charged accordingly for their increased skill and labor.

    That’s when the situation started: when lives can be saved and health can be gained because of developments in technology, everyone suddenly believes that it’s her right to have that thing. We see the same principle at work in, for example, the platitude “No one should go hungry when Americans throw away food.”

    The error in both cases is the fraudulent notion that survival should be assured. This notion neglects the crucial fact that abundance and technology are produced — and produced, moreover, by individuals.

    No one has the right to the life and labor (i.e. production) of any individual, including doctors.

    An easy way to demonstrate this fact is by asking the following question: where was the right before these goods and services were produced or invented?

    No good answer has ever been given to that question because no good answer for it exists.

    In the 1920s, when advancing healthcare became more expensive (though still very reasonable), the administrator of Baylor Hospital in Dallas, one Dr. Justin Ford Kimball, created a system called Blue Cross. The Blues (so-called) were nonprofit health insurers. They served local organizations like the Rebeccas and the Elks Club, and — please pay attention — they kept their premiums low in exchange for tax breaks.

    Tax breaks are one of the two main components to our current healthcare crisis. They are what initially created the problem.

    Blue Cross, you see, was successful. Up until then, commercial insurers had always regarded medicine as a mediocre market, and therefore commercial insurers didn’t deal too much in medicine. But when commercial insurers saw that the Blues were making money, it convinced them to enter the medical field. This was not a problem, at first — until the 1940s, when private insurers increased their efforts to get around wartime wage controls, thus:

    During World War II, Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s price-and-wage people, who didn’t generally permit wage increases or price increases (regardless of market forces) sanctioned a form of tax discrimination: specifically, they allowed employers to pay for employee medical insurance with pretax dollars.

    This quickly became one of the few ways employers could attract new and better employees, since FDR had actually mandated that employers were no longer permitted to pay out higher wages. (How this ridiculous idea came about is another story, for another time.)

    To this day, those who get employer-financed healthcare are purchasing their healthcare coverage with pretax dollars. On the other hand, those who buy their own healthcare are purchasing it with after-tax dollars.

    As far as the employer was (initially) concerned, this wasn’t any different from additional labor costs — which is to say, medical insurance was not, from the employers perspective, any different from a rise in wages, and yet FDR’s price-and-wage control people did not at all see it as a wage increase. They therefore allowed it, which may seem surprising in light of FDR’s desire to control the entire economy.

    Likewise, the IRS bureaucrats under FDR did not regard this maneuver as a wage increase, and for this reason they didn’t slap a tax on it. Neither did the employees see it as a real raise in wages — a fact that is singular to how this whole horrible precedent was set — because these costs are what economists call hidden costs.

    The upshot: people didn’t and very often still don’t know that it is, after all, their own money paying for this prepaid medical coverage, and that medical coverage isn’t free.

    In fact, health insurance today isn’t even really health insurance. It’s more properly called prepaid healthcare. But — and this is an absolute crux — it gives the appearance of being free or substantially free to the user, and it therefore substantially increases the demand for it and therefore its cost. (To learn why this is so, please see my brief article.) Of course, the root of this whole problem is the misbegotten notion that healthcare is not a good and service to be traded on the open market but a right.

    Let us remember what insurance actually is:

    Insurance, properly defined, is what you purchase in order to avoid financial ruin in the case of a rare emergency.

    Under the dangerous system FDR created, employees came to regard their healthcare coverage as a kind of blessed phenomena which came without cause or consequence. Quickly, this phenomena was absorbed into the working culture and as quickly was taken for granted: employees got used to receiving free goods, which goods, however, were not actually free. Employees just could not see that they were paying for them, and paying for them, furthermore, with pretax dollars.

    A family in the bottom fifth of the income distribution pays about $450 more in taxes than insured families at the same income level. For families in the top fifth of the income distribution, the tax penalty is $1,780…. On average, uninsured families pay about $1,018 more in federal taxes each year because they do not have employer-provided insurance. Collectively, the uninsured pay about $17.1 billion in extra taxes each year because they do not receive the same tax break as insured people with similar income. If state and local taxes are included, the extra taxes paid by the uninsured exceed $19 billion per year (“Are the uninsured freeloaders?” National Center for Policy Analysis, Brief Analysis No. 120).

    Among other things, this illustrates again why entitlements are such a deadly precedent: once they’re in, it’s virtually impossible to back out of them. Why? Because people acclimate to entitlements and in no time cannot imagine life without them. It is impossible to overstate the significance of this.

    These unsound insurance practices, which began some two decades before Medicaid (Medicaid was inaugurated in the mid-1960’s), are one of the two major components to our current healthcare crisis.

    It is very, very important to understand that what created these unsound insurance practices in the first place was government intervention — specifically, wage controls and taxes, which made it possible to dangle the tax-break carrot.

    Under laissez-faire capitalism, this not only would not have happened: it could not have. It follows, then, that the solution — the only solution — is not more intervention, which is like trying to put out a wildfire with kerosene, but deregulation.

    The other major component to the healtcare crisis in this country is mandatory government licensing of everything from doctors and hospitals, to nurses and pharmacies, to drugs and drug companies. This mandatory government licensing creates what in economic terms is called a Licensing Law Monopoly. What this does is prohibit open entry into the medical field.

    These two things, unsound insurance practices and mandatory government licensing, are the root of the problem.

    The main error in your comment is in assuming that if government doesn’t provide it, no one will — a common and provably false assertion, which we’ve discussed here many times before. Canals, railroads, highways, roads, even fire departments were not always government-run in this country, and they flourished without that monstrous interference. When that interference sets in, the free market cannot operate freely against the coercive monopolies of government, and so the government dominates. That in a nutshell is the nature of government: an agency of expropriation and force. “Government,” said von Mises, “is essentially the negation of liberty.”

    It’s also incorrect to conflate police with the other things you mention above, insofar as police (including the military) and the courts do fall within the proper jurisdiction of government — specifically, a government which protects against the initiation of force. Mail service, roads, bridges, skyscrapers, fire departments, and so on do not protect against the initiation of force. They are aspects of a paternalistic government.

    ShyButIntrigued wrote: > READ IT FOR CHRIST’S SAKE.

    Nancy Pelosi said: “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

    Beautiful, yes?

    Of course the real question is, when has any massive bureaucratic apparatus ever, in the history of the world, proved itself capable of planning a complex economy?

  • Redmond

    April 7, 2010

    Speaking of the negation of rights in the name of ensuring them.

    In Canada, the most socialist provincial government that we have passed Bill 101 years ago.

    The Charter of the French Language (La charte de la langue française, in French), also known as Bill 101 and Loi 101, is a law in the province of Quebec in Canada defining French, the language of the majority of the population, as the only official language of Quebec and framing fundamental language rights for everyone in the province. It is the central legislative piece in Quebec’s language policy.

    This of course negated the rights of anyone who spoke any other language.
    It created a bureau of Language police to enforce its edicts.

    Here is some of the wonderful effect that the bill had on signage.

    Signs and posters must be in the official language and they may also be in another language provided the official language be markedly predominant.

    In many parts of Quebec, various signs with bilingual French and English text of equal sizes can be seen, although French is usually slightly predominant on these signs; for example, it is located to the left of other languages so that it is read “before” the non-French text when reading left-to right. Formerly, the size and colour of text in other languages were tightly regulated as well.

    Of course this racist piece of legislation was reacted to in a predictable way, given that we live in a free society, and one can vote with their feet.

    According to Statistics Canada, up to 244,000 English-speaking people have emigrated from Quebec to other provinces since the 1970s, and the Quebec population of those whose mother tongue is English had dropped from 789,000 in 1971 to 190,000 in 1996.[24] Because many anglophones relocated outside of Quebec after the introduction of the Charter in the 1970s, several English-language schools in Montreal closed their doors. Many companies, most notably Sun Life, Royal Bank, and Bank of Montreal (which even considered removing “Montreal” from its name), moved their major operations to Toronto as a consequence of the adoption of this law.[25][26] This concerted fleeing of business and subsequent loss of thousands of jobs hindered Quebec’s economy and allowed Toronto to overtake Montreal as Canada’s business centre.

    I live in Toronto, and am quite happy to be in the most multicultural city in the world, where people are free to have signs in any language in the world.
    I can eat a meal from anywhere in the world, any time I like… I hear a multitude of languages every day.
    Montreal was once the New York of the North, but no longer.
    We also have the benefit of being the financial centre of Canada – “trickling down” the benefits of all that money flowing through our hands…
    Toronto also has a vibrant arts community, music community, etc, the majority of it not supported by the government.
    Underdeveloped areas such as Queen West has had a organic growth of the Arts community, and now every second store-front is an Art Gallery – all independently owned.
    My own neighbourhood, that once was decrepit due to almost one hundred years of local prohibition of alcohol, is now one of the fastest gentrifying neighbourhoods in the city.
    I was once in Quebec City – for a protest against globalisation of all things, and a woman there claimed that Ontario had no Culture… I disputed this of course, but what I should have rebutted with was that Quebec only has ONE culture. Or at least is trying its best to gt rid of all other cultures.
    I felt it was not my place to call her Rascist.
    Quebec on the other hand has hand outs and entitlements for just about everything imaginable.
    Quebec also has the highest tax rates in the country, but is bankrupt.
    Their solution is not to cut government services, such as “Language Enforcement Personnel” but to raise taxes even more.
    We are seeing a nice little experiment in European style socialism right here in North America – everyone should be paying close attention.
    The also receive significant transfer payments from Alberta –

    Quebec is the largest recipient with $8.4 billion, or 59 per cent of all equalization payments going to just that one province. Over five years, to the end of this budget year, Quebec will have received$33.9 billion in just equalization payments alone.

    As well, Quebec is constantly threatening to Secede – I for one would love to call their bluff, give them their share of the national debt, and cut them off completely.
    I am sure it would only be a few years before the province emptied out completely…
    Speaking of which, Quebec is now obsessed with the Niquab – a type of Islamic headdress that Frnace has already banned.
    Now, the government of Premier Jean Charest has unveiled legislation, Bill 94, restricting the rights of women to government services if they wear facial coverings.
    Way to go Quebec – now you will see an exodus of Muslims… Toronto still has a few neighbourhoods that could use some investment – you are welcome here.

    Charest is responding to political pressure from the Parti Québécois, which has seized on this issue after seeing others exploit the concept of “reasonable accommodation” of minorities in that province. But the niqab is barely visible in Quebec because so few Muslim women actually wear it. Muslim groups estimate that only a couple of dozen women in the whole province have adopted the niqab.
    And so the full force of the state apparatus – including public hearings, legislative debate, final implementation and departmental enforcement – is being brought to bear on a minuscule percentage (about 0.0003 per cent) of Quebec’s population. This makes no sense.

    The grasping hand of the state indeed…

  • Capitalist

    April 7, 2010

    Shy, the beatings will continue until you abandon your socialist ways.

    Ray, you forgot to mention that the politicians (liars and thieves) have been robbing social security for years to fund their other well-meaning flights of fancy.

    “This is not only incorrect: it’s a kind of lunacy.” Kind of?

    “No one has the right to the life and labor (i.e. production) of any individual, including doctors.” Echo echo echo…

    “Of course the real question is, when has any massive bureaucratic apparatus ever, in the history of the world, proved itself capable of planning a complex economy?” Corollary: when has government forecast of cost of an entitlement ever been even remotely close the the actual cost?

    Ray, did you read the unconstitutional assault on our freedom, or are you stupid like me? Quoting Pelosi – classic!

    Shy, you didn’t call me racist, but those you support do, and there is no evidence of it in spite of deliberate attempts – at protest rallies and in the media – to provoke it. I apologize for you thinking I accused you (which I didn’t); will you apologize for your vaunted leaders denigrating anyone who disagrees with them and their assault on our freedom? Also, you continue to miss the obvious next step in the “rights” crusade: now everyone surely has a right to food and shelter, at least, so that government can guarantee the health care they’ve taken responsibility for, not to mention the same rationale applies to these necessities as any other.

    Great post, Ray. Though we’ve heard it all before, some readers refuse to accept the reality that government taking over our economy so they can provide “rights” will produce bad results.

  • ShyButIntrigued

    April 7, 2010

    Ray wrote: > ShyButIntrigued wrote: > I do think in an advanced society that health care is a right.

    My entire quote is, “My point is not theoretical regarding rights, although I do think in an advanced society that health care is a right, rather that this doctor frames his horrifying discovery as a denial of coverage to frighten people. What the bill really says is he can’t order a bunch of tests he’ll then profit from. He has to outsource them. And I agree.”

    Yes, my opinion on health care is x. However, my POINT on this post, which I thought was obvious, was that the video in no way supports the idea that health care is not a right. Dr. Cassell is angry it passed, rightly or wrongly, and lies about what the bill says to scare people. He undermines anyone who uses him to support an argument because he lies.

    I’m not going argue theory, which I thought I made clear. I’m well aware of your theory and your beliefs. The law has passed, and I argue within that framework. I don’t care what Nancy Pelosi supposedly said; the bills in all their forms were available on the Internet. I read it.

    This doctor says on a sign on his door that if you voted for Obama, go elsewhere for care. Then he lies about what’s in the bill. Neal Cavuto neither challenges the doctor’s false assertions nor knows what the bill says. The doctor also says he takes Medicare and happily does the paperwork for his patients, nullifying the idea that he is striking a blow against government intrusion into his practice.

    This video and this doctor are not the poster children for individual rights. The doctor is throwing a tantrum because he can’t order advanced tests he can profit from.

    Ray, my point to you is to use sources that truly align with your argument. This guy doesn’t and Cavuto accepting every word out of this guy’s mouth as truth without verifying it is shoddy journalism at best, malpractice at worst..

    As for your lengthy treatise on the history of health care in this country (including the somewhat patronizing admonition to pay attention) and your intepretations, please remember I have both your books, have conversed with you at length on your philosopies and theories, and have great respect for your opinions as well as your right to have them. I would have liked to see you address my point in return.

  • Capitalist

    April 7, 2010

    Pelosi quote:
    “Supposedly” my ass.

    When the doctor lies, you call him out. When Obama lies, do you get a shiver up your leg?

    Remember, that 2700+ page monstrosity, which is under justified legal challenge, is only the beginning. It is the sweeping concept, which bureaucrats will expand in tens of thousands of regulatory interpretation. You really don’t know what it will come out to be. Example: EPA wants to tax rainwater runoff. WTF?

  • ShyButIntrigued

    April 7, 2010

    Cap, yeah, just so you can keep your simplistic view of the world and those who disagree with you, I get a full-on orgasm that lasts for days when Obama lies (freedom lovers generally don’t complain when this happens, for lots of reasons). We see things differently, so I’m a commie, pinko, sociliast fucking moron bent on my beloved country’s destruction and I only pay attention to and (mis)quote conservative/anarchist/libertarians. NEVER would my peeps say or do something I disagree with. Nor would I be smart enough to catch it if they did. You don’t need to go on. I get it.

    Civil discourse and reasoned thought – no more. The floor is completely yours.

  • Greg

    April 7, 2010


    I disagree, and think the video illustrates the point Ray was making that health care is not a right. If health care is a right what would you do to force Dr. Cassell to treat people? What if the majority of practicing physicians and future physician chose alternative lines of work? Will you go to the nearest government office for treatment? After all they granted you the right. Where is your right when no one is there to fulfill it?

    When the government really starts to enforce this ‘right’ somebody is going to get fucked. This new law gives the government authority to use force on you to provide health care to someone else. That is truly frightening.

  • Ray

    April 7, 2010

    ShyButIntrigued wrote: > I’m not going argue theory, which I thought I made clear. I’m well aware of your theory and your beliefs. The law has passed, and I argue within that framework.

    The theory is the whole point. One cannot accept a law that’s based upon a fraudulent theory — a law, moreover, passed through backroom deals, arm-twisting, and a Reconciliation process, which, as Robert Byrd, one of the authors of that process, said, was never ever intended for such a thing as healthcare.

    ShyButIntrigued wrote: > I would have liked to see you address my point in return.

    I did address your point, my dear. Specifically. In fact, the only reason I brought up the (forgotten) history of American healthcare is that you said, and I quote: “Was the government leading us to decline with the funding of … medicare for old sick people”

    That is precisely the point I was addressing. That is exactly what I was responding to, and it’s a very important point, because the government has indeed led us to such overwhelming decline with such programs. And Medicare/Medicaid were both precipitated and justified by FDR’s previous government interventions, which threw medical market forces completely out of whack, in the same way that ObamaCare is being justified by the extreme distortions and declines created by Medicare/Medicaid.

    “It is a common tactic of statists to introduce controls which damage the market, and then use those damages to justify further government controls.”

    Said von Mises.

    I apologize if I sounded patronizing, however; that was not my intention. I was simply responding to your specific comment.

    “I don’t care what Nancy Pelosi supposedly said; the bills in all their forms were available on the Internet. I read it.”

    Yes, and so are the so-called fixes, which are even more important, and which can be found here.

    For instance, there is this provision (HR 4872, Reconciliation Act of 2010) Sec. 1411 NO IMPACT ON SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUNDS.

    (b) “The Secretary (of the Treasury) shall transfer, not less than quarterly, from the general revenues of the Federal Government an amount sufficient so as to ensure that the income and balances of such trust funds are not reduced as a result of the enactment of this Act.”

    Isn’t that awesome that government has this power?

    A few other things that taxpayers should be aware of regarding these “fixes” are as follows:

    * The House reconciliation bill increases taxpayer subsidies and lowers cost sharing for individuals receiving a federal subsidy to buy health coverage. This change adds to the overall cost of the bill, while depending on unproven savings and tax hikes to pay for it.
    * Instead of removing special deals, the bill extends additional federal funding to all states for Medicaid. This “fix” is supposed to replace the scandalous requirement that federal taxpayers fund the Nebraska Medicaid expansion. In both case, however, the burden is back on the backs of federal taxpayers.

    Raising Taxes on Americans for all Income Brackets

    * The reconciliation bill increases the individual mandate penalty for some by requiring the penalty be the greater of two options. This mandate amounts to a new tax on those people who choose not to purchase a government-approved health plan regardless of income.
    * The bill also increases taxes on all consumers who use prescription drugs, medical devices or have health insurance.
    * The bill also keeps the Cadillac tax, the tax on high value health plans. But by delaying its start date and indexing the application of the tax to general inflation, it will hit more families harder when it goes into affect.
    * Finally, the reconciliation bill adds a new Medicare tax on upper income individuals and families that extends to investment earnings as well.

    * The reconciliation bill increases the penalties on businesses for not offering health insurance and continues the penalty on businesses whose employees claim the new health care subsidy.

    * The reconciliation bill makes changes to Medicare and Medicaid that reverse course for reforming these struggling health care programs.
    * The bill increases costs to seniors by requiring prescription drug plans in Medicare to offer more coverage
    * The bill undercuts any reform of Medicare by linking Medicare Advantage payments to the flawed fee for services system and by eliminating demonstration projects that utilize competitive bidding to show how an alternative that would use real market pricing would work in practice.
    * Although the sponsors of the House bill claim to address long term costs to Medicare, the bill’s dependence on traditional cuts to providers is not fundamental entitlement reform. It’s basically the same old tired cuts in hospital and physician payment.
    * The bill would add millions of Americans to the already broken Medicaid program. Medicaid remains fiscally unsustainable (for state or federal taxpayers) and it is a notoriously poorly performing program for those who are forced depend on it. Moreover, when new federal funding expires, states will be left with an even heftier cost.

    * The House reconciliation bill secures a massive federal take over of the regulation of health insurance. It nullifies state authority in rate regulation of premiums, setting standards for solvency and reserves. It creates, instead, a new federal rate authority in charge of authorizing changes in politically approved premium levels and imposing penalties on health insurance companies.
    * The reconciliation bill undercuts the ability of state and local governments to control state and local government employee health plans. As a condition of receiving federal money, state and local governments must abide by the new federal regulations and bureaucracy.

    * The House reconciliation bill includes major funding for community health centers with no Hyde Amendment type restrictions on federal taxpayer funding.


  • ShyButIntrigued

    April 7, 2010


    I saw all versions of the bill and read the reconciled bill.

    OK, fine, theory. As you know, I disagree with your theory and do believe central government has a role in regulating society through laws and economies through regulation, particularly societies in which corporations have been granted the “right” of “free speech” through monetary donations to political campaigns. But that’s just an example.

    To you the theory is the whole point, because that’s part of your theory. It is the ultimate truth so why even refer to it as theory? It cannot be argued with on any basis. I have a different theory – definitely not a perfect one, as I’ll be the first to admit. To someone who disagrees with you, it is perfectly legitimate to point out discrepancies in your beliefs and the statements of people you choose to illustrate your point.

    My dear (huh?)

  • Capitalist

    April 7, 2010

    I was among the American people told we lost the election, sit down, and shut up. Anyone remotely representing my views was completely shut out of the debate, and excluded from the corrupt vote-buying and backroom deals. Lobbying is at record highs, after a campaign that promised to throw out lobbyists. The most powerful lobby (tort lawyers) were left untouched, unbridled. Oh, they’re transparent all right, but not because we got to watch corruption and bribery in action, but because we can clearly see what they are doing to us: MASSIVE UNSUSTAINABLE DEBT, MASSIVE TAXES, HYPERINFLATION. Deny it all you want, it will be the outcome. You can only manipulate the markets for so long, then the price will be paid. These are facts, and there are many more like it, and you know it.

    I agree: I have a simplistic view of the world. It is outlined in a tiny document (compared to endless Obama/Reid/Pelosi legislation) called the Constitution. You have exposed your effete snobbery by disregarding the simple rule of law laid out in the Constitution, and insisting that your beloved elites are smarter than us simple-minded freedom lovers. It’s just another oblique way to tell me I’m stupid because I don’t want “liberal” government ruling every aspect of my life. I think Phil Hare sums it up well:

    Remember, you support the government takeover of our economy. That’s what makes you “a commie, pinko, sociliast [sic] fucking moron bent on my beloved country’s destruction,” not that we disagree. Disagree all day, but keep your stinking government off my rights and freedom. Would you also deny me my right to reject totalitarian government (i.e. the obvious end goal of “fundamental transformation”)?

    BTW, glad to hear you get off on Obama’s lies. I guess some good comes of it, at least for you.

  • Redmond

    April 8, 2010

    Hello Capitalism

    You may be interested in this article…

  • Capitalist

    April 8, 2010

    That’s cool, I suppose, and makes sense. I used to consider myself “liberal” because it connoted liberty or freedom, which is the exact opposite of what it promotes. Now “libertarian” is the replacement. Clearly I disfavor “crony capitalism”. Maybe I should adopt Ray’s brand: laissez faire. That’s all I really want, for government to leave me (and my fellow citizens) alone. Pick a state, have your socialist utopia, and let people like me live somewhere else in peace. Oh, that’s right, states that are trying that are going bankrupt, and the producers are fleeing. Surprise surprise.

    What is more interesting was perhaps best exemplified the other day by a Hannity “man on the street” interview. The interviewee was thrilled to support “to each according to his need, from each according to his ability”. As you know, this is Marx straight up. When confronted with the label, however, the interviewee rejected it, considering it an insult. You’ll see the same reaction any time you recognize liberal policy is to nationalize and socialize. In other words, they embrace socialist policy, but are insulted when you apply the label. I assert that’s because they know most people reject socialism, so they have to play deceptive word games, give us the “you’re too stupid to realize how our sophisticated horseshit is what’s best for you – oh, and I’ll bill you later”. It’s just an obvious example of their lack of integrity. Don’t cut spending, raise taxes!

    Question: how is spending trillions on health care deficit neutral (as if it actually is)? Answer: raise taxes. Wow, now that should stimulate the economy, eh? The fact is, massive government spending, debt, and taxation creates a maladaptive dynamic, i.e. a downward spiral. Free trade and competition creates an accommodative dynamic, i.e. an upward spiral. In the downward spiral, we’ll end up with a permanent underclass and a caste system; in the accommodative dynamic, people become class-mobile, costs go down, quality and availability go up.

    Is it simple-minded to consider economic dynamics, or is it simple-minded to believe people will not change their behavior when confronted with another government attempt to control them? I know, let’s ask Charlie Rangle: will you look for ways to cheat the tax laws you wrote for the rest of us?

  • Ray

    April 8, 2010

    It’s true that the unalienable right to life and property is not a theory. It’s the one unalterable, inviolable condition of a free society: the systematic barring of force from human interaction.

Leave A Response

* Denotes Required Field